I was mulling over the era of electrically powered, inexpensively built inter-city rail transportation that was replaced by the paving of roads during the arrival of the automobile....the ability to board a car in either the center of a small town or a city...inexpensive right of ways...side of the road operations...etc. Have you noticed how "park and ride" lots or stations seem to be in the proverbial boondocks and require a car to reach them? Feeder routes versus boarding or arriving at city or town centers. Outside of a major breakthrough in battery technology, I look at the automobile dependant suburban subdivisions...that are as old as the auto itself...what?..fifty years...? In the scale of things...not a long era...The major real estate markets are seeing an increase in urban properties while suburban ones declineI.. look at lines and lines of SUV's that no one can give away...The history of interurban era suburbs aka the PE, CA&E, CNSM etc etc...real estate development as a adjunct of rail operations....one sees the retro fitting of light rail into certain corridors as an inverse application of the "trolley" surburbs....these days...the rebuilding of the PE like lines in LA...and then consider that most commuter lines are diesel aka oil dependant....Would lightweight LRVs be less expensive to operate? Although oil has dipped abit in cost...its bound to rise again...so..are we looking at a slow but steady reappearance of The Interurban Era? The market place and the economics of oil seem to be steering this trend...I am somewhat surprised that someone hasnt noticed these trends and propose extending city light rail lines into true interurbans...San Diego seems to be in the lead in this....I see that the former South Shore has ordered gallery cars..one wonders how this former (?) interurban road compares in operating cost to other comparable lines...this is a sort of "big picture" consideration...will this eventually translate into a realignment of federal funding that recognises the advantages of electric rail? We seem to be in the midst of a situation where long range planning is a necessity, where market forces are driving policy changes where it should be the other way around....ot at least co-ordinated...I drove down I-94 to Chicago..stuck in traffic...burning gas...I looked over at the abandoned CNSM right of way which parallels this mess...perhaps everything old is new again?
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
I sort of agree. It is just that it slower in attaching itself to the American fabric than the same phenomenon of the early 20th Century. I had the same thoughts several years ago when LA, San Diego, Denver, Dallas, Buffalo and Atlanta had projects in the planning stages (since built) as did othe cities like Miami and Scranton. True, NJ did enlarge the Newark City subway with both an extension and a new branch, built a light rail system virtually the length of the Hudson County waterfront from North Bergan to Bayonne with a mid route spur into Hoboken, and built anothe "waterfront" line along the Delaware River from Camden to Trenton. And with the quick rise in gasoline prices this year I would have thought we would hear more about interurban, true interurban, rail servces. But, to answer my own question here, the gas crisis has actually pushed people toward full rail services instead. At least they haven't tried in earnest to build busways!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
During the era when electric interurban lines were constructed, the primary competition was private turnpikes/toll roads and steam railroads. The alternative was riding a horse, or hitching a carriage up and heading along a bumpy, unimproved road.
Because of the competitive landscape of the time, private investors were willing and able to raise captital to build and operate these lines. Ultimately some also built amusement parks to draw riders out of the city in the summer, and others developed suburban residential areas.
After this time period things changed -- motorized cars, trucks and buses appeared, better ways to economically pave roads, and subtle changes in commerce (ability to store greater amounts of perishables in central warehouses lessened the need for daily shipments of fresh dairy and farm products, etc.)
These changes severely reduced the need for privately owned and operated interurbans by drying up effective revenues (that operating capital required to perform maintenance and replacement of equipment at end of service life). Those lines/routes that survived the post WWII era similarly became wards of the government and politics enter the picture when considering where to expand lines, how to provide coverage on existing lines, when and how to upgrade facilities, etc. Any new development was and is being done by local and/or state governments.
With this backdrop, unless two cities within the same state need service (such as linking Camden, NJ and Trenton, NJ with the RiverLine), I don't see any new interurbans being created when a fifty passenger bus would be far cheaper and could be reassigned to a new route if the proposed service never reaches planning expectations.
I live in Bergen County, NJ with two "interurban" routes that take me direct to the GWB/175th station of the A train subway, or to the Port Authority terminal in Midtown Manhattan. These interurbans are diesel powered MCI motor coaches. Except for running on rails and drawing electrical power, they fit your definition of interurban pretty well (I walk to the end of my street to hail the bus, no park n ride monstrosity, etc.). AND bus rapid transit is growing steadily in the USA as a planner's choice for new route development, and could become the interurban of the 21st century.
Are there expansions of existing LightRail and electrified meduim-heavy rail, yes. Will there be a rapid expansion of new R-O-W for electified projects, probably not many (the exception not the rule). Why? Cost of development is simply too high compared to the alternatives (there are active or recent threads examining the costs of LRT versus BRT citing statistics, funding proposals, etc.)
I'd like to hope that the light at the end of the tunnel is a trolley, but it's more likely a hybrid diesel motor coach instead.
Paul F.
paulsafety wrote: AND bus rapid transit is growing steadily in the USA as a planner's choice for new route development, and could become the interurban of the 21st century.Are there expansions of existing LightRail and electrified meduim-heavy rail, yes. Will there be a rapid expansion of new R-O-W for electified projects, probably not many (the exception not the rule). Why? Cost of development is simply too high compared to the alternatives (there are active or recent threads examining the costs of LRT versus BRT citing statistics, funding proposals, etc.)I'd like to hope that the light at the end of the tunnel is a trolley, but it's more likely a hybrid diesel motor coach instead. Paul F.
AND bus rapid transit is growing steadily in the USA as a planner's choice for new route development, and could become the interurban of the 21st century.
Gotta disagree with you there. Planners are turning to heavy and light rail to solve many of todays transportation problems. Especially where you live. The air cannot take the pollution, the City cannot take any more motor vehicles, and there is no room to build more highways. Thus you have the HBLRT from North Bergan to Bayonne and Hoboken and plans being made for DMU's on the old West Shore and Northern RR alignments and extending NJT's wire west from Montclair University/Great Notch to Denville and then from Dover to Port Morris; will West Trenton get wire or diesel service? Other cities and metroplitan areas are experiencing the same questions. Not that I am against buses, it is just that overall there is (finally) underway mass transit planning that is taking into consideration all forms of transportation in any given situation and not just pouring more concrete on the ground and spewing more pollutants into the air. Many more factors besides track or highway capacity and speed are being considered today.
My stepdaughter lives in Ardmore PA, and commutes via the P&W, more recently called SEPTA's 100 Norristown High Speed Line. Why high speed? It's a marketing maneuver, if they called it slow and decrepit nobody would ride.
I finally got my wife to take a ride. At Norristown I mentioned "in 1912 the station was about 4 blocks further into town, in 1948 they cut it back about a block, then 15 years ago they cut it back to here so it could share space with the train station and they'd have more room for the connecting buses."
My wife's not a railfan, I usually get big resistance from her whenever I drag her for a trolley ride, but she really got me emotional, she said "They should build it to go further", so I had a chance to tell her about the thru and connecting (1948-1952) Lehigh Valley Transit service to Allentown.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
gardendance wrote: My stepdaughter lives in Ardmore PA, and commutes via the P&W, more recently called SEPTA's 100 Norristown High Speed Line. Why high speed? It's a marketing maneuver, if they called it slow and decrepit nobody would ride.I finally got my wife to take a ride. At Norristown I mentioned "in 1912 the station was about 4 blocks further into town, in 1948 they cut it back about a block, then 15 years ago they cut it back to here so it could share space with the train station and they'd have more room for the connecting buses."My wife's not a railfan, I usually get big resistance from her whenever I drag her for a trolley ride, but she really got me emotional, she said "They should build it to go further", so I had a chance to tell her about the thru and connecting (1948-1952) Lehigh Valley Transit service to Allentown. And that brings up another interesting phenomena: when planners sit down and draw lines on maps of where transportation corridors need improvement, need to be built or extended, the lines often follow former interurban, trolley, and railroad routes and rights of way which GM, Firestone and Standard Oil all saw fit to remove from the late 30's into the 50's!
And that brings up another interesting phenomena: when planners sit down and draw lines on maps of where transportation corridors need improvement, need to be built or extended, the lines often follow former interurban, trolley, and railroad routes and rights of way which GM, Firestone and Standard Oil all saw fit to remove from the late 30's into the 50's!
henry6 wrote: paulsafety wrote: AND bus rapid transit is growing steadily in the USA as a planner's choice for new route development, and could become the interurban of the 21st century.Are there expansions of existing LightRail and electrified meduim-heavy rail, yes. Will there be a rapid expansion of new R-O-W for electified projects, probably not many (the exception not the rule). Why? Cost of development is simply too high compared to the alternatives (there are active or recent threads examining the costs of LRT versus BRT citing statistics, funding proposals, etc.)I'd like to hope that the light at the end of the tunnel is a trolley, but it's more likely a hybrid diesel motor coach instead. Paul F. Gotta disagree with you there. Planners are turning to heavy and light rail to solve many of todays transportation problems. Especially where you live. The air cannot take the pollution, the City cannot take any more motor vehicles, and there is no room to build more highways. Thus you have the HBLRT from North Bergan to Bayonne and Hoboken and plans being made for DMU's on the old West Shore and Northern RR alignments and extending NJT's wire west from Montclair University/Great Notch to Denville and then from Dover to Port Morris; will West Trenton get wire or diesel service? Other cities and metroplitan areas are experiencing the same questions. Not that I am against buses, it is just that overall there is (finally) underway mass transit planning that is taking into consideration all forms of transportation in any given situation and not just pouring more concrete on the ground and spewing more pollutants into the air. Many more factors besides track or highway capacity and speed are being considered today.
Actually, after reading your post, I think you and I agree, not disagree. Unless you really believe that creating new ROW with electrified service (light, medium or heavy rail) is more cost effective on a per mile basis than creating a bus rapid transit lane.
Couple of observations:
2) You astutely ask whether West Trenton service (if ever actually restored) would be diesel powered (presumably because the cost of installing catenary would be prohibatively expensive compared to the ridership expected). Look to the River Line as a guide post -- this was diesel light rail instead of electric to save costs and make the service more cost effective. Also consider NJT's choice of developing Dual Mode locomotives over stringing catenary.
3) Look at FTA funding for 2009. Extentions of existing light rail? Yes, Absolutely! New creation of light rail lines from scratch on new rights of way -- I haven't seen it, have you? Proposals, plans and approved funding for Bus Rapid Transit (or quasi-BRT projects) -- yup, there all over the FTA funding approvals.
Consider for a moment the per mile cost of installing a lane of higway (busway) versus the same mile for electrified LRT. Consider the turnaround time for constructing each mode, too.
I appreciate your input -- trains and trolleys are far from being considered a dying breed, but in light of actual FTA funding approvals, we need to acknowledge that CNG, Biodiesel, and clean diesel motor coaches are likely to continue to grow as a planner's choice for new ROW route development.
PS. The West Shore and Northern project (if not for the occasional freight train still using the ROW) could be very quickly developed into BRT and provide services far sooner than the time required to develop and actually fund/execute the construction of DMU LRT. The present trackage is very poor (limiting top speeds to 15mph) and would require extensive rebuilding.
However, by converting the existing ROW to bus lanes construction would be simple and fast (paving and signal priority at grade crossings), but would also enable the buses to "fan out" from the corridor to reach people at or closer to their homes. This eliminates ugly park and rides (as cited in original post), provides a single seat ride to manhattan via the GWB and Westside Highway, or via the Lincoln Tunnel Bus Lanes. What's the practical advantage of DMU that would require a commuter to drive to a park and ride to start their trip, then have to trasnfer to a bus, PATH or a ferry to complete their trip to manhattan? As a railfan, I'd love to photograph the DMU's, but as a commuter, I'd prefer an uninterupted, speedy, one-seat trip. Wouldn't you?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Toe-may-to vs. Tah-Ma-Ta
henry6 wrote: And that brings up another interesting phenomena: when planners sit down and draw lines on maps of where transportation corridors need improvement, need to be built or extended, the lines often follow former interurban, trolley, and railroad routes and rights of way which GM, Firestone and Standard Oil all saw fit to remove from the late 30's into the 50's!
One reason could be because when one wanted to build a line between cities one tended to use the most efficient route available at the time, and since those cities (Los Angeles and Long Beach for example), and the mountains and rivers of 50-100 years ago, have not actually moved much, those routes tend still to be the most efficient to use now.
You quoted my Lehigh Valley Transit comment, and mentioned GM, Firestone and Standor Oil removing rights of way. What involvement did those companies have in Lehigh Valley Transit's getting out of the interurban trolley business?
One involvement was this: Highways taxes from any source could only be used for highway reltated purposes, by Federal laws passed because of Highway Lobby backing, and GM stockholders' reports of the 30's will show you how much they took credit for this. So you have a major industry with most of its real estate not paying real estate taxes. So this hurt both all public transportation, including bus, and all non-highway transportation both freight and passenger.
There was probably a good economic case for abandoning Easton Limited and Liberty Bell in the postwar period anyway. And restoration of passenger service would not involve rebuilding the interurban, but simply extending SEPTA from Landsdale through Bethlehem to Allentown, and possibly further through Willksbarre to Scranton. Scranton should have as good access to Philly as it does to NY for the sake of the Pennsylvanina economy. The whole area would benenfit from good passenger service on the route described.
Riding the Liberty Bell was one of my greatest pleasures as a teenager, and I remember Charlie Houser, LVT motorman. Rode it first in 1947, age 15. Only the North Shore was as terrific a thrill in my book. Still, what remains, SEPTA 100, is a great ride and heartilyi recommended. Too bad it is too short.
I would not be surprised to see streetcar service restored Allentown - Bethlehem in the future, however. This would not be an interurban, but would be similar to the Portland Streetcar or possibly a heritage operation. The old Mincie Trail line.
gardendance wrote:[ You quoted my Lehigh Valley Transit comment, and mentioned GM, Firestone and Standor Oil removing rights of way. What involvement did those companies have in Lehigh Valley Transit's getting out of the interurban trolley business?
Check the Senate hearings of 1949-50 I believe. Quite a scandal.
wallyworld wrote:...What is the longest light rail route? If you add in planned and funded extensions...which one is closest to being worthy of the name "interurban"?
If you add in planned and funded extensions...which one is closest to being worthy of the name "interurban"?
I'd nominate The RiverLine at 34 miles, running from Camden to Trenton linking a state capitol with a major municipality (that happens to be a water taxi ride from Philadelphia).
Portland MAX blue line is 33 miles may also be a great candidate
wallyworld wrote:While there was a determination made that National City Lines was a entity that was involved in illegal activity of a conspiratorial nature, it would take a line by line finacial analysis to determine which lines were sustainable in the face of the onslaught of the automobile. While this is simply speculation, I think its perhaps reasonable to assume that this conspiracy only moved up the inevitable on the time line..sooner rather than later. On the other hand, if these lines were "doomed"..why invest the considerable energy, money and orginizational resources to accomplish what time would do at no cost? Odd, I have never settled that question in my own mind to my own satisfaction. I think the dedicated bus routing or express bus system will be viable only in terms of having a short shelf life..much like the original interurban lines as much as the availibility and cost of oil as fuel in terms of being viable is equally "doomed" as once again all this is only a matter of time. It is an interim solution and ad hoc. What is the longest light rail route? If you add in planned and funded extensions...which one is closest to being worthy of the name "interurban"?
I posted in another thread:
"Read From Railway to Freeway by Eli Bail Interurbans Special #90 1984 You will find that the "GM" conspiracy is much overated. Cost and lack of ridership led to the demise of many of the interurban street car lines in LA , in many cases long before National City Lines entered the picture. The rail operaters wanted out of the passenger business. National City was the transportation company willing and able to buy them out. Yes they were as bus oriented company in part because of who owned them, but they were in busness to make money. The believed that buses being less expensive to buy and operate, more flexible in routing, and not having the infrastructure cost (maint and property taxes), would give better service (probably wrong in many cases) and was the way to go. They failed. Government then took over the transit system and converted what was left of the rail to buses."
The appears to be true of all the systems they took over. There was a post (possibly in another thread), which I did not find, in which someone posted a list (or link to a list) of all the companies National City owned. Most were well on their way to bus conversion when National City aquired them. Not all were not converted to bus.
They were not convicted of illegal activity for converting street car lines to bus, but for restricting the conversions (in most cases) to GM buses.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
paulsafety wrote: I'd nominate The RiverLine at 34 miles, running from Camden to Trenton linking a state capitol with a major municipality (that happens to be a water taxi ride from Philadelphia).
there's not much service on that water taxi, and most destinations in Philadelphia are many blocks away from the water taxi. I think it's more realistic to say it's a train (PATCO) or bus connection from Philly.
Also the Trenton end is a bus connection away from downtown, since the Riverline terminates at the Amtrak station, which is not in itself a bad thing, since it allows connections to New York trains.
gardendance wrote: paulsafety wrote: I'd nominate The RiverLine at 34 miles, running from Camden to Trenton linking a state capitol with a major municipality (that happens to be a water taxi ride from Philadelphia).there's not much service on that water taxi, and most destinations in Philadelphia are many blocks away from the water taxi. I think it's more realistic to say it's a train (PATCO) or bus connection from Philly.Also the Trenton end is a bus connection away from downtown, since the Riverline terminates at the Amtrak station, which is not in itself a bad thing, since it allows connections to New York trains.
Good point about the water taxi, and the metro bus connection in Trenton...how difficult is it to transfer to PATCO in Camden? Could the RiverLine be extended into the heart of Trenton? From Google Earth, it looks like there's an old ROW extening from the current terminal into Trenton.
Still, the line still qualifies as a long (perhaps the longest) interurban rail route.
You mention connection between RiverLine and New York trains at Trenton....If I wanted an economical, express ride between Philly and NYC, I'd consider the Bolt Bus from 30th street to Madison Sq Gardens for $17.50 each way. While not downtown on the philly end, it's got connections by mass transit connections (and regional rail connections) on each end of the route and it's far cheaper than amtrak and quicker than SEPTA/NJT routing. Bolt Bus also services DC and Boston with express services (four hours NYC to Boston South Station - that's Acela timing) at very low ticket prices.
wallyworld wrote:I think the dedicated bus routing or express bus system will be viable only in terms of having a short shelf life..much like the original interurban lines as much as the availibility and cost of oil as fuel in terms of being viable is equally "doomed" as once again all this is only a matter of time. It is an interim solution and ad hoc.
If you consider the era of electric interubans lasted from say 1888 to 1940 (a period of 52 years), isn't it remarkable that intercity bus operations (Greyhound in particular) are still in operation having been founded in 1914 (a period of 92 years)? 13,000 daily departures serving 2,300 destinations. Add to this regional and commuter coach operations and you have an industry that isn't going to dry up in the next decade or two. From a "green" standpoint, one motor coach has the potential to remove 44 SUV's/Sedans/Minivans from the road during the morning commute. LRT can remove more, but only if it's commuter friendly (actually used by larger numbers of commuters). If you have to drive five miles or more to the local train station, or park and ride, what are we really accomplishing?
Bus Rapid Transit funding is growing, and calling it "ad hoc" is a compliment -- if the route doesn't pan out, the lanes can be used for other traffic, the buses re-employed elsewhere. If you build a infrastructure-heavy LRT line and then have population density changes along the route (ie. Buffalo), you're kinda stuck with the investment.
To be clear, where electified LRT exists, it will likely be extended and nurtured (as it should be), but where none currently exists, its hard to see where money will come from to build a new line from scratch (the difference in cost per mile for E-LRV versus BRT seems to be widening with time, but I don't know why -- anyone else have a clue?)
paulsafety wrote: [Bus Rapid Transit funding is growing, and calling it "ad hoc" is a compliment -- if the route doesn't pan out, the lanes can be used for other traffic, the buses re-employed elsewhere. If you build a infrastructure-heavy LRT line and then have population density changes along the route (ie. Buffalo), you're kinda stuck with the investment.To be clear, where electified LRT exists, it will likely be extended and nurtured (as it should be), but where none currently exists, its hard to see where money will come from to build a new line from scratch (the difference in cost per mile for E-LRV versus BRT seems to be widening with time, but I don't know why -- anyone else have a clue?)
[Bus Rapid Transit funding is growing, and calling it "ad hoc" is a compliment -- if the route doesn't pan out, the lanes can be used for other traffic, the buses re-employed elsewhere. If you build a infrastructure-heavy LRT line and then have population density changes along the route (ie. Buffalo), you're kinda stuck with the investment.
But one of the beauties of LRT appears to be the availability of underutilized or abandoned rail and interurban rights of way. As for being stuck with an investment, most businesses in this country last about 25 years, if the second generation gets involved, maybe 35. In a different vien, how many products made 50 or even 25 years ago are still marketed today vs those that have disappeared. in otherwords, "shelf life" is not a major factor in America but rather the application to an immediate need and then let evolution take it from there.
And the truth is that all kinds of mass transit are being called into play, not just bus and not just rail. But in major cities, where congestion and pollution are problematical, rail is being looked at more favorably than it has been in the past 50 or so years.
henry6 wrote: paulsafety wrote: Bus Rapid Transit funding is growing, and calling it "ad hoc" is a compliment -- if the route doesn't pan out, the lanes can be used for other traffic, the buses re-employed elsewhere. If you build a infrastructure-heavy LRT line and then have population density changes along the route (ie. Buffalo), you're kinda stuck with the investment. To be clear, where electified LRT exists, it will likely be extended and nurtured (as it should be), but where none currently exists, its hard to see where money will come from to build a new line from scratch (the difference in cost per mile for E-LRV versus BRT seems to be widening with time, but I don't know why -- anyone else have a clue?)But one of the beauties of LRT appears to be the availability of underutilized or abandoned rail and interurban rights of way. As for being stuck with an investment, most businesses in this country last about 25 years, if the second generation gets involved, maybe 35. In a different vien, how many products made 50 or even 25 years ago are still marketed today vs those that have disappeared. in otherwords, "shelf life" is not a major factor in America but rather the application to an immediate need and then let evolution take it from there. And the truth is that all kinds of mass transit are being called into play, not just bus and not just rail. But in major cities, where congestion and pollution are problematical, rail is being looked at more favorably than it has been in the past 50 or so years.
paulsafety wrote: Bus Rapid Transit funding is growing, and calling it "ad hoc" is a compliment -- if the route doesn't pan out, the lanes can be used for other traffic, the buses re-employed elsewhere. If you build a infrastructure-heavy LRT line and then have population density changes along the route (ie. Buffalo), you're kinda stuck with the investment. To be clear, where electified LRT exists, it will likely be extended and nurtured (as it should be), but where none currently exists, its hard to see where money will come from to build a new line from scratch (the difference in cost per mile for E-LRV versus BRT seems to be widening with time, but I don't know why -- anyone else have a clue?)
You're right -- I wasn't considering the rails to trails to rails factor. Do you have any specific examples in mind? I would think that abandoned freight lines (like Ashmont-Mattapan High Speed Rail) could be converted, but do they go where they need to go? Let's try to cite some specifics - we may find some really great candidates!
As far as abandoned interurban rights of way, I would have to expect that most have been built upon since abandonment. Consider LVT from Norristown to Allentown as one example -- there must be instances where the ROW has been truncated or built upon making reinstallation of track near impossible (and LVT was one of the last interurbans abandoned). Do the North Shore or CA+E alignments exist? Part of the Laurel Lines has been re-born for a museum line.
Regarding "being stuck with an investment" -- hey, that's my tax money you're talking about, not some business that is funded with venture capital.
Regarding other "modes" of rapid transit, what did you have in mind beyond bus and rail?
I agree that rail is a good, long term option -- especially where some rail service already exists. The investment in "expansion" and "extension" can readily be justified (ie. NJT's new hudson tunnels, new terminal at 34th street in Manhattan, ACES (oops, couldn't resist), and so on.)
I think my concern is that some of these extensions are being way overbuilt for the density served (Wawa, Pa extention of SEPTA R3 line -- 3 miles @ 50 million dollars) and some transit authorities have their hands tied behind their backs politically (funding) so badly that they can barely maintain what they've got already. Consider SEPTA, they have been spending on rebuilding the MFL, buying new Silverliners, converting regional rail stations to high level platforms, etc. instead of funding extentions that would bring in additional, new revenue. They will need to replace or rebuild their LRT fleet soon -- it's been about 30 years since they were acquired. Should they have ignored these items? They couldn't have and shouldn't have, but when will it be time to invest in extensions? SVM is effectively dead, roosevelt blvd extention of MFL is dead, BSS extentions are shelved, resurrection of ex-RDC operated lines are not likely to happen unless electrification would be included in the project (in my opinion, SEPTA seems phobic of dual mode, but maybe the NJT locos would change this perceived attitude). SEPTA has always "bucked the trend" so maybe I'm off-base here, but not everyone has NJT's funding commitment.
The South Shore is NOT an interurban anymore, it is a diesel-operated freight railroad with an electrified suburban operation. Lots of steam roads have or had street running on their main lines (Lafayette IN or Erie PA, for example) so that isn't a qualifying trait.
Question: Where is the line drawn between an extended suburban operation (SEPTA's Norristown Line or LAMTA's Blue Line to Long Beach) and a true interurban?
daveklepper wrote:Rail (and even electric buses) have a proven record of doing a better job of enticing people out of driving their own cars than express buses. The longest modern interurban is probably the St. Louis Light Rail system which goes past Bellville, Illinois, to an existing or former air force base. Of course the South Shore always was considered an interurban, still is as long as behaves like a streetcar in Michigan City, and probably is the longest of all in North America. Portland, Oregon's MAX, its main east-west route, is also pretty long. Both systems could use a "news butcher" (as we called them on the New Haven) coffee/tea and donuts/bagels in the morning and drinks (soft as well as hard) and pretzels in the evening service.
http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/14293427.html
The South Shore street trackage is still in use, but funding plans call for eventual removal/relocation. You're right, Dave - at roughly 90 miles end to end, SSL is the longest route.
St.Louis total system mileage is reported at 46 miles, subtracting an 8 mile long branch, that's 38 miles end to end.
The NJT RiverLine is 34 mi. end to end
Portland Max Blue line is 33 mi. end to end
paulsafety wrote: wallyworld wrote:I think the dedicated bus routing or express bus system will be viable only in terms of having a short shelf life..much like the original interurban lines as much as the availibility and cost of oil as fuel in terms of being viable is equally "doomed" as once again all this is only a matter of time. It is an interim solution and ad hoc. If you consider the era of electric interubans lasted from say 1888 to 1940 (a period of 52 years), isn't it remarkable that intercity bus operations (Greyhound in particular) are still in operation having been founded in 1914 (a period of 92 years)? 13,000 daily departures serving 2,300 destinations. Add to this regional and commuter coach operations and you have an industry that isn't going to dry up in the next decade or two. From a "green" standpoint, one motor coach has the potential to remove 44 SUV's/Sedans/Minivans from the road during the morning commute. LRT can remove more, but only if it's commuter friendly (actually used by larger numbers of commuters). If you have to drive five miles or more to the local train station, or park and ride, what are we really accomplishing?Bus Rapid Transit funding is growing, and calling it "ad hoc" is a compliment -- if the route doesn't pan out, the lanes can be used for other traffic, the buses re-employed elsewhere. If you build a infrastructure-heavy LRT line and then have population density changes along the route (ie. Buffalo), you're kinda stuck with the investment.To be clear, where electified LRT exists, it will likely be extended and nurtured (as it should be), but where none currently exists, its hard to see where money will come from to build a new line from scratch (the difference in cost per mile for E-LRV versus BRT seems to be widening with time, but I don't know why -- anyone else have a clue?)
I have a bias in that my uncle was president of Armour Greyhound and according to him, the bus operations were something that he would have divested if given a choice..he expanded the company into financial services.. .just like the interurbans..many routes were marginal and labor costs were problematic. Greyhound was then sold to Laidlaw out of Canada...The issue was the length of routes...just like Amtrak the majority of its passengers used Greyhound for short trips...interurban in nature...the long routes were another story.Not many people were aware of this but Greyhound purchased controlling interest in several interurbans for the same purpose, which was to pave the way for regulatory approval of pre-existing routes when a conversion took place. What you are leaving out of this scenario is the key factor in this...oil, in particular...cost. All of the items you mentioned are based historically on comparatively low fuel costs and availibility. What I found interesting was the case of the Indiana Railroad who converted themselves over to buses...sucessfully...no doubt if other fuels are taken beyond the experimental stage..natural gas,,,etc...then buses will continue...I think the odds of this are 50/50 as of now...time will tell.I dont think its a given that buses will remain as they are as a significant percentage of transportation modes..but with everything in flux...all this is speculation at best..What I am interested in is how all this effects the automobile suburbs..who knows?
wallyworld wrote: paulsafety wrote: wallyworld wrote:I think the dedicated bus routing or express bus system will be viable only in terms of having a short shelf life..much like the original interurban lines as much as the availibility and cost of oil as fuel in terms of being viable is equally "doomed" as once again all this is only a matter of time. It is an interim solution and ad hoc. If you consider the era of electric interubans lasted from say 1888 to 1940 (a period of 52 years), isn't it remarkable that intercity bus operations (Greyhound in particular) are still in operation having been founded in 1914 (a period of 92 years)? 13,000 daily departures serving 2,300 destinations. Add to this regional and commuter coach operations and you have an industry that isn't going to dry up in the next decade or two. From a "green" standpoint, one motor coach has the potential to remove 44 SUV's/Sedans/Minivans from the road during the morning commute. LRT can remove more, but only if it's commuter friendly (actually used by larger numbers of commuters). If you have to drive five miles or more to the local train station, or park and ride, what are we really accomplishing?Bus Rapid Transit funding is growing, and calling it "ad hoc" is a compliment -- if the route doesn't pan out, the lanes can be used for other traffic, the buses re-employed elsewhere. If you build a infrastructure-heavy LRT line and then have population density changes along the route (ie. Buffalo), you're kinda stuck with the investment.To be clear, where electified LRT exists, it will likely be extended and nurtured (as it should be), but where none currently exists, its hard to see where money will come from to build a new line from scratch (the difference in cost per mile for E-LRV versus BRT seems to be widening with time, but I don't know why -- anyone else have a clue?)I have a bias in that my uncle was president of Armour Greyhound and according to him, the bus operations were something that he would have divested if given a choice..he expanded the company into financial services.. .just like the interurbans..many routes were marginal and labor costs were problematic. Greyhound was then sold to Laidlaw out of Canada...The issue was the length of routes...just like Amtrak the majority of its passengers used Greyhound for short trips...interurban in nature...the long routes were another story.Not many people were aware of this but Greyhound purchased controlling interest in several interurbans for the same purpose, which was to pave the way for regulatory approval of pre-existing routes when a conversion took place. What you are leaving out of this scenario is the key factor in this...oil, in particular...cost. All of the items you mentioned are based historically on comparatively low fuel costs and availibility. What I found interesting was the case of the Indiana Railroad who converted themselves over to buses...sucessfully...no doubt if other fuels are taken beyond the experimental stage..natural gas,,,etc...then buses will continue...I think the odds of this are 50/50 as of now...time will tell.I dont think its a given that buses will remain as they are as a significant percentage of transportation modes..but with everything in flux...all this is speculation at best..What I am interested in is how all this effects the automobile suburbs..who knows?
LA Metro started with CNG in 1994, and CNG use in commercial vehicles actually goes back to the 1970's. Per their web site, roughly 90% of all their coaches are CNG fueled....
Metro's clean air CNG vehicles, which comprise over 90% of its entire operational bus fleet, travel 98 million miles annually. Our CNG bus fleet uses approximately 40 million Gasoline Gallon Equivalents (GGEs) of CNG generated by 10 Metro-owned and operated fueling stations. The environmental benefits that result from Metro's commitment to CNG are remarkable. Metro's buses are 97% cleaner than the diesel buses they replaced. They reduce cancer-causing particulate matter by 98%, carbon monoxide by over 80% and greenhouse gases by over 20%.
http://www.metro.net/about_us/govtrela/images/govrel_cng_facts_2.pdf
In addition to naturally occuring Natural Gas, gas can be made from coal, and from chemical processes (Synthetic Natural Gas, a bit of an oxymoron if you ask me!)
Google's fleet of 30+ buses are hybrids of some sort, and other transit agencies have been integrating CNG into their operations.
I appreciate your comments about Greyhound and I agree -- the present and future are not in long haul routes, but regional, commuter and short hauls. Look at Bolt Bus operations in the NEC area.
I'm glad you pondered -- this has been (and continues to be) a very interesting thread to follow. I've been looking at the stats for light rail development and its interesting to look at the start dates of the intial lines -- mostly 1980s and 1990s. With limited and notable exceptions (LYNX, et.al.) there have been relatively few new LRV "start up from scratch" projects. I'm not foretelling doom, but simply noticing a trend in data. No conclusion drawn, just a curious itch.
The North Shore was a pretty heavy suburban railroad but was classified as an interurban, ditto the Roaren Eglin, and the IT had steam and diesel on frieght, even a gas-electric doodlebug for passenger service on a non-electrified branch, but was still considered an interurban. When the South Shore stops using the streets of Michigan City, I will stop calling it an interurban.
daveklepper wrote: The North Shore was a pretty heavy suburban railroad but was classified as an interurban, ditto the Roaren Eglin, and the IT had steam and diesel on frieght, even a gas-electric doodlebug for passenger service on a non-electrified branch, but was still considered an interurban. When the South Shore stops using the streets of Michigan City, I will stop calling it an interurban.In the fall of 1949, I was in the Walker Memorial Cafeteria line for breakfast as an MIT Freshman. Normally I did not buy the morning paper at the cashier stand, but that morning a headline caught my eye: "The Boston and Albany tries out a new interuruban car! The car. their first RDC-1! I bought the paper.
South Shore, Illinois Terminal, several Iowa short lines, and others all survived in part because they evolved from interurbans into conventional railroads. Philadelphia & Western evolved into a suburban rapid transit operation. CA&E and CNS&M were abandoned because they could not outgrow their interurban past.
I may be incorrect, but I believe that the P&W was originally charted as an electrically operated "steam road" under ICC control, having active interchanges with the PRR and handling ICC regulated freight until 1970. Also, the founder's plans called for a much larger system that never materialized (one of the reasons that all the footbridges were four tracks wide --eventual expansion capability). When the freight interchanges were removed and the system isolated, the ICC "registry" was dropped and it reverted to a transit line by definition.
The laurel lines running from Scranton to Wilkes Barre certainly looked like an "interurban" -- having trolley freight, heavy cars, mostly private ROW and some street running, connecting two distinct, large municipalities. Had the line survived (minus freight, and now theoretically operated with LRVs) would we still call it an interurban, or "just a LRV line"?
I'm not sure that the definition is very clear -- does it consider original charter, design and intent, or merely present operation (ie. "South Shore" was an interurban, but not anymore)
Does the type of equipment matter? What if the Buffalo metro was never operated with those huge LRV trains, but only ever used refurbished PCC cars? Would it be a downtown "subway surface streetcar" like the West Philadelphia routes?
SEPTA Route 101 connects Philadelphia with a neighboring county seat (Media, PA - Delaware County). During the interurban era, that would qualify as an interuban since it would be a vital link for commerce, couriers, and travel for government folks. Now we just hop in a car -- does that invalidate the line's history or claim to be an interurban? The line didn't change, we did.
Hmmm. Tomato, Tah-mah-tah?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.