I actually think that interurbans are probably among the best things we as a species have come up with. They're quick, efficient, clean, simple, and sustainable. While I understand that there are limitations to them, it beats suburban traffic by a long shot. Heck, I've been conductor on an interurban car that dates back to 1902 and the car works well even today. I'd like to see an autonomous pod EV hold up that well 120 years. At their core, these and almost every other electric railcar are really simple machines that should be more extensively used.
While great in theory, a lot of the issues with them where known when they were being built... Researching my local lines for a Protolance Train layout. Its just article after article from the 1880s of economists wondering why they would go through the expense of building out the interurbans when horseless carriages exist. They were kinda looked at then how people look at Hyperloop type transit ideas now.
anyone else remember that the U.S. was once the Pinnacle of passanger rail before the car? we had railroads that connected basically everywhere. and now we got stuck with stupid traffic and pollution.
Maybe we can shift public opinion from EV cars back to inter urban public transportation. Places in Europe and Japan still have and are continuing to expand passenger rail. America needs to take note and catch up.
And it came perilously close to shutting down when the parent company at the time, the Chessie System, petitioned the ICC in 1976 for permission to end service.
A lot of traction people also cite the ex-Red Arrow lines as interurbans - the Media and Sharon Hill lines use standard trolleys with overhead catenary and pans. Also the ex-P&W runs 13 mi / 21 km between Upper Darby and Norristown, PA. However it's grade-separated third rail.
Streetcar/Interurban companies were run by Accountants. Streetcars last maybe 30 years, track might last 20-25 years, and overhead wire lasts 50 years or more. But when it's time to replace one of those things, the company has to find the money to do it, or it's game over.
And municipal companies face the problem of going to politicians and asking for (to make up numbers) $500 million for new cars and tracks that will last decades, or $200 million for buses that last 10 years and run on [taxpayer-funded] highways. Guess which one wins.
Even with as much as I'm a fan of rail transportation, if there was an interurban between my farm burg and the 30 miles away city I'd still take my own vehicle because I have a single transportation source between home, the doctors office, and the five places I'm going to go do some shopping at while in the city, & my personal vehicle provides a simple and secure place to store and transport the items purchased at each shopping stop.
Yeah this is a totally valid point and I don't think that we should ever take away vehicle autonomy in the US with regards to public transportation systems, I think that driving your own car should ALWAYS be a choice over public transit; however, so many people do not even have access to a car and so they are limited with their opportunities in health care access, jobs, educational institutions, grocery stores, etc, it has created a whole socioeconomic divide with ties to racial inequality. I think that as a country, our citizens should always be granted a right to take public transit, but if they have the means for a private vehicle and want to keep paying for gas and maintenance, then by all means, take your car :)
It's more of an inequality issue in my eyes and a sustainability issue in regards to climate change than a "how many people are riding public transit a year?" issue if that makes sense
@@mattpronovost2170 Thing is, out here in farmland how would public transit work with having scattered towns and scattered individual residences out in the counties between towns all surrounding that city I mentioned. For instance, three of us small town and rural people having 2pm appointments at the city hospital orthopedic clinic and we are each 60 miles from each other while each being 20 to 30 miles from the city. There, as I see and experience it, simply isn't enough point to point population density to make public transit work out here. It's like when the ingredients for your holiday feast have a coupon for one ingredient at the grocery down the road; a coupon for one ingredient at the grocery store other side of town; and a coupon for a third ingredient at the grocery store in the county seat town -- how much will using those coupons really save for you in the end? You spend 3 gallons of gas to save 2 dollars.
@@scottfw7169 Yes I totally agree with and I'm sorry for not clarifying my earlier stance, I was speaking more on suburban-city core areas that are part of a larger metro area (for example the Chicago metro area, nearby suburbs and the city itself is connected by the Metra Rail system) or the LIRR in New York City and Long Island. I do not think that we have enough density at all like you mentioned in rural towns to make public transportation viable, but our suburbs in many American cities DO have enough density and are continuing to become denser as more people move out from city centers to nearby suburbs. I think if we put more systems like the interurban but more modern (light rail) that connect nearby suburbs that are still car-dominated, we can cut down on tons of carbon emissions and reduce congestion, but for rural areas, I don't think that, like you said, public transit is viable at all.
@@mattpronovost2170 Talking about Chicago, it has been a while since I've been a paid member & I think they are still there, the CERA, Central Electric Railfans' Associated is very much worth checking out. They have published some very nice books. My memory says that one of the founders, George Krambles, worked for the CTA. Probably several others did too.
I rode the Pacific Electric from Pasadena to Long Beach three times a week. Travel time? 1:25 mins. Travel time by auto? 2:30 hrs. Using Freeways now? 2:00 hrs.
GM should be sued into oblivion for what they did to the Interurban Railways. "Taken For A Ride" does a really great job of why we became 1000% dependent on cars for transportation.
My grandfather was a motorman on the interurban. I think he not only operated it but collected fares from passengers. He had a little leather bag where he kept unsual coins he was paid with. My aunt often commented on how handsome he looked in his motor man's uniform. I still have several photos of him taken back when he was doing that.
If you Google it, you'll find one urbanist's 're-creation' of a 1921 map of *loads* of interurban routes *just within Eastern MO and SW Illinois*! And it is ASTOUNDING just how comprehensive it was! To this day, even the St. Louis (and part of Illinois) Metro (Bus and Metrolink) is *still* nowhere near as comprehensive, from what I can tell (though it's maybe... half or 1/3rd as comprehensive, to its credit?). Yeah, it's a 'different time' and all that junk, but... something still feels "amazing" about the fact that, just a century ago, we had a shitload of *'public' rail routes throughout such a "small" area of the country* that even TODAY is rivaled by... not much of anything in the area, as far as public transit is concerned? If "they"- the operators of all of those interurbans- could "do it" for several decades, given the fact that interurbans lasted until, like, the 50s or 60s (more or less), it kinda makes me wonder, "Why can we 'not' do it now??" Surely, if we 'had the political will' (or something like that), we'd have far more *public transit* throughout even St. Louis County (rather than, at best, a 1/3rd or 4th of the county, in the most-eastern parts, served by Metrolink, esp. the parts closest to City of STL)?? 😢 If a bunch of private companies were able to 'make it work' for decades upon decades, surely a gov't agency or 'consortium' can also, if given the requisite authority and tax revenues (at least)?
The irony is that the interurban industry played a major role in its own demise. In order to gain trackage rights into towns, local and state governments made them foot most of the the bill to construct new roads between towns, where the right-of-way ran alongside them, as well as for road improvements within the cities themselves, where they went off private ROW and into the streets. More and improved roads thus helped cause the boom in automobile use, leading to the decline in interurban ridership. In essence, they quite literally paved the way for the automobile and trucks to put them out of business. Can interubans come back? I have my doubts. Car culture and the freedom it brings to travel when and where we like is the main obstacle. The prospect of spending time getting to one's home station, then riding to another city and then having to transfer between train and a local bus, or walking, to get to that final destination simply cannot beat the convenience and speed of driving door to door. Traffic density/jams, weather conditions, etc. notwithstanding.
And a series of books published by Indiana University Press also details the impact farmers had on interurban and other rail when those trucks and those paved roads allowed them to transport their produce directly from farm to city market without incurring loss and damage while transloading from farm vehicle to interurban and then transloading once more from interurban to city vehicle.
Love seeing Interurban remnants, such as the many bridge abutments along US33 between Huntsville and New Hampshire Ohio. If you want your mind blown, Google the Ohio electric railways map on Wikimedia Commons. Those were just interurbans, not main railroads. The sole surviving interurban is the South Shore in northwest Indiana. Taken it to Chicago many times.
Eventually, car culture 'caught up', and a bunch of American suburbanites were 'hoodwinked' to think that sprawl, car dependency, and being stuck in traffic with a bunch of other, shitty, unsafe drivers- esp. in the INTERSTATE- was somehow "a great alternative" and "the epitome of freedom" lol I have to drive to and from work 5 days a week- let alone driving for various chores now and then. Granted, it's not a *huge* route but, nonetheless, because of HOW TERRIBLY LAID-OUT the overall road system is, I *hate* doing it with a passion (esp. since starting my current job)! I'm just 10 miles from my workplace, and, with the interstates, it *should* be pretty easy buuut.. because of OTHER DUMB, IMPOLITE, SELFISH-PRICK DRIVERS everywhere (and, at times, 'stupidly'-designed road networks) it feels 'risky' and irritating af, ngl. But... I have *no alternative*, thanks to all the car-dependent BULLSHIT in my area! Hell, even a streetcar nearby would be kinda cool. or a tram esp. for longer trips... I took a trip to Chicago for a week, back in 2022, and I *loved* using the L (and bus system) as much as possible! Granted, there are still unfortunate 'gaps' in service- esp. in certain "more-suburban" parts- but, nonetheless, it was pretty-comprehensive overall! The St. Louis metro area- even just including County and City- has, like.. 2 million people, total? But... somehow we're to believe it's "impossible" or "undesirable" to make a "thriving, comprehensive rail/transit system throughout that metro", even in just the County on the whole. St. Charles, it seems, had a vote in 1995 to 'extend Metrolink', but- supposedly b/c of racism among white residents- that failed... and a lot of residents, including officials of St. Charles, "poo-poo" the idea of MORE RAIL AND TRANSIT, saying it's somehow "not necessary" or "a waste", lmao. As though sprawling, car-dependent nonsense w/ no public options is a "fantastic alternative"... That's what this is about- OPTIONS. Having viable options is FREEDOM, right?? Yet.. in 75-80% of US cities and suburbs, probably, there are virtually *no other* options besides *getting around most-everywhere with a car*! Or, at least, no *safe* options... and walkability?? HA! "No walkability here... That's too bougie and for the big-city people. Fuck that" Hell, a lot of 'standard-suburb' subdivisions, for that matter, have *no sidewalks*, even! If you, say, want to walk to a friend's or family member's house in the neighborhood, without encroaching on anyone else's property, you have to literally *walk across the road of the subdivision*. Granted, I guess, in most subdivisions, it's not "terribly busy", and if you keep to the side, it's 'mostly safe' but... it could be *very unsafe* in some areas, I imagine! *le sigh*
For me, it's simple. If I can get into my car whenever I want, and go wherever I want or need to, why would I long for the day when my grandfathers and grandmothers had to get to the station, wait for the train to come, get to where I was going, and then walk or ride a conveyance to my specific location, and then begin the process in reverse to get home. The automobile gave people freedom that they never had. I don't pine for the past. I look forward to the future.
Funny enough, I wasn't even *aware* of interurbans until about a year or 2 ago! That's just how "forgotten" these things are to most Americans nowadays! Even old-school streetcars and trams are "more known", in all likelihood.. *sigh*
MOGA... Make Ohio Great Again... Not through fascism and race-baiting but investments in interurban, intercity and urban rail lines! Streetcars, City-Trams, Express Trains... All the bones are there especially in Ontario and Ohio which were developed basically AROUND trains!
Real reason interurbans went away: "Why should I ride this interurban that has a top speed 45mph that only goes certain places at certain times, or do I buy a car that goes faster and goes wherever I want whenever I want?"
Have you heard of traffic? It’s a real problem since when everyone uses cars. It loses its high speed and the anywhere you can go doesn’t also work since where would you wanna go that a train can’t get you? The forest yeah maybe but who likes them
@@supergamergrill7734 Traffic was not as severe as it is today in the 1920s and 1930s. Also note that a lot of people who took the interurban took it between small towns, which even today have no traffic problems. I would not take a train a distance that I can get to faster by car.
@@WesternOhioInterurbanHistory Traffic wasn’t severe in the 1920-30 since cars weren’t on the street as much since they were costlier inflation wise. Like in the modern day, if you account inflation the price of cars hasn’t changed but wages have gone up. Also people sometimes would rather save money over time. That way they can spend more when their there
@@supergamergrill7734 You just said that traffic wasn't servre in the 1920s-30s, so people had more reason to switch to cars. If you look at the history of Ohio's interurban lines, they started to lose money when cars became more affordable to the public. Cars were the main reason they went away. I'm not arguing that interurbans are bad and cars are good, I'm saying that many people found cars more convenient and switched to them. Yes interurbans can take you a lot of places, but that is not always the case. If I wanted to go the Bellefontaine from let's say, Anna Ohio, you would have to take a train or interurban to Sidney, and take another one to Bellefontaine. A car can get you there in one trip. Or Sidney to Covington, you need to switch trains/interurban lines. Cars were what caused them to go away.
Better than Teslas, AKA the car for people who pretend to care about the environment. I would like to see public opinion sway towards a focus on public transportation in general, and passenger rail in particular.
Here is the only way I would support an interurban today. 1. Completely Private. If it's owned by a government agency or commission it will be nearly impossible to get rid of once built, it will be run at a loss and will suck our pockets dry with taxes to keep it running. 2. Must run at a profit. 3. Minimally or not taxpayer funded. If this is not possible in Ohio, don't build it. We know what happens to light rail here. Even the Grey Dog bus line is a mere shadow of what it used to be.
Yea, most railways in the world arent even profitable. Are highways profitable? Besides railways like many other networks are important services for their locales
But why should we have high speed rail instead of cars on highways? Rails are restricted to certain destinations, require maintenance costs, and taxation to fund.
What? Cars emit WAY more Co2 than trains which leads to a knockoff effect of you needing more environmental/Safety regulations since the Co2 would make natural disasters worse and cost more money. They are more efficient since instead of moving 13 people in each individual car or separate them into two which would be 7 cars. You could build just one train cabin which would take less space than 7 cars. Cars need maintaining too? It might be cheaper overall. But trains (If funded by taxes) go to everyone. Meaning those 13 would pay for it’s maintenance and since more people pay into it to maintain it. The maintainsess per person would cost less. Taxation are most of the time cheaper than private enterprise. Universal healthcare including tax still cost less per capita than USA healthcare and this includes cars. Also rails can’t take you to your exact location but we have something called legs. Trains could take you relatively close to your destination, you can buy your stuff and take the train back near your home.
@@supergamergrill7734 First, CO2 is a meme, but can be resolved with electric cars. Yes, efficient for certain point to point with much upfront investment and maintenance. Is the tradeoff justified? No, you are just robbing from taxpayers and waving your hands saying it would cost less. That isn't obvious unless we dig into the numbers. Taxation is most times more expensive than private enterprises. You don't understand why universal healthcare would be cheaper - because it amortizes risks. That isn't the same as funding public infrastructure. Currently cities are designed to need cars. People would get to a train station and then need a taxi to get anywhere.
@@jwonz2054 Electric cars may be better at Co2 in the long run but it still produces way more than a green train. You can remove the Co2 the cars makes passively but you can’t remove the making of the car. It is. We have legs and something revolutionary called BIKES. It is? I’ve dug through the numbers it’s the same with most government ran things. You think if we made police a private business where it’s cheaper for the individuals because they don’t have to pay for it would be better for society as a whole. Still cheaper. Privately ran trains in America all but died but in Europe they have subsidies trains. The trains make people rethink buying cars so they start walking more increasing fitness and life expectancy, saving cost on cars and roads, allowing for less car accidents which leads to people living more so they can pay taxes. Think of it not as Just one set of thing but a branching of many other effects. Yeah and that’s bad. America in the start of the 1900 did have almost identical cities as Europe but after the invention of the assembly line. Cities changed forever. But it doesn’t mean you can’t change it back
The future will be autonomous EVs that are basically a pod unit. The user will program the gps and the EV will connect to trains for long distance. It's a pretty interesting concept.
EVs are literally the car for people who pretend they care about the environment or climate change. The truth is EVs are far from sustainable. They require a lot of precious metals for their batteries which often comes from dangerous slave-like labor in developing nations. They are also powered by electricity which is generated from burning coal and natural gas. Not to mention they are quite expensive and unaffordable for a large portion of our population. Also, any maintenance or repairs have to be made at a specific shop or dealer, which only helps the companies capitalize and strips us from being able to DIY. In my opinion, inter urban and public transportation passenger rail is the way forward. No pun intended.
@@travisbaldridge23 I know all that. It is a pretty neat concept but only an idiot would be stupid enough to think will save the planet. There's billions of people living in poverty in Asia and Africa, among other places, that couldn't care less about climate change and saving the planet. They live on pennies every day, why should they care about carbon emissions? It is a scam intended to enrich those that just happened to accidentally own the right investments. Like the businesses that sell and trade all carbon footprint mumbo jumbo crap. Those people fund the lobbyists that write the laws. You can't stop it.
@@gregbingham4868they would care because theyre breathing the shit. Its all fun and games till we gotta pay to breathe cleanish air. If not to conserve the biosphere, to make sure we dont drstroy ourselves just by existing
People need to read what GM, Firestone, Standard Oil and other companies actually did to the inter urban. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
anyone else remember that the U.S. was once the Pinnacle of passanger rail before the car? we had railroads that connected basically everywhere. and now we got stuck with stupid traffic and pollution.
