KCRag Forum

Cool web site with the history of the old interurban railway that used to connect Kansas City with Liberty, Excelsior Springs, St. Joseph, etc.

http://www.interurbanroad.com

That is a cool site. Do you know if there is any info online regarding the old Strang Line that went through JOCO?
There is a furniture store in Old OPK Downtown that used to be a garage for the trains.
It amazes me that almost a century ago they had electrical powered transport and here in the modern age we still depend on fossil fuels.
This type of transportation must have been common across the country. In Dallas and FW they had trains going out as far as Sherman/Denison and Waco.
I wonder if urban sprawl would have been contained if this would have stayed in place and evolved with technology? People may have not needed to migrate from their rural areas to the cities if they could have commuted.

I'm not sure how interurban systems would have limited sprawl. If anything, they encouraged it.

I don't think these were used for commuting so much as travelling between what use to be completely separate cities and towns. Back then even 30 miles would have been considered a big distance, definitely too far for commuting.

KC0KEK wrote:I'm not sure how interurban systems would have limited sprawl. If anything, they encouraged it.

Rail doesn't encourage sprawl. Cars do. When towns design themselves around the existence of cars, everything spreads out. When towns design themselves around the existence of trains, everything gets closer together.

Awesome site, danger.

bahua wrote:Rail doesn't encourage sprawl. Cars do. When towns design themselves around the existence of cars, everything spreads out. When towns design themselves around the existence of trains, everything gets closer together.

Nope. Rail created sprawl, althought the automobile has since exacerbated it. Read some histories of major urban areas (e.g., Chicago, New York), and you'll quickly understand the relationship between rail and the rise of the suburbs.

KC0KEK wrote:Nope. Rail created sprawl, althought the automobile has since exacerbated it. Read some histories of major urban areas (e.g., Chicago, New York), and you'll quickly understand the relationship between rail and the rise of the suburbs.

Suburbs != sprawl.

Sprawl is an irresponsible style of development, where land, that is initially cheap, is wasted with vast, often single-occupant(business or residential) properties, and ensures that the only economic way to get around is in a private car, while also ensuring that the land that has been wasted never really appreciates in value, the way it would in an urban development scheme.

Suburbs are just towns near cities, and there are many many suburbs that make excellent use of land. Clayton, MO, Cambridge, MA, and Oakland, CA are all excellent examples of suburbs that were developed largely without sprawled development.

The fact that people live large distances from the city does not constitute sprawl. The two things often correspond, but they are not mutually inclusive. Sprawl is a selfish, short-sighted style of development, and not an issue of distance from the city center.

Rail took a major decline in postwar WWII, the period that most of the sprawl of American cities.
It seems that European cities, where rail never declined, did not have the same problems.
I realize some European cites (like London) sprawl for miles, but isn't their density greater than most cities in N.America???

GuyInLenexa wrote:Rail took a major decline in postwar WWII, the period that most of the sprawl of American cities.
It seems that European cities, where rail never declined, did not have the same problems.
I realize some European cites (like London) sprawl for miles, but isn't their density greater than most cities in N.America???

A big difference between postwar America and postwar Europe is that Europe was pretty much "filled in," by that time. The advent of common automobile ownership occurred before much of America was developed, so development occurred with the then-novelty of driving to go everywhere, in mind.

J.C. Nichols understood the relationship between rail and people's willingness to live outside the urban core. Some excerpts from J.C. Nichols and the Shaping of Kansas City:


Quick, inexpensive public transportation proved essential for any successful early twentieth-century subdivision, and Nichols's projects were no exceptions. At the very start, he advertised that prospective customers had to walk from the terminus of the Rockhill streetcar line at Forty-eighth and Rockhill Road. . . . [photo caption:] Nichols and his backers subsidized both trolley and boulevard construction to attract buyers to the company's developments. The Sunset Hill line ran from Westport along Brush Creek and up the hill on Ward Parkway to give access to Nichols's most exclusive Missouri development, the Sunset Hill for which the carline was named. This photograp clearly demonstrates that early in his work, trolley access was more important than finished roadways.


After 1908, he began to view the automobile as a more important factor than rail.

Rail has had an amazing decentralization affect from the early 20th Century. Here is an section of a research paper I wrote on the American Skyline in the 20th Century. The paper stresses centralization and decentralization factors. The first decentralization force was the railroad and the resulting physical form was The Railroad City:


The Railroad City
The study of the decentralization factors in our cities will not lead us directly to the formation of any grand cities with vertical skylines in the American landscape. However, it is important to understand the issues surrounding decentralization because they are present throughout the entire century. There is a strong history of these feelings in Americans. The issues of decentralization were present from the beginning of the century. They started with the invention of the railroad and its’ striving to go coast to coast across America. Along with this dream came the land speculators and creation of the Depot Town or Railroad City. As the railroad moves on land speculators would choose a spot in advance of the line. They took this spot and marked off streets, blocks, and town lots. Then the as the rail approached it, up went the price of the lots. After only a short time it becomes the terminal depot, which is the starting point for western trade. For awhile there is heavy activity of buying town lots to build accommodations for traders and camp followers. However with the nature of the railroad the town and people would soon move on. Most towns became deserted unless they had strong natural advantages.

The railroad during this time period also caused decentralization by making it easier for people to get around and leave the cities. Rural land speculation was causing a small movement of Americans seeking a pre-suburban lifestyle. The railroad provided the mode of transportation out of the city as well as into the city as we saw in the industrial city of the early 1900’s.

During the height of these Railroad Cities activity the physical landscape could include a station, housing units, tents, and trading stores. When the railroad left most of these towns were left with a deserted station, a name, and few acres of bare earth. The physical features of what once was, but no longer existed. With the rural land speculation leading to the country side town we see a physical feature of a story-and-a-half frame house, gable end to the street, as a rule unpainted, enough room in front for a patch of red balsams, and room for a clothesline in the back. The decentralization factors of the American landscape in the twentieth century show that not all Americans are rushing to the central cities to live and work in skyscrapers.

I'd recommend The Geography of Nowhere as a great read to learn more about this phenomenon. It touches on much of what kropf is alluding to in his post, giving some background on the first cities and the first fringe developments, which were indeed borne out of the railroad developments.

I just finished it. I'd be willing to loan it to someone or swap it for an urban planning/development book I have yet not read.

KC Kropf wrote: The study of the decentralization factors in our cities will not lead us directly to the formation of any grand cities with vertical skylines in the American landscape. However, it is important to understand the issues surrounding decentralization because they are present throughout the entire century. There is a strong history of these feelings in Americans. The issues of decentralization were present from the beginning of the century. They started with the invention of the railroad and its’ striving to go coast to coast across America. Along with this dream came the land speculators and creation of the Depot Town or Railroad City. As the railroad moves on land speculators would choose a spot in advance of the line. They took this spot and marked off streets, blocks, and town lots. Then the as the rail approached it, up went the price of the lots. After only a short time it becomes the terminal depot, which is the starting point for western trade. For awhile there is heavy activity of buying town lots to build accommodations for traders and camp followers. However with the nature of the railroad the town and people would soon move on. Most towns became deserted unless they had strong natural advantages.

The railroad during this time period also caused decentralization by making it easier for people to get around and leave the cities. Rural land speculation was causing a small movement of Americans seeking a pre-suburban lifestyle. The railroad provided the mode of transportation out of the city as well as into the city as we saw in the industrial city of the early 1900’s.

During the height of these Railroad Cities activity the physical landscape could include a station, housing units, tents, and trading stores. When the railroad left most of these towns were left with a deserted station, a name, and few acres of bare earth. The physical features of what once was, but no longer existed. With the rural land speculation leading to the country side town we see a physical feature of a story-and-a-half frame house, gable end to the street, as a rule unpainted, enough room in front for a patch of red balsams, and room for a clothesline in the back. The decentralization factors of the American landscape in the twentieth century show that not all Americans are rushing to the central cities to live and work in skyscrapers.

This "decentralization" to which you refer seems to talk mostly about "railroad towns," and not as much about suburbs, and certainly not about sprawled suburbs. I will happily concede that countless towns came and went with the railroads on the plains, and in other rural places, but that says nothing about whether they encourage, or even have anything to do with suburban sprawl.

I still contend that it's the automobile, and development centered around it, that has caused and shaped suburban sprawl. At the time of widespread acceptance of rail in this country, cities certainly did expand their boundaries, and people found it possible to live in suburban places. However, without the presence or widespread use and ownership of automobiles, cities and suburbs alike were places where people, if not on a train, carriage, or streetcar, walked wherever they went, and because of this, development was much more dense, and both cities and suburbs were much more vital, active places than they are now.

Rail has certainly allowed people to live outside the city, but the automobile has allowed people to forget about the city altogether.

I like small towns. I'm not sure if I'd want to live in one. But not all people want to live in a metropolitan area.

The most important interurban train we need is the projected one conecting KC to St Louis. Remember the talk about widening I 70 to 6 lanes all the way and including a direct transit route in the middle? It would be fantastic if a high speed train were established between the two cities. I would take it for sure, it would cut so much time off the trip.

paisstat wrote:The most important interurban train we need is the projected one conecting KC to St Louis. Remember the talk about widening I 70 to 6 lanes all the way and including a direct transit route in the middle? It would be fantastic if a high speed train were established between the two cities. I would take it for sure, it would cut so much time off the trip.

How many persons travel between KC and STL in a day or month? Is it enough to justify and sustain a high-speed rail line? Or would it be a Missouri version of Amtrak, albeit faster? I didn't know that this train was actually proposed, so I'm interested in what its backers are using to make their case.

Anyone have recommendations on existing systems to study or books regarding interurban rail or bus systems? Not necessarily local to KC, but I'm looking or existing or historical models.

Specifically, I'm looking at systems that primarily connect higher education institutions, airports, and medical facilities.

trailerkid wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 11:29 am Anyone have recommendations on existing systems to study or books regarding interurban rail or bus systems? Not necessarily local to KC, but I'm looking or existing or historical models.

Specifically, I'm looking at systems that primarily connect higher education institutions, airports, and medical facilities.

SEPTA is always a good case study