Hacker News Reader

Comment by Touche | Hacker News Reader

Interesting! Was there a time when it was thought that every mid-sized city could have a subway? Today even Chicago (the third biggest U.S. city) doesn't have one. I can't imagine there being enough urban space in Cincinnati to sustain one.

View on HN

It's really not that much of a stretch. Population-wise, Cincinnati is roughly comparable to Hamburg or Budapest, which have had thriving subways since 1912 and 1896 respectively. What's interesting here is America's general disinterest / incompetence in building them, New York excepted.

$2.5 billion per mile ≠ competence

And you have to think back to the turn of the 20th century, when comparing populations. Cincinnati had a much larger percentage of the population at that time than it does now. It was the 10th largest city in the US in 1900, and the 16th largest in 1920.

It's hard to tell if the lack of the subway was a factor in the lower rate of growth or if the lower rate of growth meant the subway wasn't needed after all.

Chicago certainly has a subway. Sure, only a portion near downtown runs underground, while the rest is elevated (the L) but their system is the second-largest in the US.

Well, I think technically BART and the DC Metro have more track miles, but according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_tr... the "L" narrowly has the second highest ridership.

Some of that may be a difference in focus. The L barely extends outside of the city proper, and a separate rail system almost exclusively serves the suburbs.

The division of responsibilities between the rapid transit and commuter rail systems in DC and the Bay Area is different in a way that might account for both the greater total system length and the lower ridership per mile compared to Chicago's system. Or Boston's T, for that matter.

Outside of Manhattan, much of NYC's system is aboveground, too. I'm not sure it normally makes much sense to put the trains underground in any but the most densely populated areas.

I don't want to get into an argument on the definition of "subway", but Chicago's is not like what this article describes, or what is in Manhattan.

Chicago has 11.4 miles of underground subway tunnels in use. That's larger than what is described as Cincinnati's abandoned subway in the article.

Chicago’s Red Line and Blue Line are both underground near the Loop.

Not exactly subways, but indeed many cities had streetcars which were then gutted for car/oil profits..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...

I think it likely if the streetcars had grown, they probably would have been converted into subways, etc. and more extensive public transit generally..

although postwar prosperity probably helped as well (whereas europe had to rebuild)

Chicago's Red Line is around 22 miles long but is underground for, I'm estimating, about 7 miles (roughly Armitage to Roosevelt). That's as long as the subway bring talked about here. So if this is a subway, then Chicago definitely has a subway.

The Blue Line is underground for probably about the same distance (goes under South of Addison and then hits the Loop, heads West, and reemerges West of Clinton).

My estimate might be a bit off, I'll just going off my mental map of the city.

Can't edit anymore but double checked and looks like the Blue line is about 7 miles of underground track (roughly) while the red line is probably closer to 5.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com