Boston Oldest Subway In Us

3rdrail wrote:Not to nit pick with you, R36, but I've been waiting for a Bostonian to pick you up on your use of the word "subway". The MBTA is correct in calling the Tremont Street Subway "the first subway in America", (although I wished that they had thrown in that the cars were motorized by electric propulsion). The real first subway in America was the Beach Pneumatic Tube in which a huge fan drove an air sealed car through a short tunnel in Manhattan. The reason that the T is correct is that streetcars ride in subways and trains ride in tunnels (a common distinction made). That isn't my opinion, that's a matter of law.
Source - Massachusetts General Law; Acts of 1894, Chapter 584 and Acts of 1902, Chapter 534.

Isn’t the ‘subway’ and ‘tunnel’ distinction unique to Massachusetts, though? New Yorkers had no issue with calling their underground heavy-rail operation the ‘subway’ right from the start.

Yes, it is. But as I see it, it only clarifies what is the first "subway" nation-wide, regardless of the fact that it contained streetcars or rapid transit trains. "Subway" has to be taken as the general meaning which most would accept here, an underground way used by passengers or freight by railways. We lose the "oldest" title the moment that we interject the pedestrian use. (Those below street and track level pedestrian crossings such as at the Roslindale Square Commuter station are "subways", also.) You run into the same problem with "tunnels", even more so.

New York's Park Avenue Tunnel (Murray Hill Tunnel) was used by streetcars from 1870, and even had an underground station at 38th St, as well as stations at the portals. On the other hand, the streetcars using it were initially horse-drawn; it was not electrified until 1898. This seems to have been the first tunnel in America used for local urban transit (as opposed to mainline trains), and as much of a subway as Tremont St aside from the electrification issue and somewhat shorter length. After 1935 it was converted to car use.

(The Beach Pneuamtic Tube was not used for anything like transportation. It was a demonstration tunnel with a single station in the basement of a building, a single track a bit under 300ft long, and a single car that could be pulled out and back by air pressure. It's fairer to compare it with something like the Meigs Elevated than with Tremont St.)

This is the first time I heard about the Park Avenue Tunnel's early usage.

According to the article you mentioned (Wikipedia) the Park Avenue Tunnel was originally an open cut. This would have been for esthetics, for reducing upgrades and downgrades for the right of way, for traffic congestion reducing grade separationa nd making it easier to build bridges across it here and there, and/or (in the case of a railroad right of way) for noise reduction. It was covered over (it became a tunnel) years later. Similar projects covering existing open infrastructure today are sometimes referred to as air-rights projects.

As a tunnel I would say it qualifies as a transit subway in that it was used to carry passengers from place to place and includes one or more stations within. We might say that it was the first subway in the U.S. but was not built as such.

Disney Guy wrote:As a tunnel I would say it qualifies as a transit subway in that it was used to carry passengers from place to place and includes one or more stations within. We might say that it was the first subway in the U.S. but was not built as such.

I wouldn't say that. If it was not covered, then it was surface, albeit a lowered surface. The way I see it, it doesn't become a subway until the surface is sealed above it, thus making it underground.

CRail wrote:

Disney Guy wrote:As a tunnel I would say it qualifies as a transit subway in that it was used to carry passengers from place to place and includes one or more stations within. We might say that it was the first subway in the U.S. but was not built as such.

I wouldn't say that. If it was not covered, then it was surface, albeit a lowered surface. The way I see it, it doesn't become a subway until the surface is sealed above it, thus making it underground.

I agree Corey - it's like calling the SW corridor portion of the Orange Line a subway in a sense...

And speaking of the Orange, would its service in the central subway qualify that as a subway too? (Which would still predate NY)

CS wrote:
And speaking of the Orange, would its service in the central subway qualify that as a subway too? (Which would still predate NY)

Me no understand. It already is/was. Do you mean tunnel ? (Watch out for mixing your sub-texts also. The Main Line existed back then, not the Orange Line.)

3rdrail wrote:

CS wrote:
And speaking of the Orange, would its service in the central subway qualify that as a subway too? (Which would still predate NY)

Me no understand. It already is/was. Do you mean tunnel ? (Watch out for mixing your sub-texts also. The Main Line existed back then, not the Orange Line.)

You know what I mean!

CRail wrote:

Disney Guy wrote:As a tunnel I would say it qualifies as a transit subway in that it was used to carry passengers from place to place and includes one or more stations within. We might say that it was the first subway in the U.S. but was not built as such.

I wouldn't say that. If it was not covered, then it was surface, albeit a lowered surface. The way I see it, it doesn't become a subway until the surface is sealed above it, thus making it underground.

Agreed, but New York's Park Avenue/Murray Hill Tunnel was sealed over in 1852, when it was still being used only by mainline trains. It was fully a tunnel by the time the local horsecar service (with its in-tunnel station) started in 1870.

... converting an existing (railroad) tunnel into a transit subway by routing transit vehicles into it and buiding a station in the middle ...

Another example, the Twin Peaks Tunnel in San Francisco with its Forest Hill (singular) station. I think the station was added years later, gotta go research and verify that. Not to become part of the first subway debate but rather to be part of the subway versus tunnel (outside of Massachusetts) debate.

Who wants to introduce the argument that a "subway" has to have at least two underground stations?

Or the motive: building the underground railroad to establish a new transportation corridor as opposed to using an existing tunnel to reduce the expense of new infrastructure.

Harvard was always considered a subway (the current busway), and it only serves the one station.

It gets more encompassing than that. Who can explain the correct wording on this postcard ?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RAILROAD-STATIO ... 563616c401

3rdrail wrote:It gets more encompassing than that. Who can explain the correct wording on this postcard ?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RAILROAD-STATIO ... 563616c401

I think that is the "subway" on the extreme left of the photo. I'd call it an underpass.

The old Attleboro station had a pedestrian "subway" for patrons to avoid crossing the tracks. Lengthy stairs on either side, and a long, dank passage between them. This is a memory from the mid to late 1950's.

BigUglyCat wrote:The old Attleboro station had a pedestrian "subway" for patrons to avoid crossing the tracks. Lengthy stairs on either side, and a long, dank passage between them. This is a memory from the mid to late 1950's.

Would that have been towards the north end of the station? There's a similar arrangement at the south end, except it's not a subway, just the sidewalk along the road that goes under the tracks.

Does the Standard Railroad of the World's terminology count for anything? I remember often seeing pedestrian underpasses from one side of the tracks to the other at PRR Philadelphia Mainline stations.