Showing posts with label transit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transit. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Public Transit in Baltimore


Accession Number P75-54-0063g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection
Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore Country




Image Number Neg Z9.395.PP8, Hughes Studio Photograph Collection,

Courtesy of the Prints and Photographs Division, Maryland Historical Society


Public transit in Baltimore went through a series of highs and lows ending with the eventual upheaval of streetcars for the more modern modes of transit. The initial forms of public transit were horse drawn cars used in the 1850s. By the 1880s, horse drawn cars were replaced by electric streetcars. In 1899, the streetcar companies were consolidated into United Railway and Electric. At this time, United  Railway streetcars serviced all of Baltimore. Automobiles were only used by the upper classes, so streetcars were the only option for moving around the city.

The Streetcar has Competition


Accession Number P75-54-0062g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,
Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
The streetcar was used widely by the public until companies began developing new ways for passengers to ride around the city. The first invention to take riders from the streetcar was the “jitney,” a truck/car that began operation in 1915. This car was not very profitable, but was the first competitor to expose the vulnerability of the streetcar industry.

The Rise of the Automobile



Image Number Neg 79. 729 PP8, Hughes Studio Photograph Collection,
Courtesy of the Prints and Photography Division, Maryland Historical Society


United was able to withstand competition from the jitney; however, their main competition was the automobile. Automobiles allowed people to move around the city independently, and were very popular in Maryland. From 1920-1940, automobiles in Maryland increased from 100,000 to 300,000. The automobile industry attracted customers around the country by creating less expensive and better quality vehicles. They used clever advertising to attract customers as shown within this Oldsmobile advertisement. Automobile companies capitalized on new technology to create a product that would last, insuring that they would remain in competition with mass transit. Automobiles were viewed by society as a permanent invention unlike the jitney, and people responded by altering aspects of society to accommodate the change.

Traffic Congestion


Accession Number P75-54-0090g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,
Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Streetcars were forced to share the road with automobiles changing traffic within the city. As more people purchased automobiles, the road became a battle between private and public transportation. As a result, traffic congestion was a serious problem downtown. It was estimated that 10,000 people would come in 5,000 cars and 50,000 people came in 1, 000 streetcars. While the traffic jam in the picture may be an outlying case, it reflects a time when the many options for getting around Baltimore were too much for the city roads to handle. Even today, we experience traffic jams on roads and think an increase in the number of roads is the best solution. As the number of automobiles on the road increased this was and still is a constant issue.

Public Transit at a Crossroads


Accession Number P75-54-0054g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,
Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland ,Baltimore County

Transit severely declined after the 1918 annexation. As major cities like Baltimore increased in size, it was expected that people would rely more on transit; yet, between 1920 and 1930, rider numbers in Baltimore and Cincinnati decreased thirty to forty percent. There were multiple reasons for the decline. Many people were dissatisfied with the service. The equipment used on streetcars was old, the cars were often crowded, and fares expensive. Residents who moved to the newly annexed areas had little access to streetcar lines. Because United could not afford to build lines in majority of those areas, many residents ended up buying automobiles. Lines that were built near the suburbs were many times unprofitable. As a result of the decline, some streetcar routes may have looked like this picture. The line is in an area with few riders perhaps because residents cannot or do not want to take the streetcar. Also note the automobile in the picture which is easily moving from the interior of that area, representing easy mobility.

The Response


Accession Number P75-54-N6169, Hughes Company Glass Negatives,
Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County




Image Number Neg Z9.1865.PP30, Hughes Studio Photograph Collection,
Courtesy of the Prints and Photographs Division, Maryland Historical Society



United was forced to revamp their lines in order to stay in business. The automobile and the introduction of gas powered buses were a sign of the future, so the company had to modernize their cars to attract customers. United changed both the aesthetic and design of their cars. In the twenties, United converted their semi-convertible cars into articulated trains (bottom picture). United introduced the short Birney car (top picture) and had considerable success with the Peter Witt streetcars. United took a step further and created trackless trolleys which did not use tracks and ran on wires. As we can see in the pictures, Baltimore streets were becoming more updated to the times, and United made sure their cars could handle the changes.






Rock Bottom


Image Number Neg 79.531.PP8, Hughes Studio Photograph Collection,

Courtesy of the Prints and Photographs Division, Maryland Historical Society




But the number streetcar riders continued to decline in the decade. When unemployment increased during the Depression, this further decreased their passengers and United went into bankruptcy in 1933. Despite making changes that Baltimore residents responded to, streetcars were not able to regain their success before the popularity of other forms of transportation.

The Rebound Period


Image Number Neg Z9.1857.PP30, Hughes Studio Photograph Collection,
Courtesy of the Prints and Photographs Division, Maryland Historical Society



The streetcar industry was not held under permanently. Although United went into bankruptcy, thanks to new leadership, they were debt free by 1935 and became the Baltimore Transit Company. The importance of streetcars was evident during World War II as the company experienced a major increase in passengers and profits. The operating income for the BTC increased thirty-three percent between 1941 and 1942. By 1945, the income of the BTC was around 1.5 million. Wartime production in Baltimore caused many shortages in products like rubber, gas, and steel all needed to produce and run automobiles. As a result people turned to public transit to travel around the city. Public transit was important during the war because a mass of defense workers moved to Baltimore and needed a stable option for travel. During the war, upwards of 50,000 workers in defense plants used streetcars. Streetcars were the only form of transportation not severely affected by the war that could hold enough people.

Back to Normal


Accession Number P75-54-N1013g, Hughes Company Glass Negatives Collection,
Courtesy of the Photography Collections, University of Maryland, Baltimore County




Although streetcars were a major success during World War II, they could not maintain this popularity once the war ended. After World War II, it appeared the BTC would be able to sustain its renewed popularity, but this was not the case. The Baltimore Transit Company once again lost customers as their old equipment could not hold up and the cars were once again considered unreliable. The streetcar industry in addition, could not support the increasing number of families moving outside of the city’s interior into suburbs they could not reach, causing automobiles to become a necessity.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

Modern Transit



Image Number Neg Z9. 1864.pp30, Hughes Studio Photography Collection,
Courtesy of the Prints and Photographs Division, Maryland Historical Society
The street car was in a sense an end to an era in public transportation. As the city modernized, the streetcar could not sustain as the main mode of transit. The streetcar was surpassed by the automobile and more important the bus. By 1945, Baltimore officially began to switch over to buses. Buses were able to reach areas streetcars could not. Not only was transit modernizing but Baltimore infrastructure as well. If we compare this picture to the first of this theme, it is clear how much the roads transformed and expanded perhaps to accommodate all forms of transportation. During the war, it was clear that public transit is a necessity during times of strain. For those who live in the suburbs today, we may not think about transit but for city dwellers the metro, train, and buses are essential for their commutes. While the design of these vehicles may change, public transit will always be important to Baltimore.





Saturday, April 30, 2011

Selected Bibliography

Argersinger, Jo Ann E. Toward a New Deal in Baltimore: People and Government in the

Great Depression. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1988.

Boger, Gretchen. “The Meaning of Neighborhood in the Modern City: Baltimore’s

Residential Segregation Ordinances, 1910-1913.” Journal of Urban History 35, no. 2 (2009): 236-258.

Counihan, Harold J. Moving Maryland Forward. Baltimore: Maryland Department of

Transportation, State Highway Administration, 2008.

Durr, Kenneth. "When Southern Politics Came North: The Roots of White Working-

Class Conservatism n Baltimore, 1940-1964." Labor History 37, no. 3 (1996): 309-331.

Farrell, Michael R. The History of Baltimore Streetcars. Sykesville: Greenberg

Publishing Company, Inc. 1992.

Fischler, Stanley I. Moving Millions: An Insider Look at Mass Transit. New York:

Harper & Row, Publisher, 1979.

Fogelson, Robert M. Downtown: It’s Rise and Fall, 1880-1950. New Haven: Yale

University Press, 2001.

Glazer, Aaron Michael. "Fade to Gas: The Conversion of Baltimore’s Mass Transit

System from Streetcars to Diesel-Powered Buses." Maryland Historical Magazine 97, no. 3 (September 2002): 337-357.

Goddard, Stephen B. Getting There: The Epic Struggle Between Road and Rail in the

American Century. New York: BasicBooks, 1994.

Hayward, Mary Ellen. Baltimore’s Alley Houses: Homes for Working People Since the

1780s. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008.

Hayward, Mary Ellen and Charles Belfoure. The Baltimore Rowhouse. New York:

Princeton Architectural Press, 1999.

Henderson, Peter Harry. “Local Deals and the New Deal State: Implementing Federal

Public Housing in Baltimore, 1933-1968.” PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1994.

Mueller, Kevin A. The Best Way to Go: The History of the BTC, Baltimore Transit

Company. S.I.: K.A. Mueller, 1997.

Orser, William. “The Making of a Baltimore Rowhouse Community: The Edmonson

Avenue Area, 1915-1945.” Maryland Historical Magazine 80, no. 3 (1985): 203-227.

Pietila, Antero. Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City.

Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2010.

Rice, Roger L. “Residential Segregation by Law, 1910-1917.” The Journal of Southern

History 34, no. 2 (1968): 179-199.

Sachs, Bernard J., George F. Nixon, and Harold E. Cox. Baltimore Streetcars: 1905-

1963: The Semi-Convertibles Era. Baltimore: The Baltimore Streetcar Museum, Inc., 1984.

Weiner, Deborah. "From Modern Victory to Postmodern Defeat: Two Baltimore Housing

Projects." Maryland Historian 26 (1995): 23-48.