My (admittedly pretty weak) Googlage has been fruitless.
Why are the choo-choos upstairs instead of in the basement?
Cost? Running a train above ground is cheaper than digging a tunnel.
It could also depend on how good the technology to build a tunnel was at the time when it was built.
But is it? Is steel above ground cheaper than building a hole?
The Boston “T” built their subways (1897) before their elevated railways (1901). So the tech was, I’m guessing, available in 1892 when the El began.
Doesn’t Chicago have a very high water table? And pretty much only dirt under the ground? This is the same reason skyscrapers were harder to build in Chicago than New York.
I’m not sure the technology actually did exist in the 1890s, or if so, that it was cost-effective compared to a Boston or New York.
It’s called the El. You can’t call it that and then bury it! :dubious:
Underground can be expensive. Here’s an example of some of the problems encountered at the Manhattan 2nd Ave subway:
At least for overhead construction, you can see what it is the way. Underground, not so much.
The water table in downtown Chicago is pretty high, which greatly complicates tunneling. A few years ago, basements in many Loop buildings were flooded after some bridge piling maintenance cracked a service tunnel. I don’t think engineers had figured out underwater tunneling 120 years ago.
Also, the El is seriously old -it started operation in 1892 or so with steam locomotives, and steam locks and tunnels are not a good mix unless you intend to asphyxiate your passengers.
Chicago has a subway - the Red Line. So any problems with the geology or water table or steam power were apparently solveable by the time it was built. However I wouldn’t be surprised to learn if it was built much later than the El.
Also, parts of the Blue Line. (And it’s only parts of the Red Line, as well). And, also, the colored line names and routes are all fairly new (early 90s, I think, is when the lines became known by their colors.)
The history of the Chicago subway can be found here. Ground was broken in 1938. The State Street tunnel opened in 1943, and the Dearborn Tunnel in 1951.
Generally, yes. In the New York system, it’s mainly the lines in Manhattan and Brooklyn, where population is densest, where the lines are underground. Lines in the outer boroughs, especially towards the ends of the lines, are mainly above ground, either elevated or sometimes at ground level.
All good points, and thanks for the replies!
But, does anyone know why they built it that way? I mean, according to the engineers of the project at the time?
Both ways have plusses and minuses, but it seems that most of most other systems are subways. Wondering if there’s some kind of, like, documentary evidence about why the El was chosen in Chicago.
I know in NYC, steam trains prevented the use of subways until electric trains came along, at which point much of the trains were put underground. But that didn’t seem to happen here. Was it just a matter of inertia - leaving well enough alone? An artifact from the steam age?
The Brighton Line in Brooklyn is mostly open-cut once you get out of downtown. Sucks when it snows.
As for other lines, the Flushing Line is elevated from the Queens side of the Steinway tunnel all the way to Shea Stadium, the Astoria Line is elevated for its entire length, the Canarsie Line is elevated between downtown Brooklyn and New Lots, and the northern ends of much of the IRT lines are elevated in the Bronx.
And interesting exception is the massive Queens Boulevard trunk, which is underground for all of its run in Queens and Manhattan, despite running amongst some of the lesser populated areas of the city.
Going backl even further in **pulykamell’s **timeline, the original lines were built as elevated lines using steam locomotives. This started in 1869. At some points, the transit companies were building lines in the alleys (which were owned by and under the control of the city), because they couldn’t get property owners’ permission to build on the streets. Looks like engineering might not have been the only problem with digging big holes in the center of town.
Actually, Chicago has one line that has underground, at grade and elevated sections, all on the same line. The Blue Line runs from O’Hare Airport to downtown and then west to Forest Park
To add to Colibri’s point, the New York Subway system used to rely much more heavily on elevated trains. A lot of them are nowdefunct and have been demolished though, presumably as a result of better technology coming along. At any rate, it would seem that it’s not the case that around 1900 or so Chicago was building elevated trains when all sorts of other cities were building underground systems.
But (not to be a broken record) why?
Oops. Just saw that “not.” Skip the previous.
I don’t know the answer, but all those hypothesising that underground/underwater railways were not feasible in the 1890s may wish to note that the first London Underground railway opened in 1863, and the Severn Tunnel (which runs for 4 miles under one of Britain’s largest estuaries) was constructed between 1873 and 1886 - Wikipedia has more details, of course.
So those mentioning geological conditions peculiar to Chicago would seem to be more on the right (heh) track.
I seem to recall that The Devil in the White City went into some detail about Chicago’s sandy, saturated soil (as contrasted with New York’s close-to-the-surface bedrock).
Formally, perhaps, but when I attended Northwestern in the late 80’s they were usually referred to by color even though the official names were “Evanston Express” or “Ravenswood” or whatever. I guess they finally gave up and went with the color names since that’s what everyone used anyway.