This winter was tough on the asphalt in the area and there's a lot of potholes. A few blocks from my house there's an intersection where a large chunk of asphalt has broken up to reveal the cobblestone underneath.

I had known that the streets in the vicinity were originally cobblestone but I noticed something else this morning, - a rail from the old streetcar line.

What a shame. All the expense and drama that have gone along with creating and expanding our limited light rail system could have been avoided. Between having a bike and the trolleys, it would have been easy to get just about anywhere in Minneapolis/St. Paul and from Lake Minnetonka to White Bear.

So true, and something that has been done in so many other cities. The old "Trolley neighborhoods" of the 1910's and 1920's have just become freeway exits from the distant 'burbs that came about in the post WWII housing boom.
SLC has the same thing. We live in a 1920's bungalow within 1 block of the (abandoned) rail line, but the modern light rail system (about 5 blocks away) was built with great effort and expense requiring extensive Right of Way and Easement cost.

Oh well, at least there is some form of mass transit versus none.

The building I work in was once the carbarn, workshop, and general offices of the old Minneapolis Street Car system, - back when the street cars were horse drawn.

I'm sure that by the time the street cars where demolished or sold, ridership was low and maintaining the rails was deemed too expensive. Cheaper to run buses on streets that the city already maintained, especially since GM was providing buses at huge discounts in order to displace the street cars.

Interesting that drivers initially had to share the streets with trolleys, now many gripe that "streets were meant for cars" when having to share them with bikes.

Yeah, GM and the oil companies did some seriously shady things to kill the streetcars and light rail. GM wasn't interested in selling busses, they wanted to sell cars. They knew the trolleys were way more efficient than busses in terms of both energy and moving people around on time...

It's also instructive to note Rudolph Diesel was found dead under mysterious circumstances when he began pushing peanut oil as the ideal fuel for his engine... he claimed petrochemical fuel oil was too inefficient and dirty.

Here's wiki on "Great American Streetcar Scandal": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_A...eetcar_scandal

Indianapolis has similar - below the pavement on the major East/West surface street are trolley tracks. Evident every spring. Paved over decades ago.

It's hard to know how much of a conspiracy there really was. I'm sure that plenty of people at GM simply viewed rail as a relic of the past and that it was both good business and good sense to switch to buses. Even today there's a huge debate over which is really better. It seems that most people would prefer to ride a train/trolley vs a bus, but 50 years ago maybe not.

You bring up something that is relavent here in Houston. We also had a trolley system in the distant past; however as a port city we also had an excellent medium rail system for years including an excellent rail station right on the edge of downtown. So what happened? The mouth breathing knuckle dragging people wanted a new baseball stadium. So the Mainstream Media played up the putting it in "Blighted" east side of downtown and the Idea of ENRON field was born and the old rail station was torn down to a facade and converted to a baseball stadium. Meanwhile the medium rail right of ways were handed back to TXDOT who used them to widen the freeways. Then Guess what? The powers that be wanted to host the Superbowl, but to pull their plan off they needed light rail. However, they already plowed up the available right of ways and the logical terminal. So they created a toy train that is about as well planned as the railways in the SimCity game. It's essentially landlocked, smack down mainstreet and goes from the Med Center to the Uh campus downtown. In otherwords: Nowhere and does nothing to reduce traffic congestion. If anything it made mainstreet impossible to ride down in a car and the fenderbender tally is over 20 or more.

I

You're making me miss living in Saint Paul.

Interesting. I always figured they would have removed the old rails and re-sold/recycled them, or something useful. What a waste of material.

*Potholes haven't been too bad this year around me. However, there's about a 10' section on the street I live adjacent to that has an effed-up section, and every time a truck rolls over them it sounds like the world is ending.

Our region wants to put light rail back into place despite the fact that no one goes anywhere near downtown Kitchener unless they're forced to. And don't get me started on the potholes. I've blown two spokes in rapid succession on my new Norco.

The powers-that-be in my city don't want any talk of light rail or trolleys. They prefer to develop a "bus rapid transit system" (BRT) instead. In order to reduce the talk of redeveloping the light rail system they recently paved over the last visible rail line in town (along University). It's quite sad. There is a lot of resistance to BRT, but probably a majority who would support a trolley system. In the end, we will likely get neither.

I'm all for public transit and very much pro-light rail and trolley systems but must admit I'm not fond of the trolley tracks in the streets. We have them here in Boston (fewer than we used to) and those rails take out many a cyclist. They are slippery as all get out when wet and if not crossed at a solid 90〫angle can bring you down faster than ice.

I live in the Frogtown neighborhood and my weekend rides take me up University Avenue near where the majority of the construction for the newest section of light rail is taking place. Your discovery begs the question; will our current light rail system someday be considered obsolete in the future?

Don't know about other areas, but where I grew up all the local and regional rail/trolley systems were privately owned. In the 19th century they made money with 5 cent fairs, but by the early 20th century they were marginal or losing money. Rail cars were not updated and those that survived were noisy, heavy, and uncomfortable. The lines that survived were the ones that the city bought and operate at a loss with heavy tax subsidy. My dad rode the regional cars and described them as "brutal."

As astetically attractive as streetcars are, buses give way more bang for buck, are more flexible, take less time to deploy, and don't present the rail hazard to cyclists.

Interurban rail is a better bet. Still expensive and slow to build, but it directly replaces freeways.

I doubt they will for a long time. The long-term prospects for anything other than rail are pretty dim.

I suspect a great many cities have buried trolley lines. I know mine does.

Sad, because now we have nothing but car culture and legislature that refuses to move forward with mass transit.

+100

Yeah, the bus vs. rail debate is big and there are valid points on both sides. The history is similar here but there are a few points worth noting:

There's no doubt with the current infrastructure that buses are far more flexible as far as routing goes. But are they cheaper to operate? Again there's a huge debate. When the street car system was dismantled here many of the more modern PCC car (which were not brutal to ride at all) were sold to other cities and continued service for decades. Some until early this century. How many buses stay in service for half a century? Steel wheels and electric engines last a long long time. I'm guessing the street cars require a lot less maintenance and require replacement at a much lower rate than buses.

As for light rail, each car has more capacity than a single bus and can be linked together while still requiring only one driver.

The other advantage to electric rail is being powered by electricity which can be generated umpteen different ways. This makes them less susceptible long term to higher prices for an individual type of fuel.

The demise of quasi-urban light rail and concurrent transition towards suburban development happened at a time when oil was cheap, abundant, with no end in sight. In fact, such a model RELIES on cheap oil in the absence of alternatives to oil-based transportation.
I think the increased demand on this arguably finite (if not dwindling) resource created by global "modernization" and population growth has placed the wisdom of the suburban, car-based model in question (to some). In this context, other options seem more reasonable to consider.

Like cycling

You will see the same thing in many cities... at one time cars did not rule the world and the streetcar was one of the best ways for people to go from a to b.

Same thing has happened with electric trolley buses as our last ones went out of service a few years ago and were replaced with new diesel units and now the city is expanding our new light rail system (a good thing).

They all create pollution in one way or the other but it sure was nice to be able to commute behind the trolley which was quiet and did not belch diesel exhaust.

And regardless of how you feel about buses or trains, this is one thing that's very important. As cyclists we are often made to feel as if we're intruders on the domain of cars by daring to use the streets as is or when precious space is set aside for a bike lane. Streets have existed long before the car became commonplace. Bikes take up a lot less room than trolleys or buses and don't stop nearly as much.

An interesting take on the problem from the USA.
Here in Europe we have been aware for some years that fossil fuel cars are on a short life span.
Do you know any babies ?
That baby will never own a new fossil fuel driven car, (even in the USA), the oil will have become way too expensive by the time they are old enough to drive

I'd not disagree with anything you say here. I think there's a place for bus, streetcar, and interurban light rail. Streetcar is expanding here in Portland (though the rails are causing issues for cyclists) and we'll likely see a new rail/pedestrian/cycling bridge over the river in the near future. Light rail is well established and expanding. Buses run on biodiesel (controversy there as well) and many are hybrids, and have front-mounted bike carriers. Each mode has its role. Safety is an issue as it can be in any urban area.

The street architecture here is still car oriented and it is not as easy being a pedestrian or cyclist as it could be (Berkeley in the 70's was further ahead than Portland is today in this respect).

I have loads of experience cycling behind and around trolleys in Philadelphia in the 50's, 60's and 70's - not fun.

Not fun following a trolley if it required cycling between the rails and then having to cross them at a narrow angle in order to make a turn or pass the stopped trolley.