Many of the ill-fated plans of bygone days have made their way into the annals of Baltimore Transit history.  Among those often touted were the Columbia and Maryland Railway, which had planned to Link the District of Columbia to Baltimore via Ellicott City.  A reference has often been made to a proposal to route Streetcars through the Howard Street Tunnel, when it was envisioned that the thorofare was to be abandoned by the B&O, which did quite the contrary.  More obscure is the mention of a possible cross-shaped streetcar subway that would have been built following the Great Baltimore Fire of 1904, which would have channelled the cars under Baltimore Street between West and East, and under St. Paul and Light Streets from North to South.  More recently was the late 1970's proposal for a "Busway" following the path of today's light rail line, that was eventually dropped.

Recently, however, a small quantity of maps has surfaced that may indicate yet another fascinating plan that was never acted upon.  These maps, on a high-grade laminated linen, appear professionally drawn, yet bear no author's name upon them - simply titles and streets.

They portray a "Subway" system, that looks similar in nature to that used in Philadelphia and Boston, but even more elaborate.  At the core of this system is a crooked loop in the Downtown area, running both clockwise and counter-clockwise through the Downtown Area.  This loop was to run beneath Lexington, Holliday, Baltimore, and Eutaw Streets, with stops on Baltimore just East of Eutaw and West of Holliday.  Beneath Lexington, stops were envisioned West of Holliday, at Charles Street, and again just East of Eutaw.  Within this loop were shown 6 separate crossovers, which seem to indicate the ability to turn Double Ended equipment at any of the Stations as needed.

The Northeast corridor was to lie beneath Gay Street.  Starting with the portal stop at North Avenue, stops were to be made at Biddle Street, Monument Street, and Colvin Street, before connecting with the inner loop at Lexington and Holliday.  Here again, the placement of the stops seems to avoid locating any along slopes, while still making the major connections.  This leg seems only practical to connect with the #15 line on the surface.

Longest of the proposed branches shot out to the Southeast from the Center Loop, as the "Eastern Avenue" subway stopped scarcely a mile from the present City Line.  From its portal at Oldham Street, the line would have served stations at Haven Street, Highland Avenue, Linwood Avenue, Patterson Park, Broadway, and Central Avenue, before skewing off to the North beneath Exeter Street to Baltimore Street, where a station was to be located just West of the curve.  From there the line headed West to fall in line with the Southern base of the loop.  Routes #23 and 26 could have connected to this line, as well as Point Breeze service on Route #10.  The length and hilliness of this route may have made it a particularly expensive part of the proposal.

Southside service was to be furnished by the "Hanover Street Subway" diverging at Baltimore and Hanover and operating directly South to a portal at Heath Street for connection to Route #6.  Cars in the subway would have stopped at Hamburg and Conway Streets.

Along the West end, a number of connection possibilities existed.  The Baltimore Street Subway was to submerge at Gilmor Street and tunnel directly beneath Baltimore Street to connect with the Loop at its curve at Eutaw Street.  On its journey, it would have stopped at Carrollton and Fremont Avenues.  Likely candidates to have used this route were the #8, 9/14, and 15 lines.  Other possible candidates included the #1-11, 3, and 4 lines.  Gilmor Street would have been the only stop located on a grade, and this already healthy downslope, combined with dense development, might have made this an engineering nightmare.

• This is impossible to ascertain.  The quality of both the materials and the drafting are quite professional.  The lack of any mention of the person who submitted the work seems to indicate that the maps were an in-house, sanctioned, assignment, as most who would have devised such excellent work independently would have certainly signed their work, for fear of the idea being stolen.  The fact that the maps were saved also lends credence to the thought that they were done in-house.

• At first guess, one would seem to believe they date from between 1935 and 1940, as pro-rail Bancroft Hill was president, and they were found in a "Baltimore Transit Company" envelope.   The lack of materials and labor during World War II, followed by the influence of the pro-bus National City Lines seems to rule out their being created at any date following World War II.  Still, the possiblity remains that they are a pre-depression idea of the cash-strapped URE, as the existence of crossovers for double ended equipment may indicate a pre-1930 era, when the overwhelming majority of the semis had not been converted to single-ended operation.

• Again, the saving of these maps indicate a rather high level of importance to them, while thousands of other documents were not nearly as lucky to survive.  Lack of documentation to accompany them knocks their credibility down a few notches.  Still, this could have been an embryonic idea from the highest levels that was unable to be fully studied due to financial constraints.  Ironic is the presence of three of the Portals directly at areas that was already company property, all of which were bases that could have had their operation moved to other parts of the system.

• It seems almost certain that this would have been a subway-surface streetcar operation, as the sharp curves would strictly limit car-length.  As for the routes, there are some bugs to the plan, as some routes, such as route #8, which would seem like a certain candidate to enter the Baltimore Street portal, has no really appropriate portal to reach its Northern End.  On another note, route #1-11, which actually seems ideally suited to use the subway, would have abandoned its already convenient elevated stretch by using it (although route #8 could have used this as it later did).  Interestingly, the lack of Portals for the #6 line to east side and the #17 to Westport seem to date this map to 1935 or before.

• Quite possibly, although there are still some loose ends.  Heavy rail routes, such as the #4, 8 and 19 just don't seem to match to this subway system very well.  Still, many of the corridors which would have had to have "booster" service to service those corners between stations, seem suitable choices for Trackless Trolleys or buses.  Short urban routes, such as the #2, 10, 16, and 18 could have been (and most were at least considered for) trackless trolley operations that would have that would have carried the local traffic.  The Northern corridor could have been locally served by the Rt. A bus, leaving only the Northeast Corridor requiring a new route.

• Had this been built, would Baltimore's Transit history have run the same course?
• • Not very likely at all.  The presence of such a well-built system would have almost certainly deterred the pro-bus NCL team from entering the Baltimore picture, and converting the existing system to bus.  Elimination of most rail lines from Downtown Streets would have seemed to have pleased the City, thus quelling their postwar pressure on the BTC to free the streets for "free-wheeling."  Access to such an quick and efficient system would have certainly helped to lessen the flight of patrons drawn to purchase automobiles, and resulted in more stability for both the Transit system as well as the Downtown Commercial area.