Definition
Elevated railways are railroad or streetcar lines constructed on raised structures — typically iron or steel frameworks, trestles, or viaducts — running above the surface of public streets or private land. Sometimes called "els" or "L trains," they were a dominant form of urban mass transit in American cities from the 1870s through the early twentieth century, built to relieve street-level congestion while allowing uninterrupted ground traffic below.
In legal usage, elevated railways generate a distinct set of property, tort, and regulatory questions that differ meaningfully from surface railroads. The core legal issues cluster around two areas: (1) the rights of abutting landowners whose property is affected by the noise, vibration, shade, and diminished light caused by elevated structures passing nearby or overhead, and (2) the franchise and eminent domain questions governing what authority a railway company must obtain before constructing in, over, or alongside a public street.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Plural of "elevated railway" — a railway running on a raised structure above street level.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Not independently defined, but "elevated" in the railroad sense was widely understood to mean a line raised on pillars or framework above the ordinary surface of a street or road.
The gap between common and legal meaning here is not one of definition but of consequence. Ordinary usage treats "elevated railway" as a descriptive term for a transit structure. Legal usage treats the elevated railway as a specific category of property rights problem: does the presence of such a structure over or beside a street constitute a taking of the abutting owner's property rights in light, air, access, and quiet enjoyment? That question drove a substantial body of late nineteenth and early twentieth century litigation that has no equivalent in common understanding of the term.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Elevated railways are a term anchored firmly in a historical legal context. Researchers should understand several navigational points:
First, the primary legal battleground for elevated railways was the law of abutting owners and municipal franchises, not railway regulation in the modern sense. Nineteenth-century cases asked whether a city could grant a railway company the right to build on a public street without compensating adjacent property owners for loss of light, access, and value. Answers varied sharply by jurisdiction and by whether the street was held in fee by the municipality or merely as a public easement — a distinction that determined whether the elevated structure constituted a taking.
Second, the body of law generated by elevated railways is largely historical. Most American elevated lines were demolished or replaced by subways and surface rail in the mid-twentieth century, and new elevated railway construction in the traditional sense has been largely superseded by modern transit law and environmental regulatory frameworks. Researchers searching early twentieth-century sources will find this a live, contested area; researchers looking for current doctrine should be cautious about assuming continuity.
Third, the franchise question — what grant from a municipality or state was required to build in a public street — connects elevated railway law to municipal corporation law, street railway law, and the broader law of public franchises. These connections are essential for understanding how courts analyzed the rights and liabilities of elevated railway companies.
Fourth, do not conflate elevated railway cases with general railroad eminent domain doctrine. Surface railroads typically acquired rights of way through formal condemnation. Elevated railways in cities often claimed the right to build over streets under existing street railway franchises, without additional condemnation proceedings — a claim that courts examined with considerable skepticism when abutting owners sued.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary does not contain a dedicated entry for "elevated railways" as a standalone term. The source material attributed to Bouvier in this entry — references to "damages by the elements" and "damages by the acts of God" as convertible expressions in the law of leases — appears to belong to a different entry (likely pertaining to lease covenants or acts of God) and does not bear on the meaning or legal treatment of elevated railways. Researchers should not rely on this passage for elevated railway doctrine.
Bouvier's broader treatment of railroads, street railways, and abutting owners does, however, provide useful background. The distinction between a railroad's fee ownership of its right of way and a street railway's mere license or franchise to use a public street was central to how elevated railway liability was analyzed in the period when Bouvier's was current.
Later editions of Words and Phrases and American and English Encyclopedia of Law provide substantially more coverage of elevated railway litigation and are more useful for this topic than Bouvier's standing alone.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Elevated railway abutting-owner liability varied significantly by state. New York courts ultimately held that abutting owners on fee-owned land had a compensable property interest damaged by elevated railway construction, leading to substantial damage awards. Illinois and other jurisdictions reached different conclusions on similar facts. Researchers working on multistate questions should treat elevated railway law as jurisdiction-specific rather than uniform.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Railway Labor Act and Transportation Industry Labor Law (Law Mind Employment & Labor Law Encyclopedia) — relevant for the labor and regulatory dimensions of railway operations generally, including the federal framework governing railway employees. Note that this encyclopedia entry addresses labor relations rather than property or franchise law, which is the primary legal context for elevated railway doctrine.
---