Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Private enterprise rail transportation was thriving until government destroyed its profitability, via taxation, regulation, restriction and meddling. The boom in electric streetcars (trolleys) from 1890s through the 1910s suddenly began to falter.
I'm not sure if trolleys were regulated in the same way intracity passenger rail and freight was (if at all).
I'm not sure if trolleys were regulated in the same way intracity passenger rail and freight was (if at all).
They were heavily regulated, and had to get public approval for many aspects of their operation not the least being fares. It was not unusual for populist politicians to deny fare increases, which forced operators to cut corners and not invest in their rolling stock.
Uhhh....why would people in 1930s, 1940s and 1950s Los Angeles ride streetcars if they had cars?
Living for your Car?
In 1920, 90% of all travel was by electric traction rail (streetcars), average fare - $0.05.
($36.50 annual cost for taking a round trip every day; 730 x 5 cents.)
In 1920, you could buy a brand new Ford Model T for $300.00
In 1935, you could buy a brand new Plymouth for $565.00.
In 1979, you could buy a Honda Accord for $7000.00.
In 2012, you can buy a Ford Focus for $16,500.00
In 2012, 30-Day Unlimited Ride MetroCard on NYC mass transit - Cost: $104, reduced fare $52
(per annum = $ 1248 / $ 624)
2012 Ford Focus 2.0L 4-cyl. FFV 5-speed Manual True Cost to Own
$31,115 over five years is the "true cost to own" that Ford Focus.
$6,223 per year.
In relation to minimum wage ($7.25 / hour), that expense computes to 41% of gross wages. If one earns double minimum wage, that's 20.6% of pre-tax gross wages. In that case, one will be working 1/5 their life to "support" their habit. If one works from 18 to 70 (assuming later age of retirement), the automobile costs them over TEN YEARS of labor.
Living for your Car?
In 1920, 90% of all travel was by electric traction rail (streetcars), average fare - $0.05.
($36.50 annual cost for taking a round trip every day; 730 x 5 cents.)
In 1920, you could buy a brand new Ford Model T for $300.00
In 1935, you could buy a brand new Plymouth for $565.00.
In 1979, you could buy a Honda Accord for $7000.00.
In 2012, you can buy a Ford Focus for $16,500.00
In 2012, 30-Day Unlimited Ride MetroCard on NYC mass transit - Cost: $104, reduced fare $52
(per annum = $ 1248 / $ 624)
2012 Ford Focus 2.0L 4-cyl. FFV 5-speed Manual True Cost to Own
$31,115 over five years is the "true cost to own" that Ford Focus.
$6,223 per year.
In relation to minimum wage ($7.25 / hour), that expense computes to 41% of gross wages. If one earns double minimum wage, that's 20.6% of pre-tax gross wages. In that case, one will be working 1/5 their life to "support" their habit. If one works from 18 to 70 (assuming later age of retirement), the automobile costs them over TEN YEARS of labor.
I hope this helps answer the question.
No, it doesn't. Los Angeles still became an auto-centric town even though it had streetcars. The car is ultimately what killed the streetcar (and most public transit in America), not nefarious multi-national corporations.
No, it doesn't. Los Angeles still became an auto-centric town even though it had streetcars. The car is ultimately what killed the streetcar (and most public transit in America), not nefarious multi-national corporations.
[] The automobile interests "killed" their biggest rival.
Who pays for the roads, when the fuel tax is insufficient to cover the costs?
[] Taxpayer
Who pays for the requirement for parking spaces everywhere?
[] Customers, Drivers, Taxpayers
Who pays for the necessity of ever wider superhighways that never quite solve gridlock?
[] Taxpayer
Who pays for the side effects of pollution, detritus from eroding tires, political instability from importing petroleum, and the imbalance in trade?
[] Taxpayer
Frankly, private rail didn't charge the taxpayer for anything. Needed no designated parking spaces everywhere. Easily scaled up in capacity (headway, train length). And produced minimal pollution.
Oh, and if you SCOFF at the "power" of the "auto" puppet masters over "their" government, just read up on Alweg's offer of a FREE monorail system. (Elevated so as not to interfere with the existing roads)
In 1963, Alweg proposed to the city of Los Angeles a monorail system that would be designed, built, operated and maintained by Alweg. Alweg promised to take all financial risk from the construction, and the system would be repaid through fares collected. The City Council rejected the proposal in favor of no transit at all. This move was greatly resented by famed author Ray Bradbury who supported the monorail project, and still to this day resents the later move to build a subway in Los Angeles.
DO NOT LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN, LITTLE GIRL, WE ARE THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ !
I'm not sure we can objectively look at what LA would look like today, unless we even the playing field between streetcars and automobiles. Streetcars were pushed out for a combination of reasons: regulations on streetcars, lowered funding of streetcars, natural interest in automobiles by the public, cheap gas, subsidized road expansion, etc.
If the playing field of operating costs, subsidies and regulations had been leveled across both playing fields, wouldn't there have been less automobile acceptance? I'm not saying none, just less. Assuming that's the case, LA may have expanded differently.
This might shock you, but in the 30s, 40s and 50s, if a family had a car, they most likely only had one!
This may also shock you, but the workforce was considerably smaller in the 30s and 40s because many women didn't work! Thus, the two car household was more of a rarity in those days.
What does this have to do with high automobile usage rates anyway?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline
There is also that pesky problem of what do you do with your car after you get to your destination, pay to park???
Los Angeles was not a sprawling metro of 15 million+ back in 1930. So parking was probably free...everywhere. If L.A. still has free parking at many destinations in 2012, what makes you think that there wouldn't be free parking at a time when there were far fewer cars on the road?
If the playing field of operating costs, subsidies and regulations had been leveled across both playing fields, wouldn't there have been less automobile acceptance? I'm not saying none, just less. Assuming that's the case, LA may have expanded differently.
But why would they have done that? You're looking at it through the eyes of someone living in 2012 who has the benefit of hindsight and sees the distastrous consequences of auto-centric design. Someone living in Los Angeles in 1930 either didn't see or didn't care about the consequences of car centric design 80 years into the future.
Cars make life easier than public transit in many ways. During a time when there were not many cars on the road, the car probably seemed like a Godsend. I'm sure they thought it was the technology of the future, and in some sense, they were right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
