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.
So if you can't substantitate it, then why say it? Especially if the fact is central to your argument that people were paying for parking way back when.
Google is pretty neat, you should try it. Seems Oklahoma City had parking meters back in 1936.
And Boston had a multilevel PAID parking structure in 1933. In 1935 there was a publication that noted which privately owned parking lots were open to Blacks. And I know you doubt there was paid parking in the 30s, 40s and 50s, but actually paid parking started in the 1910s. Seems early cars were not weatherproof and needed to be stored inside. And I believe it is spelled, "substantiate".
Would you agree that automobile usage was partially natural and partially subsidized? Paving unlimited roads, changing zoning laws that encouraged parking, cheap gas, etc. are reasons that driving is so affordable (or was). Most developed countries have sprawly development in their metros, but many have less than the average US city, and a lot of it has to do with this; the other side being that they're older and can't retrofit the urban environment.
That has more to do with it than anything. I posted an article about that very topic in the "too much parking" thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA
Hypothetically, the OP is asking for us to see what LA would look like if streetcars did survive intact, and I think that can only be answered by assuming that automobile usage would not have exploded like it did.
But automobile use had exploded in L.A. well before the streetcars met their demise. It was inconsequential whether streetcars were on the scene or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA
That's not to say that there would have been no auto usage, but I think we can assume that existing streetcar lines would have survived (to some extent), and that additional lines or extension of lines would have serviced areas that expanded after the 30s. That would have come from a rising population that would have occured closer to the core of the city.
I think it's bold to assume that the streetcar would not have been stigmatized along with other forms of public transit. There's a possibility that streetcars would be called "poor people's transit" in L.A., too, but this is a possibility that's rarely every acknowledged by streetcar lovers. They just all assume that people would have loved them forever and ever and ever and that the city would have taken on a completely different form as a result.
In short, why do you think that Angelenos would have a different attitude towards streetcars than buses if the former had hung around until the present day?
Last edited by BajanYankee; 09-11-2012 at 11:10 AM..
Google is pretty neat, you should try it. Seems Oklahoma City had parking meters back in 1936.
And Boston had a multilevel PAID parking structure in 1933. In 1935 there was a publication that noted which privately owned parking lots were open to Blacks. And I know you doubt there was paid parking in the 30s, 40s and 50s, but actually paid parking started in the 1910s. Seems early cars were not weatherproof and needed to be stored inside. And I believe it is spelled, "substantiate".
P.S. I was wrong, it was VERY easy to prove.
Okay. But you have to pay to ride a streetcar, too. So the question remains as to why anyone would ride a streetcar if they had a car? I'm sure the cost of parking was not prohibitive in 1920 since it's not even prohibitive in 2012 with hundreds of millions vehicles on the road. And it certainly must not have been prohibitive if 62 percent of people entering the L.A. CBD did so by car in 1929.
I think it's bold to assume that the streetcar would not have been stigmatized along with other forms of public transit. There's a possibility that streetcars would be called "poor people's transit" in L.A., too, but this is a possibility that's rarely every acknowledged by streetcar lovers. They just all assume that people would have loved them forever and ever and ever and that the city would have taken on a completely different form as a result.
It probably would have been stigmatized by a portion of the public at least, although, several surviving public transit systems were also stigmatized...even subway lines in Philly, NYC, etc. were stigmatized at some point and by some portion of population.
Several cities are currently looking to rehab or reinstall streetcar lines in the current day, and automobile ownership/usage is at an all-time high. Unfortunately, so much infrastructure exists in a different fashion (as well as so much cost is soaked up by maintaining current road networks and supporting services) that many cities can't afford to rehab/reinstall. Places where light rail or BRT has been reinstalled have seen pretty good initial ridership numbers, even in places where streetcars didn't exist in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
In short, why do you think that Angelenos would have a different attitude towards streetcars than buses if the former had hung around until the present day?
Because buses are loud, they pump out fumes, and the ride is usually much rougher. For me, it's the same reason I take the train up to NYC every time I visit, rather than take Bolt or Mega Bus.
Okay. But you have to pay to ride a streetcar, too. So the question remains as to why anyone would ride a streetcar if they had a car? I'm sure the cost of parking was not prohibitive in 1920 since it's not even prohibitive in 2012 with hundreds of millions vehicles on the road. And it certainly must not have been prohibitive if 62 percent of people entering the L.A. CBD did so by car in 1929.
Probably for the same reasons some people today that own a car ride public transit.
From my house to downtown Denver is 15 miles. The IRS tells me it costs $.55/mile to own and operate a private automobile, so $.55 x 30 miles = $16.50 plus parking ($6 to $18, lets say average of $12). So a total of $28. I can ride the bus for $2.25 x2=$4.50. If I go into Denver during the workday, I don't have to fight traffic so the bus is the obvious solution. If I go into Denver for the evening, I don't have to worry about how many drinks I have and "can I still drive?" I imagine the same reasons applied in the 30s, 40s and 50s.
Because buses are loud, they pump out fumes, and the ride is usually much rougher. For me, it's the same reason I take the train up to NYC every time I visit, rather than take Bolt or Mega Bus.
So basically you're projecting your attitude towards streetcars and buses on millions of other people. The fact that streetcar ridership declined precipitously after the rise of the auto pretty much shows that Angelenos of the 1920s and 30s did not regard it as fondly as you do. I have no reason to believe that PT ridership in LA would not have waned as quickly as it did had the streetcars stayed around. And "because they are cooler than buses" is not a valid basis for reaching a different conclusion.
Probably for the same reasons some people today that own a car ride public transit.
From my house to downtown Denver is 15 miles. The IRS tells me it costs $.55/mile to own and operate a private automobile, so $.55 x 30 miles = $16.50 plus parking ($6 to $18, lets say average of $12). So a total of $28. I can ride the bus for $2.25 x2=$4.50. If I go into Denver during the workday, I don't have to fight traffic so the bus is the obvious solution. If I go into Denver for the evening, I don't have to worry about how many drinks I have and "can I still drive?" I imagine the same reasons applied in the 30s, 40s and 50s.
And yet the overwhelming majority of Angelenos commute to work in a private vehicle even though there are far more vehicles today than there were in 1930 (which means that parking would have been cheaper).
There's no reason to assume that PT ridership would have been higher (or would be higher) if streetcars were around. PT ridership started declining before the removal of Los Angeles' streetcar lines. That's an unflattering fact you can't simply gloss over.
So basically you're projecting your attitude towards streetcars and buses on millions of other people. The fact that streetcar ridership declined precipitously after the rise of the auto pretty much shows that Angelenos of the 1920s and 30s did not regard it as fondly as you do. I have no reason to believe that PT ridership in LA would not have waned as quickly as it did had the streetcars stayed around. And "because they are cooler than buses" is not a valid basis for reaching a different conclusion.
Why do people buy cooler/sleaker cars than others? I doubt it's just because they cost more. I can't speak for millions of people (just as you can't), but it's pretty evident that people prefer modes of transportation that provide a smoother ride, are quieter, produce less fumes, etc.
The streetcar ridership declined precipitously because of the automobile at a 50,000 ft. level, but the reasons they chose the car are many. Policies/regulations, auto/tire/oil lobby, subsidies, preferences (e.g. one's cooler than the other), etc. Reverse some of the policies/regulations and subsidies and I think that LA is different to some extent; as to whether the streetcars would have survived, I don't know....maybe some.
And yet the overwhelming majority of Angelenos commute to work in a private vehicle even though there are far more vehicles today than there were in 1930 (which means that parking would have been cheaper).
There's no reason to assume that PT ridership would have been higher (or would be higher) if streetcars were around. PT ridership started declining before the removal of Los Angeles' streetcar lines. That's an unflattering fact you can't simply gloss over.
Not sure I glossed over any unflattering facts. I simply gave reasons that someone that owned a car might prefer mass transit. Cars out paced streetcars for many reasons, but the biggest was cars were new and shiny and offered freedom that did not exist with streetcars.
I went to grade school in the early 60s and remember a geography text book that stated the "US had unlimited natural resources". We were basically sold a lie, that the personal auto would solve all our problems with no downside. With 50 years of hindsight we can see the fallacy of that, but for some reason we continue to build our cities as if the single occupant personal automobile will always be the preferred means of transportation.
Why do people buy cooler/sleaker cars than others? I doubt it's just because they cost more. I can't speak for millions of people (just as you can't), but it's pretty evident that people prefer modes of transportation that provide a smoother ride, are quieter, produce less fumes, etc.
Well, their preference for smooth quiet rides was not that strong evidently. People turned to private cars and away from streetcars. And the rest is history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA
The streetcar ridership declined precipitously because of the automobile at a 50,000 ft. level, but the reasons they chose the car are many. Policies/regulations, auto/tire/oil lobby, subsidies, preferences (e.g. one's cooler than the other), etc. Reverse some of the policies/regulations and subsidies and I think that LA is different to some extent; as to whether the streetcars would have survived, I don't know....maybe some.
Don't the streetcars run on, well, streets? They run on the very same streets that cars run on. So if people ride streetcars, and then see that cars can take them up and down the same streets even faster (and on their own schedule), then how exactly is the auto-lobby implicated in the early move over to private vehicles?
I'm not a big fan of "the big bad auto lobby made people do it" theory. This commenter shares my opinion:
Quote:
Listen, I love conspiratorial LA history as told by Who Framed Roger Rabbit as much as anybody. But the pretty inescapable conclusion is that SoCal grew the way it did because people wanted it that way. Mid-century/post WWII folks didn't want to live in cities. Cities were crowded, dangerous and definitely not modern. An Eichler in Orange or a tract home in the Valley, with a yard and two cars in the garage: that's what most people wanted. That was new. That was now.
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.
