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.
We've got a very cool streetcar museum here in town, with a 1/4 mile loop for short rides on restored cars ranging in age from 130 years to 50 years. There are a handful of old motormen who hang out there as well; one told me a while back that when buses replaced the streetcars, rideship dropped by 50%. But I can't find any stats online to back that up.
We've got a very cool streetcar museum here in town, with a 1/4 mile loop for short rides on restored cars ranging in age from 130 years to 50 years. There are a handful of old motormen who hang out there as well; one told me a while back that when buses replaced the streetcars, rideship dropped by 50%. But I can't find any stats online to back that up.
Yeah, I would definitely like to see some stats on that. Even if true, I would not be surprised if the decline in ridership coincided with an increase in auto ownership. I seriously doubt that many people stopped riding transit overnight because they found buses repulsive.
People tend to be prisoners of the moment. Streetcars were mundane and not as "groovy" back then as they are now. Philadelphia got rid of a trolley line that ran through my neighborhood, and aside from a few transit nuts, nobody made a big stink about it. People just switched over to the new fleet of Septa buses.
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.
The point here is that streetcars have allure that buses don't, because they provide a less noisy, more comfortable ride.
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?
Buses and cars were competitors to streetcars. Purchasing a streetcar company and replacing streetcar stock with your own product (buses) has a pretty straight-forward cost-benefit.
I'm not a big fan of "the big bad auto lobby made people do it" theory. This commenter shares my opinion:
Do you think that automobiles had an advantage over other forms of transportation in the way of regulations on rail transportation, zoning laws/regulations, oil subsidies, and road and infrastructure subsidies (e.g. public roads)?
The point here is that streetcars have allure that buses don't, because they provide a less noisy, more comfortable ride.
And my point is that the allure of the streetcar must not have been that strong because 62 percent of people entering the CBD in 1929 did so by car. Even if streetcars had remained in place, there's really nothing they could have done to check the decentralizing forces at play, the greatest of which was the automobile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA
Buses and cars were competitors to streetcars. Purchasing a streetcar company and replacing streetcar stock with your own product (buses) has a pretty straight-forward cost-benefit.
I think you need to get your chronology straight. Were the streetcar lines all bought up and junked by the big bad auto companies by 1929?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA
Do you think that automobiles had an advantage over other forms of transportation in the way of regulations on rail transportation, zoning laws/regulations, oil subsidies, and road and infrastructure subsidies (e.g. public roads)?
Do streetcars and cars not run on the same streets? The infrastructure that cars depend on is the same infrastructurestreetcars depend on.
Yeah, I would definitely like to see some stats on that. Even if true, I would not be surprised if the decline in ridership coincided with an increase in auto ownership. I seriously doubt that many people stopped riding transit overnight because they found buses repulsive.
People tend to be prisoners of the moment. Streetcars were mundane and not as "groovy" back then as they are now. Philadelphia got rid of a trolley line that ran through my neighborhood, and aside from a few transit nuts, nobody made a big stink about it. People just switched over to the new fleet of Septa buses.
You might be right. One thing that is certain is bus technology really didn't reach the comfort of rail til recently (in my opinion). There's such a difference between even the oldest buses in our fleet and the new ones, and there's only 15 years' difference or so.
I could see the smoky, loud 50s GM buses as being repulsive compared to an electric PCC.
And my point is that the allure of the streetcar must not have been that strong because 62 percent of people entering the CBD in 1929 did so by car. Even if streetcars had remained in place, there's really nothing they could have done to check the decentralizing forces at play, the greatest of which was the automobile.
Very true, but see my question at the end of this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
I think you need to get your chronology straight. Were the streetcar lines all bought up and junked by the big bad auto companies by 1929?
No, they were mostly bought and retired through the 30s and 40s. However, that doesn't mean that there weren't several factors that hurt the viability of the system, as such:
Quote:
The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 caused great difficulties for the streetcar operators by making it illegal for a single business to both provide public transport and supply electricity to other parties. E. Quinby later asked "Who is behind this campaign to separate the obviously economical combination of electric railway and its power plant?".[n 4]
When the New York Railways Corporation converted streetcars to buses in 1935 and 1936, the new bus services were operated by the New York City Omnibus Corporation which shared management with The Omnibus Corporation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Do streetcars and cars not run on the same streets? The infrastructure that cars depend on is the same infrastructurestreetcars depend on.
But you're missing one huge piece. Streetcars wouldn't and don't run on every street. They certainly wouldn't run on highways, low density suburban roads, country roads, etc. The automobile requires a far more vast network of roads and parking to make it as effective as it is today. This is part of the "but buses, trolleys and trains can't take you everywhere like a car can" argument.
That being said:
Do you think that automobiles had an advantage over other forms of transportation in the way of regulations on rail transportation, zoning laws/regulations, oil subsidies, and road and infrastructure subsidies (e.g. public roads)?
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.
And that freedom isn't something that's changed. Cars today offer way more freedom than the cars of 1920 (despite what the Grist/transit hounds may try to lie to you about, just like your government issued text books ). A Model T got somewhere between 15-20 mpg back in 1920 when gas cost 30 cents a gallon and one could hop on a streetcar for just 5 cents. But a Model T by today's standards is a horrible car. Uncomfortable, unsafe, unreliable, slow. Today's cars are just better as it the road network today. And gas is cheaper, too. For the cost of a 5 cent fare, you could go somewhere around 2.5-3.3 miles in your rickety, Model T. Today for the price of a $2 bus ticket, you can go 10 miles in your full-sized Ford Taurus, a five occupant vehicle. Even a seven-occupant minivan isn't much worse. Will it change? Maybe, maybe not. In 50 years' time I personally think that battery technology will be to where it really doesn't matter what the price of gasoline is. At any rate, most streetcar operators were no longer profitable by the late 1920s. Assuming the viability of the streetcar today when driving is way better and three times cheaper than it was when it started putting the streetcars out of business is... well, rather odd.
But you're missing one huge piece. Streetcars wouldn't and don't run on every street. They certainly wouldn't run on highways, low density suburban roads, country roads, etc. The automobile requires a far more vast network of roads and parking to make it as effective as it is today. This is part of the "but buses, trolleys and trains can't take you everywhere like a car can" argument.
What does that have to do with automobile use within the city? In 1920, there were not many "suburban" roads in much of the country to begin with because most cities (particularly eastern cities) did not have huge sprawling suburbs. Thus, almost all of the travel people did by car was within the city limits (for people who lived in cities, that is).
What does that have to do with automobile use within the city? In 1920, there were not many "suburban" roads in much of the country to begin with because most cities (particularly eastern cities) did not have huge sprawling suburbs. Thus, almost all of the travel people did by car was within the city limits (for people who lived in cities, that is).
As LA grew, it did so at a low density within the city limits. It got away from its streetcar layout because of the growth of the car (unless I'm mistaken). That's the point of this thread, I thought.
As LA grew, it did so at a low density within the city limits. It got away from its streetcar layout because of the growth of the car (unless I'm mistaken). That's the point of this thread, I thought.
So in other words, the city would have had an auto-centric layout whether streetcars were running down its streets or not.
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.
