[lvoc]

You are missing the growth of the automobile and the roads to support it.

In Los Angeles the street car lost to the bus and the automobile. It was a consumer choice thing.

I would also note the street car routes were often a builder gimmick to provide access to new tracts before the wide availability of the automobile. They were not very well run or popular after the developments were completed. Many, if not most, were not financially viable except as a government service.

I am not suggesting that light rail cannot be built. Just that it is not even remotely cost effective. Only a very few places like NYC does it work well.

[oomph]

Lvoc, I respectfully disagree with you about why mass transit disappeared in Los Angeles. Mass transit disappeared in Los Angeles due to powerful lobbies within the auto and tire industries.

[Bruff]

Is the Monorail a charity? Yes.
lovc
On the Monorail being a charity, try this: Las Vegas Monorail's Charity Status Stays - 8 News NOW
As for ''financial backing from government", that's I said it was 'backed'. The state just issued the bonds and gave it charity status; someone else 'backed' them - and then, as I said, after the spit hit the fan, jumped ship, and when it declared bankruptcy. Then with the stroke of his pen, state-issued judge gave it a clean slate.
If you want a good read on the Monorail, this:
Nevada Journal: The Moolah Rail
and this
Nevada Journal: Stalking the Public Purse

[BBMW]

What was built out before the car became dominant still works with rail based mass transit (think the big eastern cities.). By land area, especially west of the Mississippi, most of what's been developed has been built around cars. Rail transit does not back fill well into this, and it never will. Either you,all have to run rail lines out to where you could do greenfield development around the rail lines, or try to run line where possible into the suburban network, and try to desuburbanize those areas (usually facing huge resistance from the current residents.)

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

We had a robust rail system up until the 1930s. Ninety percent of all vehicular traffic in the US was streetcars. That was all dismantled. Don't tell me something cannot be done when our grandparents and great-grandparents were more than capable of doing it.

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by BBMW

What was built out before the car became dominant still works with rail based mass transit (think the big eastern cities.). By land area, especially west of the Mississippi, most of what's been developed has been built around cars. Rail transit does not back fill well into this, and it never will. Either you,all have to run rail lines out to where you could do greenfield development around the rail lines, or try to run line where possible into the suburban network, and try to desuburbanize those areas (usually facing huge resistance from the current residents.)

The west coast led the way for light rail systems. At one time, the United States had the best mass transit system in the world. If we could simply replace what we had -- with 1930s technology -- our system would STILL be better than what most of the world currently uses.

This whole, "the West is car culture" is a line of bull that has been fed to us since the 1950s. It has no basis in fact, or history. These small regional rail lines were profitable and self-sustaining. They didn't require government subsidies because they ran so well that people enjoyed using them. And it was SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive than buying and maintaining a car.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

The west coast led the way for light rail systems. At one time, the United States had the best mass transit system in the world. If we could simply replace what we had -- with 1930s technology -- our system would STILL be better than what most of the world currently uses.

This whole, "the West is car culture" is a line of bull that has been fed to us since the 1950s. It has no basis in fact, or history. These small regional rail lines were profitable and self-sustaining. They didn't require government subsidies because they ran so well that people enjoyed using them. And it was SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive than buying and maintaining a car.

The present general outcome is that fixed rail systems pay less than half their operating costs. None, such as the LV Monorail, can pay their costs of completion.

One of the major analyst on the subject suggests that a density an order of magnitude greater than exists in the west is necessary to support fixed rail mass transit.

As I understand it the Red Car lines in Los Angeles were never very profitable and closed when the freeways became common.

[ScoopLV]

You understand it incorrectly. Read up on it, if you care to. You will discover that our once great infrastructure was systematically dismantled. The profitability of today's rail is the result of decades of ripped-up track and closed-down lines. And the various light rail systems all turned a profit -- some better than others -- but a decent profit none the less. Railroad stock was once THE stable, long-term investment. It was better than utilities and municipal bonds. It was just as safe and returned better dividends.

We didn't abandon rail for cars. The switch was shoved down our throats.

[NLVgal]

The monorail was a dismal failure because of the usual reasons around here. Corruption and influence. The casinos lobbied against it going down the strip because it might block their signs, and the taxi cab authority fought it being extended to the airport for obvious reasons.

It also helped that we had one of the most corrupt county commissions ever, seated at that time. Some of them are just getting out of jail now.

[newopty]

Originally Posted by NLVgal

The monorail was a dismal failure because of the usual reasons around here. Corruption and influence. The casinos lobbied against it going down the strip because it might block their signs, and the taxi cab authority fought it being extended to the airport for obvious reasons.

It also helped that we had one of the most corrupt county commissions ever, seated at that time. Some of them are just getting out of jail now.

Maybe we should have a thread "Which is the most corrupt city or state?". Four of the last nine governors of Illinois ended up in jail. Can anybody beat that record?

[BBMW]

How it happened isn't relevant at this point. If you feel it's something that needs to be changed, you have to come up with a way of changing it. Even if the US's car-centrism was the result of some vast auto industry conspiracy, we have to deal with what we have.

In most of the country what we have is a lot of roads, communities that are spread out around the road network, and that don't retrofit well to a mass transit type transportation network (which really needs density to be effective.)

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

The west coast led the way for light rail systems. At one time, the United States had the best mass transit system in the world. If we could simply replace what we had -- with 1930s technology -- our system would STILL be better than what most of the world currently uses.

This whole, "the West is car culture" is a line of bull that has been fed to us since the 1950s. It has no basis in fact, or history. These small regional rail lines were profitable and self-sustaining. They didn't require government subsidies because they ran so well that people enjoyed using them. And it was SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive than buying and maintaining a car.