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.
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.
I fully agree with you, but I suggest that the premise of this thread is doomed to fail if we don't use that hindsight to level the playing field. Otherwise, we're going to keep saying "LA would look the same". And of course it would, because we'd only be assuming that the city decided to pay for an unprofitable and irrelevant system for 80 - 90 years; which would mean that roads and built environment goes largely unchanged.
I fully agree with you, but I suggest that the premise of this thread is doomed to fail if we don't use that hindsight to level the playing field. Otherwise, we're going to keep saying "LA would look the same". And of course it would, because we'd only be assuming that the city decided to pay for an unprofitable and irrelevant system for 80 - 90 years; which would mean that roads and built environment goes largely unchanged.
That makes for a pretty boring thread.
The premise being that people would keep riding streetcars so long as they were there?
The premise being that people would keep riding streetcars so long as they were there?
Kind of, but more specifically, what would LA look like if automobiles and streetcars were both utilized through 2012? The assumption being that autos and streetcars both had enough acceptance and usage to keep them viable without abandonment at any point.
That's the only way that LA might look different IMO.
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?
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?
Because family sizes were bigger and two cars per family were very rare, more people rode streetcars.
Actually most big city downtowns had paid parking by the 1930s.
Handling the influx of private cars to a downtown became a cashflow opportunity for the few vacant lots in the central cities. Prior to the 1920s there was little or no offstreet parking and the limited street parking quickly was insufficient.
Kind of, but more specifically, what would LA look like if automobiles and streetcars were both utilized through 2012? The assumption being that autos and streetcars both had enough acceptance and usage to keep them viable without abandonment at any point.
That's the only way that LA might look different IMO.
But my point is that cars drove down not only streetcar usage, but public transit use in general. This was not something specific to Los Angeles. When cars were introduced, fewer people used transit even in more traditional urban centers.
The question you're really getting at is whether ridership on streetcars would have been higher than on the buses that replaced them. I think it's tough to argue that that would have been the case given the high rate of automobile use prior to the elimination of streetcar lines.
Because family sizes were bigger and two cars per family were very rare, more people rode streetcars.
Actually most big city downtowns had paid parking by the 1930s.
Handling the influx of private cars to a downtown became a cashflow opportunity for the few vacant lots in the central cities. Prior to the 1920s there was little or no offstreet parking and the limited street parking quickly was insufficient.
Do you have any academic source to support anything that you've just said? And no, an internet blog does not qualify as an "academic source."
Because family sizes were bigger and two cars per family were very rare, more people rode streetcars.
Actually most big city downtowns had paid parking by the 1930s. Handling the influx of private cars to a downtown became a cashflow opportunity for the few vacant lots in the central cities. Prior to the 1920s there was little or no offstreet parking and the limited street parking quickly was insufficient.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Do you have any academic source to support anything that you've just said? And no, an internet blog does not qualify as an "academic source."
Not sure what you need proof of, but I'll direct you to sources.
"family sizes were bigger" Try the US Census (realize this is not an "academic" source, but it is often quoted for population figures).
"two cars per family were rare" AAA has statistics on this.
"most big cities downtowns had paid parking by the 1930s" This one is hard to prove or disprove.
I am very familiar with the development of the three cities I have lived in because I spend time studing historical photos of the downtown areas. All three had almost zero vacant land devoted to surface parking in the 1910s thru say 1920 (other than street parking). By the 1930s there was a significant amount of prime downtown real estate devoted to storing cars. By the 1960s, some downtowns had as much as 30%+ of lots in the downtown devoted to parking. I've made the assumption that most other cities had similar development of parking downtown. Notice I used the word "most", not "all". YMMV
Uhhh....why would people in 1930s, 1940s and 1950s Los Angeles ride streetcars if they had cars?
Then - there wasn't much motivation. Nice new expressways, free-flowing traffic, "you can get anywhere in LA in 20 minutes"....
Today? The motivation is crippling, life-draining traffic, the worst in the nation.
At this point Los Angeles actually has a fairly low amount of freeway lanes per-capita, because the city has dramatically increased in density while showing relatively little interest in freeway expansion. In fact, the current freeway project in LA / Pasadena (710 Big Dig / Connector) which would connect the 710 and the 210, is vehemently opposed by just about everyone in the county. It actually looks like the money for the project may be redirected to LRT or BRT because those are the only two options that don't send the locals in that area into a tizzy.
Not sure what you need proof of, but I'll direct you to sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline
"most big cities downtowns had paid parking by the 1930s" This one is hard to prove or disprove.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline
All three had almost zero vacant land devoted to surface parking in the 1910s thru say 1920 (other than street parking).
This makes sense seeing that the mass production of the auto didn't commence until 1913. But again, how does this prove your point that people were paying for parking way back when?
But my point is that cars drove down not only streetcar usage, but public transit use in general. This was not something specific to Los Angeles. When cars were introduced, fewer people used transit even in more traditional urban centers.
The question you're really getting at is whether ridership on streetcars would have been higher than on the buses that replaced them. I think it's tough to argue that that would have been the case given the high rate of automobile use prior to the elimination of streetcar lines.
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.
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. 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.
People who could afford it, would pay a premium to move to the burbs: Toll roads, higher gas prices, higher cost of purchase, higher cost of infrastructure extensions (e.g. sewers, electrical) due to lower density population.
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.
