AHC: The privately owned car as a "Rich men toy"

During, 1920-1950 cars became the most popular means of transportation in the US, modeling society after it.

What could be done to keep the car as an eccentric luxury, instead of THE mode of transportation used in the US, and indeed most of the western world? How would the world look today?

The POD must be no earlier than 1910.
 
During, 1920-1950 cars became the most popular means of transportation in the US, modeling society after it.

What could be done to keep the car as an eccentric luxury, instead of THE mode of transportation used in the US, and indeed most of the western world? How would the world look today?

The POD must be no earlier than 1910.
Well, a recent Cracked article came out, detailing how the car really was considered just that til the 50s, because of the rapid growth and profit being made by electric, public transport....until the car companies basically made fake railway companies to buy out other real railway companies and slowly phasing them out to induce more automobile purchases.
 
Keep public transportation - in special, urban rapid transit rail systems - as the main target for investiment for the governments, rather than highways

Keeping a high price tag for automobiles is another way to delay it.
 
Well, a recent Cracked article came out, detailing how the car really was considered just that til the 50s, because of the rapid growth and profit being made by electric, public transport....until the car companies basically made fake railway companies to buy out other real railway companies and slowly phasing them out to induce more automobile purchases.

Actually they exagerated a bit. By the late 20s cars were fairly common. 15 million Model Ts were sold by 1927. The US had a population of 119 million then which meant it almost 13% of the population owned one. Considering they were owned by families and assuming at least 1/2 of the population were either children or elderly and most women were married and so didn't own a car themselves you are talking at least a quarter to a third of the population by 1927 and it went up from there. 25%+ hardly makes it a "rich man's toy", more for the upper middle and up.
 

Garrison

Donor
Actually they exagerated a bit. By the late 20s cars were fairly common. 15 million Model Ts were sold by 1927. The US had a population of 119 million then which meant it almost 13% of the population owned one. Considering they were owned by families and assuming at least 1/2 of the population were either children or elderly and most women were married and so didn't own a car themselves you are talking at least a quarter to a third of the population by 1927 and it went up from there. 25%+ hardly makes it a "rich man's toy", more for the upper middle and up.

But hardly ubiquitous and if the Cracked figures are low I think your figures are erring on the generous side, for example assuming all those model-T's sold were all still in service by 1927. Either way maintaining the public transport networks in those cities where the automobile companies did destroy them would have limited growth and kept prices higher.
 
But hardly ubiquitous and if the Cracked figures are low I think your figures are erring on the generous side, for example assuming all those model-T's sold were all still in service by 1927. Either way maintaining the public transport networks in those cities where the automobile companies did destroy them would have limited growth and kept prices higher.

Most of the cars would have still been on the road and Ford wasn't the only car company. Model Ts were mainly for the middle and upper middle class as the rich bought more expensive cars so as not to be confused with the plebes. In 1927 there were actually about 20 million cars on the road so I underestimated it. http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364/materials/cars/cars%20_30.htm That means about 16% of the population owned cars so we are talking at least a good third of all families. The numbers would have soared after the war regardless of what happened to rails as income went way up during and after the war.
 

Garrison

Donor
Most of the cars would have still been on the road and Ford wasn't the only car company. Model Ts were mainly for the middle and upper middle class as the rich bought more expensive cars so as not to be confused with the plebes. In 1927 there were actually about 20 million cars on the road so I underestimated it. http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364/materials/cars/cars%20_30.htm That means about 16% of the population owned cars so we are talking at least a good third of all families. The numbers would have soared after the war regardless of what happened to rails as income went way up during and after the war.

I can't help but notice you keep dodging around the point that's been raised; the car companies closed down rails because they couldn't hack the competition. Negating that won't restrict the car by itself but its a start.
 
I can't help but notice you keep dodging around the point that's been raised; the car companies closed down rails because they couldn't hack the competition. Negating that won't restrict the car by itself but its a start.

I'm not dodging it, by 1927 it was no longer a "rich man's toy". The purchase of rails by car companies made them even more common but it was already well into the middle class. From a business point of view it makes sense. It would have made no sense for them to buy and shut down rails if the cars they made were unaffordable for the middle class. All that would do is make sure people walk and the car companies would have lost a fortune. It only makes sense if people are able to afford your alternative (cars) after you close down the opposition.
 

Starseed

Banned
During, 1920-1950 cars became the most popular means of transportation in the US, modeling society after it.

What could be done to keep the car as an eccentric luxury, instead of THE mode of transportation used in the US, and indeed most of the western world? How would the world look today?

The POD must be no earlier than 1910.

Prevent automobile companies from purchasing local rail lines. Cracked just did a article on real world conspiracies, and that was one of the five mentioned.
 
Prevent automobile companies from purchasing local rail lines. Cracked just did a article on real world conspiracies, and that was one of the five mentioned.

Which is what we have been arguing about for the last few posts, it was not a "rich man's toy" long before that time. You really have to get rid of Henry Ford but I doubt even that would do it. Cars are simply too useful to remain "rich men's toys" forever.
 
It ought to be noted that any "inability to hack the competition" (strange how the party losing to its competitors is the one buying them out ) in terms of light rail didn't stop the automobile (and truck) from kicking short line railroads in the nads all over the country.

And if people are driving up to say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tamalpais instead of taking the train up to the top or threatening the business of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Pacific_Railroad - obviously the automobile is popular enough to be a problem.

Picking two relatively local examples, because I know more about California railroad history than say, New England's.

A POD after 1910 is a bit late in their development to keep the attitude of them being merely for the rich.
 
You really have to get rid of Henry Ford but I doubt even that would do it.
Especially not as Ransom Olds actually invented it. In fact I can't see any way that you could do it, sooner or later someone's going to start up a production line.
 
During, 1920-1950 cars became the most popular means of transportation in the US, modeling society after it.

What could be done to keep the car as an eccentric luxury, instead of THE mode of transportation used in the US, and indeed most of the western world? How would the world look today?

The POD must be no earlier than 1910.
Public transportation out the yang.

You need city governments to invest in busses, trains and subweays to the extent that it is cheaper for each individual to use them than to own a car.

You also need some way to PREVENT the rise of the suburban neiborhoods and housing projects and keep up the old style "Neighborhoods" such as were once the big thing in major cities.

People need stores to be close enough to their homes that they can take groceries home in one or two person loads in dribs and drabs on public transportation.

Perhaps some kind of economic crash to prevent or forestall the economic boom that made it possible for people in the majority to own their own homes and cars.

This will mean keeping Americans overall less prosperous whitch will mean making it a lot toucher for supply side and wealth friendly politicians to get very far i nAMerica as owning a home or a car will NOT be something most Americans can afford to do.
 

NothingNow

Banned
You need city governments to invest in busses, trains and subweays to the extent that it is cheaper for each individual to use them than to own a car.

You also need some way to PREVENT the rise of the suburban neiborhoods and housing projects and keep up the old style "Neighborhoods" such as were once the big thing in major cities.

Nah, what you need is at the most, Zoning boards forcing (and the market encouraging) developers to build streetcar suburbs, and in a fairly dense manner, like thirteen or so homes per Acre (43,560 square feet,) or a buildable one anyway (since a two lane road, with a 27-foot wide road, two driving lanes and a parking one @ 9ft each takes up some space) or about 3200 square feet per lot. Which is actually kinda generous for building Normal Bungalows, (since you're talking a 40ft by 80 foot lot, as was custom,) plenty of space for a 3bed 1bath home with a yard (sufficient for a family of four to six in this period, but capable of accommodating far more,) and a garage, if you're willing to build a 2 story structure (which is actually a good 15-25% cheaper per square foot to build since foundations are expensive.
So, on an acre, you can squeeze in thirteen families totaling fifty to eighty people, in comfortable dwellings.

A 27 foot road is ofcourse the minimum unless you're planning on placing a driveway and a garage in every lot, so as to allow people to park on the street. If you're putting in all of that, you can safely shrink the road to 18 feet, (either way you will need a sidewalk though, which will cut buildable area by a bit, with a recommended minimum of 10 feet between the outside edge of the sidewalk and the curb, so it'll eat 38 to 47 feet.)

Of course, on that same lot, with Through Terraced houses, including the sidewalk, and everything placed properly (figure a 99 by 440 foot acre lot, a 38foot road bisecting the long side, thus creating two 99x201foot areas) you could fit 20 lots of 20x99 feet (1980 square foot footprint for each) figuring a 20x10 foot (200square feet) space out back, that's a 1780 square feet for the house, buildable up three or four stories easily, for 5340 sqft (3 stories) or 7120 sqft (4 stories) per building. Which is space for a hell of a lot of people, since that's space for a two car garage (and since two cars only takes up a 20' by 20' space, with 1300 sqft for a massive utility space) on the ground floor, with each floor above that be plenty of space for a 3bed/1bath unit. So, at 2 units per building (three stories, including the garage,) at 20 per acre, that's 120 bedrooms, capable of accommodating something like 160 to 240 people per acre.

But after all of that, with streetcar suburbs, you'd normally build everything so that the shops would be next to your stop, not more than say a thousand feet away, and would be fairly small by modern standards, since a Supermarket back in the fifties was between 10,000 and 25000 square feet (with the median @ ~15-16,000 sqft) while previously, a grocery would normally be under 10,000 sqft. Other Shops would generally be a bit smaller, and folks would do their shopping for goods like clothing in Department Stores, and the cheaper five and dimes, usually in centralized areas.

Keep that sort of Development pattern (hub and spoke pretty much) enshrined in city codes, and you could presumably keep the car marginalized long term.
 
SergeantHeretic, NothingNow: So how do you keep the automobile from driving up to Mount Tam? Or to Yosemite (although that railroad was killed after the car's monemtum has become unstoppable, and staggering debts had something to do with it)

It's not like that was done by the rich and the rich alone.

Picking examples of things that rail lost to the automobile over, and not even as in trucks.
 
I think its pretty impossible to keep the car a rich mans toy, you would not only need a different economy, you would more or less need a different society too.
What is possible is keeping the car a luxury item, and far less general than otl.

you would need a government that taxes cars & fuel extensively.
And no national highway plan.
It is possible to keep trains and other public transportation viable on the long & intermediate distances. on short distances its only possible in the bigger cities, but there you need local authorities investing (and believing in) public transportation(and makes owning a car difficult, like what japan does). but in the end i still think you would get situation where the car would be a family item, the family car, so at 1 per family.
 
capitalist, fascist and communists saw the car as a toy for the masses. so i dont see how it can stay one for the rich only.

they all can make cars cheap enough so that only the rich will buy horses and train tickets.
 
SergeantHeretic, NothingNow: So how do you keep the automobile from driving up to Mount Tam? Or to Yosemite (although that railroad was killed after the car's monemtum has become unstoppable, and staggering debts had something to do with it)

It's not like that was done by the rich and the rich alone.

Picking examples of things that rail lost to the automobile over, and not even as in trucks.
DO I know? this wasn't my idea I was just throwing an idea out there like the O.P. asked for.
 

NothingNow

Banned
SergeantHeretic, NothingNow: So how do you keep the automobile from driving up to Mount Tam? Or to Yosemite (although that railroad was killed after the car's monemtum has become unstoppable, and staggering debts had something to do with it)

It's not like that was done by the rich and the rich alone.

Picking examples of things that rail lost to the automobile over, and not even as in trucks.

Well, that's different, related, and very simple. If it's more convenient to not use a car at home, (especially if there is never adequate parking where consumers need it,) people will be far less likely to use them while traveling.

Also, have the National Parks Service severely restrict Automobiles in National Parks, to prevent pollution, and damage to the environment (People are idiots and cars of the era were very dirty, so it makes a hell of a lot of sense, especially if very few people actually drive in the parks to begin with, and keep hitting things.)
 
Top