Oh very cool. I've spent some time researching LA transit in the 1980s for my TL, man what an asset a surviving system like the one you're sketching would be to that city.
Totally fair: outside New York. Inside New York Robert Moses rules. Like seriously, this guy was more powerful than Governors or Mayors and his influence on the Interstate system and all highway construction in the entire country was more than well anyone, by far, first to build means he trained multiple entire generations of anti-transit road builders. Even his most powerful enemy, FDR, as President could only fight him to a limited extent after being beaten badly when he was Governor. (The Power Broker is an amazing book
)
If you really want to change anything in NY the combo of FDR & LaGuardia is about even in power to Moses (briefly and sort of in certain areas, with New Deal money leverage), or you could have Governor Smith fall-out with Moses or something. Because once Moses invents the Authority, he's untouchable for a very long time. I've often pondered a timeline on him, heh
Totally fair: outside New York. Inside New York Robert Moses rules. Like seriously, this guy was more powerful than Governors or Mayors and his influence on the Interstate system and all highway construction in the entire country was more than well anyone, by far, first to build means he trained multiple entire generations of anti-transit road builders. Even his most powerful enemy, FDR, as President could only fight him to a limited extent after being beaten badly when he was Governor. (The Power Broker is an amazing book
)If you really want to change anything in NY the combo of FDR & LaGuardia is about even in power to Moses (briefly and sort of in certain areas, with New Deal money leverage), or you could have Governor Smith fall-out with Moses or something. Because once Moses invents the Authority, he's untouchable for a very long time. I've often pondered a timeline on him, heh
After mention of the 1925 Kelker report I was going to ask whether Chicago would be getting any attention considering that they had their own one a couple of years previously. Nice to see that it is, although hopefully it's more than they got in our timeline.
Alex Richards
Donor
I really have no idea what's different to OTL (If anything) at this point, but this is fascinating none the less.
DO YOU LIKE MULTIQUOTES? *sound of smashing crockery*
Well, at present the Pacific Electric use the same type of cars in the subway - which I should point out uses overhead power - and while I haven't worked out what sort of cars the LATC uses for the local services (most of which are taken over from the numbered lines of the LARy network), I think they'd use coupled PCC cars at this point as those would be the easiest to get hold of (you might use surplus trains from NYC or Chicago, but those would need conversion from third rail to overhead, plus subway trains on streets is never a great idea), but suffice it to say that this will change as lines start to be grade-separated.
I would love to see your ideas for this - rolling stock tends not to be where I focus my interest, so I haven't really thought much about that. If you share the drawings in this thread, be sure to not make the pictures too big - that can mess with people's internet connection.
Oh, as a sidenote - the LATC uses blue for its rolling stock, and will eventually become known as the "Blue Cars". I think the surface vehicles might remain yellow and white after LARy is bought out, as a nod to tradition.
Thanks - for a city as large as LA with a system as mythologized as LA's, research was actually relatively easy. Now, as for the other three cities…
It really is amazing how many times something like this was proposed, and how many times it either languished in development hell forever or was put to a ballot and defeated by public apathy and anti-tax sentiment (it's easy to forget for us here in The Magic Lands of Yerp, but California is of course basically Switzerland in terms of direct democracy) before the Metrorail proposal finally got passed in the late 80s.
My idea is for transit-freeway integration, Chicago-style, to become a common feature of American city planning as we move into the post-war boom (more on that in the next update, which is being written as we speak) - I'm not sure where Moses would stand on that, but it doesn't really seem like his bag given how he prioritized greenspace around the freeways in NY. You'll notice that I rather sneakily got rid of NCL in the last update though, so perhaps Moses can get brought down by LaGuardia off-screen, as it were.
I will freely admit I haven't given Chicago much thought either, but I envision their Depression-era upgrades being fundamentally the same as OTL. That doesn't mean the growth stops there, of course - they were largely passed over by the OTL 70s transit boom, which needn't be the case ITTL.
Thanks!
That's exactly how the Broadway subway works at present, but the LATC's goal is to turn it into a proper subway system with full grade separation along its entire route (which at present encompasses the "numbered" LARy routes aside from route 3, as well as route W and through reciprocal operation, the PE Southern District routes that ran west of the Watts junction IOTL). After the war, as transit philosophy changes, the new extensions will generally be in the form of standalone grade-separated rapid transit.
Well, IOTL there was no Broadway subway, which is the main change thus far. Rapid transit was planned over and over again, but a combination of public apathy, the poor reputation of transit in the public eye, and California's insane level of direct democracy (basically any tax rise has to be put to a public vote, in addition to citizens being able to block legislation through ballot initiatives) meant that it never got done. The PE remained an on-street operation in downtown, with all that entailed for congestion, and ultimately got bought out by the city and torn down in the late 50s. Meanwhile, LARy was taken over by NCL and shut down gradually over the course of the 50s, leaving LA - a city of four million people by this time - with only bus transit.
That's an interesting idea, and resembles the way they were run IOTL, but I'm not sure how true we'll stay to it as a concept ITTL - many of the PE Western District's routes are going to end up integrated into the LATC network, and the PE will gradually sort of come to function as an urban rapid transit system on the Eastside - I do think it's broadly going to hold true.
Very interesting this TL. If possible, i have curiosity in would like what rolling stock that Pacific Electric going to use in the subway lines. I Made some fantasy drawings of EMUs in P.E., If interest you.
Well, at present the Pacific Electric use the same type of cars in the subway - which I should point out uses overhead power - and while I haven't worked out what sort of cars the LATC uses for the local services (most of which are taken over from the numbered lines of the LARy network), I think they'd use coupled PCC cars at this point as those would be the easiest to get hold of (you might use surplus trains from NYC or Chicago, but those would need conversion from third rail to overhead, plus subway trains on streets is never a great idea), but suffice it to say that this will change as lines start to be grade-separated.
I would love to see your ideas for this - rolling stock tends not to be where I focus my interest, so I haven't really thought much about that. If you share the drawings in this thread, be sure to not make the pictures too big - that can mess with people's internet connection.
Oh, as a sidenote - the LATC uses blue for its rolling stock, and will eventually become known as the "Blue Cars". I think the surface vehicles might remain yellow and white after LARy is bought out, as a nod to tradition.
This is really cool, Ares. You've really done your research, and it shows.
Thanks - for a city as large as LA with a system as mythologized as LA's, research was actually relatively easy. Now, as for the other three cities…
It really is amazing how many times something like this was proposed, and how many times it either languished in development hell forever or was put to a ballot and defeated by public apathy and anti-tax sentiment (it's easy to forget for us here in The Magic Lands of Yerp, but California is of course basically Switzerland in terms of direct democracy) before the Metrorail proposal finally got passed in the late 80s.
Totally fair: outside New York. Inside New York Robert Moses rules. Like seriously, this guy was more powerful than Governors or Mayors and his influence on the Interstate system and all highway construction in the entire country was more than well anyone, by far, first to build means he trained multiple entire generations of anti-transit road builders. Even his most powerful enemy, FDR, as President could only fight him to a limited extent after being beaten badly when he was Governor. (The Power Broker is an amazing book
If you really want to change anything in NY the combo of FDR & LaGuardia is about even in power to Moses (briefly and sort of in certain areas, with New Deal money leverage), or you could have Governor Smith fall-out with Moses or something. Because once Moses invents the Authority, he's untouchable for a very long time. I've often pondered a timeline on him, heh
My idea is for transit-freeway integration, Chicago-style, to become a common feature of American city planning as we move into the post-war boom (more on that in the next update, which is being written as we speak) - I'm not sure where Moses would stand on that, but it doesn't really seem like his bag given how he prioritized greenspace around the freeways in NY. You'll notice that I rather sneakily got rid of NCL in the last update though, so perhaps Moses can get brought down by LaGuardia off-screen, as it were.
After mention of the 1925 Kelker report I was going to ask whether Chicago would be getting any attention considering that they had their own one a couple of years previously. Nice to see that it is, although hopefully it's more than they got in our timeline.
I will freely admit I haven't given Chicago much thought either, but I envision their Depression-era upgrades being fundamentally the same as OTL. That doesn't mean the growth stops there, of course - they were largely passed over by the OTL 70s transit boom, which needn't be the case ITTL.
Very interesting timeline so far. Always love public transit timelines.
Thanks!
That's exactly how the Broadway subway works at present, but the LATC's goal is to turn it into a proper subway system with full grade separation along its entire route (which at present encompasses the "numbered" LARy routes aside from route 3, as well as route W and through reciprocal operation, the PE Southern District routes that ran west of the Watts junction IOTL). After the war, as transit philosophy changes, the new extensions will generally be in the form of standalone grade-separated rapid transit.
Well, IOTL there was no Broadway subway, which is the main change thus far. Rapid transit was planned over and over again, but a combination of public apathy, the poor reputation of transit in the public eye, and California's insane level of direct democracy (basically any tax rise has to be put to a public vote, in addition to citizens being able to block legislation through ballot initiatives) meant that it never got done. The PE remained an on-street operation in downtown, with all that entailed for congestion, and ultimately got bought out by the city and torn down in the late 50s. Meanwhile, LARy was taken over by NCL and shut down gradually over the course of the 50s, leaving LA - a city of four million people by this time - with only bus transit.
That's an interesting idea, and resembles the way they were run IOTL, but I'm not sure how true we'll stay to it as a concept ITTL - many of the PE Western District's routes are going to end up integrated into the LATC network, and the PE will gradually sort of come to function as an urban rapid transit system on the Eastside - I do think it's broadly going to hold true.
The same as our timeline? Hhmm. The 1970s transit boom is somewhat more acceptable. I have a feeling that The Man On Five might of had something to say about the city not getting what he saw as its fair share of any earlier extra funding though.
Hello Ares96. Here´s my idea of what a Broadway Subway rolling stock could be, and futures rapid transit lines in great L.A. could use. This train is similar to Interborough Fleet of New York, but run under wires and made by A.C.F. and St. Louis Car Company. In this drawing, the train was the Pacific Electric scheme. His consist is of 4 cars, but can be formed trains of up to 8 cars, depending on platform size. I Hope can help with your TL.
Penny for The Guy
Banned
In 1947...
Eddie Valiant said, "Who needs a car in L.A.? We have the best public transportation system in the world."
Eddie Valiant said, "Who needs a car in L.A.? We have the best public transportation system in the world."
If you have cars that run on overhead wires they can be used for subways, grade separated/median strip rapid transit, and for non grade separated lines that at least in part run on streets. This allows some commonality of cars, and allows cars usually used for non-rapid service to use rapid lines on off hours to go to yards and shops which is a big efficiency savings. Using overhead wires is no restrain on train speed for rapid lines.
One way to encourage transit is that when the interstate system funding/idea begins in the 50's, it is mandated that in urban/suburban areas there be transit running down center of highways at grade or elevated (like Chicago to O'Hare). Also mandating that federal money for airport construction expansion is tied to rapid transit connecting the city to the airport for cities/airports over a given size.
One way to encourage transit is that when the interstate system funding/idea begins in the 50's, it is mandated that in urban/suburban areas there be transit running down center of highways at grade or elevated (like Chicago to O'Hare). Also mandating that federal money for airport construction expansion is tied to rapid transit connecting the city to the airport for cities/airports over a given size.
Hello Ares96. Here´s my idea of what a Broadway Subway rolling stock could be, and futures rapid transit lines in great L.A. could use. This train is similar to Interborough Fleet of New York, but run under wires and made by A.C.F. and St. Louis Car Company. In this drawing, the train was the Pacific Electric scheme. His consist is of 4 cars, but can be formed trains of up to 8 cars, depending on platform size. I Hope can help with your TL.
Oh, that's nice. Physically the cars also resemble the OTL PE stock, which is an added bonus. As for the platform size, I'd guess the Broadway subway (which is after all future proofing incarnate as of the present time) would be built for eight cars, but aside from the added wartime traffic, actual eight-car trains would be very rare, with most traffic being handled by four or six-car trains.
Eddie Valiant said, "Who needs a car in L.A.? We have the best public transportation system in the world."
I was actually contemplating using a Roger Rabbit quote for the title of the TL, but being unfamiliar with the movie that would've probably sounded artificial, so I went for the more obvious Tennessee Williams reference.
Yes, that's the idea. It's fairly common in Stadtbahn/premetro systems in Europe, which are built to the exact specifications you describe (rapid tunnels in city centers, at-grade streetcar track in the older suburbs and generally full rapid transit standards on newer suburban lines).
Hmm, yes, I'm not sure if mandating it is something I'll want to do, but the plan is for it to be a mainstay of planning in many cities across the US. I still haven't worked out how the Interstate equivalent is going to work ITTL (if indeed there is one).
Why not both? The MBTA's Blue line uses both. It gives flexibility and possibility to the system.
I think that's more due to the Blue Line's unusual history than anything - granted it's fairly similar to the Broadway subway's history.
One of the big reasons behind the interstate highway system was the Cold War. Eisenhower had been impressed by the autobahn system when US forces went in to Germany in WWII. One of the benefits of the interstate system was the ability to move military convoys rapidly around the USA. If you look at where major bases were in the 1950's & 60's and where the interstates went you'll see how often these bases were close to the interstates. Even absent the "autoization" of transit to the extent of OTL, a major driver for the interstate system will still exist. The mandate for transit in the center/elevated, or parallel to the interstates would only be in ur4ban/suburban areas of sufficient density. As far as tying airport money to transit connections, that is easy to do. When most of the major airports used today in the USA were built, they were a ways from the city center and setting aside space for rail transit to them would be easy.
3.1.3. The Hard Years
The two decades between the end of World War Two in early 1946 and the Rosh Hashanah War of 1966 and the ensuing oil embargo are generally reckoned to have been among the most prosperous in our nation's history. America saw unprecedented rates of growth, and more and more people were able to move into homes of their own and lead increasingly comfortable lives. But this also meant that more and more people were able to afford automobiles. The Crosley, the Cadet and the Commander replaced the PCC, the Peter Witt and the Perley Thomas as America's prefered choice of transportation. And where the car was associated with all the values of modern America – freedom, independence, vitality – transit came to take on the opposite qualities in the popular imagination. Streetcars were associated with the old life, before the war, and conjured an image of the old-fashioned inner-city life that no one wanted to go back to.
Still, in LA the passage of the 1946 rapid transit measure meant that when the streetcars eventually went, they would at least not be without a replacement. The first piece of the new network, the Glendale Boulevard elevated, opened in early 1949, providing an unbroken line of rapid transit from downtown LA all the way to North Hollywood, and the South Broadway elevated soon followed to provide the equivalent for the southbound subway services. Next on the agenda was the Hollywood line, whose construction would go on to prove something of a political controversy. The initial plan was for an elevated line to run along Sunset Boulevard from the Glendale el to the crossing of Sunset and Hollywood Boulevards, from where it would go in a subway along the latter to its intersection with La Brea Avenue. This provoked vociferous protests from storeowners along Sunset, who understandably were not enamored with the idea of an elevated railroad running right outside their windows, and the general population soon agreed.
The obvious solution was to build the entire line as a subway; however, this would not be possible within the LATC's budgetary constraints. The solution soon came in the form of the proposed Hollywood Parkway, which would run significantly to the south of the initially proposed route, but which offered the ability to build a ground-level alignment that could be fully grade-separated and wouldn't add significant noise over that provided by freeway traffic. Ultimately the plan formulated for the Hollywood line was to build it in the median of the parkway – which helpfully passed right by the north opening of the PE Hollywood Subway tunnel – up to Sunset Boulevard, then in a subway along Sunset Boulevard until its intersection with the Pacific Electric alignment (roughly at Gardner Street), from where it would proceed in the PE alignment until finally ending at Santa Monica Boulevard and Fairfax Avenue. The end station would provide a siding loop for LATC service as well as a connection to the PE tracks in Santa Monica Boulevard, providing subway transit to Beverly Hills and Santa Monica in reciprocal operation.
Ground was broken on the Hollywood Parkway in 1951, at which point works were also started on the Sunset Boulevard subway. Two and a half years later, the line opened, and by that point construction had started on the Seventh Street subway, providing downtown LA with a second trunk route to relieve the congested streets. Unlike the Broadway and Hollywood lines, this was to be a pure LATC operation, with no reciprocal transit being offered either to the east or to the west. The line would run from Third Street and Larchmont Boulevard in the west, along Third, Vermont and then Seventh nearly up to the river. From there, it'd link up with the PE's elevated line, running on a four-track joint line up to the Los Angeles River. It would then run on an elevated structure along Whittier Boulevard, up to Indiana Street, from where it could eventually be extended as far east as Montebello. LA would have its first “real” subway line, like the ones that had served New York and Chicago for decades.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Railway was running deeper and deeper into financial trouble. Several of its routes had been ceded to the LATC when the Broadway subway opened, and another few had been shut down when the old intercity rail stations in the Warehouse District went out of operation. Several further routes had been replaced by bus service, and even the relatively low running expenses of bus operation struggled to make local transit a profitable venture in this age of the automobile. The situation grew desperate as the company frantically attempted to avoid cutting services[1], and by 1955 it faced bankruptcy. Mayor McGee [2], a fellow liberal Republican who had replaced Fletcher Bowron on the latter's retirement, endorsed a city council proposal to buy out the company, and this was passed by an 11 to 4 vote of the council. On January 1st, 1956, the Los Angeles Railway ceased operations as a private company, and the Surface Division of the Los Angeles Transit Commission arose in its place. Not much else changed though – all the LARy routes were kept in operation, the staff were kept in place, and the cars and buses kept their yellow livery out of tradition – indeed, the LATC's buses remain yellow and white to this day.
The Pacific Electric on the other hand was not about to give up the ghost. The LATC had taken over much of the Western District by this point, which left the company able to focus its efforts toward suburban development in the San Gabriel Valley and Orange County, as well as providing freight service to LA's industries. In the face of the growing monopoly of the car, the PE provided old-style streetcar suburb housing to the people of Covina, Pomona, Fullerton, Santa Ana and a dozen or so other towns. The proceeds from this development were largely used to improve service standard on the various lines, with the Pasadena Short Line being upgraded to full rapid transit standard by 1953, the Watts line following two years later, and a significant upgrade following in 1958 as the new San Bernardino Parkway opened, with an alignment modeled on that of the Hollywood Parkway. Six lanes of car traffic shared space with a four-track rail alignment, cutting travel times between downtown LA and downtown San Bernardino nearly in half by either mode of transportation. Plans were underway to construct a similar parkway route to Santa Ana, and the generous federal grants provided for such construction made its successful completion virtually assured.
Overall, LA stands out as an exception to the pattern of slow decline in transit during the twenty-year boom, at least as far as rapid transit goes. Sadly however, the streetcar lines could not be saved even by bringing them into public ownership, as the planning ethos of the age was just too pro-car to let streets be used for public transit on a significant scale. So it was that the final yellow streetcar, a PCC car running on the P route, rolled into the terminus on September 15th, 1964 [3], and an era came to an end in Los Angeles. It seemed that the destiny of every American city was that of the automobile, and that transit could only survive for regular trips in big cities. Soon enough, all of this would change.
[1] IOTL, the LARy system was bought out by National City Lines, and all but the most profitable routes were axed. By the time the city did take over in 1958, only five routes were left, all of which were converted to bus operation to make way for rapidly growing downtown car traffic.
[2] IOTL, Patrick McGee was a state assemblyman and later Los Angeles city councilman who made a name for supporting transit and public housing, very much against the beliefs of the OTL mayor for much of the 50s, C. Norris Poulson.
[3] So, in grand total we managed to give the Yellow Cars eighteen months compared with OTL. Hooray for us.
I'm iffy on the details, but for one reason or another, Bowron defeats Poulson in 1953 and stays on for one more term before resigning. In 1957, McGee is the "continuity candidate", running on a fairly centrist platform of continued stimulation of the business climate combined with investment into transit, and manages to give Poulson his second defeat for the mayoralty.
Basically, you cannot both see continued transit investment and have Norris Poulson take the mayor's office, and so I looked up a likely person to take his place. McGee, being a prominent councilman and an advocate of public spending into transit and public housing (he made a name for opposing the building of Dodger Stadium), seemed as good a candidate as any.