AHC/WI: Prevent the Great American streetcar scandal
- Thread starter LHB
- Start date
FDW
Banned
For one, have more Rapid Transit proposals get off the ground before the Depression starts, starting particularly with the Cincinnati Metro. The failure of the Cincinnati Metro being left unfinished left many American cities gun-shy towards building major Rapid Transit until the 1950's. Second, put more Streetcar systems in Public Hands before the depression, and give them more ROW (many of the surviving lines survived because they had it along their route). And Third, avoid The Second World War, which sucked away the investment that America's urban railways needed at that time, while straining them into ruin.
On the other hand, the problem was that even in the 1930s they were significantly cutting back on service, at least here in LA.
You really need to find some way to either avoid the Depression or avoid the consumer automobile.
You really need to find some way to either avoid the Depression or avoid the consumer automobile.
FDW
Banned
Neither one can really be avoided, so it really comes down to increasing investment in the 1920's, or avoiding WWII. IMO, we were bound to see some level of consolidation of Urban and Interurban railways during the 1940's and 50's regardless, though it didn't have to be on the level it was OTL.
I read that streetcar businesses leverage off electric businesses, but electric businesses became regulated and an anti-trust law was enacted in the 30s so owners of regulated businesses could not also own non-regulated businesses. This meant these two types of company were split up and the streetcars no longer had the competitive edge they once did, which left them vulnerable to the streetcar scandal.
katchen
Banned
I was amazed to read somewhere (I forget where) that suburbs and urban sprawl originally was encouraged to disperse the white population so that a nuclear atack would not kill them. Needless to say, African-Americans were basically confined within Northern inner cities where they would presumably be vulnerable to nuclear attacks.
Plant the meme in the late 1940s that subways and high speed rail are quicker ways of getting Americans out of cities in the event of a nuclear attack than private cars are, even with freeways being built.
Tout the idea of subways as fallout shelters, as China did during the 1970s. Create a federal authority to modernize and extend subway lines into the suburbs and via high speed rail, the exurbs ala the interstate highway system--without interfering with rail freight but using eminent domain to straighten out railroad tracks for faster rail travel. The railroads would enjoy faster shipping time along the same or adjacent tracks.
Plant the meme in the late 1940s that subways and high speed rail are quicker ways of getting Americans out of cities in the event of a nuclear attack than private cars are, even with freeways being built.
Tout the idea of subways as fallout shelters, as China did during the 1970s. Create a federal authority to modernize and extend subway lines into the suburbs and via high speed rail, the exurbs ala the interstate highway system--without interfering with rail freight but using eminent domain to straighten out railroad tracks for faster rail travel. The railroads would enjoy faster shipping time along the same or adjacent tracks.
FDW
Banned
No, Suburbia grew like it did as rapidly as it did because the depression WWII created a massive demand for housing, and this initial wave didn't really gouge out the center cities that badly. What really killed it were the waves of sprawl that came after the Interstates start coming in the 60's and 70's, along with the inner city riots.
katchen
Banned
Actually I suspect that the LA red cars were initially built by Pacific Electric (a subsidiary of Southern Pacific and owned by a Huntington scion) to occupy right of ways that competitors to Southern Pacific might use to reach LA. Southern Pacific did this in San Francisco too. The land speculation came a few years later, after most of the rail lines had been built.
But in terms of urban sprawl, LA before WWII was probably an extreme and atypical case. Though this was probably true of pre-war Long Island and possibly Westchester County as well. And Chicago had so many railroad lines coming into it from so many directions that it was simple for the railroads to add commuter stops along the way for each railroad.
But in terms of urban sprawl, LA before WWII was probably an extreme and atypical case. Though this was probably true of pre-war Long Island and possibly Westchester County as well. And Chicago had so many railroad lines coming into it from so many directions that it was simple for the railroads to add commuter stops along the way for each railroad.
FDW
Banned
I'm talking about post-WWII conditions, not pre-WWII conditions. And PE (along with many other suburban railways) was actually built to connect activity centers to parcels of property they developed into usually housing.
katchen
Banned
For Southern Pacific, it was occupy the right of ways or lose them to potential creditors from the Gould Burlington Group to the Denver & Rio Grande. Three railroads to LA (SP, AT&SF and Union Pacific)) were enough. So yes, Huntington developed real estate so that his Pacific Electric Railroad would turn a neat profit. But the initial motivation behind those rail lines was keeping out competitors--something Southern Pacific was always very serious about doing.
Easiest & simplest way is to change the tax law. Rail companies were taxed on all their rails
(the land under the ROW), & the money went to roads. Change that, tram companies are more competitive.
Changing attitudes would probably be needed, too, tho, since L.A., at least, saw the Red Cars discouraged to keep (mostly poor) blacks out of (richer white) neighborhoods; the idea was to force them to use cars, which the poor blacks couldn't afford...
The trouble is, if you make tram companies better, you risk more sprawl. (Unabashed plug.)
(the land under the ROW), & the money went to roads. Change that, tram companies are more competitive.Changing attitudes would probably be needed, too, tho, since L.A., at least, saw the Red Cars discouraged to keep (mostly poor) blacks out of (richer white) neighborhoods; the idea was to force them to use cars, which the poor blacks couldn't afford...
The trouble is, if you make tram companies better, you risk more sprawl.
(Unabashed plug.)
Last edited:
I have had somewhat similar thoughts. Maybe a come up with a POD where cars become associated with travel between cities, while subways and streetcar are for travel within cities?
IMO, interurbans make way more sense than cars... And anything that will save streetcars will go a long way to saving them, too. Which comes back to the tax law, which also discourages the competition from buses & cars (since they aren't getting a subsidy from their competitors, the tram companies).Mike Stearns said:
One other thing: these companies relied on electricity, & were often owned by power utilities. FDR wanted to break up the utility monopolies (with good reason). How that happens could help save the trolley companies.
You could also change the tax laws to make cars more expensive to own &/or operate, or change the taxes to make buses more expensive.
How about a counter-scandal?
The makers of streetcars, looking like they are going out of business and losing jobs in a key political areas, get a bit of Pork Barrel support from key Local, State and Federal politicians?
It probably wouldn't take much. Perhaps some zoning and right of way laws to keep the streetcars speeds up, some local and state taxes on cars and roads in places where streetcars are made and cars are not.
I don't know about the plausibility, could it happen?
The makers of streetcars, looking like they are going out of business and losing jobs in a key political areas, get a bit of Pork Barrel support from key Local, State and Federal politicians?
It probably wouldn't take much. Perhaps some zoning and right of way laws to keep the streetcars speeds up, some local and state taxes on cars and roads in places where streetcars are made and cars are not.
I don't know about the plausibility, could it happen?
FDW
Banned
I actually took this a little further, having more cities succeed in bringing their streetcar systems under public ownership sooner, while also making the necessary investments at the right times to ensure success.
FDW
Banned
The attitudes were different back then. And many of the streetcar systems were completely worn out by the end WWII that cities didn't want to put the money in to rebuild them. Hence why I'm emphasizing more cities gaining control of their streetcar systems sooner.
Thats the fact Jack. Here in my little home town of Lafayette Indiana urban sprawl was platted out and encouraged from the 1890s with the establishment of commuter rail far out into rural farm lands. These ambitious souls staked out a industrial zone actually larger than the existing city and laid branch freight tracks in loops across it. In square kilometers Lafayette nearly quadrupled in size between 1900 & 1930, partially in tracts of bungalows for the working men and middle class and partially of hulking new factory buildings.
Something like an automatic "green light" for intersections? (Otherwise, you've got to rebuild all the surface crossings.Riain said:
I like it.Riain said:
As already said, tho, you just need to lower taxes on rights of way. Granting some protection from the power utility trust-busting would be good.Providing cheap power at reliable (low) rates for extended periods would be good, too. This could encourage ridership.
A subsidy for a lightweight (standard design? standard design?) steel railcar would help: it'd be able to operate faster (accel & braking) & do less harm to tracks, due lower weight.