Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by phx1138, Nov 30, 2019.
On US entry to WWI, Ford was making over 800,000 a year
A potential POD is that Ford never gets the Model T off the ground and cars remain an indulgence for the rich into the 1910s and 1920s, so they become a victim of populist resentment.
Parking garages only make sense in dense urban areas. In rural and suburban areas, where there's more room and fewer people, there's nothing to justify the added expense of building and maintaining a multistory structure over just paving over some land. There are certainly policies that could lead to more parking garages and fewer parking lots, but you're not going to get rid of the latter entirely anymore than you could, say, totally abolish single-family housing and make everyone live in apartments. They're just not a one-size-fits-all solution, and no amount of subsidy can change that.
The Ford Model A(not the 1928 one$800) and the Cadillac Model A($750) were nearly identical, as both were designed by old Henry.
Maxwell 10hp(+2 more ) Runabout was $780
They weren't even the low cost leader: that was Oldsmobile curved dash was $650, or the Success Model A at $250
By 1906, the Models were still not that different, mostly minor mechanical and cosmetic differences
Production Figures for 1906
of this list, only the White and Buick were 'upscale'
Yeah, that's the one I saw, too. Could wish it didn't look like I made it in Excel, but that seems like a reasonable ballpark, around 1916/17. So that's the timeframe. No weird tech needed, no ridiculous deviation from standard human behavior, totally doable.
No, you still need to move the Automobile, Wonder of the Age, to something that requires nationwide regulation in 15 years, when almost nothing muchbesides how the Railroads could set rates, was done Federally, to deciding how cars had to be parked.
States were for Registering Autos, as they could get fees and taxes to pay for roads, but for the Feds, it's an overreach
You seem stuck on nationwide regulation. Have you read my first response to the OP? Or my response to you? We’ve moved on from a federal solution as requiring a very different set of levers from basic social pressure.
Outside of cities, it's really not a problem. I don't think I'd require a town of 500 to do this. (I'm not going to sweat a threshold number in this thread. That said, "ban" may have been a poor choice of word...)
OTOH, even in a city of (say) 100,000, there are areas zoned commercial where there's a lot of surface parking, & enough businesses close to justify a garage. If there isn't, how big a subsidy do you need to add one floor of garage to a new building (presuming it's not an office tower)?
I found a fairly angry...I think ?libertarian? rant citing the early history of auto regulation. It seems fairly extensive and dates back to at least the 1880s with grandfathered laws applying originally to bicycles. Reluctant to link because it’s a whole website of such rants and who knows what else I might be linking to. Googled “history of automobile regulation,” found some promising stuff.
Just to show that local governments weren’t just sitting on their hands as cities changed.
Which is another way of bringing it back to the fact that this is about parking regulation and not butterflying the car.
Parking regulation in several major cities in the early 20th century is a reasonable alternate history scenario.
There were some pretty nutty, & I might say draconian, limits on cars early on. (Notably the "red flag" laws.) They survived a surprisingly long time... Our current car-friendly (even pedestrian-hostile) approach, like bans on "jaywalking", is not how it started.
Thank you. And no, tho I'll happily have better public transit, I don't mean to be rid of cars.
Bear in mind, even parking meters are a comparatively late invention, & that was 20yr after the Model T hit its stride in 1915.
A thought: can this be a reaction to traffic jams? Can cities say, in effect, "We want fewer cars in our downtowns, & increasing parking costs, & reducing availability, is our answer"? With the parking companies turning around & building garages, or undergrounds, rather than just tearing up surface parking, & getting the unintended consequence of more traffic?
Maybe a move against congestion in general, with cars just being the straw that broke the camel’s back that gets the city council to take up the issue. A city trying to create some order in the increasing chaos and enshrining the primacy of...? Maybe something like:
1) the public omnibus/streetcar
2) commercial vehicles
4) licensed cabs
5) private vehicles
That might do it, but it'd need to be something that could translate from places like L.A. to places like Denver. Otherwise, it's too location-specific.
As I'm seeing your idea, it's addressing congestion, but not parking. Commercial vehicles, & especially taxis, will be in motion most of the time, so parking lots don't really factor into their operation. (Garage parking for them out of service isn't a bad idea, but not really on point.)
Don't mean to shoot you down.
WI Fashion and class-status determine who drove which class of vehicles? Greater social stratification limits the number of people who can own cars.
If - just prior to the introduction of automobiles - horse coaches were only driven by lower-class labourers or slaves or some other visible minority. Since drivers’ duties include shovelling horse-shit, they are considered lower-class “untouchables.”
Since conspicuous displays of wealth are considered arrogant or rude, private limousines are painted bland colours and quickly concealed from the public eye. In the interests of keeping narrow streets clean and traffic flowing, once wealthy passengers were delivered, their limousine/private coach drivers quickly cache their vehicles in dark alleys or concealed parking garages. Many under-building parking garages include direct access to elevators that speed wealthy passengers to their offices or penthouses. Fear of vandalism or theft encourages the wealthy to hide their expensive cars in locked garages. Perhaps fear of murder or assasination forces wealthy passengers to only exit their limousines inside closely-guarded garages. Those garages also discourage random anarchists from planting bombs on private cars.
Given the high-maintenance requirements of early motor are, many downtown parking garages include fuelling, greasing, oiling, spark-plug cleaning, etc. with their daily storage rates.
Commercial delivery trucks are limited to back alleys. They either un-load quickly or pull into dedicated loading bays. Cities try to limit commercial deliveries to pre-dawn or after sunset to ease street congestion.
Meanwhile, middle-class folks replace their horses with motorcycles and maybe add a side-car if they had lots of children. Lower-class workers travel by bicycle or public bus.
And that's why so many of the post ACW Nouveau Rich acted that way
'Got it? Flaunt it'
Conspicuous Consumption was establiched in 1899, so that's a pre-1900 thing
Maybe if you had a stronger/more militant labor movement, the wealthy would prefer parking their cars in garages so they didn't get their windows smashed in.
More militancy would only work to the point of having a leftist revolution in the USA. Short of that, they will be crushed like the Miners were OTL
That's such an enormous sociocultural change, IDK where I'd even begin, if I was trying to achieve it.
It's also been pointed out to me (by @The Mann, IIRC) motos & tricars are impractical (leaving off bicycles entirely ), in the face of cheap four-wheelers--& there would be cheap used ones soon enough, even if Ford buggered the T. Besides which, if Ford had a Lincoln (or was it Cad he was working for? ) fall on him before he formed FoMoCo, sooner or later, Olds or Duryea (or maybe somebody else) would get to the assembly line, & the result would be a drastic price drop--not, perhaps, as steep as the T (Henry was pretty obsessive about cost-cutting), but steep. Whan it happens, cars stop being handbuilt luxury toys.
This, yet again, is targetting the proliferation of cars, & not the proliferation of surface parking...
The original FoMoCo Piquette Avenue Plant got the price down from $850 to $680. Ford later sold this factory building to Studebaker
Olds had the Assembly Line first, Ford's innovation was the powered conveyor in 1913, just after the new Highland Park Plant was built, dropping assembly time from nine hours to six for the Model T and price from $525 to $440. Some of the time savings was reducing the previous years color choices of Gray, Green, Blue, and Red, to just a fast drying Black
First Company Ford started, the Detroit Automobile Company, failed within a year in 1901
2nd was the Henry Ford Company, and when the majority Stockholders tried to tell him how to build cars, he quit. This company became Cadillac, scrubbing Ford from the company he started.
3rd was the Ford Motor Company in 1903, and his main backer this time, Alexander Malcomson never tried to tell him what to do.
the Dodge Brothers, being major stockholders as well as subcontractors, sued him for not improving the Model T, took the winnings and started their own Car, that was only slightly more expensive, but more powerful and more options
No it’s good! Constructive. This would definitely require some oblique thinking and coalition-building. Interests driven by traffic congestion and interests driven by public safety realize that if they follow the lead of locals angry about too many cars on their block, they can pass something. Art of the possible and all that.
I can see the alliance (I think). I don't see anybody going after parking as a way to reduce congestion (except me, maybe, & I'm odd ).
However...if I'm less odd than I think, & they end up actually making it worse by getting rid of surface parking, that makes sense to me. It's the intermediate step I'm less certain does.
That's what I had in mind.
You've proven my point, tho. Even without Henry, somebody would do it.
Separate names with a comma.