WI/AHC: More Mass Transit in the United States?

Just to add as a bit of information on it, there is this discussing it a bit on mass transit from the FHWA on it in regards to the creation of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. Link.
For example, one point made in your source is that most transit systems were privately owned and seemed to be doing fine in the 1950s, so there wasn't much interest in putting public monies into them. Okay, so how can we change this?
Going back to the five cities I mentioned earlier Chicago took over their L system in 1947, New York was seven years earlier buying out their private companies in 1940, in Philadelphia the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority didn't take over the Philadelphia Transportation Company until 1968, Boston's newly created Metropolitan Transit Authority took over the operations of Boston Elevated Railway in 1947, Cleveland created their Cleveland Transit System in 1942 and started building their Red Line in 1952 plus the neighbouring city of Shaker Heights had bought the Cleveland Interurban Railroad - the future Blue and Green Lines - in 1944. This was just the rapid transit systems from a couple of quick searches, I didn't look at rail or buses. So whilst I'm sure the public would be against government money going to private companies I think they'd be much more accepting of it going to support city or state run bodies.
 
Last edited:
I've seen it suggested that car-dependent suburbs were a deliberate way of preventing blacks, immigrants, minorities and the urban poor from being near the mostly white middle class.
I think that's more true now, where suburbs restrict bus routes, than it was in the past
I've seen the claim, too, in connection with the end of trams in L.A., & not recent. The suggestion was a shift to buses would help keep blacks out of more affluent neighborhoods. (How, exactly, a change from train/tram to bus would achieve this wasn't explained...tho AIUI, reduced service was a factor.)
Businesses would lobby for better road infrastructure. Let's say your company distributes stuff to all the corner drug stores around a city. Your delivery trucks need adequate streets to meet their deliveries. Add in the added infrastructure for people not going to city centers (teachers, salesmen, doctors) and the roads were going to be built out anyway.

I think the only way mass transit retains its role in American life is if fuel costs are higher than OTL - coal is much cheaper than gasoline. That requires different geology in Texas, which is by board definition, ASB.
You're not wrong about streets, but that's distinct from highways. The design of 'burbs to be pedestrian-friendly (or mass transit-friendly) is a different issue entirely.

As for how? It would only take a small change in the state (muni?) tax code so rail companies don't pay taxes on the land under their rails. A change so 'burbs pay the full cost of infrastructure, like roads & sewers, would help, too: 'burbs having to pay for streets would have fewer of them, or smaller ones, & better transit access (better still if rail companies could build out more cheaply).
The congestion and smog came about because of low fuel prices and widespread car adoption in the first place.
Actually, there's a good argument for blaming income inequality. It sparks demand for 'burbs (bigger houses for rich leads to desire for bigger houses for everyone else, & they're only affordable in 'burbs, 'cause the taxes are lower...'cause they get a subsidy on infrastructure), & growth of 'burbs increases congestion which increases pollution...
most transit systems were privately owned and seemed to be doing fine in the 1950s, so there wasn't much interest in putting public monies into them.
There was an effort by FDR to trust-bust the power utilities, which owned a lot of transit systems as captive customers. Could that effort be butterflied?
but are more willing to hand over a cent or two at the sales tax box for a public system
As noted, it wouldn't (necessarily) take a subsidy, just a reduction in taxes (of an equivalent amount): that is, cut the tax on land under rails so it equals the #$ being spent on roads. (And, yes, increase taxes on developers. And on the very wealthy, to reduce the demand for 'burbs to begin with...)
 

kernals12

Banned
In order to do this, you need to make driving more expensive. Maybe have the government massively raise taxes on gasoline during one of the world wars in order to encourage fuel conservation and then don't have them cut it.
 
Elaborate ?

The whole movement towards car culture is pretty much directly tied with the WWII experience, in that Post-War companies moved to promote car ownership in order to pick up excess production capacity, veterans with their new benefits wanted to move out of the city and get their own space, and other events, such as exposure to the German autobahn, led to the perfect storm that birthed suburbia. You saw the same phenomena, on a much smaller scale, Post-World War I.
 
Top