LA was ground zero for the most public scandal, but nearly every street car system was killed by the same corruption. It was happening across the nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal
Discussion on:
Top
Rated
Rated
You have a problem with taking a smart approach to urban planning?
Edited by Hates Idiots
Updated - 9th Oct
Just
In
In
yeah right
Posted by john kneeland
23rd Mar
Show:
+3
Votes
Not just subsidies, but bribes and collusion too.
Posted by Hates Idiots
9th Oct
-6
And your point is????????
Posted by Datadad
| Below your threshold
+8
Votes
Things do not change unless people learn.
What is a common thread among the destruction of street cars and the current state of mass transit in the USA?
Corruption.
Everything from the placement of rail and bus stations to the location of rights of way for mass transit is not governed by the best solutions to the problem, but by what is politically acceptable.
Any time people propose a major shift in any industry it is prudent for taxpayers to follow the money. We the taxpayers must make sure that the changes being paid for by the taxpayers are the right changes, not the most profitable for the well connected.
To use a blanket statement like "Since streetcars were mostly overrun by subsidies for automobiles and airplanes," is to throw out a polically popular punch line and ignore the bigger problem of corruption in our government at all levels.
Corruption.
Everything from the placement of rail and bus stations to the location of rights of way for mass transit is not governed by the best solutions to the problem, but by what is politically acceptable.
Any time people propose a major shift in any industry it is prudent for taxpayers to follow the money. We the taxpayers must make sure that the changes being paid for by the taxpayers are the right changes, not the most profitable for the well connected.
To use a blanket statement like "Since streetcars were mostly overrun by subsidies for automobiles and airplanes," is to throw out a polically popular punch line and ignore the bigger problem of corruption in our government at all levels.
Posted by Hates Idiots
9th Oct
-6
Troll bait
Posted by msbook
| Below your threshold
+8
Votes
You have a problem with taking a smart approach to urban planning?
When a city or town gets it right I am more than willing to offer praise. As I have numerous times here.
All too often we the taxpayers end up with poor solutions that become costly white elephants. All you have to do is look at the state of most major American cities to know I am right.
The biggest fault with modern urban planning among government entities is the one size fits all mentality. As such urban planning has run in fads over the years with occasional success, but more often failure when a concept is applied to a scenario in a city where it is not the right answer.
The current fad is bike sharing. It works great in some areas and should be expanded, but in some areas it runs into a little problem called winter. That is not to say it is a bad idea. But one has to ask is it worth it if the bikes have to be stored 3 months of the year? Is it worth the effort needed to keep the lockup points shoveled out to have it available year round? Large scale bike sharing might not be the right answer for every city. Yet people who raise such honest questions are shouted down.
Solutions to a host of issues vary greatly depending on geography, climate, city layout and a host of other factors. It is often as complex as, what works on the west side of a big city might not work on the east side.
On a final point. Call me a troll if it makes your day, but it is never wrong for a taxpayer to second guess the motives of people spending millions and sometimes billions of OUR hard earned dollars.
NIMBY aside, if a majority of residents think a project is a bad idea for their city yet a government bureaucrat pushes it all the harder, follow the money.
All too often we the taxpayers end up with poor solutions that become costly white elephants. All you have to do is look at the state of most major American cities to know I am right.
The biggest fault with modern urban planning among government entities is the one size fits all mentality. As such urban planning has run in fads over the years with occasional success, but more often failure when a concept is applied to a scenario in a city where it is not the right answer.
The current fad is bike sharing. It works great in some areas and should be expanded, but in some areas it runs into a little problem called winter. That is not to say it is a bad idea. But one has to ask is it worth it if the bikes have to be stored 3 months of the year? Is it worth the effort needed to keep the lockup points shoveled out to have it available year round? Large scale bike sharing might not be the right answer for every city. Yet people who raise such honest questions are shouted down.
Solutions to a host of issues vary greatly depending on geography, climate, city layout and a host of other factors. It is often as complex as, what works on the west side of a big city might not work on the east side.
On a final point. Call me a troll if it makes your day, but it is never wrong for a taxpayer to second guess the motives of people spending millions and sometimes billions of OUR hard earned dollars.
NIMBY aside, if a majority of residents think a project is a bad idea for their city yet a government bureaucrat pushes it all the harder, follow the money.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 9th Oct
+1
Vote
The article you linked does not support your statement
The "scandal" wasn't that GM conspired to put streetcars out of business, but that they conspired to monopolize interstate commerce. That's what they were convicted of. They wanted to make more money, and they bought streetcar lines and replaced them with more economical buses, which they happened to build. GM built (and builds) locomotives, too, so had electric trolleys been more economical, they might very well have monopolized that market rather than converting to bus systems.
Posted by AlanLaRue
9th Oct
0
Votes
GM built locomotives, they did not build streetcars.
Building full sized locomotives for conventional rail use would not put them in competition with their own buses.
Posted by Hates Idiots
9th Oct
0
Votes
buses
They were economical only because the price of fuel was low and they were supplying the busses to themselves at cost. If they were paying fleet prices they may not have changed over.
Posted by kax@...
17th Oct
+5
Votes
True
The backstory of "Who Killed Roger Rabbit" was the true story of what happened to the Redline in LA. My wife, who lived in that very area in the early to mid fifties and used the streetcar extensively, remembers very well the advantages. She didn't know anyone who was happy to see it go...and yes, greed and corruption there and around the country killed the streetcar and has largely kept it from coming back for these sixty-plus years. Finally people are getting their heads on straight and rejecting control by the monied and powerful who only have their own agenda in mind. Great article.
Posted by justajo
12th Oct
+3
Votes
Streetcars are Too Rigid
Streetcars are nice. Streetcars are efficient. That's all good. The trouble with streetcars is that needs, neighborhoods, routes change over time. As the city evolves the need to move people from one place to another remains but the places change as neighborhoods spring up and decline and business moves to different areas. Since the streetcar operates on tracks it is very hard and expensive to move when it no longer takes people where they need/want to go. Buses are a whole lot less glamorous but the routes can be changed to meet changing transportation requirements without much cost. This is why over time streetcars will always lose.
Posted by Willie11
9th Oct
+2
Votes
Street cars are all about placement.
If you have a high amount of vehicular traffic moving on a regular basis over relatively short distances between two or more points then street cars can be a viable alternative to increased road size and parking associated with supporting more cars.
Once you have identified a location were streetcars will have the riders and alleviate traffic congestion related to separate vehicles being used for short distance travel, the next big problem is scheduling.
People will not wait 30 minutes for the next streetcar to travel 5 city blocks when they walk it or drive it in less time. Schedules need to be timely. A fact often over looked by municipalities looking at any form of mass transit.
Streetcars are by no means a panacea. They are one piece of the transit puzzle. Buses are another option. Street cars or buses can be very cost effective or very costly depending on how they are implemented.
As mentioned above, taxpayers need to make sure their money is being spent on the right solutions, not the profitable for a few people solutions.
Once you have identified a location were streetcars will have the riders and alleviate traffic congestion related to separate vehicles being used for short distance travel, the next big problem is scheduling.
People will not wait 30 minutes for the next streetcar to travel 5 city blocks when they walk it or drive it in less time. Schedules need to be timely. A fact often over looked by municipalities looking at any form of mass transit.
Streetcars are by no means a panacea. They are one piece of the transit puzzle. Buses are another option. Street cars or buses can be very cost effective or very costly depending on how they are implemented.
As mentioned above, taxpayers need to make sure their money is being spent on the right solutions, not the profitable for a few people solutions.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 9th Oct
0
Votes
Municipalities and transit planning
Municipalities are usually not the entities planning and scheduling transit systems. Those tasks are typically performed by separate transit agencies. There are some transit agencies such as OC Transpo in Ottawa, the Charlotte Area Transit System and Detroit's bus system which are city departments, but it is much more common, particularly in larger cities, for transit agencies to be separate from municipalities, in part because they serve areas comprised of many different municipalities.
In many cases, 30-minute intervals between buses or streetcars may have nothing to do with municipal or transit agency planning and everything to do with refusal of local or state governments invest sufficiently in transit to provide higher frequencies of service.
In many cases, 30-minute intervals between buses or streetcars may have nothing to do with municipal or transit agency planning and everything to do with refusal of local or state governments invest sufficiently in transit to provide higher frequencies of service.
Posted by Olympian_Hiawatha
9th Oct
+4
Votes
Please explain how your views outweigh history
In nearly every country but our own, streetcars in one form or another still carry huge numbers of passengers through cities far older than American cities. Subways serve essentially the same purpose, as do the elevated trains in some other cities. Of them all, the streetcar is still the most visible and most easily used transportation system that is also least affected by motor vehicle congestion quite often due to having their tracks separated from normal roadways and in others car owners doing their best to clear the rails before their own car gets struck by a tram. Simply put--you get hit by a tram, it's your fault for being on the tracks. Streetcars, through their 'rigidity', ensure the viability of a community longer than busses--which is why most American cities are now surrounded by huge suburbs and highways are clogged by cars--those busses simply cannot meet the need due to maintenance and fuel costs as well as their dependence on roads 'owned' by congestion.
Posted by DWFields
9th Oct
0
Votes
bus costs
one oft-ignored cost of busses--the drivers. Many streetcar/tram systems carry more people per vehicle than a bus, and so need less drivers.
But they also cost a lot less per KM to run, and the vehicles and vehicle parts last a longer.
But they also cost a lot less per KM to run, and the vehicles and vehicle parts last a longer.
Posted by kax@...
17th Oct
+5
Votes
Not absolutely true
Your notion might be correct for low density areas, but in denser cities fixed rail transportation actually stabilizes neighborhoods and creates more lively business districts at each stop. Denser housing also develops near the lines. Perhaps Portland is an example; Minneapolis certainly is.
Posted by msbook
9th Oct
0
Votes
streetcars
which is why Melbourne has trams /and/ buses--all govt owned, and you use one ticket for all public transport (trams, trains and buses). It's great to go shopping and get a day ticket for all transport, and it's not expensive.
Posted by kax@...
17th Oct
0
Votes
Streetcars Are No More Rigid Than Cities Themselves
Your argument about buses being superior because of route flexibility is as wrong as it is familiar.
In Brooklyn, for example, most bus lines still follow the old trolley routes more than half a century after the streetcars' demise. In Los Angeles, the old streetcar routes are still so sensible that they are being rebuilt for modern light rail and trolley service.
The truth is that cities and the travel patterns within them change _very_ slowly, if at all, and the alleged advantage of bus route flexibility is a phantom, logical at first glance but rarely meaningful in practice.
In Brooklyn, for example, most bus lines still follow the old trolley routes more than half a century after the streetcars' demise. In Los Angeles, the old streetcar routes are still so sensible that they are being rebuilt for modern light rail and trolley service.
The truth is that cities and the travel patterns within them change _very_ slowly, if at all, and the alleged advantage of bus route flexibility is a phantom, logical at first glance but rarely meaningful in practice.
Posted by Moshe Feder
27th Nov
0
Votes
Buses are better?
Of course, you have studies to back up what you're saying, right?
Posted by john kneeland
23rd Mar
+6
Votes
Streetcars
Being an old fart, if I remember correctly it was GM & Goodyear that conspired to buy up streetcars/trolleys and bankrupt them. They raised prices, cut service, until folks gave up on them. They were found guilty in court and paid a fine. Big deal. If they start throwing the CEO's in jail this stuff will stop on Wall Street.
Posted by griffthegreat
9th Oct
0
Votes
streetcars and old fartz
The history is bit more sordid. GM and others replaced the ripped up tracks and tolley companies (they bought up) with bus companies that featured junk buses that broke down ofter enough to spur the purchase of automobiles - which the bus companies also were manufacturing. A conincidence? Not to mention the interest of big OIL.
Further, remember all the trolley and RailRoad systems that blanketed the country (so you could take trolleys from Portland, ME down to NYC just by switching between companies) were all built with private money and then destroyed with (GM's) private money. Now the taxpayers are paying for the rebuilding. America the beautiful. Who does your elected rep work for? Not you.
Further, remember all the trolley and RailRoad systems that blanketed the country (so you could take trolleys from Portland, ME down to NYC just by switching between companies) were all built with private money and then destroyed with (GM's) private money. Now the taxpayers are paying for the rebuilding. America the beautiful. Who does your elected rep work for? Not you.
Posted by affordablecomputerguy@...
Updated - 13th Oct
+1
Vote
street cars (trams &&)
re
Unlike light rails, which often transport passengers between suburbs and cities, streetcars are more like intercity (sic ?)circulators specializing in shorter trips.
should be
Unlike light rails, which often transport passengers between suburbs and cities, streetcars are more like intracity (thus) circulators specializing in shorter trips.
Philip Bradfield living near Ediburgh (they are re-introducing a limited service : trams to the airport (next to which the railway to Fife already runs!) - see local opinions)
Unlike light rails, which often transport passengers between suburbs and cities, streetcars are more like intercity (sic ?)circulators specializing in shorter trips.
should be
Unlike light rails, which often transport passengers between suburbs and cities, streetcars are more like intracity (thus) circulators specializing in shorter trips.
Philip Bradfield living near Ediburgh (they are re-introducing a limited service : trams to the airport (next to which the railway to Fife already runs!) - see local opinions)
Posted by p.bradfield
9th Oct
+5
Votes
Greenhouse gas zero? Hardly!
> Whats more, streetcars can protect the environment. If you have clean electrical energy
> sources and feed them into the tram system, Condon said, it is greenhouse gas zero.
Hardly. It just moves the gas generation out of town, to the site of the coal-burning electrical generation plant.
> sources and feed them into the tram system, Condon said, it is greenhouse gas zero.
Hardly. It just moves the gas generation out of town, to the site of the coal-burning electrical generation plant.
Posted by lmarks@...
9th Oct
+2
Votes
Of course, you have to assume the electricity is coal-fired
Not all cities use coal-fired power plants--not even most. There are many other means of generating electricity that don't require fossil fuels at all and many of the oldest pre-date coal-fired steam generator plants. In the US, the oldest generator plant uses plain, old, water. No burning. No greenhouse gases.
Posted by DWFields
9th Oct
0
Votes
fuel
Still a huge amount more efficient than your car (unless you own a hybrid), and can easily use green/renewable power (which your car probably can't).
And they can easily switch to newer electricity sources when they become available--so if a new solar plant opens in the area, that can be your tram power. Can't do that with a car.
And they can easily switch to newer electricity sources when they become available--so if a new solar plant opens in the area, that can be your tram power. Can't do that with a car.
Posted by kax@...
17th Oct
0
Votes
In Portland, OR it's possible ...
to power them entirely by hydroelectric power if they contract with the Bonneville Power Administration for the electricity.
Posted by riverat1
16th Nov