Electrify
Senior Member
This is going to get good now...
*grabs popcorn*
*grabs popcorn*
|
|
|
- Thread starter M II A II R II K
- Start date
GTS
Active Member
LAz I agree with your arguement that some people are trying to whitewash history of why Standard Oil and GM had bought all these transit companies and in turn ripped up thousands and thousands of streetcars tracks in cities across the US and Canada as well not long after purchasing them.
Streetcars will run reliably for many, many more km's then any bus could possibly hope for- even with extreme maintenance. An electric motor is very simple with very few moving parts and less likely to have a breakdown compared to a diesel bus with thousands of moving parts.
Another interesting stat that was noticed when streetcars were common, even in smaller cities, is that people were much more likely to get on a streetcar then a bus for some reason. Streetcars have almost always attracted more commuters to get on public transit then buses do. It didn't make much sense for cities to rip up their streetcar tracks like they did.
The pictures of LA with the weeds growing on the streetcar tracks is in part because of the way they used to lay streetcar tracks back then and the new advancements in concrete and pouring it today will make this infrastructure last a lot longer. Yes though the weeds and such were a sign of poor maintenance by LA as well as the old technology used.
Streetcars will run reliably for many, many more km's then any bus could possibly hope for- even with extreme maintenance. An electric motor is very simple with very few moving parts and less likely to have a breakdown compared to a diesel bus with thousands of moving parts.
Another interesting stat that was noticed when streetcars were common, even in smaller cities, is that people were much more likely to get on a streetcar then a bus for some reason. Streetcars have almost always attracted more commuters to get on public transit then buses do. It didn't make much sense for cities to rip up their streetcar tracks like they did.
The pictures of LA with the weeds growing on the streetcar tracks is in part because of the way they used to lay streetcar tracks back then and the new advancements in concrete and pouring it today will make this infrastructure last a lot longer. Yes though the weeds and such were a sign of poor maintenance by LA as well as the old technology used.
Electrify
Senior Member
Aww... I was getting ready for an all out internet shitstorm on GM's influence on the downfall of the streetcar 
To be honest, I don't know enough about GM and Standard Oil's influences, but I can see why cities chose buses over streetcars. In the 1950s, people didn't have the same foresight. Buses offered more flexibility than streetcars, and there was no track maintenance to contend with as well. People were buying cars at an unprecedented rate and urban areas were expanding beyond anything witnessed in human history. So not only would people be using transit less, but they would have to expand the networks to keep them competitive. And with so many more people driving, it seemed that transport dollars would be better spent at building urban highway networks - without considering gridlock and how it could decay the CBD.
So while GM and SO may have had influences, I do believe other factors played a vital part in the downfall of the inner city.
To be honest, I don't know enough about GM and Standard Oil's influences, but I can see why cities chose buses over streetcars. In the 1950s, people didn't have the same foresight. Buses offered more flexibility than streetcars, and there was no track maintenance to contend with as well. People were buying cars at an unprecedented rate and urban areas were expanding beyond anything witnessed in human history. So not only would people be using transit less, but they would have to expand the networks to keep them competitive. And with so many more people driving, it seemed that transport dollars would be better spent at building urban highway networks - without considering gridlock and how it could decay the CBD.
So while GM and SO may have had influences, I do believe other factors played a vital part in the downfall of the inner city.
junctionist
Senior Member
The reality was that planners accepted that the dubious notion that the dense, traditional city was an inherently undesirable place to live with crime, immorality, and unpredictable mixes of uses, and that people should live in lower density suburbs. Politicians agreed and started providing the infrastructure and economic incentives like low-cost loans to spur suburban housing developments.
Downtown was to be reserved for high concentrations of modern offices and perhaps modern projects like high-rises surrounded by open fields. People would commute with cars on newly built expressways. These were planning ideals that gained political support. The streetcar didn't belong in the new vision for cities because it shared space cars, which were seen as the modern transport option. Buses carried less people because surface transit was anticipated as something that would decline. Buses were flexible in that it was simply easier to cut a bus route which had no other infrastructure besides the roadway shared with cars.
The decline of the streetcar is attributable to cultural shifts towards suburban housing, highways, and the rise of the car. If GM played a role in the decline it was as a catalyst; it was less a conspiracy and more a product of the times.
Downtown was to be reserved for high concentrations of modern offices and perhaps modern projects like high-rises surrounded by open fields. People would commute with cars on newly built expressways. These were planning ideals that gained political support. The streetcar didn't belong in the new vision for cities because it shared space cars, which were seen as the modern transport option. Buses carried less people because surface transit was anticipated as something that would decline. Buses were flexible in that it was simply easier to cut a bus route which had no other infrastructure besides the roadway shared with cars.
The decline of the streetcar is attributable to cultural shifts towards suburban housing, highways, and the rise of the car. If GM played a role in the decline it was as a catalyst; it was less a conspiracy and more a product of the times.
GenerationW
Senior Member
^ Well stated.
LAz
Active Member
Don't oversimplify. Sweden planed suburbs and america's unplanned autosuburbs should not be mentioned in the same sentence. There's a way to do something good, and a way do do something bad. What happened in the US was like the worst case scenario.
Nice way to negate the fact that GM pretty much helped their subsidiaries gut out entire systems of streetcars.
The whole myth of the street-car being more epensive and whatnot crap is an okay bunch of yarns to sell to the uneducated peasant of the 1920s. But, the PCC streetcar kicked the butt of the bus. It had higher profits. St. Clair tears an extra ass onto the guys who want to defend the streetcars, so the best I can do is offer the guys book and some of his academic articles. The problem is that such thoughts stay in those arenas, and do not go out to the common peons on the streets.
Simply put, the whole economic reasons that the bus is better is complete bullshit concocted by the highway lobby. Don't fall for those lies. They're just comparing apples and oranges... why compare these 1920s streetcars? Why? They're inferior shit compared to the PCC of the 1930s. Now yeah, the PCC was not used as widely, but it pretty much monopolized the new street-car sales. It was that good. But, the decision was made to gut that. Toronto was the only city to maintain a real street-car system in angloamerica. We should be proud of that and tell the others FU for falling to corporate profit agendas and their unplanned growth disasters.
There were very legitimate steps taken to promote the short term interests of certain parties. They knew what they were doing. And they clamped down on those who opposed them. It was well orchestrated. As I said before, I do not have the problem buying that street-cars declined. I do not have a problem accepting that they ought to have declined by 50%, or heck even more than that. But almost whole scale elimination?!?!? F*** NO. That was not inevitable. That was intended.
Chuck
Senior Member
Historically you are absolutely correct, but today that is no longer the case. The small size of many American transit systems is shocking - even large cities (except in the northeast) have transit systems that operate on a frequency and scale resembling Mississauga Transit or YRT. Downtown Toronto is a true anomaly in that all of our streetcar lines carry 30,000+ riders over a route length usually less than 15 km in total. Many American streetcar and LRT lines are lucky to carry 10,000 people over a route length of 30 km or more. Considering the cost of laying and maintaining rails and vehicles, I'd say that buses are definitely more cost effective and better suited to the ridership. Unfortunately though buses carry a stigma whereas streetcars don't.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
For a guy who comes on this forum, swears a blue streak and tries to prove that he knows more than anybody else, you should probably start by getting your facts straight. "Urban Elites and Mass Transportation" is not about the GM streetcar conspiracy, it is about the cost overruns, regional interests and cronyism that plagued the design of the BART system.
Also, it wasn't written by DeWitt, it was written by James Whitt.
LAz
Active Member
Right you are. Parts of the mind get clogged up when one has been through loads of stuff. The filing cabinet in the brain makes mistakes occasionally.
The entire book is not about that, but thte dude does go into some detail about the conspiracy.
More importantly he makes a strong case as to why BART is a social failure.
I thought I was god! Are you going to pry that view away from me?! What ever happened to tolerance?
Well yeah. American cities are absolute disasters. They have such widespread ghettos and blight that it really is mindboggling on how to go about fixing it all.
But it did not have to all turn out this way. But... deliberate actions... deliberate actions...
Electrify
Senior Member
LAz
Active Member
Jee um and I suppose the moon has no people so perhaps that's the model to follow if we wanted to avoid sprawl. I don't like this logic nor the one that you use.
Sweden had a far smaller population. It could have faced the same situation that american cities faced. But it did not. They built their subway system in advance, prior to demand. They took heavy losses, but the results paid off big time. The government there went out of their way to buy up much land in order to decide how it gets used. Heck they started buying land as early as the turn of the century.
Their things are not uncommon to north america. Toronto wast he premier city on this continent. We had a regional government that coordinated transit and development. That is the key to success. We don't really hear much discussion on this no more though, too authoritarian huh, or perhaps we have succumbed to the agendas of the corporations. But, this is the point, that it was done in north america, in our city.
Hence this was not inevitable. Nothing was inevitable. Toronto, where you probably are, your home, is the example that refutes the "inevitable myth." Well, we kinda fucked up in the 1980s... but still, I am proud that our city is a shining example of how the things south of the border are primitive.
Electrify
Senior Member
I didn't know we could adequately farm on the moon! Well, maybe for Moon Pies...
Sweden and the rest of Europe didn't have a choice but to increase density to support increases in population. If they sprawled like we did, simply put, they would starve to death because there would not be enough farm land to produce the food to feed the people. The United States did not have this problem. Americans also have more of a "lone ranger" culture, and don't feel the same need to support transit like in Europe and Canada. They would rather drive themselves, then let the government do it for them.If the politicians wanted to keep their jobs, not building highways could have been political suicide.
Canadian cities tend to be more progressive. Even though we tore up our streetcar networks, most cities didn't build highways through the core, and even the ones that did never let them decay like in the US. Toronto took a wait and see approach, and after seeing how replacing streetcar networks with highway networks was working out, along with vocal public opposition, chose to keep trams and expand transit instead.
Sweden and the rest of Europe didn't have a choice but to increase density to support increases in population. If they sprawled like we did, simply put, they would starve to death because there would not be enough farm land to produce the food to feed the people. The United States did not have this problem. Americans also have more of a "lone ranger" culture, and don't feel the same need to support transit like in Europe and Canada. They would rather drive themselves, then let the government do it for them.If the politicians wanted to keep their jobs, not building highways could have been political suicide.
Canadian cities tend to be more progressive. Even though we tore up our streetcar networks, most cities didn't build highways through the core, and even the ones that did never let them decay like in the US. Toronto took a wait and see approach, and after seeing how replacing streetcar networks with highway networks was working out, along with vocal public opposition, chose to keep trams and expand transit instead.
LAz
Active Member
That is not true. Some countries - back to sweden ha - actually have lower population densities than the US.
Food is not a problem whatsoever. The western world easily produces far more food than it even needs. Norway imports the overwhelming majority of its food. Sprawl is not necessarily on farmland anyways.
The lone ranger thing is a consequence, not a cause. In 1900 mass transit was far superior in the US to european counterparts, both in terms of service, per capita useage, total overall useage, and youname it. The US was the leader, so don't give me that "inevitable" b.s.
"Let the government do stuff for them?" Such american thinking bothers me.
US cities did not decay solely because of highways going through them. European cities in both eastern and western europe have highways criscrossing, yet they are much more vibrant.
Wait now, I thought it was inevitable for systems in north america to tear up their stuff.
We all must understand that deliberate actions have been taken. If the Bus was a more economic thing in any way, then yeah I could see it replacing streetcars. But that is a myth that we have to discard. It simply is not true, and that is the end of the story that we need in order to accept the great streetcar conspiracy as a fact.
One thing that bothers me is the american mindset that "oh they wouldn't do that" when faced with unpleasant things. They bloody will do that, and much more. If they do not like calling it conspiracy theory they could call it coinsidence theory.
mmmmmmmm moonpie.... mmmmmmmm
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The Electric Railway Presidents’ Conference Committee, or ERPCC, produced a new type of streetcar to help fend off competition from buses and automobiles. The PCC name comes from the design committee formed in 1929 representing the Presidents of various electric street railways, including Toronto. The design proved successful enough to be licensed around the world after World War II. Unfortunately, while the design helped transit elsewhere, it only delayed the replacement of streetcars with buses in North America.
As the streetcars were being replaced, Toronto was able to buy used PCC streetcars at bargain prices. In some cases the used streetcars were almost still fresh and new. This helped the TTC with their budget during the late 1940's and early 1950's, and delayed wholesale replacement for decades.
As the streetcars were being replaced, Toronto was able to buy used PCC streetcars at bargain prices. In some cases the used streetcars were almost still fresh and new. This helped the TTC with their budget during the late 1940's and early 1950's, and delayed wholesale replacement for decades.