5 ms·

It seems like every major infrastructure folly, at its heart, simplifies to "Someone made their career espousing a certain worldview, and when facts changed in

by ethbr0 5y ago

It seems like every major infrastructure folly, at its heart, simplifies to "Someone made their career espousing a certain worldview, and when facts changed in future decades, were unwilling or unable to change their now-famous beliefs." In this case, car > rail. Which was true and progressive, for a period! Say, 1950 to 1970? But then became false as the growth rate of cars outscaled roads.

jacobolus 5y ago
> car > rail. Which was true and progressive, for a period! Say, 1950 to 1970? What does “true and progressive” mean? The freeway expansions of the mid 20th century cutting through city centers were disastrous all over the USA, right from the start. Horrible for urban society, economy, equity, ... Thankfully San Francisco was never turned into https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~258982~5522256 https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~2... Great for the automobile, tire, and petroleum industries though.
- varenc 5y ago
  I think it's fair to say mass adoption of automobiles was viewed progressively in that time period. Certainly not by all, but by many. It was a new disruptive technology that allowed you to move people and things in a cost efficient way that previously wasn't possible. When your only option for public transit required an upfront investment in fixed rail lines, and then a cheap comfortable bus with rubber wheels and adjustable routes comes along, it seems like a huge innovation. Also from the article: "A widespread misconception exists that well-functioning streetcar systems were intentionally put out of business by a conspiratorial alliance of tire and auto manufacturers in the 1940s and 1950s…In reality, many streetcar companies were never reliably profitable, and they suffered from overcapitalization, inadequate maintenance, and poor service". In comparison to that, all these cheap and reliable "rubber tires" vehicles probably seemed pretty progressive. Of course, knowing what we know now, it's easy to see how incredibly short sighted this was. I sure wish we hadn't ripped out all those rail lines.
  - beamatronic 5y ago
    They're trying to rip out rail lines right now in Santa Cruz
- sandworm101 5y ago
  The urban sprawl created by the automobile was not a bad thing in its time. It democratized living. No longer were workers beholdant to landlords owning buildings next to the factory. Now everyone could live basically wherever they wanted. A new job no longer meant moving house and home across the city. Consumers had a far wider choice in where they purchased goods. And when they spotted a good deal they were not limited to what they could carry. In their day, these were very progressive changes. The entertainment industry would be far different if not for automobiles. Look at woodstock. Such iconic american activities and mass gatherings would not have been possible without widespread cheap personal transportation.
  - opportune 5y ago
    Yeah, suburbanization produced a tremendous amount of value allowing people to live in large, SFH homes with yards without having to pay high prices for land. I think we’ll always have suburbs at the urban:rural transition and that the automobile will play an important role in making them work. In a lot of urban areas now the population/demand is such that people have expanded well pass the initial sets of suburbs and now those suburbs are in dire need of urbanization. That’s due to general growth over time. While it looks terrible now, that’s more because people are greatly resisting converting suburban areas to urban, and doesn’t invalidate the initial decisions to create suburban areas.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      As another commenter opined, in retrospect the greatest failure seems to have been missed planning to evolve suburbs into cities of their own. An alternate reality would have seen the US purchase rights of way between traditional urban cores and new suburb centers, then run rail (and upzone density around that rail) once that suburb attained sufficient population to merit. Then build sufficient park-and-ride capacity to handle the suburb's population's last mile needs. So basically, what China does. Except with less upfront heavy construction (because the US doesn't need to drive a demand-based economy) and more emphasis on right of way purchase (because the US has stronger property rights). Instead, we largely grew the first generation of suburbs and then... just didn't invest or plan non-road transit. And so began growing suburbs outside of suburbs, and none of them connected with a high-throughput transit network.
- yzmtf2008 5y ago
  > Thankfully San Francisco was never turned into https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~258982~5522256 https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~2... I'm definately not one for more highways, but this map doesn't look _that_ different from SF today?
  - gumby 5y ago
    Do you remember the elevated freeway above what is now Hayes Valley, or the huge elevated freeway that blocked the view of the bay and made the embarcadero dark and grungy? And they wanted to build more.
    - warning26 5y ago
      Yup, this plan called for not one but two freeways through golden gate park. After all, why waste space on a park when it could be freeways?
      - Lammy 5y ago
        To be fair it was going to be underground through the park
- pjc50 5y ago
  > What does “true and progressive” mean? "For whom" may be the more pertinent question. It's impossible to untangle mass the politics of transit in that era from the politics of segregation. Hence the famous bus incident.
pc86 5y ago
When are we going to start treating failure to change your mind as the moral failing that it is?
- ethbr0 5y ago
  It's absolutely a moral failing, but an understandable one. If you spend 10+ years as a proponent of something, become famous and well-compensated for your expertise in it, and are surrounded by colleagues and employees who also believe in it... it's very hard to say "We've become wrong. Let's do things differently." It's the personal version of successful companies failing to adapt to innovation in their market.
- DoneWithAllThat 5y ago
  When are we going to stop pretending that mass transit is politically (or even physically) viable in the vast majority of the US landmass?
rootusrootus 5y ago
> the growth rate of cars outscaled roads That's underselling it a bit. The growth rate of roads was deliberately stalled in the 70s. We just elected not to build new infrastructure in most places, and coast with what we had. There are some exceptions, but they are just that -- exceptions. Meanwhile, it seems that the same people who didn't want to build any more road infrastructure also didn't want to build mass transit rail infrastructure either. And so here we are. Now, it's probably too late without a major cultural shift and realignment of priorities and sensitivities. We give everyone a seat at the table and every last one of them has veto power. So ... nothing happens. Without unanimous consensus. Hell, Oregon & Washington spent $175 million just to plan out a new bridge, and over $100 million of that was just pretty pictures. In the end, too many vetoes, too much fighting, we gave up. Eventually we will try again but maybe it will take the existing I-5 bridge dropping into the river from old age before agreement can be reached.
- tomc1985 5y ago
  Cost disease. Other countries have been completing public works projects of similar-or-larger scope for dramatically less than it costs here. How can anyone rationally accept $175 MILLION (pinky finger) for bridge planning? There are two many people sticking their hands out in American projects.
  - laurencerowe 5y ago
    Most other counties don’t attempt to build motorways through cities the way we do in the US. Until moving to San Francisco I’d never seen a 6 lanes each way motorway. Gained a new appreciation for the public transit in U.K. cities outside of London which I’d previously considered shitty.
    - JulesRosser 5y ago
      There were plans for three circular motorways in central London. Thankfully people came to their senses and it was only partially completed.
    - 5y ago
Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
See also John Forester and the cult of “vehicular cycling”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forester_(cyclist) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forester_(cyclist) https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a32257789/vehicular-cycling-advocate-john-forester-dies-at-90/ https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a32257789/vehicular-cyclin...
dredmorbius 5y ago
In a market-republic society, initiatives such as private automobile technology create a formidable alliance of interests which mass behind the concept of "car > rail": - Automobile manufacturers: they can sell more cars. - Fuel industry: Petroleum exploration, extraction, refining, transportation, distribution, and retail sales. - Independent automobile dealers and repair facilities: sales & services. - Auto suppliers: Support industry based around the manufacturing and repair. - Construction companies: Road and highway construction and maintenance. - Travel and tourism: Auto travel and auto-based tourism ("road trip", car rentals associated with other transport, etc.) emerge. - Real estate. Automobiles promote suburban sprawl real estate and development. This brings in construction, development, finance, brokers, title insurance, and more. - Media: Auto advertising becomes a major component of print, broadcast, and cable media. - Training and instruction: Drivers' training and related services. - Licencing: Government infrastructure around vehicle and driver certification and registration. - Sport: Auto racing creates its own fandom and dynamics. - Popular culture: Various fandoms, tribes, and allegiances based around specific brands, concepts, and activities. It would be difficult to intentionally devise a more effective self-sustaining, self-perpetuating market-political consortium. I don't believe that the automobile-support-industrial-complex was intentionally conceived --- it is an emergent concept. But once emerged it's phenomenally resilient. We've seen a few related sectors. The military-industrial complex identified by Eisenhower is one. I'd argue that the healthcare-industrial complex is another. The food and ag sector likely a third.

by ethbr0 5y ago

jacobolus 5y ago

> car > rail. Which was true and progressive, for a period! Say, 1950 to 1970? What does “true and progressive” mean? The freeway expansions of the mid 20th century cutting through city centers were disastrous all over the USA, right from the start. Horrible for urban society, economy, equity, ... Thankfully San Francisco was never turned into https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~258982~5522256 https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~2... Great for the automobile, tire, and petroleum industries though.

varenc 5y ago
I think it's fair to say mass adoption of automobiles was viewed progressively in that time period. Certainly not by all, but by many. It was a new disruptive technology that allowed you to move people and things in a cost efficient way that previously wasn't possible. When your only option for public transit required an upfront investment in fixed rail lines, and then a cheap comfortable bus with rubber wheels and adjustable routes comes along, it seems like a huge innovation. Also from the article: "A widespread misconception exists that well-functioning streetcar systems were intentionally put out of business by a conspiratorial alliance of tire and auto manufacturers in the 1940s and 1950s…In reality, many streetcar companies were never reliably profitable, and they suffered from overcapitalization, inadequate maintenance, and poor service". In comparison to that, all these cheap and reliable "rubber tires" vehicles probably seemed pretty progressive. Of course, knowing what we know now, it's easy to see how incredibly short sighted this was. I sure wish we hadn't ripped out all those rail lines.
- beamatronic 5y ago
  They're trying to rip out rail lines right now in Santa Cruz
sandworm101 5y ago
The urban sprawl created by the automobile was not a bad thing in its time. It democratized living. No longer were workers beholdant to landlords owning buildings next to the factory. Now everyone could live basically wherever they wanted. A new job no longer meant moving house and home across the city. Consumers had a far wider choice in where they purchased goods. And when they spotted a good deal they were not limited to what they could carry. In their day, these were very progressive changes. The entertainment industry would be far different if not for automobiles. Look at woodstock. Such iconic american activities and mass gatherings would not have been possible without widespread cheap personal transportation.
- opportune 5y ago
  Yeah, suburbanization produced a tremendous amount of value allowing people to live in large, SFH homes with yards without having to pay high prices for land. I think we’ll always have suburbs at the urban:rural transition and that the automobile will play an important role in making them work. In a lot of urban areas now the population/demand is such that people have expanded well pass the initial sets of suburbs and now those suburbs are in dire need of urbanization. That’s due to general growth over time. While it looks terrible now, that’s more because people are greatly resisting converting suburban areas to urban, and doesn’t invalidate the initial decisions to create suburban areas.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    As another commenter opined, in retrospect the greatest failure seems to have been missed planning to evolve suburbs into cities of their own. An alternate reality would have seen the US purchase rights of way between traditional urban cores and new suburb centers, then run rail (and upzone density around that rail) once that suburb attained sufficient population to merit. Then build sufficient park-and-ride capacity to handle the suburb's population's last mile needs. So basically, what China does. Except with less upfront heavy construction (because the US doesn't need to drive a demand-based economy) and more emphasis on right of way purchase (because the US has stronger property rights). Instead, we largely grew the first generation of suburbs and then... just didn't invest or plan non-road transit. And so began growing suburbs outside of suburbs, and none of them connected with a high-throughput transit network.
yzmtf2008 5y ago
> Thankfully San Francisco was never turned into https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~258982~5522256 https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~2... I'm definately not one for more highways, but this map doesn't look _that_ different from SF today?
- gumby 5y ago
  Do you remember the elevated freeway above what is now Hayes Valley, or the huge elevated freeway that blocked the view of the bay and made the embarcadero dark and grungy? And they wanted to build more.
  - warning26 5y ago
    Yup, this plan called for not one but two freeways through golden gate park. After all, why waste space on a park when it could be freeways?
    - Lammy 5y ago
      To be fair it was going to be underground through the park
pjc50 5y ago
> What does “true and progressive” mean? "For whom" may be the more pertinent question. It's impossible to untangle mass the politics of transit in that era from the politics of segregation. Hence the famous bus incident.

pc86 5y ago

When are we going to start treating failure to change your mind as the moral failing that it is?

ethbr0 5y ago
It's absolutely a moral failing, but an understandable one. If you spend 10+ years as a proponent of something, become famous and well-compensated for your expertise in it, and are surrounded by colleagues and employees who also believe in it... it's very hard to say "We've become wrong. Let's do things differently." It's the personal version of successful companies failing to adapt to innovation in their market.
DoneWithAllThat 5y ago
When are we going to stop pretending that mass transit is politically (or even physically) viable in the vast majority of the US landmass?

rootusrootus 5y ago

> the growth rate of cars outscaled roads That's underselling it a bit. The growth rate of roads was deliberately stalled in the 70s. We just elected not to build new infrastructure in most places, and coast with what we had. There are some exceptions, but they are just that -- exceptions. Meanwhile, it seems that the same people who didn't want to build any more road infrastructure also didn't want to build mass transit rail infrastructure either. And so here we are. Now, it's probably too late without a major cultural shift and realignment of priorities and sensitivities. We give everyone a seat at the table and every last one of them has veto power. So ... nothing happens. Without unanimous consensus. Hell, Oregon & Washington spent $175 million just to plan out a new bridge, and over $100 million of that was just pretty pictures. In the end, too many vetoes, too much fighting, we gave up. Eventually we will try again but maybe it will take the existing I-5 bridge dropping into the river from old age before agreement can be reached.

tomc1985 5y ago
Cost disease. Other countries have been completing public works projects of similar-or-larger scope for dramatically less than it costs here. How can anyone rationally accept $175 MILLION (pinky finger) for bridge planning? There are two many people sticking their hands out in American projects.
- laurencerowe 5y ago
  Most other counties don’t attempt to build motorways through cities the way we do in the US. Until moving to San Francisco I’d never seen a 6 lanes each way motorway. Gained a new appreciation for the public transit in U.K. cities outside of London which I’d previously considered shitty.
  - JulesRosser 5y ago
    There were plans for three circular motorways in central London. Thankfully people came to their senses and it was only partially completed.
  - 5y ago

Doctor_Fegg 5y ago

See also John Forester and the cult of “vehicular cycling”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forester_(cyclist) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forester_(cyclist) https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a32257789/vehicular-cycling-advocate-john-forester-dies-at-90/ https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a32257789/vehicular-cyclin...

dredmorbius 5y ago

In a market-republic society, initiatives such as private automobile technology create a formidable alliance of interests which mass behind the concept of "car > rail": - Automobile manufacturers: they can sell more cars. - Fuel industry: Petroleum exploration, extraction, refining, transportation, distribution, and retail sales. - Independent automobile dealers and repair facilities: sales & services. - Auto suppliers: Support industry based around the manufacturing and repair. - Construction companies: Road and highway construction and maintenance. - Travel and tourism: Auto travel and auto-based tourism ("road trip", car rentals associated with other transport, etc.) emerge. - Real estate. Automobiles promote suburban sprawl real estate and development. This brings in construction, development, finance, brokers, title insurance, and more. - Media: Auto advertising becomes a major component of print, broadcast, and cable media. - Training and instruction: Drivers' training and related services. - Licencing: Government infrastructure around vehicle and driver certification and registration. - Sport: Auto racing creates its own fandom and dynamics. - Popular culture: Various fandoms, tribes, and allegiances based around specific brands, concepts, and activities. It would be difficult to intentionally devise a more effective self-sustaining, self-perpetuating market-political consortium. I don't believe that the automobile-support-industrial-complex was intentionally conceived --- it is an emergent concept. But once emerged it's phenomenally resilient. We've seen a few related sectors. The military-industrial complex identified by Eisenhower is one. I'd argue that the healthcare-industrial complex is another. The food and ag sector likely a third.