4 ms·

> 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 ce

> 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.
- ohples 5y ago
  It was only really beneficial for a small and arguably already well off population of largely white, middle and upper middle class people. And in the process of doing that excluded the rest of society from its benefits. Sprawl particularly exasperated inequality by basically requiring everyone who wanted to succeed to own a very expensive (both upfront and overtime) thing.
- ohples 5y ago
  Mass Suburbanization is bankrupting American cities https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
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.

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.
ohples 5y ago
It was only really beneficial for a small and arguably already well off population of largely white, middle and upper middle class people. And in the process of doing that excluded the rest of society from its benefits. Sprawl particularly exasperated inequality by basically requiring everyone who wanted to succeed to own a very expensive (both upfront and overtime) thing.
ohples 5y ago
Mass Suburbanization is bankrupting American cities https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

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.