3 ms·

The history of the LA area "Red Car" transit system makes for interesting reading (covered well on WikiPedia). A large well used, electric, urban rail system th

The history of the LA area "Red Car" transit system makes for interesting reading (covered well on WikiPedia). A large well used, electric, urban rail system that no longer exists. Primarily because it was originally funded by the developers of the "beach" cities as a way to increase the value of their housing developments, since residents were able to commute to jobs downtown and elsewhere. However, once the houses were all built and sold, there was no incentive to keep funding the street cars and the system eventually closed. Many of the disused lines were used as the basis for new freeways, ironically.

epistasis 3y ago
Transit (and freeways) as property development schemes are very underecognized, thanks for pointing this out. The Henry George Theorem (Sitglitz 1977) states that (in the right conditions) funding of public goods like transit and freeways increases the land value and therefore land rents by more than the investment amount. Namely, it creates value, but for whoever owns the land. Changing to less car centric development has the potential to vastly increase value. I'd advocate for a land value tax to fund the public investment, but would be happy with whatever non-car centric options are made available, honestly.
johngossman 3y ago
It also forms the basis for the plot of “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”
scoofy 3y ago
I talk about this a lot when I discuss transportation policy (not a professional or anything, just been interested in for two decades). People seem to think that there is some pendulum that swings in directions when it comes to infrastructure. It's really not. These things happen in cascades. Once a new mode is dominate, it takes over until it outlives it's usefulness and then collapses. The LA Red Car is exactly this scenario, as is long haul rail transportation. And if you've been reading the Chuck Marhon for the last decade, you might see the suburban development pattern leaning toward a similar cascade. I don't see the automobile disappearing from the American city any time soon (the hoi polloi love the idea of the damn things too much even if the hate being in traffic), but you can live car free in so many American cities these days, it's really shocking.

epistasis 3y ago

Transit (and freeways) as property development schemes are very underecognized, thanks for pointing this out. The Henry George Theorem (Sitglitz 1977) states that (in the right conditions) funding of public goods like transit and freeways increases the land value and therefore land rents by more than the investment amount. Namely, it creates value, but for whoever owns the land. Changing to less car centric development has the potential to vastly increase value. I'd advocate for a land value tax to fund the public investment, but would be happy with whatever non-car centric options are made available, honestly.

johngossman 3y ago

It also forms the basis for the plot of “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”

scoofy 3y ago

I talk about this a lot when I discuss transportation policy (not a professional or anything, just been interested in for two decades). People seem to think that there is some pendulum that swings in directions when it comes to infrastructure. It's really not. These things happen in cascades. Once a new mode is dominate, it takes over until it outlives it's usefulness and then collapses. The LA Red Car is exactly this scenario, as is long haul rail transportation. And if you've been reading the Chuck Marhon for the last decade, you might see the suburban development pattern leaning toward a similar cascade. I don't see the automobile disappearing from the American city any time soon (the hoi polloi love the idea of the damn things too much even if the hate being in traffic), but you can live car free in so many American cities these days, it's really shocking.