TIL: Today I Learned

[Yeekim]

TIL about the British Empire's more humane form of the death penalty in 1857.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_from_a_gun

"a bad pun about cannon-ized martyrs."

 

[rah]

There's a reason that public transportation is so much more widely used in Chicago than it is in LA.

Because we have more public transportation maybe?

 

[Broken_Erika]

It's a Blast from the Past!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Because we have more public transportation maybe?

LA has a really hard time expanding public transportation because no one uses the public transportation that there already is...because they aren't terrified by the roads. We should import some drivers from Chicago. Nothing like a few "OMG I'm at the top of the on ramp and just realized I don't know how to get on a freeway" panic stoppers to convince people to take the train.

 

[rah]

Chicken or the egg. Build a better network, and people will come. I would bet there is a higher percentage of non car owners in Chicago. Maybe I'll look it up.
Mass transit in Chicago may have some issues but it has darn good coverage. (except the far south side)

OK based on 2016 stats
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/car-ownership-numbers-of-vehicles-by-city-map.html

Chicago Household without vehicle 27% trending up
LA 12.2%

Quite a difference

 

[Lexicus]

no one uses the public transportation that there already is...because they aren't terrified by the roads.

Well, yes, being stuck in traffic for hours a day is just really boring, not terrifying. In all seriousness the reason people don't use public transport in LA as much is because it has really low stop density, and the reason it has really low stop density is because LA is huge and it would cost a lot to build a dense public transport system.

Also LA was like ground zero for the car industry's destruction of the American city, so there is some history to consider.

 

[Ferocitus]

TIL that in 1856 South Carolina Democrat Preston Brooks beat Massachusetts Republican Sen. Charles Sumner with a cane.
https://www.motherjones.com/politic...ence-civil-war-joanne-freeman-charles-sumner/

No doubt, many USians know that it happened, but not the prolonged heating of national tempers that led up to what was, at the time, a very momentous event.

 

[Birdjaguar]

History would lead us to believe that big events happened quickly in the past, but usually, they were a long time coming and building to a point where some small event tips the scale.

 

[Phrossack]

History would lead us to believe that big events happened quickly in the past, but usually, they were a long time coming and building to a point where some small event tips the scale.

Bad history, maybe. History done well reveals that the Civil War was decades or more in the making.

TIL about the Dungan language, the only Chinese dialect written in Cyrillic.

Also learned about the exceptionally brutal Dungan Revolt of 1895, in which Chinese Muslims went to war with each other and were ruthlessly crushed by the government. It took some Chinese forces away fom the war with Japan, but they would've been slaughtered like all the others had they fought them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, yes, being stuck in traffic for hours a day is just really boring, not terrifying. In all seriousness the reason people don't use public transport in LA as much is because it has really low stop density, and the reason it has really low stop density is because LA is huge and it would cost a lot to build a dense public transport system.

Also LA was like ground zero for the car industry's destruction of the American city, so there is some history to consider.

No arguments there, other than the general truth that "hours a day" is also very rare. The "horrors of traffic" and the "bad drivers" legends are...well, legends. Driving in LA is different, for sure, so people who visit support the legends, but they're still legends.

 

[Zkribbler]

... the reason people don't use public transport in LA as much is because it has really low stop density,...

The buses are packed, the light rail is packed, even the POS Orange Line is packed.

 

[Ajidica]

History would lead us to believe that big events happened quickly in the past, but usually, they were a long time coming and building to a point where some small event tips the scale.

Its like the famous adage that things go wrong slowly, then all at once.

 

[sophie]

Well, yes, being stuck in traffic for hours a day is just really boring, not terrifying. In all seriousness the reason people don't use public transport in LA as much is because it has really low stop density, and the reason it has really low stop density is because LA is huge and it would cost a lot to build a dense public transport system.

Also LA was like ground zero for the car industry's destruction of the American city, so there is some history to consider.

This. It's important to remember that the Los Angeles streetcar system was one of the must efficient, extensive, and beloved, public transit systems in the developed world in the first half of the 20th century. A genuine marvel. The streetcars don't exist anymore, quite literally, because GM bought a shell corporation and funneled money into them to buy up all the streetcar companies in LA (and subsequently in many other cities with cheap, effective streetcar systems) and cut staff and scheduling so the streetcar companies would go out of business, AND THEN GM bought a second shell corporation to lobby politicians to replace the tired, failing streetcar companies with new, exciting buses, which this GM shell corporation would manage.

This isn't even a crank conspiracy. GM literally got busted doing this. The men responsible paid a pittance and the ultimate result was the irrevocable destruction of good, clean, fast, efficient public transportation in the US.

 

[Takhisis]

Just in case Owen's post sounds too outlandish.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This. It's important to remember that the Los Angeles streetcar system was one of the must efficient, extensive, and beloved, public transit systems in the developed world in the first half of the 20th century. A genuine marvel. The streetcars don't exist anymore, quite literally, because GM bought a shell corporation and funneled money into them to buy up all the streetcar companies in LA (and subsequently in many other cities with cheap, effective streetcar systems) and cut staff and scheduling so the streetcar companies would go out of business, AND THEN GM bought a second shell corporation to lobby politicians to replace the tired, failing streetcar companies with new, exciting buses, which this GM shell corporation would manage.

This isn't even a crank conspiracy. GM literally got busted doing this. The men responsible paid a pittance and the ultimate result was the irrevocable destruction of good, clean, fast, efficient public transportation in the US.

Thanks for posting that. It is a great story of corporate greed and manipulation.

 

[Takhisis]

Not just corporate.

From the wiki article:

In 1949, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, GM and Mack Trucks were convicted of conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to local transit companies controlled by NCL; they were acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the ownership of these companies. The verdicts were upheld on appeal in 1951.[41] GM was fined $5,000 and GM treasurer H.C. Grossman was fined $1.​

Even for 1949 $5,000 is a ridiculously low sum.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

This. It's important to remember that the Los Angeles streetcar system was one of the must efficient, extensive, and beloved, public transit systems in the developed world in the first half of the 20th century. A genuine marvel. The streetcars don't exist anymore, quite literally, because GM bought a shell corporation and funneled money into them to buy up all the streetcar companies in LA (and subsequently in many other cities with cheap, effective streetcar systems) and cut staff and scheduling so the streetcar companies would go out of business, AND THEN GM bought a second shell corporation to lobby politicians to replace the tired, failing streetcar companies with new, exciting buses, which this GM shell corporation would manage.

This isn't even a crank conspiracy. GM literally got busted doing this. The men responsible paid a pittance and the ultimate result was the irrevocable destruction of good, clean, fast, efficient public transportation in the US.

Instead of paying a small fine, they should have been made to fix the streetcars.

 

[Ajidica]

This. It's important to remember that the Los Angeles streetcar system was one of the must efficient, extensive, and beloved, public transit systems in the developed world in the first half of the 20th century. A genuine marvel. The streetcars don't exist anymore, quite literally, because GM bought a shell corporation and funneled money into them to buy up all the streetcar companies in LA (and subsequently in many other cities with cheap, effective streetcar systems) and cut staff and scheduling so the streetcar companies would go out of business, AND THEN GM bought a second shell corporation to lobby politicians to replace the tired, failing streetcar companies with new, exciting buses, which this GM shell corporation would manage.

This isn't even a crank conspiracy. GM literally got busted doing this. The men responsible paid a pittance and the ultimate result was the irrevocable destruction of good, clean, fast, efficient public transportation in the US.

While I am not very familiar with the LA streetcar system, I am much more familiar with the Twin Cities streetcar system which at one point was regarded as one of the best in the nation. The Twin Cities streetcar system wasn't done in by a General Motors conspiracy, but by many other more mundane issues which made busses appear a more effective alternative.
1) Corporate greed. The system was bought out by a speculator in the late 40s right as it was preparing to embark on some much needed maintenance that had been deferred during the Depression and the War. Instead, the company wound down its streetcar operations and switched over to busses.
2) Streetcars are far more complicated and expensive to run than busses. Minnesota winters do not play nice with rails mounted in streets (and subject to frost heaving) or the power lines. The electrical demands of the streetcar system required dedicated generating stations. Further, the streetcars themselves were more difficult to maintain than busses and a breakdown on the line could cause massive system blockages.
3) Streetcars are inflexible. On a grand scale, the Twin Cities were expanding rapidly and the streetcar system couldn't keep up with the expansion. On a small scale, the reliance on tracks, often in street running, made it basically impossible to go around obstructions and the streetcars would become stuck in the increasing traffic that accompanies growing cities. Transferring the streetcar system to an off street system just didn't make sense.
4) Busses seemed to be able to do everything streetcars could do, but better. As much as it pains me to admit it given how much I love trains, that is generally right.

Could the Twin Cities streetcar system have been saved and been maintained to be a part of the current Twin Cities mass transit network? It could have been, but it could also have remained an expensive, capital-intensive money sink that was incapable of servicing the rapidly growing cities.

 

[W|M]

3) Streetcars are inflexible. On a grand scale, the Twin Cities were expanding rapidly and the streetcar system couldn't keep up with the expansion. On a small scale, the reliance on tracks, often in street running, made it basically impossible to go around obstructions and the streetcars would become stuck in the increasing traffic that accompanies growing cities. Transferring the streetcar system to an off street system just didn't make sense.
4) Busses seemed to be able to do everything streetcars could do, but better. As much as it pains me to admit it given how much I love trains, that is generally right.

Could the Twin Cities streetcar system have been saved and been maintained to be a part of the current Twin Cities mass transit network? It could have been, but it could also have remained an expensive, capital-intensive money sink that was incapable of servicing the rapidly growing cities.

Modern trams, at the very least, would be more useful now, due to increased capacity, and because they'd be more likely to be electric rather than diesel-powered. Growing cities also don't necessarily increase car traffic, just if car-focused infrastructure is heavily invested into at the expense of everything else (as it was in the 1950s)

 

[Truthy]

This. It's important to remember that the Los Angeles streetcar system was one of the must efficient, extensive, and beloved, public transit systems in the developed world in the first half of the 20th century. A genuine marvel. The streetcars don't exist anymore, quite literally, because GM bought a shell corporation and funneled money into them to buy up all the streetcar companies in LA (and subsequently in many other cities with cheap, effective streetcar systems) and cut staff and scheduling so the streetcar companies would go out of business, AND THEN GM bought a second shell corporation to lobby politicians to replace the tired, failing streetcar companies with new, exciting buses, which this GM shell corporation would manage.

This isn't even a crank conspiracy. GM literally got busted doing this. The men responsible paid a pittance and the ultimate result was the irrevocable destruction of good, clean, fast, efficient public transportation in the US.

I have to say I'm surprised at how often this story surfaces even though it's widely known to be mostly false. In fact, if you google it, most articles discussing it will quickly point out that it ranges from simplistic to outright wrong.

For one, this story, as commonly told (and it is commonly told--I see it resurrected quite regularly and it featured prominently in Who Framed Roger Rabbit), suggests streetcars were great and wouldn't have met their demise without GM's meddling. Really, streetcars were inefficient and were dying off for lots of reasons. Ridership had been in decline across the country since the time of Jitneys, which were cheap proto-buses, in the 1910s. More modern buses ("motor buses") continued to render streetcars relatively impractical and many cities were ditching streetcars well before any GM shenanigans. Streetcar lines are, of course, harder to build and maintain and scaled poorly as cities grew. Buses, on the other hand, could manage scalability by simply adding new bus stops, while taking advantage of the infrastructure being built for automobiles. Streetcar schedules became unreliable, but primarily because of the difficulties they had sharing roads with automobiles. In fact, many streetcar companies, like Pacific Electric, began investing heavily in buses because they too understood the problems with streetcars

This post is also erroneous because, in fact, GM was not busted for doing what you describe. They got busted for trying to monopolize the sale of buses, fuel, and supplies. I hope I don't need to spell this out, but monopolizing the sale of supplies needed by buses is not the same as monopolizing streetcars and deliberately running them into the ground. Yeah, you could then try to say, "well, maybe that's not what they got busted for, but they still did it." However, one, I've never come across any good evidence that National City Lines (the so-called "shell company") was acting nefariously by scrapping streetcars and replacing them with buses. That was, in fact, what streetcar companies like LA's Pacific Electric had already been doing for decades. And the extent to which they did this seems pretty questionable too. For example, this Vox article claims National City Lines was involved in about 10% of cases where streetcar systems were dismantled (Vox's citation points to a book from 2007 called "Urban Mass Transit"). In the particular case of LA, National City Lines did not monopolize all of the streetcar lines as you claim. Rather, they only bought one. The rest of Pacific Electric carried on, falling further into decline, until finally petering out by 1961 when the city of LA wiped them out. Really, imagine being at GM while this is going on. Do you think "[evil laughter] we're really nailing those streetcars now"? Or do you think "streetcars aren't doing well, good thing we're here to speed up the transition to buses, which everyone knows are better"?

Yes, you claim that GM also did lots of lobbying, ingratiating themselves with lawmakers and making it impossible for companies like Pacific Electric to compete with buses or automobiles. But this is a massive simplification that ignores that the process of shifting to buses had been in motion since the 10s or 20s and I frankly don't buy that GM made that big of a difference. Nor do very many other people who've put much thought into the GM-killed-the-streetcar theory. Of course, the decline and fall of streetcars was not inevitable, but the trend was well-established by the time GM showed up on the scene. If municipalities had supported streetcars more or put more effort into fixing their issues (Boston seemed to have figured it out), maybe they would still be common in American cities. But they're not due to a variety of factors, like commuter preferences, regulatory environments, the choices of municipalities, urban planning decisions, the legal contracts that forced streetcar companies to keep fares low, and so on. The narrative that it all boils down to clear-cut nefarious action by GM is factually wrong in many ways and is highly simplistic thinking.

So, no, GM did not "quite literally" destroy streetcars in America, nor in LA. Streetcars were in decline across the country (maybe across the world?) well before GM intervened. GM did not get busted for destroying streetcars, but for monopolizing the supply chains of buses, which is totally different from what you and Who Framed Roger Rabbit allege. Insofar as GM's subsidiary directly messed with streetcars in LA, it was only partial, with just one line. Insofar as they messed with streetcars across the country, it's totally unclear what was nefarious mismanagement and was just the continuation of what many streetcar companies had already started on their own--the transition to buses. Insofar as they meddled via lobbying, I'm extremely skeptical they made much of a difference.