> The real reason you don't see streetcars is that the benefits of a public transit system are externalities[2], and so they must be funded by the government.
I don't follow your logic here. Seems like two different issues. First, should transit be subsidized based on positive externalities. Second, which technology will best deliver that transit. Are these issues coupled somehow? I think they are independent.
In the US, we often have government-operated buses that are heavily subsidized. If streetcars were a better option, the transportation authority could use them.Whether subsidized or not, whether public or private, you presumably have a decision maker looking to deliver transit of a certain grade at the lowest cost.
So if all the historical rails and overhead wires were still intact, I'm guessing that today's transit authorities would make the same decision as the transit companies did back in the day, which is switch over to motor buses and either dismantle or neglect the expensive infrastructure.
Of course there would be a few exceptions; very heavily used routes, and places where non-economic reasons would intervene.
Now the wikipedia page you linked presents a much more nuanced view than what you advocated. In fact it contains a lot to support my skepticism, particularly under "Other Factors" and "Counterarguments". For instance:
> "GM Killed the Red cars in Los Angeles".[84] Pacific Electric Railway (which operated the 'red cars') was hemorrhaging routes as traffic congestion worsened with growing car ownership levels after the end of World War II.[88]
And most tellingly:
> GM's alleged conspiracy extended to only about 10% of American transit systems
So the other 90% shut down the street car lines without any arm twisting from GM. Sounds like all system operators saw the same economic picture.
I'm not wedded to my theory (change driven by evolving technology) but I'm even more skeptical of your theory (change driven by conspiracy).
~
> The real reason you don't see streetcars is that the benefits of a public transit system are externalities[2], and so they must be funded by the government.
I don't follow your logic here. Seems like two different issues. First, should transit be subsidized based on positive externalities. Second, which technology will best deliver that transit. Are these issues coupled somehow? I think they are independent.
In the US, we often have government-operated buses that are heavily subsidized. If streetcars were a better option, the transportation authority could use them.Whether subsidized or not, whether public or private, you presumably have a decision maker looking to deliver transit of a certain grade at the lowest cost.
(This page gives a sense of the subsidy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio)
So if all the historical rails and overhead wires were still intact, I'm guessing that today's transit authorities would make the same decision as the transit companies did back in the day, which is switch over to motor buses and either dismantle or neglect the expensive infrastructure.
Of course there would be a few exceptions; very heavily used routes, and places where non-economic reasons would intervene.
Now the wikipedia page you linked presents a much more nuanced view than what you advocated. In fact it contains a lot to support my skepticism, particularly under "Other Factors" and "Counterarguments". For instance:
> "GM Killed the Red cars in Los Angeles".[84] Pacific Electric Railway (which operated the 'red cars') was hemorrhaging routes as traffic congestion worsened with growing car ownership levels after the end of World War II.[88]
And most tellingly:
> GM's alleged conspiracy extended to only about 10% of American transit systems
So the other 90% shut down the street car lines without any arm twisting from GM. Sounds like all system operators saw the same economic picture.
I'm not wedded to my theory (change driven by evolving technology) but I'm even more skeptical of your theory (change driven by conspiracy). ~