Feb. 17, 1958
Los Angeles
Here’s Part 2 of Ray Hebert’s look at the consolidation of Los Angeles’ mass-transportation system under the MTA. Note the photograph of the streetcar, No. 312, heading from 6th and Main to Bellflower. As far as I can determine, this is a "blimp"-style car, which means it was built about 1913, when Woodrow Wilson was president. By 1958, this streetcar was about 45 years old. Now tell me: Would you honestly want to depend on a 45-year-old car for daily transportation? Or a 45-year-old bus? Or a 45-year-old train? No matter how well-maintained it was? Let’s put it even more graphically: In an era when the U.S. and the Soviets were making their first successful space shots, people in Los Angeles were riding streetcars built 10 years after the Wright Bros.’ first flight at Kitty Hawk.
ladailymirror.com 
Larry,
I’ve read arguments for new rail rapid transit, which is prohibitively expensive to build, based on just what you wrote: that the rolling stock, and all the other facilities and equipment (custom built, mind you) required for operation of this system, will last at least fifty years.
This is based, of course, on the supposed longevity of the operating life of rolling stock and equipment of turn of the twentieth century systems like the Pacific Electric Interurbans and the Los Angeles Railway streetcars as you remarked on.
I suppose railway systems in other cites like the New York Subway system, which was in terrible condition for decades before billions were poured in to rehabilitate it, and the Chicago “L” which is in dire need of rehabilitation that would cost billions and needs constant infusions of funding from the State of Illinois to keep operating are also examples of rail’s longevity and superiority for transportation in cities.
One must ask why rolling stock as old as the car in the picture using turn of the Twentieth Century technology and equipment to operate was never replaced with newer and more modern equipment and technology. The rail fans would tell you that the existing equipment and technology was so good and durable that it didn’t need to be replaced. Also the supposed GM conspiracy is mentioned also a prime culprit in preventing rail systems from being modernized instead of destroyed.
I think the real answer is simple and obvious. There was no money to buy newer rolling stock and equipment. #1. It’s too expensive. #2. The support and demand for mass transit in Los Angeles was never there in spite of endless efforts by mass transit promoters to build these prohibitively expensive facilities. Too many people owned and used cars in L.A. and Los Angeles did not grow into a big city until after the advent of mass ownership and use of automobiles, unlike cities like New York and Chicago. Ridership on streetcars actually declined in real terms as the population of Los Angeles boomed.
Trying to argue with certain people about these things is pointless. People believe what they want to believe about L.A.’s old streetcars.
–Thanks so very much for your long and thoughtful response. I truly appreciate your perspective and you raise excellent points! I’m so glad you share them with us.
–My main purpose in posting this material is simply to show that traffic in Los Angeles is not a new problem. It is, in fact, at least a century old.
–Thanks again! You provide terrific insight to this enduring challenge to living in L.A.
–Larry
LikeLike
Thank god a nuclear powered rocket was newer developed. I don’t even want to think about the consequences of an accident or explosion.
LikeLike
HEY!!! I drive a 57 Chev. Pickup everyday…51 yrs. old. Of course it has “some improvements” .
–An Apache? Those are cool trucks!
–Larry
LikeLike
Larry,
Only 3 months later, on 25 May 1958 service on the truncated Bellflower line would be discontinued.
No. 312 pictured is not a street car but a former Pacific Electric interurban, then operated incongruously by Metropolitan Coach Lines. In earlier years, these interurbans could be combined in trains of up to 6 units.
For all of its journey from Los Angeles to Bellflower, this rail car would have traveled on a dedicated right of way. The Los Angeles street cars which ran until 1963 were a different creature altogether.
It could be argued that what doomed the Interurbans was not their sometimes antiquated rolling stock but the lack of separation from vehicular traffic. Even with dedicated right of ways, there were still frequent grade crossings.
Ultimately it was economics that relegated mass transit to second place in Los Angeles for decades : so long as the moneyed classes relied on public transportation, it flourished. Once the age of private ownership of cars took hold in the 1920’s, the money followed and the Pacific Electric network, to give the most stark example, went into a 36 year death spiral from its 1925 peak.
–Thanks for sharing your knowledge! I truly appreciate your insight. One of my goals in posting this material is to give some historical context to the enduring challenge of transportation in Los Angeles. I hope to illustrate, if I haven’t already, that getting around the city is at least a 100-year-old problem.
–Larry
LikeLike