What If Los Angeles Developed Comprehensive Public Transit in the 1960s?

The Actual History

Los Angeles once boasted one of the world's most extensive public transit systems. In the early 20th century, the Pacific Electric Railway—affectionately known as the "Red Cars"—operated over 1,100 miles of track across Southern California, forming the largest electric railway system in the world. Alongside it, the Los Angeles Railway's "Yellow Cars" provided local service throughout the city's core. These systems carried nearly 110 million passengers annually at their peak in the 1920s.

However, the region's love affair with public transit was short-lived. Beginning in the 1930s and accelerating after World War II, Los Angeles systematically dismantled its rail infrastructure in favor of automobiles and freeways. Multiple factors contributed to this transformation: the Great Depression weakened transit companies financially; automobile interests (including General Motors, Standard Oil, and Firestone Tires) purchased and subsequently dismantled streetcar systems through holding companies like National City Lines; and federal policies heavily subsidized highway construction while offering minimal support for public transportation.

The 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act provided 90% federal funding for interstate highways, catalyzing a freeway-building boom across America. Los Angeles enthusiastically embraced this approach. In 1958, the city approved an ambitious freeway master plan that would eventually create over 527 miles of freeways throughout the region. By 1963, the last Red Car made its final run, and by 1965, the Yellow Cars had disappeared as well.

This deliberate shift toward auto-centric development transformed Los Angeles's physical and cultural landscape. The city sprawled outward, with low-density subdivisions replacing agricultural land. Shopping centers surrounded by vast parking lots became the new commercial hubs. The region's famous smog problem intensified, leading to some of the worst air quality in the nation by the 1970s.

When oil crises and growing environmental awareness in the 1970s prompted reconsideration of public transit, Los Angeles found itself starting essentially from scratch. After decades of false starts and political battles, Los Angeles County voters approved Proposition A in 1980, providing funding for new transit initiatives. The first modern light rail line (the Blue Line) didn't open until 1990, followed by the Red Line subway in 1993. Progress remained slow and expensive, as building transit infrastructure in an already-developed, car-oriented city proved exceedingly difficult.

By 2023, Los Angeles had constructed about 100 miles of fixed-guideway transit—a fraction of its historical system—at a cost of tens of billions of dollars. Despite these investments, Los Angeles remains predominantly car-dependent, with only about 5% of residents using public transit for their daily commute, compared to roughly 30% in New York City. The average Angeleno spends 119 hours annually stuck in traffic, among the worst congestion rates globally, while the region continues to struggle with air quality issues and the environmental impacts of its transportation choices.

The Point of Divergence

What if Los Angeles had rejected the automobile-centric development model and instead doubled down on public transportation in the 1960s? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where Los Angeles made a fundamentally different choice about its urban future at a critical juncture in its development.

The point of divergence occurs in 1962-1963, when several key events aligned differently:

First, instead of the last Red Car making its final run in 1963, the newly formed Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD, created in 1964 in our timeline) is established a year earlier and given an expanded mandate. Rather than merely taking over the struggling bus systems, the SCRTD receives authorization to preserve, modernize, and expand the region's remaining rail infrastructure.

Second, Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty, who served from 1961 to 1973, becomes an unexpected champion for public transportation rather than focusing primarily on freeway development. This change could have several plausible origins:

Perhaps Yorty traveled to Tokyo and Western European cities in 1962 and was impressed by their modern transit systems, convincing him that a world-class city needed world-class public transportation.
Alternatively, respiratory health issues affecting his family might have made the connection between automobile emissions and the city's worsening smog problem personal for him.
Or possibly, seeing the destruction of historic neighborhoods by freeway construction could have triggered a reconsideration of the city's development trajectory.

Third, and perhaps most crucially, California Governor Pat Brown (1959-1967) aligns with this vision rather than prioritizing the state highway system. In our timeline, Brown was known as the "highway governor" for his freeway-building legacy. In this alternate timeline, Brown becomes equally passionate about balanced transportation systems, perhaps influenced by urban planners warning about the limitations of automobile-dependent growth.

The crucial moment comes when a comprehensive regional transit plan, which in our timeline was rejected, instead receives approval and funding. The 1963 "Southern California Rapid Transit System Master Plan" becomes the blueprint for a different Los Angeles—one that would develop around transit rather than exclusively around the automobile.

Immediate Aftermath

Preservation and Modernization (1963-1967)

The immediate effect of this divergence is that instead of abandoning the remaining rail infrastructure, Los Angeles begins an ambitious program to preserve and modernize it. The Southern California Rapid Transit District's first priority is upgrading the surviving Red Car lines, which are still operating along key corridors:

The Long Beach line (today's A Line route)
The San Fernando Valley line through the Cahuenga Pass
The Santa Monica Air Line (similar to today's E Line)
The Glendale-Burbank line

Rather than ripping out tracks, the SCRTD invests in modern equipment, replacing the aging Red Cars with new articulated light rail vehicles similar to those appearing in European cities. Stations are rebuilt with modern amenities, and rights-of-way are improved with grade separations at major intersections to allow faster service.

The California State Legislature, under Governor Pat Brown's leadership, passes the Public Transportation Development Act of 1963, which diverts a portion of state highway funds to match local funding for transit improvements. This creates a sustainable funding source that doesn't exist in our timeline until the 1970s.

The Federal Shift (1964-1968)

The timeline divergence coincides with and influences national policy changes. The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, which in our timeline provided modest federal assistance for public transportation, becomes a much more substantial program in this alternate timeline, partly due to lobbying from California's influential congressional delegation.

President Lyndon B. Johnson, whose Great Society programs included many urban initiatives, becomes an enthusiastic supporter of Los Angeles's transit vision after Mayor Yorty convinces him that modern public transportation is essential for addressing urban poverty and segregation. Johnson sees political advantage in supporting infrastructure that creates jobs while connecting disadvantaged communities to employment centers.

By 1966, a revised Federal-Aid Highway Act includes a provision that metropolitan areas must develop balanced transportation plans that include public transit in order to receive full highway funding. This policy shift accelerates transit planning nationwide, with Los Angeles as the model.

The First New Lines (1968-1970)

By 1968, Los Angeles has completed modernization of its remaining rail network and begins construction on its first entirely new line: a subway beneath Wilshire Boulevard from downtown to Western Avenue (the first segment of what would later become the "Purple Line"). This project, using technologies similar to the BART system under construction in San Francisco, marks Los Angeles's commitment to high-capacity, rapid transit.

Simultaneously, planning advances for an extensive regional system. The SCRTD board approves a comprehensive network plan featuring:

A subway system serving downtown and major corridors like Wilshire Boulevard
Enhanced and extended light rail lines using former Red Car routes
Commuter rail services to outlying communities
A dedicated busway network for areas not served by rail
Integration of transit with land use planning

Social and Economic Impacts (1965-1972)

The immediate social impact of this transit investment is most apparent during the 1965 Watts Riots. In our timeline, the lack of transportation options for South Los Angeles residents was identified as a contributing factor to the community's isolation and economic challenges. In this alternate timeline, the preserved and improved rail connection between Watts and downtown (the old Watts Line of the Red Cars) provides at least some connection to jobs and opportunities.

Following the riots, transit expansion becomes linked to social equity goals. The SCRTD board, reconstituted to include more diverse representation, prioritizes routes connecting underserved communities to major employment centers. This focus on equity in transportation planning—decades before such considerations became mainstream in our timeline—begins to influence other policy areas.

Economically, the construction boom creates thousands of jobs, many going to minority workers through new hiring requirements for federal contracts. Commercial development begins clustering around transit stations rather than exclusively along freeway interchanges, creating a different pattern of retail and office growth. Transit-oriented development emerges as a concept much earlier than in our timeline.

By 1972, as the first phase of the new system nears completion, Los Angeles has already begun to develop differently—more compact in some areas, with higher-density corridors along transit routes, while still allowing for suburban growth connected by both highways and rail.

Long-term Impact

Urban Form and Development Patterns (1970s-1990s)

By the mid-1970s, Los Angeles's urban form has diverged significantly from our timeline. The city still experiences substantial growth, but that growth follows a different pattern—one oriented around transit nodes rather than exclusively along freeway corridors.

Transit-Oriented Development

Transit stations become magnets for development. Areas like North Hollywood, Wilshire/Western, Crenshaw, and Long Beach—all important transit hubs in this timeline—develop into dense, mixed-use centers decades earlier than in our reality. By the late 1970s, the SCRTD has formalized transit-oriented development policies that encourage:

Higher density housing within a half-mile of stations
Mixed-use developments combining residential, commercial, and office space
Reduced parking requirements near transit
Pedestrian-friendly streetscapes

The city adopts complementary zoning codes that allow greater density along transit corridors while still preserving the character of single-family neighborhoods elsewhere. This "corridor and node" development pattern creates a more polycentric city structure, with multiple urban centers connected by high-capacity transit.

Preservation of Historic Neighborhoods

One of the most visible differences is the survival of neighborhoods that were decimated by freeway construction in our timeline. Communities like Boyle Heights, which lost thousands of homes to the East Los Angeles Interchange, remain more intact. While some freeways are still built, the network is less extensive, and remaining highways are often constructed with greater sensitivity to community impacts—sometimes being placed underground or with deck parks covering portions to reconnect neighborhoods.

The preservation of these communities has profound implications for Los Angeles's cultural landscape, allowing historic neighborhoods to evolve organically rather than being fragmented by infrastructure.

Environmental Outcomes (1980s-2010s)

Air Quality Improvements

The environmental trajectory of Los Angeles changes dramatically in this alternate timeline. By the early 1980s, the combination of comprehensive public transit, improved vehicle emissions standards, and more compact development patterns begins to show measurable effects on air quality.

The infamous Los Angeles smog, while still present, begins improving earlier than in our timeline. By the 1990s, the number of Stage 1 smog alerts has declined by over 70% compared to our reality. Children growing up in this alternate Los Angeles have significantly lower rates of asthma and respiratory ailments.

These improvements occur despite continued population growth because:

The proportion of trips taken by transit reaches approximately 35% by 2000 (compared to under 10% in our timeline)
The average vehicle miles traveled per capita is roughly 30% lower
Transit-oriented development reduces trip distances for many daily activities

Climate Response

By the 2000s, as climate change concerns rise to prominence, Los Angeles finds itself inadvertently ahead of the curve. The city's transportation sector produces approximately 40% less greenhouse gas emissions than in our timeline, making it a model for climate-friendly urban development.

When California passes its landmark Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006 (as in our timeline), Los Angeles already meets many of the transportation targets that other cities struggle to achieve. This positions the region as a national leader in sustainable urban planning—a remarkable reversal from our timeline where Los Angeles often exemplifies car dependency and sprawl.

Economic and Social Structure (1980s-Present)

Housing Affordability and Patterns

Housing development in transit-served areas accelerates during the 1980s and 1990s, creating a different residential landscape. While single-family neighborhoods still exist and thrive, a much larger proportion of the population lives in multi-family housing near transit.

This more balanced housing mix helps partially mitigate the extreme affordability crisis seen in our timeline's Los Angeles. Greater housing supply, particularly in transit-accessible locations, means that by 2023, median housing costs are approximately 20-25% lower than in our reality. Housing inequality remains a challenge, but the extreme geographic segregation by income is somewhat reduced.

Economic Geography

The economic geography of the region evolves differently. Rather than the dispersed, car-dependent job centers of our timeline, employment clusters more densely around transit hubs. Downtown Los Angeles remains a more significant employment center throughout the 1970s and 1980s, never experiencing the degree of decline seen in our timeline.

Other major employment centers develop around transit nodes:

The Wilshire Corridor becomes a true "linear downtown" with high-rise development along much of its length
The San Fernando Valley develops multiple dense commercial centers at transit junctions rather than endless strip malls
Long Beach strengthens its position as a secondary downtown for the southern part of the county

This clustering of economic activity increases productivity through agglomeration effects, contributing to stronger economic growth. By 2023, regional GDP is estimated to be 7-10% higher than in our timeline, even accounting for reduced automotive sector activity.

Social Cohesion and Inequality

Public transportation serves as a social mixing ground in ways that private automobiles do not. The shared experience of transit usage across social classes contributes to a somewhat different social dynamic in this Los Angeles.

While racial tensions and inequality certainly still exist, the common ground of public space and public infrastructure creates more interaction between different communities. Neighborhoods remain somewhat segregated, but the extreme isolation of disadvantaged communities is reduced by their transit connections to the broader city.

The reduced financial burden of car ownership particularly benefits lower-income residents. In our timeline, transportation costs consume up to 30% of household budgets for the working poor in Los Angeles. In this alternate timeline, affordable transit reduces this burden significantly, leaving more resources for housing, education, and healthcare.

Global Influence and Legacy (1990s-2025)

Model for American Cities

Perhaps the most profound long-term impact is how this alternate Los Angeles influences urban development throughout North America. Rather than being the exemplar of car-centric sprawl, Los Angeles becomes the model for how American cities can successfully integrate public transportation into their growth patterns.

When cities like Houston, Phoenix, and Atlanta face growth pressures in the 1980s and 1990s, they increasingly look to Los Angeles as a template rather than continuing exclusively car-oriented development. Federal transportation policy shifts more decisively toward balanced systems in the 1980s, decades earlier than the modest shifts seen in our timeline.

By 2025, the American urban landscape looks substantially different, with most major metropolitan areas having developed extensive rail transit systems integrated with land use planning—a pattern that in our timeline is limited primarily to older East Coast cities and a few progressive outliers.

Cultural Impact

The cultural image of Los Angeles transforms as well. In popular media, the iconic Los Angeles scene no longer features endless freeways and traffic jams. Instead, the city's extensive transit system becomes a character in films and television, much as New York's subway does in our timeline.

This different Los Angeles inspires a different popular imagination about urban life in America—one where public spaces and shared infrastructure play a more central role, and where the automobile is an option rather than a necessity. The "freedom of the open road" narrative that dominated American culture in our timeline is balanced by a narrative about the freedom and connections enabled by great public systems.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Robert Cervero, Professor Emeritus of City and Regional Planning at UC Berkeley, offers this perspective: "The decision to dismantle rather than modernize Los Angeles's extensive streetcar system ranks among the greatest urban planning mistakes in American history. Had the region instead embraced and expanded public transit in the 1960s, as San Francisco did with BART, the entire trajectory of West Coast urbanism might have been different. Los Angeles could have developed as a model of transit-oriented growth—compact, efficient, and ultimately more sustainable. The environmental benefits alone would have been enormous, potentially sparing generations of Angelenos from some of the nation's worst air pollution. Perhaps most significantly, this alternate Los Angeles would have demonstrated that American cities could grow differently than the sprawling, car-dependent model that dominated post-war development."

Lisa Schweitzer, Professor of Urban Planning at USC's Price School of Public Policy, provides this analysis: "An earlier commitment to public transit would have fundamentally altered the social geography of Los Angeles. In our timeline, transportation infrastructure—particularly freeways—was often used to reinforce racial segregation and isolation. A robust transit system connecting diverse neighborhoods would have created different patterns of access and opportunity. While transit alone couldn't eliminate structural racism, it could have mitigated some of its spatial manifestations. Communities like Watts, East Los Angeles, and South L.A. would have maintained vital connections to employment centers, potentially reducing economic disparities that became entrenched in our reality. We would likely see a Los Angeles with somewhat less extreme segregation and possibly more political cohesion, as public transit systems necessitate collective decision-making about shared resources in ways that automobile infrastructure does not."

Jarrett Walker, transit planning consultant and author, reflects: "What makes the Los Angeles case so fascinating is that it's not a matter of whether the city could have supported successful public transportation—we know it once did, spectacularly. The alternate timeline where Los Angeles maintained and modernized its transit infrastructure would likely show us a city that remained fundamentally multi-modal rather than car-dependent. This wouldn't mean the absence of cars or suburbs, but rather a more balanced system where driving was one option among many, not a virtual necessity. By 2025, this Los Angeles would probably resemble contemporary European cities more than American ones—still allowing for personal vehicle use but making it entirely possible to live well without car ownership. The psychological impact of this different urban form shouldn't be underestimated: a generation raised with functional public transit develops different expectations about mobility, community, and public space than one raised in complete car dependency."