Street Car Conspiracy; fact or fiction?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

One point that was brought up earlier and most of us tend to overlook was how tightly the street railways and rapid transit companies were regulated. Fares and service were determined by franchise requirements and state commerce commission orders, which rarely allowed income to make it to the bottom line. A fair number of operators were making enough money to continue existing operations but not enough to allow for upgrading or replacement of equipment (Depreciation is an expense for a reason). When ridership declined, operating losses grew and conversion to buses or municipalization were all but inevitable.

Private ownership and operation of muncipal public transit without government subsidy probably doesn't exist in this country any more, and there are lot more reasons for this situation than a dark conspiracy among the powers that be.

[Jetrock]

The electric utility industry was forced by anti-trust legislation (ironic, considering that organizations like NCL constituted violations of anti-trust legislation in and of themselves) to divest their public-railway holdings. The argument was that if a power company owned a trolley line they could sell them power at a lower rate, thus preventing competition.

An example was Pacific Gas & Electric's trolley line in Sacramento, CA. On one hand, they were forced to sell their PG&E trolley line to National City Lines' subsidiary Pacific City Lines in 1943. The newly-created Sacramento City Lines switched from trolleys to buses in 1946, as soon as the end of World War II permitted purchase of new buses.

On the other hand, PG&E bought a number of buses in 1939 and was only running three trolley lines at the time of the sale--buses had taken over the rest of the lines. And, apparently, the trolley line never made a great deal of money anyhow--so its sale was not considered a great loss to PG&E.

[overall]

If any of you were IEEE members back then, what was their stance on this? Also, what, if anything, did the electric utility industry do or say about it? They would have lost some revenue with the conversion.

George

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

QUOTE:
I still think GM, and the other's, involvement in the demise of streetcars was rotten. Their action ensured that the streetcars never had a chance. Here is a link to a rather infamous photo, which can be found at the bottom of the page. Note the smug grin on the face of the "cat that swallowed the canary". If I'm not mistaken the cat later went to jail over this.
http://www.mplib.org/history/tr3.asp
After looking at the photo again, the grin on the Mayor's face is even bigger. Perhaps Mr Ossanna was only the "hitman", and later the "fallguy" while the big fish swam away. I guess the expression on Ossanna's face is more that of a deer in headlights, as if to say "Why the hell are you taking this picture". Is the answer because,

That photo is crazy, those guys look like the devils themselves!

[}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)]

If you think that's bad, there is a version of the same photo with colorized flames![:0][B)][}:)][:(!][V][xx(]

http://wendylouwho.com/iblog/B1732772532/C2073835968/E1126670546/index.html

[wallyworld]

GM and the others including their point man, Grossman were found guilty of criminal conspiracy in a federal court of law. GM and their fellow convicted corporate conspirators did not orchestrate and incorporate this front agency just to apply un needed euthenasia to an already terminally ill industry that would have died on it's own. To anyone who would say electric public transport would have faded away of it's own accord one would find that the fact is GM and the others would have taken strong
objection to that theory as demonstrated by their subsequent actions. These national corporations went to such great lengths to tilt the odds in their favor, it wasn't likely they were expecting to win in a fair game. This is history as a moving target inasmuch the final chapter has yet to be written. From the post WW2 era to date only fifty years + have passed. Not much time in the larger frame of our history as a nation.. History is still a moving target. Every year a new light rail system comes on line or a major expansion has taken place. Oil is becoming an increasingly precious commodity that takes alot of national security dollars out of this taxpayer's pockets to insure it's availability. Put your money on the table and place your bets. GM is barely breaking even these days. Where I live, they practically do everything but give them away to move their inventory. All of us who were there when the North Shore Line was taken to the boneyard in 1963 for a corporate tax windfall and the asking price was the cost of adding a couple of miles of lanes to the interstate, the GM story had a epilog.
Year after year, plan after plan, study after study they ponder reinstalling afew miles of it's former right of way that they have no money to rebuild. And every day, you can stand on the scar of a path that once hosted 80 mph interurbans and witness the ajacent expressway as a rush hour parking lot that is efficent for burning expensive gas in idle by hundreds if not thousands of cars five days a week that inch their way along the pavement at 10 mph. Progress. What a concept. And by the way, where's my flying car they told me I'd have thirty years ago?

[espeefoamer]

Most cities had laws requiring trolley systems to have two men operate streetcars. Busses could operate with one man. Also,busses required no overhead wire or track maintinence.This made busses cheaper to operate than trolleys.This is the main reason cities switched over.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
I still think GM, and the other's, involvement in the demise of streetcars was rotten. Their action ensured that the streetcars never had a chance. Here is a link to a rather infamous photo, which can be found at the bottom of the page. Note the smug grin on the face of the "cat that swallowed the canary". If I'm not mistaken the cat later went to jail over this.
http://www.mplib.org/history/tr3.asp
After looking at the photo again, the grin on the Mayor's face is even bigger. Perhaps Mr Ossanna was only the "hitman", and later the "fallguy" while the big fish swam away. I guess the expression on Ossanna's face is more that of a deer in headlights, as if to say "Why the hell are you taking this picture". Is the answer because,

That photo is crazy, those guys look like the devils themselves!

[}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)]

[daveklepper]

Some more facts. Long after the circa-1920 development of the lighweight one-man saqfety car (double-truck, post-"Birney"), nearly all city streetcar lines were one man after WWII, except for the huge articulateds running on Euclid Avenue in Cleveland which handled double the pssenger count anyway, and similarly the center entrance cars in Boston which had four men on a three-car subway-surface train, and few scattered lines in Chicago and one or two other places. Such lines that lasted through WWII as Manhattan's Broadway-42nd Street and 42nd Street crosstown (even with the expense of conduit) most Washington DC lines, practically an all-PCC system, Baltimore's Sparrows Point, Flatbush, Coney Island Avenue, Church, and Nortons Point in Brooklyn, Woodward and Michigan-Gratiot in Detroit, again all PCC, would have cost less to operate and had far greater passenger appeal than the buses that replaced them, simply by providing a better quality service and handling more people for each employee hired, labor being the main expense. And of course, Canal Street, New Orleans. And some of the heaviest Pacific Electric interurbans. In all these cases there is documented evidence of political pressure or the results of direct GM related ownership. The political pressure did not necessarily come from GM, but often from the Highway Lobby in general . If you look at the cases of the Boston System and of Public Service of New Jersey with regard to Orange and Bloomfield lines feeding the subway, you will find that management had the automobile driver in mind as more important than their own passengers. Their own testimony before the government agencies that had to approve the conversions says this. See the Electric Railroaders' Association HEADLIGHTS issue on the history of the Newark Subway up through the PCC days. The only city that really bucked the trend was Toronto, and that because of two York College professors who mobilized people to block in-town elevated superhighway construction and to keep streetcars, sayin the city should belong to its people, not drivers mostly from out-of-town anyway. Also, in certain cases, GM was willing to lease its owned buses to the transit systems while new owners of the transit systems could profit from the sale of scrap from streetcars and from the copper wire, then the lease payments would become operating expenses allowing a demand for increased fares or the entrance to bancrupcy and unloading the mess on the governent to run at a loss. This not only affected then-modern streetcar systems, like the Twin Cities, but modern trolleybus systems like Providence. But granted, all in all, probably only 10% of the then operating streetcar and interurban mileage at the end of WWII made econonmic sense for continued operation. But what the USA got was about 1.5%! The light rail boom will last until about 10% is restored, and then will start to level off, except for the additions where there have been and will be large population increases. ccompared to the period of maximum extent, about 1919, don't expect more than about 7% or 8% to be restored by the end of the next 25 years. Dave

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

It didn't take a conspiracy by General Motors to kill streetcars and interurbans, the American public was already doing a pretty good job of it by themselves.

Perhaps it could be said the the actions of GM, et al, were just a means to reach the end.

Rhetorical question/point to ponder:
One might wonder what would have happened if the streetcars and interurbans had survived - would the layout of our cities be different? Would "downtown" have died? Would new "downtowns" have developed? F'rinstance - there is a Wal-Mart, a K-Mart, a mall, three large grocery stores, and a Lowes, all clustered in a relatively small area on the outskirts of Watertown, NY, but travelling between them is better done in a car than on foot. Would streetcar service have changed that?

This assumes, of course, that people continued to use trolleys, etc.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The interurban railroad lines began to decline almost as soon as they were established. Most were abandoned due to the spread of paved roads and later by the Great Depression. Very few were still in service by World War II.

The decline of streetcars began prior to World War II. Many smaller cities had already been converted to bus or were mostly bus operations by that time. The development of the automobile culture and the postwar suburban boom were major factors in the decline of streetcars and public transit as a whole.

By the end of World War II, most street railway systems were in need of major upgrading and modernization and the private operators just didn't have the money to rebuild their systems. Many systems were municipalized beginning in the late 1940's as overall ridership declined and conversion of two-man streetcar operation to one-man bus operation generated savings that even a municipal operation couldn't pass up. As a plus, trackage in need of major upgrading could be removed and the streets could be resurfaced.

Equipment is a story all by itself. The PCC was the first standardized design and by the time it came out, few systems could afford them. Even now, a standardized light-rail car design doesn't exist.

It didn't take a conspiracy by General Motors to kill streetcars and interurbans, the American public was already doing a pretty good job of it by themselves.

[wallyworld]

The facts of the case versus opinion. Conside the following words spoken by Mayor Thomas Bradley of Los Angeles home of the once enormous Pacific Electric;;

"By 1949, General Motors had been involved in the replacement of more than 100 electric transit systems with GM buses in 45 cities including New York, Chicago,Philadelphia, Detroit, St Louis and Baltimore. In April of that year, a Chicago federal jury convicted GM of having criminally conspired with Standard Oil of California, Firestone Tire and others to replace electric transportation eith gas or diesel powered buses, to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to local transportation companies throughout the country. The court imposed a sanction of $5,000.00 on GM.
In addition, the jury convicted H C Grossman, who was the treasurer of General Motors. Grossman had played a key role in the 'motorization' campaign and had served as a director of the Pacific City Lines when the company undertook the dismantlement of the $100 million Pacific Electric System. The court fined Grossman one dollar."

The light and largely symbolic slap on the wrist applied to both Grossman and GM is representitive of the beginning of an era where the automotive culture was viewed as a panacea for surface transportation and under the guise of national defense enormous swaths of urban neighborhoods were bulldozed for the interstate highway system in the name of progess.

Largely unnoticed was the growing downside of a country putting all of it's transportation needs in one basket. A basket that is dependant on a fuel whose production is estimated to peak in 2010.

Flash forward to 2004 and the reopening of the Canal Street streetcar line and the
presence of none other than Secretary of Transportation at the dedication ceremony

A great deal of verbiage was spent describing this as an example of enormously progressive policy. And so it goes in the human comedy.

What goes down comes around..

[jsanchez]

Mr cox is paid by the Highway Industry Lobby, this is why he is so against light rail, and can afford to travel around the USA spewing his propaganda. I imagine if the light rail industry paid him a handsome salary like the highway lobby does he would come up with all kinds of crazy facts showing how great light rail is verse highways. Wendall has also worked for the freight railroad lobby . He is good at what he does and has no problem twisting facts and figures to make his case.
I think some of the reasons he has failed to stop light rail is in reality it is hugely popular and can be cheaper than buses on routes that have ten thousand passengers or more per day. Even with the cost of tracks and overhead, the savings in labor , increase in ridership,, lower maintenance cost of the rail vehicals, and energy costs make light rail a better tranport solution than buses in many cases. Light rail is also far cheaper than building freeways and has a greater carrying capacity . It is considered a less intrusive use of urban/suburban space than new highway construction. The lightrail revolution is also worldwide and supported by many large global industrial manufactures, which makes it harder for the U.S. highway lobby to stop., plus GM is not almighty any more, in Canada they were forced to stop running anti-transit themed ads a couple years ago. check out: http://www.lightrailnow.org/

QUOTE: Originally posted by overall

One of Mudchicken's links above is to a group that opposes light rail. What is it about light rail that would cause a group of people to unite in opposition to it ? If they were going to be against something, why not be against something big like world hunger or global warming ? Why would a comparatively benign thing like light rail cause people to form an organization and pay for all the things that go with it like renting offices, paying help etc. If they are paid by the automotive industry, then aren't they like a "rent-a-mob" ? If I wanted this group to change their minds and support light rail instead, could I just get the check book out and pay them more than the other side ( assuming I had the money ). If Mr. Hemphill, or any other person on the Trains Magazine staff, has had a chance to meet and talk to any of the light rail opponents, Wendall Cox comes to mind here, what are they really like? Do they honestly oppose light rail or are they just " hired guns"? enquiring minds want to know.

Thanks,

George

[Anonymous]

For more info on current LRT issues, another place that has up-to-date news, etc. is

www.lightrailnow.org

If I recall, the Snell report referenced here was prepared at the behest of a Congressional committee. And yes, GM, Standard Oil and Firestone were found guilty of violation of the Antitrust laws in Federal court.

[Anonymous]

It isn't so much what GM did or didn't do but how local and county elected officials "discovered" that they could approve new urban and suburban development in places where it would serve motorists only. If we're going to correct the injustice to those who cannot, should not or choose not to drive perhaps we should first ensure that everyone (with or without a car) has walking access to all his/her daily needs. Is there anything wrong with a natural mode of transportation that's most cost-effective and least vulnerable to terrorist attacks, accidents, labor strikes and natural disasters?

[Anonymous]

Macguy: You nailed it. The street railway systems were state-of-the-art 1901 technology, and never earned enough money to modernize. By the 1930s they were mostly worn out and obsolete. Once people obtained autos, they naturally preferred the flexibility and personal convenience.

At the same time the street railways had a quasi-public aspect to them -- they had a franchise or charter enabling them to use city streets -- which made them a natural target for voters feeling that fares were too high and franchise fees too low. Owners of the systems naturally wanted to extract every last penny, and since these were long-term businesses with little opportunity for a big killing, they weren't much fun to own (who wants to wait to get rich?). So the owners ran them for cash flow and in most cases failed to reinvest even when they DID make money.

So by the 1930s, the systems were mostly failing financially and the local governments -- in the depression, mind you -- took one look at the capital needs of the systems and walked away, quite happily.

Yes, GM used its market power unfairly. But it's too much to say it "drove the trolleys out of business." For all practical purposes, the street railways systems already were out of business.

I haven't met Wendell Cox, or anyone who is anti light-rail. I get a lot of letters from them, though. I'm afraid I really don't understand their arguments. They're not paid by the auto industry that I'm aware of. What I do see is that their backers are aren't at all anti light-rail per se, but merely see light rail as a easy mark for money that they want their local government to spend on other things, which generally turn out to be projects that benefit their personal real estate holdings.

[Big_Boy_4005]

They're baaack!!

Well almost, only 25 days until the Hiawatha Line's grand opening.

There is no doubt that a conspiricy was behind the demise of the Twin Cities Lines.

[Anonymous]

Keep in mind that it is cheaper to run buses than it is to run trolly systems and light rail.

Though light rail systems and trollys are more efficient and environmentally friendly, the rail infrastructure was extremely costly to maintain & expand.

In the early days of trolly's and light rail, in the larger cities, there were usually mutiple lines and multiple companies running those lines privately at a profit. Over the years it became unprofitable to run the systems and many were taken over and run by local government or abandoned.

Of course the irony is now many local governments are trying to get light rail back into wide spread use with the continued congestion of cities and freeways.

Funny how things have a way of cycling around.

[overall]

One of Mudchicken's links above is to a group that opposes light rail. What is it about light rail that would cause a group of people to unite in opposition to it ? If they were going to be against something, why not be against something big like world hunger or global warming ? Why would a comparatively benign thing like light rail cause people to form an organization and pay for all the things that go with it like renting offices, paying help etc. If they are paid by the automotive industry, then aren't they like a "rent-a-mob" ? If I wanted this group to change their minds and support light rail instead, could I just get the check book out and pay them more than the other side ( assuming I had the money ). If Mr. Hemphill, or any other person on the Trains Magazine staff, has had a chance to meet and talk to any of the light rail opponents, Wendall Cox comes to mind here, what are they really like? Do they honestly oppose light rail or are they just " hired guns"? enquiring minds want to know.

Thanks,

George

[vsmith]

The "conspiracy" was to get people of streetcars and into buses built by GM, fueled by Standard Oil and rolling on Firestone Tires... Corporate greed to the Nth degree.

Yes, some people couldnt wait to get rid of the streetcars and welcomed the buses, but then in the 50's and 60's once the only alternative to buses was destroyed, they got a very nasty surprise when GM began F-ing up the bus services in a move to get people out of the buses and into shiny new GM cars. Pure Greed and Self Service at the public's expense...

Whats Good for GM is Good for GM, the rest of you can walk!

I have little simpathy for any of the current or offshoots of these corporations.

[vsmith]

The "conspiracy" was to get people of into buses built by GM, fueled by Standard Oil and rolling on Firestone Tires... Corporate greed to the Nth degree.

Hence I have little simpathy for any of the current or offshoots of these corporations.

[Anonymous]

Street cars and light rail were seen as unwanted compettion for buses. GM bought and shutdown an extensive commuter rail network in LA. The state got rid of San Francisco Bay Area's commuter rail and ferry system to increase bridge tools.

[TH&B]

GM did alot of "bad" things in its day, GM promoted the use of lead as an additive to gasoline to make production costs of higher horsepower engines cheaper, there already was other technoligies available but lead was cheap !! GM built military equipemnet for the *** in the II war for profit at their Opel plants in Germany, and sued the US government for bombing it. hehehehe is that good or bad?
"What's good for GM is good for the nation!"

[Anonymous]

Dave, I duly appreciate your efforts to speak for us, but your comments about our policy are not our policy. Trains is a magazine of railroading and railroaders, and it's immaterial whether those rails haul freight or passenger, or their width, length, location, era, or owner.

General Motors was indeed found guilty of some charges, but by no means would I characterize it as a "conspiracy." If it was a plan, it was a very poorly executed plan. It didn't take a conspiracy to rid the world of streecars, either -- most cities and most people couldn't wait to get rid of them.

[mudchicken]

George:

Fact, but with a lot of hyperbole and inuendo thrown in. The case is well documented, has shown up on "60 Minutes" years ago and involved more than just GM (Try Firestone & Standard Oil among the others) in a class action....Pacific Electric won the case but, in the end, lost the war...

http://www.loe.org/archives/930806.htm
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/4518
http://americandreamcoalition.org/railmyths.html (opposite opinion)
http://www.uiowa.edu/~poroi/ms_mcloed.htm

What is more galling to most of us is what transportation planners have done & continue to do...which is jump on the bandwagon even though most are clueless about railroads, one way or the other. The politicians, dumber than the planners, follow them blindly and the constituency normally is not much more with it....the "dumbing" of America continues on its merry way....

[daveklepper]

Trains is primarily a railroad magazine and only periphaly discusses streetcars. Yes, Sloan and Kettering had General Motors outright buy New York Railways, Manhattan's "Green Line" in 1926. They improved service. They even rebuilt one old open car into a semlence of a modern lighweight. They added the New York and Harlem's 4th & Madison Avenue line, bought from the New York Central, 1934. This included the original New York State 1832 route on Park Row, the Bowery, and 4th and Park Avenues. This was the first line scrapped in January 1935, with buses on the surface not using the rail tunnel which New York Railways "gave" to the city for use only by private cars and taxis. The last of the New York Railways lines, which I rode many times as a child, the 86th Street crosstown, was converted to bus in the summer of 1936. But this was only the beginning. GM formed National City Lines with Texaco and Firestone Rubber and they bought the systems of LA, Philadelphi, St. Louis, Baltimore, Sacramento, and others and in all cases rapidly replaced streetcars with buses. Political pressure in other areas did the trick. Dave Klepper

[overall]

In this paper accessed by this link;

www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm

author Bradford Snell says that GM used all kinds of illegal tactics to destroy the street car and interurban railroad industry. I must confess that I am not very well informed in this matter. Could some of you who are comment on how truthful Mr Bradford is with his allegations. Also if what he says is true, I would have expected the railroad press to print more about it. Could some of the Trains Magazine staffers who read this forum comment on why there has not been more coverage about the street car conspiracy if it really happened. This is not a criticism by the way, of the railroad press. There might be very valid reasons why they have not pursued reporting on this.

Thanks in advance,

George