When the discussion of streetcars and their subsequent decline is brought up, almost inevitably people bring up general motors or who framed Roger rabbit. However the explanation that GM simply bought streetcar systems to dismantle them is a gross oversimplification. Some blame road subsidies or over-regulation, this is part of the explanation, but not sufficient either. Some people blame cars and people's preference for them. Cars were seen as cool and futuristic, but many people still rode transit systems. Thanks to market saturation the automobile is more mundane than it used to be. Rather there was a variety of social, economic and political factors that undid streetcars and other transit systems.
For one many of the companies were fundamentally flawed. For example Pacific Electric ran many money loosing lines for the sake of selling real estate. Some of PE's lines did make money. However once real estate was fully developed on money loosing lines, those lines stopped producing economic value and service either declined or stopped. The transit plus real estate model only works when both the transit and real estate are profitable. The Toronto Transit Commission was able to be profitable till the 70s because their model was providing transportation. The Los Angeles Yellow cars were profitable till their last days of operation because they were in the dense downtown and focused on transportation.
Another issue was not only the flawed business model, but the public perception. Electric railway companies had a negative public perception. Plus electric railway companies had a negative relationship with their workers. Electric railways often had very violent and infamous strikes. This worked against them when they wanted regulatory relief or government support.
Then there was regulatory issues such as paying special franchise taxes, street paving requirements, two person crew requirements, and regulated fares. Some of these issues continued even when buses replaced streetcars. Regulated fares lead to large maintenance backlogs because they couldn't make enough money to maintain systems, much less expand or improve them. These large maintenance backlogs we're made worse by the surge in demand during world war II. Regulated fares limited the new found profitablity and high passengers demands strained already detiorating infrastructure. The Toronto Transit Commission used the profitability in World War II to help build it's subway.
The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 meant that the business model of combining electric utilities with electric railways was no longer legal. Utilities could use formerly use streetcars to take advantage of electric line infrastructure.
Then there are flaws with streetcars themselves. Often because they ran on streets they had to compete with cars for space. So cars had the affect of slowing down streetcars. This is still a problem today with Los Angeles' buses. So streetcars made sense in some circumstances but not every single one. Toronto still basically has its original system intact. Other countries went through a similar process of bustitution without GM being involved at all. Buses provided flexibility and geographic reach. Plus due to maintenance backlogs buses were newer and more comfortable. GM old look buses had smooth rides and comfortable seats. Streetcars make sense in some areas, but the real value of rail based (or maybe monorail based) transit is it's ability to provide capacity, speed, labor efficiency and not having to mix with traffic. Streetcars often had the disadvantages of buses and the disadvantages of rail. New York got rid of the its streetcars, but still has the subway. Pacific Electric actually had a subway; this would be the best scenario for the continued use of interurban lines.
GM themselves made rail equipment. GM owned electro motive diesel until very recently.
National City Lines actually kept profitable streetcars operating.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Railway
Railroad to Freedom
I understand a number of streetcar lines ran until the track/overhead structure was worn out, and there was never enough money set aside to rebuild.
MidlandMikeI understand a number of streetcar lines ran until the track/overhead structure was worn out, and there was never enough money set aside to rebuild.
And some welded their tracks and made improvements right up to when they converted to busses. And then had a nice tax loss on the books
Light rail is not quite a re-incarnation of the streetcar. It seems to fall on the spectrum somewhere between streetcars and rapid transit. There is some street running on some systems but much of it is on dedicated right-of-way with limited stops, similar to rapid transit but with smaller trains.
I would point out that some roads do indeed turn a profit such as tollroads and turnpikes. Despite the high costs people still choose them.
The remaining streetcar systems were worn out after WW2- All GM did was open up their bus catalogs. People had a fair amount of money after the war and they all bought cars and moved to the suburbs that were not served by streetcars.
I've ridden on the Ottawa LRT and ride the Toronto streetcars almost every day. The main difference is that a streetcar will stop on request and will not stop if there is no one waiting. The LRT stopped at every platform whether people were waiting or not. The Queen streetcar here runs in the street for most of its length. West of Roncesvallles, it runs in its own ROW making it function like an LRT, but here it will only stop on request. West of Humber loop it again runs in the street.
I would also point out that many government officials wanted streetcars gone. For example the Mayor of New York wanted them gone. Pacific Electric was forced to give up right of way by the Los Angles highway department. The Yellow cars were shut down by the LAMTA and not by National City Lines
There were a many factors. Bt GM indirectly bought New York Railways ("Green Lines") outtright in 1926 specifically for the purpose of eventual conversion to a bus system, as soon as they could develop a bus that was superior to the conventional streetcar, which their 1935 36-seated-passenger and 40-seated-passenger buses definitely were. (But not superior to the PCC car introduced about the same time.) Then came the National City Lines combination, GM-Texaco-(which rubber Co, Firestone or Goodyear?)). Not a "conspiracy and not illegal, just sharp business practice. (The "Consent Agreement" and fine was for dominating the bus business, Not Streetcar Conversions.)
In certain cases NCL Did retain sreetcar operation on profitable lines until either track and/or PCCs wore out or one-way traffic arrangements meant a huge investment in greatly revised track layouts would have been necessary.
Politics paid a part. Mayor LaGuardia and Robert Moses and Sydney Bigham in New York, Congress in Washington, DC.
The real economies of GM diesel bses did permit some tax-paying private operations to last longer than otherwise, before becoming subsidized government systems.
Toronto does show what could have happened in many USA major cities. And real streetcars have returned to some cities. Portland, Oregon, is back with both a local streetcar system, and the modern incarnation of the interurban, light-rail, and with both expanding.
In SF the heritage E and F lines are streetcar; the rest light-rail, but not an interrban.
pcc
One additional question; if power companies were forbidden to own transit systems, why was a bus manfacturer permitted? Or the NCL combination?
And a second one: would not the World be better off if the Usa and Canada had adopted an energy-independence policy after WWII, instead of heavy reliance on imported oil?
daveklepperOne additional question; if power companies were forbidden to own transit systems, why was a bus manfacturer permitted? Or the NCL combination?
Regulators had a problem with public electric utilities using ratepayers money to support transit deficits.
Wasn't the Pacific Electric mainly a real estate development scheme? Build lines out to undeveloped areas and make the real money by selling the land? The exact same thing happened in London with the Metropolitan railway. Build the lines to suburban Metro Land and the customers will follow but in the case of the Metropolitan, the jobs were still in central London so the lines never became irrelevant.
Another thought- remember the film, "Chinatown?" Noah Cross said, "Bring the city to the water." So I wonder if the PE was part of that. But I have read that what the film was based on happened 30 years earlier than when the movie was set in 1937. So, maybe.
The problem with "New" Streetcars is that to build new lines means that the transit agency has to pay to move utlities that the former for profit streetcar company used to own in the first place but was forcibly divested by the Public Utlities Holding Act of 1935. Most corperate linage of now public transit agencys dates back to street railway and horsecar days
daveklepperThen came the National City Lines combination, GM-Texaco-(which rubber Co, Firestone or Goodyear?)). Not a "conspiracy and not illegal, just sharp business practice. (The "Consent Agreement" and fine was for dominating the bus business, Not Streetcar Conversions.)
In 1949, General Motors, Standard Oil of California, Firestone and others were convicted of conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to local transit companies controlled by NCL and other companies; they were acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the ownership of these companies. The verdicts were upheld on appeal in 1951.[n 6] The corporations involved were fined $5000, their executives $1 apiece. (Wikipedia)
By1951, people just didn't care. Why should they? They had new cars.
If I remember correctly, what NCL and GM were found guilty of was monopolizing the parts supply by requiring GM-sourced or approved parts only if an owner wanted to maintain any warranty. I suspect this also included the ability to refuse to sell necessary parts to any operator that tried an alternate source for even non-critical components.
Of some interest is that, again as I recall, EMD had some very similar policies regarding the 567 engines...
Overmod If I remember correctly, what NCL and GM were found guilty of was monopolizing the parts supply by requiring GM-sourced or approved parts only if an owner wanted to maintain any warranty. I suspect this also included the ability to refuse to sell necessary parts to any operator that tried an alternate source for even non-critical components. Of some interest is that, again as I recall, EMD had some very similar policies regarding the 567 engines...
I think the wiki article is very clear that it was a conspiracy. Guilty and confirmed on appeal.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.