Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
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.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag