The Conspiracy to Destroy Pubic Transit in America

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Falcon48, thanks much for your thoughtful and insightful reply to my comment above about why certain streetcar lines (not systems) survived, which is pretty persuasive.  You clearly know the Philadelphia system well, and you're right about the interurban I mentioned being the 69th St. Terminal - Norristown High Speed Line (former route of the reused Electro-Liners) - see:  http://www.septa.org/maps/transit/nhsl.html  

There's only one trolley line that doesn't use the "trolley tunnel" - the Route 15/ Girard Ave. Route, which is probably just "the exception that proves the rule" - see:  http://www.septa.org/maps/trolley/city.html 

There's also another somewhat scenic former trolley Route 23, from South Philly to Chestnut Hill via Germantown Ave.  The tracks are still in the street and the overhead wires are still there,  but it's been operated by buses for about 20 years now and apparently will continue to be for the forseeable future - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEPTA_Route_23 

The Media and Sharon Hill lines (Routes 101 and 102) are shown here:   http://www.septa.org/maps/trolley/suburban.html  

- Paul North. 

[DSchmitt]

Falcon48

  I probably should have expressed myself more clearly.  My point was that NCL had nothing to do with the conversion of PE services from rail to bus, which is consistent with your note.  The driving force in the PE conversions was Southern Pacific, which owned PE and wanted out of PE's passenger services.  Any sales SP made to other transit operators (like Metropolitan Coach Lines in 1953 or so) was a part of this strategy.  

True, The Pacific Electric/ Southern Pacific wanted out of the trolley business so they could abandon some rail lines and convert others to freight only.

T.J. Manning bought controling interest in Pacific Coast Lines from National City Lines in March 1940. PCL acquired the the Pacific Electrics Glendale and Pasadena systems in January 1941.  So it is possible that NCL was involved in the early negotiations with the PE.  Pacific Electric also wanted Pacific City Lines to convert local trolley  lines in San Bernardino to bus at the same time.  However because the proposed bus routes did not cover all the rail routes there was a public protest that killed the deal and temporairly saved the trolleys.  The San Bernardino lines were converted to bus a year later by the San Bernardino Valley Transit Company . 

[greyhounds]

There was no conspiracy to destroy transit.  The OP made that up.  I don't like people who make things up.

GM was convicted of trying to monopolize bus sales.  Their punishment was a $5,000 fine.  The GM officers named in the legal action received fines of $1.00 each.  That sure sounds like the Deparment of "Justice" wanted out of the action and cut a deal to save face.

What happend was that General Motors, Firestone, Phillips Petroleum, et al, engaged in a deal to sell motor vehicles, tires, and diesel fuel.  And at a profit.  Oh, the horor of that.  They financed National City Lines and engaged in an agreement that in return for the financing NCL would buy their product exclusively.  The government didn't like the exclusivity part and it went to trial.  It had nothing to do with destroying transit systems.  It had everything to do with financing transit systems in return for making money.  I don't see a thing wrong with it. 

Passenger rail zealots have got a real problem.  Their favored product has consistantly failed the market test.  The unruly population will choose to drive, fly, or take MegaBus rather than use rail passenger services.  Because they're ideologues, the passenger train advocates have to reject factual information that does not fit their ideology.  This is such a case.  The ideologues, such as the OP, have to concoct conspiracy theories to get around facts.  They're more than willing do do so.

Passenger rail has a place in the transportation world.  But hat place should be determined by free market choice, logic, reason, and analysis.  Not by an ideology relying on concocted.conpriacy theeories. 

[Falcon48]

DSchmitt

Falcon48

 

Actually, National City Lines had no involvement with PE (they were involved with the LA City system, but not with PE).  PE was a subsidiary of Southern Pacific, and it was SP that wanted out of the rail business.  Many PE lines (including the entire Northern District) were shut down during the period of SP control.  Sometime in the early 50's (it may have been 1953, but I'm not positive), PE sold the remaining rail services (but not the underlying rail lines) to a private firm (I think it was Metropolitan Coach Lines).  This firm continued the conversion to bus, but sold the service to a public agency when the important Southern District lines to San Pedro and Long Beach were still rail served.  It was the public agency that replaced these lines with busses.

Still, the point made by the note is well taken - it wasn't GM that did in PE.  In fact, National City Lines (the company that most view - wrongly - as a shill for GM) had nothing to do with the vast majority of streetcar and interurban conversions.  That, to my mind, is the simplest answer to the "GM conspiracy" theory.

Of course, GM was unquestionably involved with National City Lines - they were one of several firms that gave NCL financial support (through purchases of preferred stock) because NCL was buying their products.  Sound familiar?  It should.  Why do you think Sam Insull's utility holding companies invested in electric railway properties and provided them with capital?[

 

Actually there is a National City Lines connection to the Pacific Electric.

Information from FROM RAILWAY TO FREEWAY by Eli Bail:

Pacific City Lines purchased PE's Glendale and Padadena operations in January 1941.  They were mainly bus lines but there were also some trolley lines which they imediately converted to bus.

PCL was a holding company formed by National City Lines  to finance acquisition of streetcar lines in Fresno, Stockton and San Jose.  However in March 1940 T.J. Manning bought controling interest  in PCL so at the time of the PE acquisitons PCL was not controlled by NCL. NCL reacquired PCL in 1946 and operated the bus system until November 1962 when they gave up due to a protracted strike.  The Los Angeles Transit Authority immediately took  over the Glendale Lines but at the LATA's request NCL continued operating the Pasadena system until May 1963 when it was sold  Wilcox-Manning Transportation Company (T.J. Manning again) which operated it  through  July 1967 when the Southern California Rapid Transit Dist acquired it .

  I probably should have expressed myself more clearly.  My point was that NCL had nothing to do with the conversion of PE services from rail to bus, which is consistent with your note.  The driving force in the PE conversions was Southern Pacific, which owned PE and wanted out of PE's passenger services.  Any sales SP made to other transit operators (like Metropolitan Coach Lines in 1953 or so) was a part of this strategy.  

[Falcon48]

One further comment on Mr. Goddard.  According to John WR's original note, Mr. Goddard claims that "in the late 19th century, most electric railroads were built by companies that produced electricity and needed a place to sell it." 

This is simply wrong, and is another reason I question what Mr. Goddard has to say. The electric utility business was in its infancy in the late 19th century.  Electric street railways weren't built by utilities - they were mostly built by companies or syndicates interested in transit operations.  The companies themselves were often firms who had previously been operating horse cars or cable cars in their communities. Because commercial power was usually not available, the early electric street railways typically generated their own power.

As the years went on, two patterns arose.  The first pattern was that, as the utility industry matured, the traction companies switched to commercial power, and discontinued generating their own.  The second pattern was that the traction companies themselves became electric utilities.  They did this, initially, to sell excess power, and then jumped into the business big time, when they discovered that the electric business was more lucrative than the traction business. This is one reason that many utilities in the 1930's owned traction companies - they had actually developed from the traction companies (Wisconsin Electric is one example).  Another reason is that the utility in later years may have purchased the traction company, primarily due to its value as a user of electricity (the Insull companies are an example of this).  

"The Power Makers" by Maury Klein (the same guy who wrote the UP books) has an excellent descriptiion of the development of the electric utilty business in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 

 

[Falcon48]

John WR

Greyhounds,

Thank you for bringing up the issue of conspiracy theories.  Like you, I am skeptical of that kind of explanation.  However, Stephen Goddard clearly states GM and the rest of those convicted were specifically convicted of a conspiracy and there are a lot of footnotes to back up the assertion.  Companies selling buses, tires, oil and greases and similar things conspired to get rid of street cars so they could sell their own products to replace them and in doing so made enormous profits.  That is the argument.  

As far as the actual buses vs. streetcars argument I would argue that over all both buses and streetcars have their place and we really need a diverse transit system which we do not have.  I don't think that it is true that in all cases "buses are a better vehicle."  In some cares buses are better suited to transit needs.  Consider Toronto and New Orleans.  Both cities use both buses and streetcars.  And in my own state, New Jersey, today there are buses which continue to run on exactly the same routes where streetcars once ran.  

As far as pulling over to the side, where is it written that street car tracks must run down the center of the street?  They could run along the side giving the same accessibility that buses have.  And of course some streetcars have their own right of way so the issue vanishes.  

But it is the higher fixed cost argument that seems to me to undermine the whole position of those who conspired to sell buses.  While a new streetcar line which requires that tracks be installed is more expensive in the 1930's the cost of simply keeping the existing streetcars was zero.  Zilch.  Nada.  But the new buses cost a bundle of money and were more expensive to operate.  

So yes, I am suggesting a conspiracy theory.  I do so because Stephen Goddard has persuaded me with facts that there actually was one.  And while buses have their advantages I do not see that we are better off because a perfectly good streetcar system was taken from us and we were forced to pay for new buses which we did not need at the time.  

  Your note iimplies that you think streetcar tracks last forever, or nearly so. That's certainly not the case.  If you had ridden what remained of the Pittsburgh system in the 1970's, you would have seen (and felt) an excellent example of what happens to streetcar tracks that aren't maintained or renewed.  It was some of the worst railroad track I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of bad track.  It's impossible to describe it in a way that does it any justice. But just imagine a car inching along on a downtown street as rail sections rose out of the pavement ahead of it.  That's how it was.  The ride was wretched

The fact is that streetcar tracks need to be constantly maintained and periodically replaced. On larger streetcar systems, this required a small army of permanent employees. Working on tracks in pavement is one of the worst kinds of track construction imaginable, and it has to be done mostly by hand.  One reason why streetcar tackage needed periodic replacement was that, until fairly recent years, the tracks were laid on wooden ties, the same way as ordinary railroad track and then the whole structure covered by the pavement. Because of poor drainage, the ties would deteriorate more quickly than ties on open track. You're looking at life of probably 20 to 30 years with treated ties (any abandoned streetcar track you still can find in street pavement today probably no longer has any ties under it and could not be used for rail vehicles). 

Many smaller streetcar systems were falling apart by the 1930's, since they hadn't renewed their track for many years (one reason why bus conversion was so attractive to these systems in the 30's).  The larger systems typically did their last sytematic replacement in the 1920's so, by the 1950's, they were coming up on another renewal cycle which they couldn't afford. 

All of these weree infrastructure costs the transit operator could avoid by converting.

 

 

[Falcon48]

John WR

Both Cliff Slater and the CBS program do not attempt to rebut Stephen Goddard; they do rebut "Who Framed Roger Rabbit."  

If you read Slater closely he does not dispute the conspiracy charge against GM.  He does point out the purpose to the conspiracy had nothing to do with public transit itself and everything to do with a group of companies that sought to enrich themselves by selling buses and bus related products.  On this point there is no disagreement between him and Stephen Goddard.  

Slater also argues that buses are superior because ultimately they proved cheaper to to operate.  He also acknowledges that a big reason for this is because streetcar companies typically were responsible for paving the streets on which they operated while bus companies got to use the streets with no such responsibility.  In effect the street car companies were forced to subsidize the bus companies.  Also, neither he nor Goddard discuss the fact that generally streetcars were operated with 2 men while buses were operated with only one man.  

Bear in mind that in this discussion I am carrying the message of Stephen Goddard.  Goddard's whole book is about the clash between over the road motor vehicles and vehicles that run on steel rails.  Slater does make the valid point that regardless of what assessment is made of GM that company was not part of the change in New Jersey or New York.  On the whole, while they talk about somewhat different things, I find a fair amount of agreement between them.  I suspect a scholarly analysis would find more.  

The biographical note at the end of the article suggests that Slater's primary concern in as a consultant or adviser for a transit system for Honolulu.  I think we can all agree that whatever happened to streetcars during the last century really does not bear on the kind of transit system Honolulu should choose today.

  With respect to your commments about profit, private companies are expected to try to make profits - that's how our economy works.  If a private company like National City Lines concluded that running a transit operation with buses produced a greater profit than running the service with streetcars, that's a perfectly good reason to convert.  It's no different than the mass conversion of cable car systems to electric streetcar systems in the late 19th and early 20th century.  And it's no different than the railroads' mass conversion from steam locomotives to diesels after WWII.

With respect to your comments about Mr. Slater, his analysis of the GM conspiracy and transit economics behind streetcar conversions is one of the best I've seen.  The fact that , according to your earlier posts, Mr. Goddard apparently came to the conclusion that GM had been convicted of an antitrust conspiracy to eliminate streetcars, when the case had nothing to do with this, doesn't give me a great deal of confidence in his scholarship.

Finally, you suggest that buses might have been cheaper to operate, in part, because of street paving obligations and two person crew requirements.  Maybe so.  But, from the perspective of a private transit operator, these are real costs will incur by continuing to operate streetcars, and can't be ignored.   If the transit operator can avoid these costs (as well as all of the other costs of the streetcar infrastructure) by converting, then that is an additional reason to convert.

By the way, in most cities, the "streetcar company" and the "bus company" were the same firm (although there were some exceptions).  The issue wasn't whether the "streetcar company" was subsidizing the "bus company".  Rather, it was whether the transit company would incurring costs by operating streetcars which it could avoid by converting to buses..   

 

 

[Falcon48]

MidlandMike

Paul_D_North_Jr

Let's consider the opposite question:  If there was such a conspiracy - or lacking that, such an adverse correlation of objective economic, technical, and social factors - then why didn't all the trolley operations go extinct during the same 1950's - 1960's time frame ? 

For instance, nearby Philadelphia kept several trolley routes and an interurban line; Boston and Pittsburgh kept some of their trolleys, as did New Orleans.  (Are there any other major ones ?)  What was different about those cities so that their trolleys didn't succumb as did almost all the others ?

- Paul North.   

San Francisco kept the Market St line.  Where all the lines you mentioned municipally owned?

  First of all, there's is a distinction between a streetcar system and a streetcar line.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, no city in the U.S. retained anything remotely like the streetcar system it once had.  All of the U.S. streetcar systems were converted to bus.  That includes all of the cities you mentioned. They simply retained a handful of streetcar lines when they converted the rest of their streetcar systems to buses.

So, why did the cities you mention retain some of their streetcar lines?  In general, the reason was that most of the streetcar lines that were retained have significant rapid transit characteristics, and don't just run in city streets.  As such, they can provide a level of service that buses cannot.  For example, most of the retained Boston and Philadeplphia lines operate through downtown subways.  The Philadelphia "interurban" line you mention is probably the Norristown line, which is clearly a rapid trainsit line over its entire length - it has no street running or grade crossings.  There are also two suburban trolley lines to Media and Sharon Hill, which are essentially light rail rapid transit lines, not streetcar lines  (like the Shaker Heights line in Cleveland,).  The retained Pittsburgh lines run through a major tunnel and have extensive private ROW operations so they, too. are light rail rapid transit lines rather than typical streetcar lines. At the time the rest of the Pittsburgh streetcar system vanished, the retained lines still had street running in downtown Pittsburgh, but this has since been replaced by a transit subway.  San Francisco is another city that retained some streetcar lines, mostly lines that went through long transit tunnels west of the central business district.  These lines now operate through a downtown subway as well.  Contrrast these examples with a city like Chicago, which had a huge streetcar system almost entirely in city streets.  Unsurprisingly, none of the Chicago lines survived.

There are some streetcar lines which were retained for reasons other than rapid transit characteristics.  The New Orleans St. Charles line, for example, was probably retained for tourism (like the cable cars in San Francisco), a role it plays very well. The "F" line (Market Street - Fisherman's Wharf) in San Francisco is also heavy on tourism.  There are probably a handful of retained streetcar lines around the country that don't fall into the "rapid transit" or "tourism" bags, but there aren't many.  There are also some "new" streetcar lines that don't fall into either of these bags (e.g., the Portland "streetcar"), although most of the "new" lines focus on tourism. 

   

    

[Falcon48]

henry6

The power companies we know in cities were actually offshoots of the trolley lines.  Electric trolleys need electricity to run so they often started the power companies and services.  It was easy for them to separate from running trolley cars and just supply electricity and make money.  The push for the elimination of trolley cars and other rapid transit systems were only part of the transportation story. Public transportation provided by railroads or public transit agencies was not like driving your own car portal to portal and buses were indeed more flexible in finding you than a trolley.  If we were in love with our liberties provided by the family auto, the romance of over the road trucking, and the corner bus stop, then what was the power from the air?  Every community had to build an airport to attract the swifter transportation making the community more a part of the world than the little train depot in town.  But when the jet plane landed it was a divorce from ground transportation.  Placing blame on people involved in building parkways and freeways and bridges, and clearing land outside of towns for the new jetports undercuts the desire of the American public for these things.  People can be manipulated easily, they can be fickle, too. But telling people that, people knowing that, and they still go along with these new gizmos, puts the onus of cars and planes on them.

  Some power companies were offshoots of trolley lines, but certainly not all.  The major Insull utilities, for example, were developed independent of traction companies.  One of Insull's strategies was to get the traction companies in his service territory to switch to commercial power (generated by his utilities) and to stop generating their own, a strategy which was important to his goal of making electricity a product for the masses.  His investments in traction properties came later.   

[Falcon48]

The so-called "GM conspiracy was thoroughly discussed a couple of years ago in another thread.  Without repeating all this stuff, let me simply make three points:

1. The antitrust case against GM, National City Lines, and others in the early 1950's is usually put forward as "proof" of a conspiracy by these firms to get rid of streetcars.  That's the way it's treated in John WR's note and in Henry6's original note.  According to this story, GM was convicted of this nefarious scheme, but they only got a slap on the wrist, after the damage had already been done.

Trouble is that the people who say this are usually reading something someone else wrote about the case, and not the actual court decision.  If you read the actual court decision (U.S. v. National City Lines, reported at 186 F.2d 562, available in any law library) you will see it had absolutely nothing to do with an illegal "conspiracy" to do away with streetcars.  Rather, it involved the legality of "exclusive dealing arrangements" whereby National City Lines agreed to buy all of its busses and related supplies from suppliers that provided it with financing.  In fact, the only mention of "streetcars" in the entire decision is the following sentence:

"In 1938, National conceived the idea of purchasing transportation systems in cities where street cars were no longer practicable and supplanting the latter with passenger busses."

 

2.  The "GM conspiracy" doesn't explain what actually happened in the transit world. What actually happened is that every transit operator in the U.S. - not just the National City Lines companies -  replaced their streetcar systems with busses.  True, a few cities kept a handful of streetcar lines (generally, although not always, lines with rapid transit characteristics like subways, extensive private ROW operations and the like).  But, even in the cities which kept some streetcar lines, the transit systems as a whole were converted to busses - the retained streetcar lines became islands of rail in a sea of busses.  The conspiracy theory is that this all happened because of the machinations of  GM, through National City Lines, its supposed subsidiary (which it wasn't). But National City Lines didn't even come close to controlling the whole U.S, transit industry.  If it made economic sense to keep streetcars (as the conspiracy theory posits), the non-National City Lines cites would never have converted.  And how does the "conspiracy theory" expain the fact that public agencies which had nothing to do with National (like CTA in Chicago, as another poster has pointed out) replaced their streetcar systems.  The fact is that everyone was converting, whether they were affiliated with National or not.

3.  For a very thorough critique of the "GM conspiracy" theory and an explanation of the economics behind bus conversions, see the following article from Transportation Quarterly: 

http://www.cliffslater.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/TQOrigin.pdf

 

 

 

[Anonymous]

In looking again at Paul’s quote, regarding the comment following his reference to George Hilton, Paul is not necessarily attributing that comment to Mr. Hilton.  So I should not have made that connection either.  But my point was to refute the suggestion that the subsidization of transit, assumed necessary today, is at least partially justified because of the precedent that early transit was also subsidized. 

And that the subsidization of early transit took the form of it being an accessory to a profit making center of business whereas that transit alone could not have survived as an independent business.  I would say it is dancing on the head of a pin to say that is equivalent to today’s transit subsidies.  It is Christopher Leinberger who appears to be making that point in Paul’s quote, and I think it is disingenuous if that is the point he is making.   

[Falcon48]

Bucyrus

Paul_D_North_Jr

It might also be informative to review the articles by Prof. of Economics George W. Hilton. 

Also, it's pretty well settled that many streetcar lines were built by land developers to facilitate access to - and hence to increase the value and selling price of - their new neighborhoods, suburbs, towns, and even amusement parks, etc. further out.  In economic terms, that is called "exploitation of the land", and is not a negative connotation.  As such, though, the streetcar lines were intended to be mere transportation tools to achieve a greater end, not as a 'profit-making center' of their own.

 

"LEINBERGER: Transportation, whether it be roads or rail transit, or bike lanes, have always been subsidized. . . .

And I’m suggesting, and Locus is suggesting, and a lot of developers are suggesting that we need to learn from how we used to build our transit systems 100 years ago. This country 100 years ago had the finest rail transit system on the planet. And the vast majority of it was paid for by real estate developers, and it’s not as if the economics were different then than now – those rail transit systems, those trollies, those subways in New York, lost money. So why did developers build them?

They built them to get their customers out to their land, so land profits subsidized the transit, and that’s what we’re proposing with value capture as well. Value capture is capturing the value that’s created by transportation improvements. And it’s not as if you can just assume that developers are just going to pay for it all, that’s not going to happen."

- Paul North. 

I think that economics were much different then from what they are now.   Now, transit is truly subsidized as public sector entity.  It seems like George Hilton and Christopher Leinberger are dancing on the head of a pin to reach a torturous conclusion that the trollies and interubans of a 100 years ago lost money and were subsidized because they were not a profit making center of their own, but rather, were a necessary component of a profit making venture. 

If they were a necessary component of a profit making venture, then they too were a profit making part of that venture.  It is really a stretch to conclude that the profit of the profit center subsidized the non-profit nature of the transit system that was essential to make the profit making center work.

To say that land profits subsidized the transit may be true in a sense of accounting for a particular business venture, but it is not analogous to the public sector subsidizing transit.   

  Perhaps I've missed something that Professor Hilton wrote, but I'm not aware that he has ever suggested that investment in streetcar/ interurban railroad systems was generally made to support real estate development.  Certainly, there were examples of this - a number of the Pacific Electric lines were constructed to support real estate development (as he notes in an article he wrote on PE - I think it was "Who Kille the Red Car", or something like that), and there were examples of this in other cities.  But this was the exception rather than the rule.  Most investment in streetcar. interurban systems was made by investors who expected to make money out of providing transit services.

[erikem]

Paul, Ken,

Both The Time of the Trolley and The Electric Interurban Railways in America are excellent books, the first for showing how electricity became the preferred technology for powering streetcars and the second for a detailed account about the rise and fall of the electric traction industry. Yet another good book on public transit is Clifton Hood's 722 Miles, the Building of the Subways and How They Transformed New York, which describes how the privately owned subways were built to extend the commuting range for people working in Manhattan and how the inflation due to WW1 combined with stagnant fares made the subways unprofitable.

A few more comments, the subways enabled a very dense business district in Manhattan, so dense that it is impractical to serve by car (think parking), hence the subways still being useful. For the flip side, outside of a few manufacturing and financial centers, most employment is spread out, making public transit impractical (buses included). We may see a return to transportation dependent on electricity (electric cars), though that will eventually entail a new way of paying for the roads beyond gas tax.

- Erik

[blownout cylinder]

n012944

John WR

 I did present the evidence:  Stephen Goddard's book.  You object that it is only one book but you do not deal with Goddard's sources which are given in the footnotes.  Presenting the evidence frustrating when that evidence is ignored.   

John

Here is an artcle from Transportation Quartily:

http://www.cliffslater.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/TQOrigin.pdf

The author takes a different view on your conspiracy.  

CBS News also has a different view on your conspriacy

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505143_162-46240131/the-gm-trolley-conspiracy-what-really-happened/

linked

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Some of the trolley-to-bus changes were significantly influenced by changing land use patterns - from concentrated urban areas to spread-out suburbs, hence less concentration on a limited number of Origin-Destination pairs, better roads, etc.

One thing I learned from many economics and anti-trust courses, at the high school, college, and post-graduate levels: The results from both independent businesses in pure competition and a monopolistic or conspiracy-based scheme often look alike on the surface, from the outside (where we are).  Easy example: Gas station prices - do you think they are centrally controlled, or independently determined ?  One has to know more about the internal workings - control, cost structure, market share, etc. - in order to rationally support a conclusion about which type of business model is operating in a given situation, which is information we often don't have.  So just as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", competition or conspiracy can often both be 'found' in the same set of objective, publicly available facts. 

Don't forget the late William D. Middleton's excellent treatise, The Time of the Trolley.  I need to dig out my copy to see what he has to say about this (if anything), and also to check some of the histories mentioned or asked about above.

- Paul North. 

[greyhounds]

The best book I have read that is related to the subject is "The Electric Interurban Railways in America" by George W. Hilton and John Due.

Hilton is a PhD economist and a railfan.  He knows economics and is fascinated with trains.  (along with steamboats and baseball)  His histories explain why things happened as they did without resorting to concocted conspiracy theories.

According to Hilton.,one reason for the development of the electric rail passenger systems was the fact that the technology of the electric self powered railcar developed around 10 years ahead of the internal cumbustion engine technology.  This lead to significant investment in the electric rail passenger systems.  This was unfortunate because the automobiles and busses proved superior, in most cases, for moving passengers shorter distances.  The electric passenger railways died like flies.

When the internal cumbustion road vehicles took the passengers the investment in electric rail systems was lost and there was a great human tragedy.  Men who worked on the interurbans and streetcar systems were thrown out of work in their middle age.  They had to start over.

It wasn't a conspiracy.  It was just economics and technoligical development.

But, as I said, you gotta' read more than one source on the subject.  For another great insighful look at rail passenger decline I'd suggest David P. Morgan's "Who Shot the Passenger Train".

[Firelock76]

DSchmitt

Firelock76

 

"Interurban Interlude"  was published by Carstens Publications.  I don't think it's available from them anymore but if you see a copy of it anywhere grab it, it's an entertaining and fun read about a line that most North Jersey residents have no idea ever existed.  Only the right-of-way remains now as a pathway for PSE&G power lines.

Available used through Amazon.com.  Price depends on seller, current  lowest $16.00.

And worth every penny, trust me!

[DSchmitt]

Firelock76

 

"Interurban Interlude"  was published by Carstens Publications.  I don't think it's available from them anymore but if you see a copy of it anywhere grab it, it's an entertaining and fun read about a line that most North Jersey residents have no idea ever existed.  Only the right-of-way remains now as a pathway for PSE&G power lines.

Available used through Amazon.com.  Price depends on seller, current  lowest $16.00.

[Firelock76]

Just another short story about another New Jersey electric railway, the "Bergen County Rapid Transit".  The BCRT was an interurban line  (hey, an interurban is just a trolley on steroids) that ran from Paterson NJ to Suffern NY  from 1914 to 1929.  Originally an independant it was aqquired by Public Service some time after World War One.  According to the book "Interurban Interlude"  by E.J. Quinby  (who was there at the time and ought to know)  it died due to lack of patronage, and also the head of Public Service learned it was a lot more efficient to operate buses, a decision he came to reluctantly as he was a trolley man himself.  But business is business, as they say. 

"Interurban Interlude"  was published by Carstens Publications.  I don't think it's available from them anymore but if you see a copy of it anywhere grab it, it's an entertaining and fun read about a line that most North Jersey residents have no idea ever existed.  Only the right-of-way remains now as a pathway for PSE&G power lines.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

MidlandMike

  San Francisco kept the Market St line.  Where all the lines you mentioned municipally owned?

   I meant to include SF - in the late 1970's I had a small supporting role in Boeing-Vertol's construction of Light Rail Vehicles to operate there, esp. the complex geometry and grades at 15th & Taraval Sts. intersection - see: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/p/203115/2221217.aspx#2221217  

Philadelphia was the privately-owned Philadelphia Transit Company or "PTC" until it was taken over by a governmental authority - SEPTA - in the mid-1960's, as I recall.  Pittsburgh was also privately owned, something like the Pittsburgh Street Railway Company, until it was taken over by the Port Authority of Allegheny County (or similar).  I don't about the history of Boston's lines before the MBTA or "T" was created to run them - a bunch of the Boeing-Vertol LRV's went there, too. 

I too am familiar with the St. Charles St. line in New Orleans - in late August 1969, I rode it several times a few days after Hurricane Camille came ashore further east.  The box of slides I have from then are among my best (which isn't saying much), but they are illustrative of a typical day on the line, the location in the grassy median, some trackwork, and multiple tracks in the middle of Canal Street.  Someday when I figure out how to (or buy) a slide scanner, I'll post the best of them here.

- Paul North.          

[DSchmitt]

Those who want to believe that GM, Firestone etc entered into a conspiracy with National City Lines will continue to do so. 

But the evidence, including the documentation of their conviction in court shows that the "conspired" to sell products to bus (buses,  tires, etc) to bus systemsm not destroy public thansportation in America to force people into automobiles.

GM etc, did not actually control NCL.  NCL went to them and offered to buy products from them in return for assistance with financing the purchace of transportation systems. 

NCL was in the public  transportation business.  They made money when their public transportation systems suceeded, not when it failed.  Thry ran most of their systems for 20 years or more.  

NCL management prefered buses to rail because their analysis showed  buses provided the needed services for less cost.  Most of the systems the bought were obtained at "bargain" prices because they were faIing.  Even those with high ridership could not meet their costs from the farebox. (a situation that is still true of most public transportation in the USA today). 

In the 1940/50's there was strong public sentiment against rail public transportation in many cities.  The infrastructure and rail equipment  were worn out, service was slow (usally because of conflicts with automobiles and trucks),  those driving autos and trucks wanted the street car off the roads due to the conflicts, revising routes to meet public needs was difficult and costly, there was little money (private or public) available to maintain, let alone improve the systems. 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Market St San Francisco 1906 (4 days before the earthquake)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGloeX1SpAU

Harold Lloyd "Driving Around New York" 1928. comments say some of it filmed in LA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkqz3lpUBp0

 

[John WR]

Both Cliff Slater and the CBS program do not attempt to rebut Stephen Goddard; they do rebut "Who Framed Roger Rabbit."  

If you read Slater closely he does not dispute the conspiracy charge against GM.  He does point out the purpose to the conspiracy had nothing to do with public transit itself and everything to do with a group of companies that sought to enrich themselves by selling buses and bus related products.  On this point there is no disagreement between him and Stephen Goddard.  

Slater also argues that buses are superior because ultimately they proved cheaper to to operate.  He also acknowledges that a big reason for this is because streetcar companies typically were responsible for paving the streets on which they operated while bus companies got to use the streets with no such responsibility.  In effect the street car companies were forced to subsidize the bus companies.  Also, neither he nor Goddard discuss the fact that generally streetcars were operated with 2 men while buses were operated with only one man.  

Bear in mind that in this discussion I am carrying the message of Stephen Goddard.  Goddard's whole book is about the clash between over the road motor vehicles and vehicles that run on steel rails.  Slater does make the valid point that regardless of what assessment is made of GM that company was not part of the change in New Jersey or New York.  On the whole, while they talk about somewhat different things, I find a fair amount of agreement between them.  I suspect a scholarly analysis would find more.  

The biographical note at the end of the article suggests that Slater's primary concern in as a consultant or adviser for a transit system for Honolulu.  I think we can all agree that whatever happened to streetcars during the last century really does not bear on the kind of transit system Honolulu should choose today.

[n012944]

John WR

 I did present the evidence:  Stephen Goddard's book.  You object that it is only one book but you do not deal with Goddard's sources which are given in the footnotes.  Presenting the evidence frustrating when that evidence is ignored.   

John

Here is an artcle from Transportation Quartily:

http://www.cliffslater.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/TQOrigin.pdf

The author takes a different view on your conspiracy.  

CBS News also has a different view on your conspriacy

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505143_162-46240131/the-gm-trolley-conspiracy-what-really-happened/

[Mookie]

uh....The topic seems to be public transportation...

Might want to change the topic title?

[greyhounds]

John WR

Greyhounds,  

Here is the Merriam Webester's dictionary definition of conspiracy:  

conspiracy

 noun    (Concise Encyclopedia)

Agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means.

And that is exactly what we have her.  A group of corporations conspired to sell their buses and other products by destroying a transit system based on streetcars.  They did not want to provide a transit system; all they wanted to do was to make enormous profits.  And they did exactly that by exploiting the American public.  I did present the evidence:  Stephen Goddard's book.  You object that it is only one book but you do not deal with Goddard's sources which are given in the footnotes.  Presenting the evidence frustrating when that evidence is ignored. 

And yes, there is a good reason why buses have replaced almost all (but not all) streetcars.  The reason is a few men who wanted enormous profits.  

Your characterization of me is completely false and has nothing whatsoever to do with me.  I do request you stop the personal attacks.  

John

No.  There was no intent, proven or otherwise, to destroy the transit systems.  You, and some other folks, are making that up.

 

[DSchmitt]

I have seen a site that not only listed the transit systems that National City Lines controlled, but whether or not they were responsible for their conversion from rail to bus.  I thought I posted the link to an earlier thread on this topic, but I searched of my old posts and also did or a Google search yesterday and could not find it.

I remember  it showed only about half the transit systems  controlled by National City Lines were actually converted from rail to by by them.  Some were already bus,  and some were actually converted after NCL relinquished ownership to others (usually government). Also many they did convert were already subtantially bus systems when they obtained control. 

NCL was a transportation company in business to make money providing public transportation. They  bought failing transit systems, and atempted to make them viable through better management, cutting operating costs and at the same time providing better service.   NCL management believed that busses usually  provided better service at lower cost, but they analyzed each situation and in a few cases they actually put money into improving (but not expanding ) rail service. It is likely many transit systems  survived  years longer than would have otherwise becauae of NCL.

 

[erikem]

One thing is particular puzzles me, the electric railway mileage (city lines and interurbans) peaked around 1917 (note the date), while National City Lines was formed in 1938, so any "conspiracy" was more to destroy what was left of electric railway transit as opposed to destroying public transit.

Steam railroad mileage peaked in 1916, which is about the same time electric railroad mileage peaked. This was the time that internal combustion powered vehicles were becoming practical and equally as important the time that paved roads were being built across the country. This was also the time that some unpleasantness was going on in Europe, which had the effect of driving up copper prices. There were also changes in railroad regulations that limited the ability of the RR's to compete or operate at a profit (passenger fares not being adjusted to reflect the inflation from 1917-1920).

One other consequence of the European situation was the Great Influenza of 1918 (mistakenly called the "Spanish Flu" as most evidence points to it starting in western Kansas) which made riding in public transit a potentially very unhealthy activity.

- Erik

[John WR]

Cylinder,  

If you read my earlier entries you will find one where I said I have expressed myself on the issue of a conspiracy and I really don't want to repeat my self.  That is what I have done.  After that my comments were:  

1.  A note about streetcars in New Orleans based on my experience in that city.  

2.  An objection to an incorrect personal characterization.  I do not characterize people so I feel I am at a disadvantage on this issue.  However, a personal characterization is not an argument for anything.  

I offer this not as an argument nor even as a comment but simply as an explanation of my own perspective.  I hope you do not find it unacceptable.  

John

[blownout cylinder]

oh....and by the way...no need to start jumping on each other either...or you will find this one locked...