Well. I don't know about the rest of the country, but in North Jersey the major player in the trolley world was Public Service Coordinated Transit, a division of Public Service Electric and Gas. Their trolley lines ran all over Hudson, Essex, and Bergen Counties and were quite profitable until the automobile became affordable and popular in the 1920's. It was all down hill after that. Public Service switched to buses for a VERY good reason, trolley lines had to pay real estate taxes on their right-of-ways, but the buses could use the streets for free like everyone else. However, it's not too far off the mark to say North Jersey's 'burbs, at least the older ones, were children of the trolleys, that's when they weren't children of the Erie Railroad.
A portion of the Public Service trolley system survives today as the Newark Subway. Didn't know Newark NJ had a subway? Neither did I until recently and I'm from New Jersey.
A lot is being said nowadays about hybrid vehicles, but believe it or not Public Service was using them back in the 40's. They were called All Service Vehicles, or ASVs. They were capable of running off overhead trolley wires, and when wires weren't available they used on-board gasoline-powered generators. Kind of a "half-way" step from a trolley to a bus.
As an aside, whenever I hear old-timers say how they "miss the trolley cars, they were so much fun to ride" I think to myself, "then why'd you stop riding 'em?" I'd never say it out loud of course, I still take being an officer and a gentleman seriously! It's like everything else folks, use it or lose it.
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.
carnej1 It seems hard to make the case that private ownership of such operations by a for profit company and the electric utilities that historically were major owner/operators of electric rail transit systems would have eventually wanted to divest themselves of these and focus on their core activities.
Carnej,
We know what happened but we cannot really know things that didn't happen. Electric utilities operated streetcar lines because then found them a profitable way to sell electricity. It is true that in the 20's the demand for public transit began to decrease and ultimately it decreased a lot. However, the transition from public utility ownership might have been more gradual and without the bus conspiracy the street car system or at least large parts of it might have been preserved and a much lower cost that the new buses cost.
Don,
Bear in mind that suburbs were created by the steam railroad in the 19th century. During the Civil War Cornelius Vanderbilt brought the New York and Harlem Railroad which already had steam cars carrying people out to their suburban homes north of Manhattan.
And streetcars themselves created additional suburbs in the late 19th century. When, in the 1930's and later these streetcars were trashed and replaced by buses someone had to pay for the new public transit system. The people who now lived in the suburbs did.
But as popular as cars became they never did replace transit systems in the suburbs of the 40's and 50's.
Firelock,
You make an excellent point that in Newark, NJ if you used vehicles with steel wheels you had to pay a lot more taxes than if you used vehicles with rubber tires. The logic behind this I don't understand but that sure was the way that it was.
I rode the Erie Port Jervis line for about 20 years between Waldwick and Hoboken but not until Conrail and later NJT took it over. Now I live a short way from the Montclair Boonton line with is both former Erie and DL&W tracks.
And the now Newark Light Rail line hops onto the old DL&W Orange line spur to go beyond Branch Brook Park up to Grove Street in Belleville.
Finally, I've ridden many trolleys in the past and I still would if I could but these days I ride the bus to places like Newark Penn Station to get on the train.
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.
The conspiracy for which they were convicted, was making agreements with certain suppliers to get financing from them in return for buying their products exclusively.
Note that that their purpose was to buy transportation systems where street cars were not considered viable, not the wholesale elmination of street car systems. Most of the systems they bought would probably have gone out of business within a short time, leaving the areas served without public transportation.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (1951), para 9 "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 buses. Its capital was limited and its earlier experience in public financing convinced it that it could not successfully finance the purchase of an increasing number of operating companies in various parts of the United States by such means. Accordingly it devised the plan of procuring funds from manufacturing companies whose products its operating companies were using constantly in their business. National approached General Motors, which manufactures buses and delivers them to the various sections of the United States. It approached Firestone, whose business of manufacturing and supplying tires extends likewise throughout the nation. In the middle west, where a large part of its operating subsidiaries were to be located, it solicited investment of funds from Phillips, which operates throughout that section but not on the east or west coast. Pacific undertook the procurement of funds from General Motors and Firestone and also from Standard Oil of California, which operates on the Pacific coast. Mack Truck Company was also solicited. Eventually each of the suppliers entered into a contract with City Lines defendants of the character we have described whereby City Lines companies agreed that they would buy their exclusive requirements from the contracting supplier and from no one else."
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
John WR Don, Bear in mind that suburbs were created by the steam railroad in the 19th century. During the Civil War Cornelius Vanderbilt brought the New York and Harlem Railroad which already had steam cars carrying people out to their suburban homes north of Manhattan. And streetcars themselves created additional suburbs in the late 19th century. When, in the 1930's and later these streetcars were trashed and replaced by buses someone had to pay for the new public transit system. The people who now lived in the suburbs did. But as popular as cars became they never did replace transit systems in the suburbs of the 40's and 50's.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
John WR Firelock, You make an excellent point that in Newark, NJ if you used vehicles with steel wheels you had to pay a lot more taxes than if you used vehicles with rubber tires. The logic behind this I don't understand but that sure was the way that it was. I rode the Erie Port Jervis line for about 20 years between Waldwick and Hoboken but not until Conrail and later NJT took it over. Now I live a short way from the Montclair Boonton line with is both former Erie and DL&W tracks. And the now Newark Light Rail line hops onto the old DL&W Orange line spur to go beyond Branch Brook Park up to Grove Street in Belleville. Finally, I've ridden many trolleys in the past and I still would if I could but these days I ride the bus to places like Newark Penn Station to get on the train.
Could the higher tax issue have originally been aimed at streetcars rather than interurba/heavy rail due to the fact that having rails embedded in public streets could be an issue when it came to maintaining the pavement?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 John WR Firelock, You make an excellent point that in Newark, NJ if you used vehicles with steel wheels you had to pay a lot more taxes than if you used vehicles with rubber tires. The logic behind this I don't understand but that sure was the way that it was. I rode the Erie Port Jervis line for about 20 years between Waldwick and Hoboken but not until Conrail and later NJT took it over. Now I live a short way from the Montclair Boonton line with is both former Erie and DL&W tracks. And the now Newark Light Rail line hops onto the old DL&W Orange line spur to go beyond Branch Brook Park up to Grove Street in Belleville. Finally, I've ridden many trolleys in the past and I still would if I could but these days I ride the bus to places like Newark Penn Station to get on the train. Could the higher tax issue have originally been aimed at streetcars rather than interurba/heavy rail due to the fact that having rails embedded in public streets could be an issue when it came to maintaining the pavement?
I took the comment to mean that in NJ the state taxed railroads higher than normal business and industry rates; it taxed railroads for improvements to their properties when highways were constructed across or over them; it used the tax revenues to pay for the highway system that took both passenger and freight traffic away from railroads. It was metaphoric and not taxing the streetcars while giving buses a free ride.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
CSSHEGEWISCH The alleged conspiracy loses its credibility when you consider that the conversion from streetcar to bus involved a lot more systems than the operations taken over by National City Lines. The Chicago Transit Authority began receiving an order of 600 PCC cars placed by Chicago Surface Lines just as the population began to move to the suburbs and ridership plummeted. CTA was lucky and was able to trade in the streetcars for PCC rapid transit equipment. Other operators saw the handwriting on the wall and did not purchase streetcars that they wouldn't need.
The alleged conspiracy loses its credibility when you consider that the conversion from streetcar to bus involved a lot more systems than the operations taken over by National City Lines. The Chicago Transit Authority began receiving an order of 600 PCC cars placed by Chicago Surface Lines just as the population began to move to the suburbs and ridership plummeted. CTA was lucky and was able to trade in the streetcars for PCC rapid transit equipment. Other operators saw the handwriting on the wall and did not purchase streetcars that they wouldn't need.
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?[
The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 was passed to curb abuses by the holding companies. With regard their streetcar lines, they were apparently subsidized by the power companies whereby the costs were passed on to the electric ratepayers. When the law required their divestiture, streetcar lines that were not able to stand on their own, were easy take-over targets.
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.
To those who responded to me,
I agree with most of what everyone has written and where I don't there is no real reason to go on and on. Those of you who know me know I regard this as a conversation rather than I debate. I read each of your posts so we do understand one another.
The only other point to add is that it would be nice if New Jersey Transit would be a little more flexible with their flexible bus routes and connect more of them to railroad stations when they run close to the station but far enough away to require a long long walk.
Hey, we're having fun here and we're all learning something, that's what the Forum's all about. SO, if the thread takes on a life of it's own and continues to roll, that's cool! Let 'er roll!
John WR ....... 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. ....................
.......
....................
That is not entirely correct. Everything wears out under use, rails, ties, streetcars themselves. Routine maintenance and renewal is required, so the cost of simply keeping the existing streetcars was rather more than zero. The depression of the 1930s cut earnings so major maintenance programs were deferred due to corporate poverty. Those systems that survived into WW2 had to continue deferring due to the war effort.
As a result many systems were facing large capital requirements to replace worn rail, decades old cars and the like. Everything was tired. So the choice became one of whether it made more sense to buy a fleet of buses instead of a 10 miles of rail, 6,000 ties and 10 new streetcars to replace the oldest relics.And the same again next year. In the long term sticking with rail may have made more sense but immediate needs required a fast solution.
As already discussed, of course there were many other factors influencing the industry.
John
Herron Rail video released a couple of videos called "The Singing Wire" which covered various streetcar and interurban lines in the midwest. The narrative indicates that many of the cities themselves were against streetcars as automobiles became the preferred mode of transportation and downtown traffic had to compete with the streetcars.
One line in particular, the Cincinnati and Lake Erie, had a couple of very serious head-on collisions of their interurban trains due to operators ignoring the operating rules on single-line segments, which resulted in public indignation and their ultimate demise.
HOW could I have forgotten this? There's a very fine video called "Trolleys, The Cars That Built Our Cities" put out by an outfit called "Transit Gloria Mundi", love that name! It's a broadcast quality video that tells the whole trolley story, from the earliest horse-drawn versions to todays light rail. If you're interested in trolleys it's a must have, informative and fun.
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 .
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.
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?
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.
OK, you're looking for a villain and there is no villain. You're a passenger rail advocate. I'm not. It seems to me that you've taken a conviction for one thing and expanded it to fit your ideology of rail passenger service.
There was no conspiracy against streetcars. There was no conspiracy against transit. A company, National City Lines, saw an opportunity to make nonviable streetcar based transit systems viable by replacing the streetcars with more efficient busses. If anything that would be a "conspiracy" to preserve transit, not to destroy it. If you want to understand a subject you've got to read more than one book on the subject. Every author puts a slant on things and none knows the full story.
NCL needed financing. They arranged to get such financing from their suppliers and promised to only buy from those suppliers in return for the financing. That sounds quite reasonable to me. But the government didn't like it.
Government actions are not always pure of heart. A lawyer, or lawyers, seeking advancement in the US Department of Justice would reason that hanging a conviction on General Motors, Firestone, etc. would enhance their likelyhood of promotion. In any event, there was a conviction for the exclusive supplier deal. But there was no conviction on a conspiracy to eliminate rail based transit systems, or even transit systems in general.
So why did busses largely replace streetcars? There are good valid reasons. Deal with those reasons. Not conspiracy theories. Maybe the various people who made the numerous decisions were all wrong. I doubt it. But if you've got some kind of evidence bring it forth. I'd like to read it.
Alleging a conspiracy ain't gonna' cut it.
As to pulling over to load/unload passenger, if you run the streetcar tracks down the side of the street no one can park there. That would kill off the businesses. Kind of create a steetcar to nowhere thing.
Here is the Merriam Webester's dictionary definition of conspiracy:
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.
Paul,
I can offer some insight about New Orleans as I lived there for several years. When electric street railways became common New Orleans Public Service operated them and was also the electric company. Today they are operated by the Regional Transit Authority.
The St. Charles Avenue line, originally the New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad, is the oldest continually operating streetcar line in the world. New Orleans has a strong preservationist community that has supported it and when other streetcar lines were converted to buses the St. Charles Avenue line was never changed.
Up until the mid 1960's there was a Canal Street car which ran as far as the Cemetaries at the end of Canal Street and then returned along City Park Avenue. People who wanted to continue along Canal Boulevard had to change to a bus. NOPSI converted that line to a bus line so people would not have to change at Cemetaries.
In the early 2000's New Orleans added a Riverfront streetcar line and reinstated the Canal Street line.
In New Orleans streetcars run in the neutral grounds--center medians between the lanes of traffic. You do have to cross part of the street to board the street car but you do not board in the traffic.
When one looks at examples like the one mentioned here I have to ask whether some of the cases mentioned were selected just to prove a point.
What happened to cases that occured before the issue took flight?
In the case of my Woodstock ON-Ingersoll ON case, it was simple population numbers did not justify the interurban transit system at all...and that it died in 1918...before all this happened could just have been the case for others as well
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
oh....and by the way...no need to start jumping on each other either...or you will find this one locked...
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.
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
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.
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.
uh....The topic seems to be public transportation...
Might want to change the topic title?
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.