Street Cars in Detroit.

[p69rrh51]

What part of it is not correct?

And if "GM was given money by the city", what exactly would the city be expecting in return? If you are alleging underhanded actions by GM, shouldn't it be the other way around, since the city owned the DSR?

Finally, you do know that your cut & pasted "few things to think about" make absolutely no mention of the city of Detroit or the DSR?

Interesting your copy and paste was sponsored by a rubber company?
As stated I do not have access to all the info at the moment, but yes GM was colluding to do away with the DSR which was one of the 900 plus systems they put out of business, and we got exactly what GM wanted, and paid for it which is really sad!!

More copy and paste!
By the time of the 1973 oil crisis, controversial new testimony was presented to a United States Senate inquiry into the causes of the decline of streetcar systems in the U.S. This alleged that there was a wider conspiracy—by GM in particular—to destroy effective public transport systems in order to increase sales of automobiles and that this was implemented with great effect to the detriment of many cities.
Only a small handful of U.S. cities have surviving effective rail-based urban transport systems based on streetcar or trams, including Newark, New Jersey, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Boston. There is now general agreement that GM and other companies were indeed actively involved in a largely unpublicized program to purchase many streetcar systems and convert them to buses, which they supplied. There is also acknowledgment that the Great Depression, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, labor unrest, market forces, rapidly increasing traffic congestion, taxation policies that favored private vehicle ownership, urban sprawl, and general enthusiasm for the automobile played a role. One author recently summed the situation up stating "Clearly, GM waged a war on electric traction. It was indeed an all out assault, but by no means the single reason for the failure of rapid transit. Also, it is just as clear that actions and inactions [sic] by government contributed significantly to the elimination of electric traction.

Also a synopsis of the book Taken for a Ride by Jim Klein and Martha Olsen that I think you may want to read.

Why Does America Have the Worst Public Transit in the Industrialized World, and the Most Freeways?Taken for a Ride reveals the tragic and little known story of an auto and oil industry campaign, led by General Motors, to buy and dismantle streetcar lines. Across the nation, tracks were torn up, sometimes overnight, and diesel buses placed on city streets. The highway lobby then pushed through Congress a vast network of urban freeways that doubled the cost of the Interstates, fueled suburban development, increased auto dependence, and elicited passionate opposition. Seventeen city freeways were stopped by citizens who would become the leading edge of a new environmental movement. With investigative journalism, vintage archival footage and candid interviews, Taken for a Ride presents a revealing history of our cities in the 20th century that is also a meditation on corporate power, city form, citizen protest and the social and environmental implications of transportation.

[Mikeg]

Interesting your copy and paste was sponsored by a rubber company?
As stated I do not have access to all the info at the moment, but yes GM was colluding to do away with the DSR .......

You still haven't answered my question - what part of what I wrote is not correct?

Furthermore, you obviously did not read the web page that I linked to. It's a recent article on the Detroit Transit History web site that happens to use a 1946 US Royal Tire ad at the top of the page for an accompanying illustration.

Cut & paste away if you must, but -- yawn-- we've seen that stuff a hundred times here in previous DSR streetcar threads and none of it alleges, much less hints at, a conspiracy involving GM and the DSR.

[p69rrh51]

You still haven't answered my question - what part of what I wrote is not correct?

Furthermore, you obviously did not read the web page that I linked to. It's a recent article on the Detroit Transit History web site that happens to use a 1946 US Royal Tire ad at the top of the page for an accompanying illustration.

Cut & paste away if you must, but -- yawn-- we've seen that stuff a hundred times here in previous DSR streetcar threads and none of it alleges, much less hints at, a conspiracy involving GM and the DSR.

A link to an info with Detroit as a reference. Also last why would GM go through the effort of eliminating 900+ systems and leave streetcars in its own backyard?

http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm

[Mikeg]

A link to an info with Detroit as a reference. Also last why would GM go through the effort of eliminating 900+ systems and leave streetcars in its own backyard?

http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm

I read through your linked article and by golly, it does mention "Detroit" and "bribes" in the same sentence. The author alleges that is it not impossible that GM could have offered "bribes or other inducements" in Detroit and four other places. However, he only offers evidence of "other inducements" that happened in two of the other cities:

The railways of Boston, Detroit, San Francisco, Seattle, as well as those of Canada were publicly operated and unavailable for purchase; but this did not preclude GM, which was equally active in Canada, from using bribes and other inducements to persuade their officials to motorize.
Indeed, in San Francisco and Seattle, it arranged for one of its former regional bus managers, the ex-president of its United Cities subsidiary, to become manager and transit czar.

I seem to recall that just a few posts ago you were making a different allegation about bribes:

.... GM was given money by the city.....

Which is it? Are you making this stuff up or will you try to clear it all up for us once you finally "have access to the infomation"?

[p69rrh51]

I read through your linked article and by golly, it does mention "Detroit" and "bribes" in the same sentence. The author alleges that is it not impossible that GM could have offered "bribes or other inducements" in Detroit and four other places. However, he only offers evidence of "other inducements" that happened in two of the other cities:
I seem to recall that just a few posts ago you were making a different allegation about bribes:



Which is it? Are you making this stuff up or will you try to clear it all up for us once you finally "have access to the infomation"?

So an article that has to be fact checked does not measure up? I guess nobody in Detroit has ever taken a bribe? Or that the engineers were already under GM control which you failed to mention. But then I was suprised that this started much earlier than I had thought. Last you did not answer my question why would GM be so aggressive with the rest of North America and not here were their headquarters where located?

[Mikeg]

So an article that has to be fact checked does not measure up? I guess nobody in Detroit has ever taken a bribe? Or that the engineers were already under GM control which you failed to mention. But then I was suprised that this started much earlier than I had thought. Last you did not answer my question why would GM be so aggressive with the rest of North America and not here were their headquarters where located?

I don't have to answer that question, you do, since you are the one making the allegations.

The subject of this thread is "Street Cars in Detroit", not "Speculation on how GM could have conspired to end the Street Cars in Detroit". Instead of hijacking this one, why don't you start your own street car conspiracy thread?

[p69rrh51]

I don't have to answer that question, you do, since you are the one making the allegations.

The subject of this thread is "Street Cars in Detroit", not "Speculation on how GM could have conspired to end the Street Cars in Detroit". Instead of hijacking this one, why don't you start your own street car conspiracy thread?

I already knew you would not have an answer! According to B. Rhodes who at the time I asked him was head of dealer relations for Cadillac [[I willl not give his first name out but he was in the position in the late 90's be my guest to look him up) he worked with/for a one of the members of that committee. Unfortunately that is all he would say, but as we have learned by 1950 the fix was already in, so its a moot point. I have to say its refreshing usually big bad companys get treated like the ugly step sister on here, its good to see someone defending them. If you do not like my answer I could care less as we now know that it was the wrong decision in the long run.

[Hermod]

A link to an info with Detroit as a reference. Also last why would GM go through the effort of eliminating 900+ systems and leave streetcars in its own backyard?

http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm

The systems bought by the consortium and converted to buses [[The Great Conspiracy) were all privately-owned lines. They were all available for sale and easily bought because they were in bad shape financially.

The Detroit streetcar system had been taken over by the city in a political strong-arm fashion from the owners [[Detroit United Railways) long before GM became much of a financial power.