GM Exec Speaks Out Against Efficient Transit

[gdogslim]

Didn't GM, Uniroyal and some oil company pay or lobby to tear up the streetcar tracks in los angeles, ca to sell more cars.
I think they ended up being fined like 50,000. back in the 60's
http://www.lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_A...eetcar_scandal

[citylover]

Didn't GM, Uniroyal and some oil company pay or lobby to tear up the streetcar tracks in los angeles, ca to sell more cars.
I think they ended up being fined like 50,000. back in the 60's
http://www.lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_A...eetcar_scandal

I wonder if you read what you linked? I linked the exact same thing [[great american streetcar scandal) which rather extensively debunks the myth about GM conspiring to destroy mass transit_ and the 1st link you provided is ambiguous at best.

[gdogslim]

you never know, many conspiracies come to fruition, remember kwame.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal
The lack of hard information about what happened has led to intrigue, uncertainty, inaccuracy and conspiracy theories. The story has been explored many times in print, film and other media, notably in Who Framed Roger Rabbit [[film), Taken for a Ride [[documentary), and The End of Suburbia [[documentary film).
In 1946 E. Quinby alerted transportation officials across the county to what he called "A careful, deliberately planned campaign to swindle you out of your most important and valuable public utilities, your Electric Railway System". General Motors and others were subsequently convicted in 1949 of conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses and related products via a complex network of linked holding companies including National City Lines and Pacific City Lines. They were also indicted, but acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the ownership of these companies. In the period from 1936 and 1950 they had been involved in the conversion of over 100 electric surface-traction systems that were converted to bus systems in 45 cities including Baltimore, Los Angeles [[mainly the "Yellow Cars"), New York City, Oakland and San Diego.
In the 1970s at around 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 transit car systems in the USA. This alleged that there was a wider conspiracy, by General Motors 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.
Today it is agreed that General Motors and others were indeed actively involved in an largely unpublicized program to buy up many streetcar systems and convert them to use buses, which they often 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 major or possibly more significant role. One author recently summed the situation up as follows: "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 by government contributed significantly to the elimination of electric traction.

Remember Toyota had a huge recall after the GM bailout. hmmmm. the wizard is pulling strings

[citylover]

you never know, many conspiracies come to fruition, remember kwame.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal
The lack of hard information about what happened has led to intrigue, uncertainty, inaccuracy and conspiracy theories. The story has been explored many times in print, film and other media, notably in Who Framed Roger Rabbit [[film), Taken for a Ride [[documentary), and The End of Suburbia [[documentary film).
In 1946 E. Quinby alerted transportation officials across the county to what he called "A careful, deliberately planned campaign to swindle you out of your most important and valuable public utilities, your Electric Railway System". General Motors and others were subsequently convicted in 1949 of conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses and related products via a complex network of linked holding companies including National City Lines and Pacific City Lines. They were also indicted, but acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the ownership of these companies. In the period from 1936 and 1950 they had been involved in the conversion of over 100 electric surface-traction systems that were converted to bus systems in 45 cities including Baltimore, Los Angeles [[mainly the "Yellow Cars"), New York City, Oakland and San Diego.
In the 1970s at around 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 transit car systems in the USA. This alleged that there was a wider conspiracy, by General Motors 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.
Today it is agreed that General Motors and others were indeed actively involved in an largely unpublicized program to buy up many streetcar systems and convert them to use buses, which they often 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 major or possibly more significant role. One author recently summed the situation up as follows: "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 by government contributed significantly to the elimination of electric traction.

Remember Toyota had a huge recall after the GM bailout. hmmmm. the wizard is pulling strings

Any explanations why streetcars also were phased out in cities worldwide?

[Danny]

Yes, take the car and pollute the air so that our grandchildren can breathe foul stinky air.

[Detroitnerd]

I have posted plenty of evidence to the contrary of what you claim.It is ip to others to make up their own minds. Also have looked up streetcar systems in other cities i.e. Paris, London and Rio De Janeiro and in those three cities streetcars gave way to trolley buses as late as 1965......did GM do that?

Citylover, your problem seems to be that you don't understand what you're debating. You seem to be claiming that there was NO ELEMENT OF CONSPIRACY to remove streetcars from American cities. That is false.

To buttress this false claim, you bring up several other factors that led to the decline of the streetcar. But that is not what we are debating. We are debating whether there was an element of conspiracy. And we have proved that there was.

Stop trying to change the subject and instead debate the actual subject, OK?

[ghettopalmetto]

Any explanations why streetcars also were phased out in cities worldwide?

Worldwide? Or just in the U.S.?

I seemed to see quite a few streetcar lines in operation in Europe. You know, the ones we paid to rebuild after World War II???

Or maybe I was just imagining that, and I was riding one of those newfangled high-tech "trains on tires"!

[Detroitnerd]

Worldwide? Or just in the U.S.?

I seemed to see quite a few streetcar lines in operation in Europe. You know, the ones we paid to rebuild after World War II???

Or maybe I was just imagining that, and I was riding one of those newfangled high-tech "trains on tires"!

Hey, if the history doesn't support your point of view, reinvent the history to suit your purposes, right?

[j to the jeremy]

Any explanations why streetcars also were phased out in cities worldwide?

Because the examples you cited [[Paris, London, Rio) all have extensive subway systems and had them in addition to streetcars.

[citylover]

Because the examples you cited [[Paris, London, Rio) all have extensive subway systems and had them in addition to streetcars.

Any evidence to show your claim has merit.The irony here is that someone other then myself posted the exact same link which supports my contention.

If as Detroitnerd claims there was a conspiracy why were as the link illustrates buses replacing streetcars all over the world? Honolulu no connection to GM replaced their streetcars with buses.The author of the link cites journals of the trade that said no evidence existed that showed buses by GM or anyone else were foisted upon unwilling communities.

GM was convicted of conspiracy..........to monopolize the sale of parts


A 1974 report by Bradford Snell ignited the conspiracy theory by noting that General Motors was convicted of conspiracy in 1949 [[and fined $5000) in their program to buy up and destroy electric urban trolley systems so that urban transit would be forced to rely on GMC buses, and that this is the principal reason that modern-day trolley systems are rare in the United States today. Between 1936 and 1950, National City Lines, a holding company sponsored and funded by GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil of California, bought out more than 100 electric surface-traction systems in 45 cities [[including New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Tulsa, and Los Angeles) to be dismantled and replaced with GM buses. In 1949 GM and its partners were convicted in U.S. district court in Chicago of criminal conspiracy in this matter and fined $5,000.
The case against the conspiracy

This belief has been questioned by Sy Adler who points out, among other things, that GM was not convicted of buying up urban trolley systems but rather merely of forcing bus companies owned by General Motors to use General Motors buses, and that trolley ridership peaked in the year 1920 before GM's actions. The trolley industry's problems largely predated GM's interest. Many transportation historians note that the conversion to buses would likely have occurred anyway, and that streetcar ridership was steadily declining through this period.
Additional evidence against the conspiracy are that automobile ownership was rising everywhere, in cities both with and without GM purchasing the local streetcar systems. Streetcars were being converted to buses almost everywhere, including cities like London, without GM involvement, because buses were seen as the new technology at the time and were more flexible than streetcars, as they could route around track blockages for instance, and could use any road, not just roads with tracks, thereby off-loading infrastructure costs to the municipality.
Some documentation of the rapid transit interurban systems is often best provided by the history buffs, such as The Electric Railway Historical Association of Southern California [[http://www.erha.org/index.html).

[ghettopalmetto]

What you're convicted of in a court of law, and what you actually did, are two different things. Ask OJ.

[Detroitnerd]

"We didn't do it; and we promise not to do it again."

[citylover]

I have laid the facts out.Make shit up if you want to but the link refutes your claims.

[Detroitnerd]

Any evidence to show your claim has merit.The irony here is that someone other then myself posted the exact same link which supports my contention.

Clarify the claim, citylover, and you will find you are trying to change the subject, or to throw out irrelevant statistics in an effort to confuse what we're debating.

If as Detroitnerd claims there was a conspiracy why were as the link illustrates buses replacing streetcars all over the world? Honolulu no connection to GM replaced their streetcars with buses.The author of the link cites journals of the trade that said no evidence existed that showed buses by GM or anyone else were foisted upon unwilling communities.

Again, we are debating whether there was a conspiracy on the part of automakers, gas, oil and rubber interests to derail streetcars in American cities. There was. And you are throwing out information that is irrelevant to the case of conspiracy. Must I prove that every streetcar system that converted to buses did so at the behest of GM? No. That's not what we're debating. Sorry.

GM was convicted of conspiracy..........to monopolize the sale of parts

Oh, yes. Very convincing. Here's how this works:

We have three firms that produce products that are [[a) motor coaches with internal combustion engines [[b) rubber tires and [[c) oil and gas.

Their subsidiary buys up systems that use steel rails, electrically powered motorized cars and electricity.

Only thing is, those systems that are bought must now purchase buses, tires and oil and gas instead of rails, electricity and streetcars.

See, they aren't FORCING them to CONVERT from STREETCARS to BUSES. They're only forcing them to buy buses, rubber and oil and gas from certain vendors. Hahahahahaha.

This is so clearly a transparent conspiracy that it's laughable.

The only reason GM, Firestone and Standard didn't get stuck with the additional charge is because the law is a human institution. The sentiment in the United States at the time was that "what's good for GM is good for America." [[And anybody who's seen Bill Clinton argue over what "is" means knows just how ridiculous a legal debate can get.)

The truth is that General Motors saw streetcars as competition, envisioned a future without them, and colluded to remove them from American streets.

Anyway, keep pointing to irrelevancies, keep trying to change the subject, keep just pounding away. You will find that the truth is surprisingly resilient. Sorry if that frustrates you.

[citylover]

more evidence



I'm a big fan of the old Pacific Electric, the sprawling electric railroad known as the "Big Red Cars" that once covered much of southern California. Strangely, when I mention the old PE, many times someone within earshot says something to the effect of, "You know, back when they built the freeways, GM and the oil companies got together and forced them to tear up the tracks." Cecil, is there any truth to this rumor? If not, why do so many natives believe it?
— Tom R., Los Angeles
Cecil replies:
If you think trashing the LA trolleys was the extent of GM's alleged crimes, Tom, you ain't heard nothin' yet. In 1974 one Bradford Snell, a staff attorney for the U.S. Senate antitrust subcommittee, advanced the startling proposition that GM had [[1) sabotaged energy-efficient electric transit systems in 45 cities around the country, including LA, in order to sell more fuel-guzzling buses and autos; [[2) forced the railroads to replace nonpolluting electric locomotives with GM-built diesels by threatening to withhold lucrative auto shipments; and, most astonishing of all, [[3) treasonously built armaments for the Nazis during World War II through Opel, its German subsidiary. Not surprisingly, Snell's charges were widely publicized.
Snell lavished particular attention on the case of the Pacific Electric. Though it's difficult to believe today, Los Angeles once boasted the largest system of "interurbans" [[heavy-duty inter-city trolleys) in the U.S., carrying some 80 million passengers a year in the late 1930s. According to Snell, all this went out the window starting in 1939, when GM got together with Standard Oil of California [[now Chevron), Firestone, and other auto-related firms to set up a holding company that bought up trolley lines, dismantled them, and replaced them with buses. "The noisy, foul-smelling buses turned earlier patrons of the high-speed rail system away from public transit and, in effect, sold millions of private automobiles," Snell said. "Largely as a result, Los Angeles today is an ecological wasteland."
In a stinging counterattack, GM argued that Snell's accusations were off the wall from start to finish. The company said it relinquished day-to-day control of Opel in 1939 following the German invasion of Poland, and severed all relations with the firm when Germany declared war on the U.S. in 1941. It denied trying to strong-arm the railroads, pointing out that an earlier government investigation into the matter had produced nothing. Finally, it said its investments in various transit holding companies were small, that it exercised no managerial control, that many of the PE lines the California holding company bought had already been converted to buses, and that in any case the conversion to buses was part of a nationwide trend that was well under way before GM had made any transit investments at all.
Now, you may or may not believe GM's professions of innocence concerning the holding company. But most authorities agree that trolleys bit the dust in LA and elsewhere not because of a conspiracy but because they were slow and inconvenient compared to autos, and in the long run just couldn't compete. Los Angeles is typical in this respect. It has neither the high population density nor the concentrated downtown necessary to support rail transit. The PE, which was owned by the Southern Pacific railroad, made a profit in only 8 of the 42 years it was in business under its own name. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that many PE lines in LA proper operated on city streets, and as more cars crowded those streets, service got progressively slower. [[The average speed on the run to Santa Monica was only 13 MPH.)
Buses were looked on as the transit industry's salvation because they were cheaper to operate and maintain than trolleys, with no tracks or wires. In fact, the PE had begun to convert to buses in 1917, and had changed over 35 percent of its system by 1939. A state commission in the late 30s urged that busification continue, and by the early 1950s most of the tracks were gone. The last line gave up the ghost in 1961. It's too bad--some think the PE could have been the nucleus of a decent, if heavily subsidized, modern rail system--but blaming GM is like blaming the inventor of gunpowder for war.

[Detroitnerd]

Why are you still bringing up this Red Car BS? National City Lines dabbled in the Yellow Car, not the Red Car. It's as if you want to propagate this particular myth so you can claim your opponents are trying to propagate it. Which, again, sorry, isn't happening.

This is as intellectually dishonest as it gets...

[citylover]

Nothing dishonest about citing facts,

[Detroitnerd]

Again, citylover, we are not debating the rise of the automobile, nor are we debating any of the other ways in which the streetcar was threatened by subsidies or changes in taste. We are debating the involvement of powerful oil, gas, rubber and auto interests in that change. And, yes, they were interested and they did act on those interests. Go ahead and find a history that's sympathetic to your particular point of view. Take all the claims of GM's lawyers at face value. It doesn't make you right. It just makes you a lousy historian.

[Detroitnerd]

Nothing dishonest about citing facts,

Yes there is, if you are

1) Trying to change the subject of a debate;
2) Trying to change what's being debated to use a "straw man" technique;
3) Citing irrelevant facts in an effort to confuse what's debated or conflate it with something else.

We've seen all three from you on this one ...

[Hypestyles]

....I wouldn't be surprised at an article like this from "Car and Driver"...

[citylover]

The court case I know of [[if you know another show me) did not convict GM of conspiring to dismantle streetcar systems. Can you dispute that?

Inquiring further I find that streetcar systems were on the wane before GM became involved.Can you dispute that? And going in depth even more I learned that this waning of streetcar systems was happening worldwide where GM had no influence. Can you dispute that?

And even more in depth GM claimed at the time that it's involvement was limited at best.I have nothing to substantiate that but then do any of you have anything to say their involvement was greater than that?

None of these are my conclusions.They are the conclusions of the links provided by me et,al. Two facts are simply not in dispute.GM was not convicted of conspiring to destroy streetcar systems and there are numerous independent sources that cite that along with the fact that buses were taking over; way before GM became involved.

GM was guilty of attempting to force companies that had converted from streetcar to bus to buy GM buses and parts.That is simply not in dispute. Why the heck wouldn't an auto co try to sell their wares if they saw the trend was going toward what they manufactured.

It is fascinating to watch this non existent conspiracy theory continue despite all evidence to the contrary,

Detroitnerd calls what I cite a laughable transparent conspiracy yet can not cite one case of any auto co being convicted or guilty of anything remotely close to that_ conspiring to monopolize the sale of parts aint even in the same universe.

[Detroitnerd]

The court case I know of [[if you know another show me) did not convict GM of conspiring to dismantle streetcar systems. Can you dispute that?

No, it just required the streetcar companies to buy Firestone Tires, Standard Oil, and General Motors motor coaches. And given a healthy economic self-interest, you have three big players controlling all sorts of streetcar systems across the country and converting them to buses. To buy more products from the backers. And to eliminate the competition.

Listen, citylover, I'll let you put two and two together. You may refuse to, but if I were an executive for National City Lines, I would know pretty damn well not to add any rail lines or hold off on any rail-to-rubber conversions. And, if I were especially clever, I'd do it all in such a way where nobody could come after me later.

Inquiring further I find that streetcar systems were on the wane before GM became involved.Can you dispute that? And going in depth even more I learned that this waning of streetcar systems was happening worldwide where GM had no influence. Can you dispute that?

You are trying to change the subject again. Nice try. We are not debating whether GM's influence was necessary for a streetcar system to convert to bus, we are debating GM's influence on converting the streetcar systems it owned to buses.

And even more in depth GM claimed at the time that it's involvement was limited at best.I have nothing to substantiate that but then do any of you have anything to say their involvement was greater than that?

Yes, they had set up a division to research eliminating the streetcar as a competitor in the 1920s. In the 1930s, they presented their view of the future in the exhibit FUTURAMA. I urge you to examine it. You will find General Motors' perfect world of the future -- without streetcars or rail of any kind.

GM was not convicted of conspiring to destroy streetcar systems

"We didn't do it; and we won't do it again."

and there are numerous independent sources that cite that along with the fact that buses were taking over; way before GM became involved.

Again: We are not debating whether GM's influence was necessary for a streetcar system to convert to bus, we are debating GM's influence on converting the streetcar systems it owned to buses.

GM was guilty of attempting to force companies that had converted from streetcar to bus to buy GM buses and parts.That is simply not in dispute. Why the heck wouldn't an auto co try to sell their wares if they saw the trend was going toward what they manufactured.

Oh, yes: Economic self-interest is part of it, but you claim that it's just some passive activity on behalf of General Motors. I point out they'd long been interested in eliminating streetcar competition.

It is fascinating to watch this non existent conspiracy theory continue despite all evidence to the contrary.

Jesus, citylover, according to the company's own files, president Alfred P. Sloan assigned the responsibility of eliminating the streetcar entirely as a competitor to a specially created unit as early as 1922. That "real" enough for ya? Oh, yeah. I'm sure GM just sat there passively, watching all those systems just magically turn into profitable bus customers.

[Mikeg]

Yes, they had set up a division to research eliminating the streetcar as a competitor in the 1920s........

Jesus, citylover, according to the company's own files, president Alfred P. Sloan assigned the responsibility of eliminating the streetcar entirely as a competitor to a specially created unit as early as 1922.

Document your claim Detroitnerd and explain how this supposed "division" influenced the activities of National City Lines. You keep trotting this claim out as if it were established fact, yet you never offer any supporting evidence to back it up. If you can't provide such evidence then stop making misleading statements.

Your consistently aggressive and belittling attitude towards your fellow posters on this subject is getting tiresome.

[Detroitnerd]

Document your claim Detroitnerd and explain how this supposed "division" influenced the activities of National City Lines. You keep trotting this claim out as if it were established fact, yet you never offer any supporting evidence to back it up. If you can't provide such evidence then stop making misleading statements.

This fact was uncovered by Bradford Snell in his research. His source for this was GM's own files. I'd say that's pretty conclusive. If you want to read Snell's essay [[I think he overreaches), look up "How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit".

They run much of it at this URL
http://www.coachbuilt.com/bui/g/gm/gm.htm

Your consistently aggressive and belittling attitude towards your fellow posters on this subject is getting tiresome.

Why? Because I have a point and I'm sticking up for it? Don't like it? Take your marbles and go home. We have an argument going, and it's a good one.

[citylover]

This fact was uncovered by Bradford Snell in his research. His source for this was GM's own files. I'd say that's pretty conclusive. If you want to read Snell's essay [[I think he overreaches), look up "How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit".

They run much of it at this URL
http://www.coachbuilt.com/bui/g/gm/gm.htm



Why? Because I have a point and I'm sticking up for it? Don't like it? Take your marbles and go home. We have an argument going, and it's a good one.

Except that Snell has been discredited by several sources..............