GM Exec Speaks Out Against Efficient Transit

[ghettopalmetto]

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

Oooooooh! "Several sources" you say? By golly, I'm convinced!

Give this man a PhD!

[canuck]

The proof is in the pudding, or lack thereof; how a city the size of Detroit avoided a major transit scheme and ended up with what is essentially a deficient bus system must be linked to the automotive industry. It cannot but.

And the silly thing is; apart from manufacturing buses for the whole continent and beyond, the automotive companies would have benefited from fostering a transit scheme to enable multiple industries, a more robust economy to offset its shortcomings.

[Mikeg]

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

That's all you've got? How about a second source other than Snell who can vouch for the existence of such a "division" within GM? Maybe then you can call it a "fact".

In the link you provided, Bradford Snell states that "In 1922, only one American in ten owned an automobile. [[Everyone else used rail.)"

The truth is that everyone else used either horse-drawn vehicles or rail. But fudging the facts to an audience of streetcar fans who never witnessed the urban streets and rural roads of 1922 kind of helps to advance the theory he's pushing, doesn't it?

Nevertheless, you are perfectly free to swallow whole everything Snell has to say and call it a "fact", but you ought to occasionally wipe that stuff off your chin.

I tend to agree with the conclusion reached by Rutgers sociology professor Ted Goertzel, “Arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists tell you more about the believer than about the event.” Professor Goertzel has also written that "A conspiracy theory gives believers someone tangible to blame for their perceived predicament, instead of blaming it on impersonal or abstract social forces." In case you haven't noticed, General Motors Corporation no longer exists - what remains of it is now the Motors Liquidation Company.

[Detroitnerd]

That's all you've got? How about a second source other than Snell who can vouch for the existence of such a "division" within GM? Maybe then you can call it a "fact".

Meh, Snell's scholarship seems pretty good, if he overreaches in his arguments. Judging by his command of sales statistics, I'd say he had a good long look at these business files. Yeah, I'll just walk over to General Motors and ask to look at their historical files and come back with the appropriate citation for you.

In the link you provided, Bradford Snell states that "In 1922, only one American in ten owned an automobile. [[Everyone else used rail.)"

The truth is that everyone else used either horse-drawn vehicles or rail. But fudging the facts to an audience of streetcar fans who never witnessed the urban streets and rural roads of 1922 kind of helps to advance the theory he's pushing, doesn't it?

I've already said that I often think Snell overreaches, haven't I? But on this point, he's not too far off. I mean, seriously, who used a horse-drawn vehicle in 1922, Mikeg? Milk delivery men? Bone and rag men? I think you are nitpicking here, or else you are unaware of the rapid-fire developments between 1910 and 1920. In 1910, a picture of an American city might show automobiles as one out of every ten vehicles on the road, but by 1920, it was flipped. And by 1922, I'd say the horse-drawn vehicles were just poor carters or deliverymen. Are you seriously trying to say that lots of people rode horses in 1922? Mmmmm, whatevs...

Nevertheless, you are perfectly free to swallow whole everything Snell has to say and call it a "fact", but you ought to occasionally wipe that stuff off your chin.

Um, no, Mikeg, as I pointed out earlier, and as I just pointed out in this post, and as I AM NOW POINTING OUT AGAIN, I think Snell overreaches.

As for the reference to cum, that's pretty hilarious coming from somebody who just got done blasting somebody for a belittling and aggressive attitude. Really, really classy reference to a blast of semen, there. Thanks for the general uplift.

I tend to agree with the conclusion reached by Rutgers sociology professor Ted Goertzel, “Arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists tell you more about the believer than about the event.”

Haha. I see. Instead of discussing facts, or even listening to them for a moment before making references to oral sex, this is an occasion to ignore what is said and psychoanalyze people you disagree with. Nice try. I liked it better when you were talking about the cum dribbling off my chin. Now THAT'S telling ...

[Mikeg]

What's the matter Detroitnerd? You've been getting personal and dishing it out all along.

Regarding transportation in 1922, about 47% of the total US population of 110 million still lived outside of the urbanized areas [source]. Do you seriously believe that 90 percent of the vehicles owners in rural areas had already switched from horse-drawn to self-propelled vehicles by 1922?

That seems to be a common problem around here - too many of you subconsciously think that everyone has always lived in cities [[and that those who don't, should).

[Detroitnerd]

What's the matter Detroitnerd? You've been getting personal and dishing it out all along.

Oh, I get it. So you object to what you see as "aggressive" or "belittling" behavior, which then gives you the right to get as filthy and obscene as you want? Nice standards. Oh, I can take it. I'm just pointing out your double-standard. And your unseemly [[homophobic?) penchant for bodily fluids.

Regarding transportation in 1922, about 47% of the total US population of 110 million still lived outside of the urbanized areas [source]. Do you seriously believe that 90 percent of the vehicles owners in rural areas had already switched from horse-drawn to self-propelled vehicles by 1922?

Well, I guess I could get into this whole "Where are your numbers?" "What?" "Where's your second citation?" "That's been debunked!" sort of thing, but I accept that the United States was still largely rural -- and poor -- in 1922.

But here's something you may not know: Do you have any idea what the largest business in the United States was in the period 1910-1920? It was road-building. It started in 1910 with the first mile of concrete road here in Detroit, and by the end of the 1920s, a number of federal subsidies had been established [[1916) to help state road commissions fund a mushrooming road-building effort. This resulted in the improved roads that made automotive travel possible and practical. The United States went from 1 in 13 families owning a car [[1918) to 4 out of 5 [[1929). Sure, the automobile was a boon to farm-dwellers, who had to travel long distances to go to church or town, and improved roads got them there. Heck, lots of farm families bought automobiles before they'd even buy a bathtub. Did you know that?

A good analogue for road-building and car ownership 1910-1930 might be the bandwidth and computer ownership 1990-2010. Expand the bandwidth and networks and you have more computers bought and connected. Same with roads and cars.

That seems to be a common problem around here - too many of you subconsciously think that everyone has always lived in cities [[and that those who don't, should).

Actually, maybe the problem is that you are [[a) nitpicking a minor point now completely unrelated to the original discussion, [[b) rather than addressing arguments are attempting to psychoanalyze people, at least when you're not [[c) grossing us out with references to semen. Bleeccchhh ...

[citylover]

I refer you to Professor Hilton[[UCLA) who testified at the senate hearings.Hilton was the head of the Presidents task force on transportation,acting curator of transportation for the Smithsonian ; a highly respected authority.....of the Snell report ...."So completely oversimplified that it is diifcult to take seriously".. Believers also ignored debunking this myth from a U.S transportation analyst and the[[PRO RAIL) new electric railway journal_ the consensus was that buses replacing streetcars was a normal economic event.

And I lifted that almost word for word from the article by Slater from transportation quarterly which is linked a few times in this thread.

Reasonable minded people should be able to read the Slater report completely and come to the same conclusion.

Fortunately for me I have the facts.Otherwise I would never be able to match wits here.I am no apologist for GM.Never worked for had family members that worked for the co either.What I am interested in is the truth and how a conspiracy theory can be advanced for so long that as is said the the Slater article: Conspiracy theories are seductive even it seems to the highly credentialed.

[citylover]

The proof is in the pudding, or lack thereof; how a city the size of Detroit avoided a major transit scheme and ended up with what is essentially a deficient bus system must be linked to the automotive industry. It cannot but.

And the silly thing is; apart from manufacturing buses for the whole continent and beyond, the automotive companies would have benefited from fostering a transit scheme to enable multiple industries, a more robust economy to offset its shortcomings.

Your history is faulty.Detroit had streetcars until 1956 well past the GM et,al conspiracy trials. In fact a very significant number of people got to work in auto factories by streetcar. There was no conspiracy Detroit's lack of mas transit is another topic completely.


http://www.detroittransithistory.inf...roitPCC-4.html