A Streetcar Named Denial

[Amidat]

How ironic that in the 21st century - GM needed to be bailed out by the taxpayers... and municipalities all over the country are spending billions to put "light rail" in their cities and town.... instead of a much smaller amount to update what could have still been there. What a sad waste.

[Corvettably]

Funny how people don't want to hear the truth so they vote down comments that challenge this BS myth. Slater showed just how wrong this idea is. People just love a good conspiracy story. Even ones that are shown to be not true.

[RichardR369]

If GM wasn't involved in corporate espionage, why were they convicted? Sounds like the anti-mass transit fans have a lot of denial going on.

[Corvettably]

@RichardR369 Espionage? No. If you read, GM was NOT convicted of trying to destroy mass transit systems. They and the other defendants were only convicted of forced the transit companies they owned from buying parts and supplies from other vendors.

[TrainmasterCurt]

Just look at Toronto, they said NO to GM or bus favouritism

[MGman800]

The constant debunking of GM is blatently false. GM did have an involvement in the process. They were part of a company called National City Lines, which was made out of Firestone, Mack, Philips Oil & Greyhound buses, and lobbied against light rail. Google the video Taken for a Ride. It provides viewpoints and goes in depth to the situation. Even more than the other explanations trying to analyse it. Please take the time to hear the truth.

[Corvettably]

@MGman800 You are incorrect. Slater's article was a response to the incorrect information in Taken for a Ride. It reviews the points made in the video and then shows why they are each incorrect. I don't think you have actually read the article nor the numerous other articles which illustrate that even though this makes for a great story, it is just not a factual account of the events that occurred. The story told in this tail just doesn't pan out.

[MGman800]

I think you meant to spell "tale" there, bud.

The video includes both sides of the arguement from transportation authority in Los Angeles and their view from the system went down. The video does point out that GM was part of National City Lines and lobbied against light rail transit for highway developments. While Slater explains to his best how the system fell, there are other explanations out there, all of which are not credible to explain the entire situation.

[Corvetteably]

@MGman800 I really don't think you have researched this at all. Slater's article, which was pier reviewed BTW, provides very good economic explanations why streetcar systems died out. How can you explain that 90% of all streetcar lines in the US died out even though GM had partial ownership in less than 10%? Did the others just decide they didn't want to run anymore?

[MGman800]

Of course I have read Slater's article. He states that streetcars would've passed away even without GM's involvement. However, he doesn't admit that GM was part of NCL and attempted to push for highway legislation. And while there were some systems that had closed due to financial reasons, this conflict is about NCL's lobbying to rid of Los Angeles's light rail system.

[Corvetteably]

@MGman800 Given that 90% of streetcar lines in the US DID close down and GM partially owned only 10% I would say Slater was right. Without GM the lines would still go down. The LA light lines were replaced with buses because buses were more cost effective. That's not sinister, that's simple economics. Slater makes that case in great detail. It's also worth noting that the courts decided GM was NOT guilty of conspiring to shut down streetcar lines.

[tutuankoma]

@Corvetteably In reality, you do not know if the streetcar lines would have died out as you like to quote Cliff Slater so often. If buses are so much more efficient, why are the major bus systems so heavily subsidized? Do you actually believe the fares pay for all those buses? Maybe buses are only efficient to the bus manufacturers who sell them.

[jeepers2655]

yeah and now GM wants you to buy Electric cars! so they got you by the arse again! the ruined the trolleys back then to sell buses to cities,and gas auto to the public,now they want you to go back to electric !!!

[408knw]

Meanwhile, in central Oklahoma, the highway lobby has just triumphed again, improbably succeeding in the complete destruction of Oklahoma City Union Station's 8-block-long rail yard and underpassed arterial street crossings. Until a few months ago, this was the last historic grand urban passenger rail center remaining unused in the West with all its original train-handling space intact, now lost for all time -- the victim of ODOT's "relocation" of a four-mile segment of Interstate 40.

[MrSpringee]

And how does that relate to GM or the claims that GM was responsible for the demise of a street car line?

Did the lines associated with GM even operate in Oakland?

If you aren't happy with the lines why not tell your local elected officials?

[408knw]

Well done. Well said. I bought a new Chevy Vega in 1972; a new Cavalier in 1983. When they laughably failed, GM's response was always the same: "We don't know you. Go away." You see, with my area's historic electric transit system gone, GM assumed it had left me no choice, and could treat me anyway it chose. Eventually, I shook off my car-culture brainwashing. But by that time, GM was gone -- victim of its own sloppy corruption -- because it "didn't have to compete."

Hilarious.

[Corvettably]

I hope your tin hat fits nicely. GM did produce crappy cars in the 1970s but they didn't kill the electric street car. Only idiots or people who haven't actually researched the subject think that.

[Tubes12AX7k]

Whether or not there was a conspiracy years ago is largely irrelevant. The electric streetcar is 100% green, encourages ridership and investment along the line, lasts for many, many years, & discourages sprawl. Also, when where is ice and snow, rail vehicles are likely to be the only vehicles still operating. I've been told by trolley operators (former bus drivers) that the cost is approximately 1:1. Proper zoning will allow light rail and trolleys to realize their full potential.

[Tubes12AX7k]

It is a real, real shame that the electric streetcar has been removed in several cities. The failing was in not protecting downtown spaces and in not encouraging (financially) investment and job creation along public transit thoroughfares. The PCC trolley was one of THE most successful public transit designs, ever, first going into service in 1941 and still in service today.

[intercityrailpal]

@Tubes12AX7k They taxed the right a ways made the street railway plow the snow in the winter for drivers. Fix the street too! Then built and improved roads with the tax money. The buses that replaced streetcars at this time paid road taxes which built more roads. Most of the riders won't ride buses bought cars , which needed more roads, and parking etc. It ruined the city, drove business out of town, made everything more expensive. Buses today do not pay road taxes.

[Corvetteably]

This video has basically been debunked. GM didn't kill streetcar lines. The streetcars were less economical to operate and less flexible with respect to routing and the like. GM and other manufactures were ready to sell buses when it became clear that the streetcars were less cost effective.

Do a search for Slater's article "General Motors and the Demise of the Streetcar" to get the facts and see how Snell distorted the truth when making his case against GM.

[Digidaniel]

I hardly call that being debunked. Your whole comment screams money money money, justifying what they did because it was a good business move. Streetcars were less economical and less flexible because the interest wasn't there to make it better, interest was forcing people into a system that made more money. Public transit in cities like SLC is inferior to places like Toronto and London and New York because these projects were destroyed. GMs an auto company, so I don't blame them for it.

[Digidaniel]

It's Capitalism at its best, but they didn't look 50 years down the line, and if they did, they probably didn't care because having public transit flourish does nothing for a company that sits on the other side of the line of the competitive market.

[Corvetteably]

Why should they look 50 years into the future? The fact is the city planers (in some cases) and the transportation companies (even those with no ties to GM) move towards buses starting as early as 1920 because they made sense. The streetcars would have died out with or without GM.

A google search for "GM Killed Streetcar" will bring up a great bicycleuniverse story on the subject including links that both discredit the idiot Snell who started this crap and rational explanations of history.

[intercityrailpal]

@Digidaniel You mean GM government motors right? How many billion did this wonderful outfit cost all of us? They should have made them sell some of the railroad stock they own and the assets like shopping centers etc, to pay their bills first, Before setting up a New GM. It will cost at least 300 billion to rebuild just some of the electric rail systems they ripped up.

[Corvetteably]

If you bothered to read the article you would have seen that London was quick to abandon streetcars because they saw that buses were more cost effective! More to the point, it was GM that cause the companies to switch all over the US, it was economics. GM had partial ownership of at best 10% of the streetcar lines. Why did the rest switch?

[realinterrobang]

Please explain how electric streetcars, which are cheap to run, use next to no energy (because they're not self-propelled and don't carry their own engines and fuel with them) and have very long operational lifespans (~50 years) are more "cost effective" than buses, which are hard to maintain, use lots of fuel, and need to be replaced every 20 years or less.

They're only "cost-effective" if other externalities are driving up the costs of operating them, and artificially lowering bus costs.

[antiussentiment]

@Corvettably but people only ride buses out of sufferance. trams and trains are more spacious and comfortable. and most importantly in busy periods, they load and unload much much more quickly. buses are much slower in busy times as it takes ages for crowds to file on and off the vehicle. i wonder if cliff slater's economics include the cost of the extra roads and infrastruture you need to provide for the people who are now not using buses, trams and trains?

[Corvettably]

@antiussentiment Why not read Slater's analysis and find out. Wikipedia has an entry on the "Great American Streetcar Scandal" that includes a link to the article. I personally like trains and trolleys. The issue I have is people incorrectly accusing GM of conspiracy. GM didn't cause the fall of the streetcar in what 90% of the cities that had them. At best GM had indirect influence in only 10% of the market. I would suggest reading Slater's article as it goes into detail on this subject

[antiussentiment]

@Corvettably 3/4 of the way though i read this..

"In 1920, except in special circumstances, the bus had generally higher operating costs than the streetcar.

However, on lightly traveled routes, the aggregate of operating and capital costs was higher for the streetcar than the bus. On heavily used routes the streetcar still cost less than the bus."

trams, need to pay for their ancillary infrastructure. (rails and wires). buses do not have to pay for theirs..  is this is an economic fail?..

[Corvettably]

@antiussentiment The very paragraph after the two you quoted was;

"By 1950, even on the most heavily used routes, the bus cost less than the streetcar in every regard."

It is quite reasonable to assume, given the great improvements in automotive technology, that a 1920 bus would cost more to operate than a 1950 bus.

[antiussentiment]

@Corvettably if it were that simple, it would be a good argument. but we both know it's not.. see the last lines of my last reply. i.e. if buses had to pay for infrastructure costs like trams do, this may not be the case. also 1950 is 15 years later than the date when GM started fiddling with economics. if they did not have a case to answer, why would the courts have found against them?

[Corvettably]

@antiussentiment But it is that simple. The fact of the mater is it cost less to run the buses. Some of that was because the buses didn't have to pay for the streets. Sure, but that had nothing to do with GM. That practice predates cars!

The courts DIDN'T find against them. That's one of the myths people get wrong all the time. The courts found they did not conspire to bring down any streetcar lines. They were only guilty of forcing their bus lines to buy GM buses and parts.

[jeffiek]

@realinterrobang "because they're not self-propelled"

Don't tell me, let me guess. The people got out and pushed them.

Idiot.

[intercityrailpal]

@Corvetteably GM learned early, after a line is converted to buses or just abandoned. The riders bought cars. Then used them for all their trips. Which was ok with Cheap oil, and untill everybody had cars and no one could move with all the traffic. It also doesn't matter how cost effective buses are if no one wants to ride them. Most bus only systems have terrible load factors.

[Cynoacky]

Sorry, I gave you a thumbs down when I meant to give a thumbs up!

[gusneaker]

Very touching! Thanks for the video

[Mebantiza]

This is a story that more North Americans need to know about. Only Toronto retained its trolly system and only recently has begun to modernize it. The real kicker of this whole issue is once peak oil hits, america will find itself in a triple-bind. Your country is essentially bankrupt(now), your cities have been totally (re)designed for ICE cars, and you have no real industrial capacity or the wealth to rebuild and return cities to what they need to be again.

[TrainmasterCurt]

We need people with vision in power in our cities to reclaim what was taken from us

[Belinda74]

Take a look at Pacific Electric. Largest interurban in the land. Never an NCL property, the P.E. started 'bustitution' back in 1940 with their first major rail abandonments. GM was hardly in the transit bus business then. Right after the war an independent study recommended converting almost all major lines to bus. Why? The system was falling apart! Not profitable, poor service, low ridership. Buses were the only solution, as government subsidies for mass transit were decades away.

[intercityrailpal]

@Belinda74 NO Pacific Electric wasn't owned by GM or NCL. It was owned by Southern Pacific which inturn I'm sure GM had a big part of. They were in the oil business at the time too. So you know the oil companys were in it too. Today UPRR which took over what was left of SP has retired oil and GM exec on the board of directors.

[Belinda74]

Same old conspiracy saw. Almost no truth to it. Fact is streetcar lines were forced out of business by local governments levying excessive property taxes on streetcar line right-of-way, and then not allowing streetcar lines to earn fair ROI under the guise of 'protecting' riders from transit monopolies. GM was guilty of exploiting the situation by offering a very inexpensive (though inferior) alternative and financing it.  You can't kill something that's already dead.

[intercityrailpal]

You know this is true. The problem is you stopped there. There's more to the story. Who were these officials of local government what did they do for a living? Sell cars? Pave roads? What were their investments? Gas stations? Or perhaps their wives, that's a good cover. "Money finds a way" Now that are two GM's one bankrupt with worthless stock and Government Motors you can't buy the stock in yet. Should I feel comfortable buying a GM car? Maybe I'll stay with Ford. Didn't they own Firestone?

[intercityrailpal]

GM Also worked hard to get rid of the intercity passenger trains. The way they did this was to lobby the government to put the mail on trucks.Which of course they just happen to sell.(Half the income of passenger rail was the mail trains.With this income gone the trains started to lose money and were dropped.) Now the cost of fuel is killing the Post Office. It's time to put the mail trains back on.Which would save money for the Post Office and give passenger rail service to many towns again.

[Belinda74]

GM sells (lots) of locomotives too, so there goes your theory. Fuel isn't killing the P.O., the internet is.

[intercityrailpal]

GM does not own electromotive (EMD) anymore. But in the end, only two locomotive builders were left. I guess GM cleaned that industry out too. Baldwin,Lima,Hamliton all gone. Just GM (EMD) and GE (these are the good guys) GE also builds pure Electric Loco's GM built one, just one. Then no more. GM are all diesel electric. The internet or not the Post Office has high fixed costs. Which fuel in a big part. I'd love to see their fuel bill. I'm sure it's in the billions.

[wilyceyote]

GM suck

[cgboomer]

ah yes, our wonderful, benevolent federal govt. now we see yet another reason that states in danger of tyranny should secede from the union, as is their right.

[hsmoller]

my my the lying Zionists must be responsible for all the ills in the world. We have we heard that diatribe before. Is your real name Adolph,

[Intransitman]

Great video, there is a very strong anti-rail bias in our government.

At one time there were close to 260,000 miles of railroad in the US, today there is only about 140,000.

Now compare this to the 4,000,000 miles of road in the US, which has never made a dime!

[greatbroad]

Naomi Klein calls for the nationalization of Exxon to be put on the table for the American People. Let the colluding oil companies and criminal activity which robbed the people of THE COMMONS we need returned to us. Our electric mass transit system. (See also: Naomi Klein Breaks Down The Bailout.)

It would be a good public works project to employ thousands of Americans - and reduce US dependence on OIL.