"Did you read this part of the Wikipedia entry:"
Yes. And they certainly were a contributing factor. But, I don't see the evidence that they were the major factor. The LA example is very telling. They had two lines and NCL owned one. However, both converted to buses.
Since posting on this thread, there have been numerous examples of where stuff on the surface was only the tip of the iceberg. How many times have we found out that there was all kinds of garbage behind the scenes? The fact that GM et al were taken to court back in a time when this country was not nearly as litigious as it is now suggests the evidence was fairly compelling. I would not put much value in the fine being only $5k......judges can be bought off just like everyone else.....esp back then. And btw the size of the fine was appealed.....to no avail.
If streetcars were so compelling, why did that happen?
Because the American transportation system became tailored to the car, not buses or streetcars. The first freeways began opening in this country in the 1930s. To build them huges swaths of urban neighborhoods were destroyed. Those freeways were extended to huge vacant pieces of suburban land owned by corporate America. Streetcar lines were not extended simultaneously......they were left out of the picture completely. So here you have thousands of people getting displaced by freeway development and the only housing available is in the suburbs where neither buses nor streetcars go. What choice do you have but to buy a car. In LA streetcars which had been the backbone of the transportation system in the basin [east of the hills] were completely overlooked as the San Fernando Valley began to develop which is west of the hills. GM and Ford had lobbyists promoting freeways. Former GM president, Charles Wilson, helped put together the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 while he was Secretary of Defense. Don't you think that's a bit odd that a Sec. of Defense is helping to create freeways in country where its mainland cities had been attacked since 1819[?]? Do you think Mr. Wilson was really concerned with evacuating American cities? When the first freeways opened in the 1930s, 40s and 50s, there was very few cars using them. However, by the 1960s the damage had been done and when freeways opened, they were too small for the traffic load.
At the same time the above was happening, GM was buying streetcar lines where they immediately cut service and forcing ridership to drop off, quickly concluding that the equipment was too old and the lines needed to be shut down. Ironically, Cleveland sold its streetcars to Toronto....where those streetcars operated for another 35 years before they were retired permanently.
Who benefited? GM and Ford, of course. And you really believe GM played a peripheral role? I don't think so.
The answer is they weren't compelling. In retrospect, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 was probably a bad idea. Streetcar systems run by the electric utility which was usually owned by the city, were compelling. Not so much to the companies they were sold to. Buses are much more flexible, they don't require acquiring right of way, laying the tracks and stringing the electric lines that a trolley system requires.
True. But then people who have ridden both much prefer streetcars.....back then and now. Riders of light rail have been interviewed.....they refuse to ride buses even as they ride light rail every day. I have ridden both and much prefer light rail. The quality of the ride is significantly better esp. when light rail's right of way does not interface with car traffic.
In addition, the growth in car ownership introduced a lot of uncertainty into the system. Buses were a safer choice.
No question that cars would have had an impact even without GM's meddling. However, I think Americans would be more like their European counterparts.....using mass transit to get to work while using their cars for more recreational activities.
And aside from the smog and the cost of maintaining freeways and roads, the development of freeways nearly killed American cities even as European and Canadian cities continued to thrive. Urban neighborhood after urban neighborhood was bisected by a freeway....anything within 5 blocks of the freeway became a slum within 10 years. One of the reason that Seattle and Portland were able to recover fairly quickly from their urban decline....and both lost population during the 1970s and 1980s when the majority of their freeways were built.....was because their freeways were built along industrial corridors and rivers. Where they enter residential areas or the downtown area, there are dead zones on either side of the freeway where urban parks have been placed or parking garages. Buildings that face the freeway often are closed off from their freeway side. Freeways to cities are like cancer to humans.
While I am on my rant, freeways will prove to be an even bigger disaster going forward. Most are filled to capacity at least part of the day.....in LA, its 24/7. Maintainence costs have gone through the roof particularly because work has to be done during the night when labor costs are double time. Costs for upgrading and maintaining those roads will make maintaining streetcars and buses look like a walk in the park. That's why so many states are looking at converting freeways to toll roads. They can't afford to fix their freeways which are reaching the end of their economic life. And the worst part is that most American cities don't have mass transist anywhere close to what's needed. This is another example of how this country has screwed itself.....and I have to believe GM is behind this mess if for no other reason that GM's screwups tend to parallel America's screwups. |
