General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy

The General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy describescontention that General Motors illegally acquired many US streetcar systemsreplaced thembuses forexpress purposepromotingautomobile.

Tablecontents

1 The Case For The Conspiracy
2 The Case Against The Conspiracy
3 FramingArguments
4 See also
5 External links
6 Further reading

The Case For The Conspiracy

Itargued that Alfred P. Sloan, Jr,MIT-trained genius behind General Motors developedbusiness strategyexpand auto salesmaximize profits by eliminating streetcars. In 1922, accordingGM's own files, Sloan establishedspecial unit withincorporation which was charged, among other things, withtaskreplacing America's electric railwayscars, trucksbuses.

For instance, between 19261936 General Motors (GM) acquired New York Railways, Bad service reduced reliabilitythus actively createdtrend towards private transport that GM advertised. By underinvestmentpoor servicepublic transport system was systematically destroyed.

An article by Bradford Snell ignitedconspiracy theory but noting that General Motors was convictedconspiracy1949 (and fined $5000)their programbuy updestroy electric urban trolley systems so that urban transit would be forcedrely on GMC busesthat this isprincipal reason that modern-day trolley systemsrare inUnited States today. Between 19361950, National City Lines,holding company sponsoredfunded by GM, Firestone,Standard OilCalifornia, bought out more than 100 electric surface-traction systems45 cities (including New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Tulsa,Los Angeles)be dismantledreplacedGM buses. In 1949 GMits partners were convictedU.S.district courtChicagocriminal conspiracythis matterfined $5,000.

The Case Against The Conspiracy

This belief has been questioned by Sy Adler who points out that, among other things, that General Motors was not convictedbuying up urban trolley systems but rather merelyforcing bus companies owned by General Motorsuse General Motors busesthat trolley ridership peaked in1920 before GM's actions. The trolley industry's problems largely predated GM's interest.

Additional evidence againstconspiracythat automobile ownership was rising everywhere,cities both withwithout GM purchasinglocal streetcar systems. Streetcars were being convertedbuses almost everywhere, including cities like London, England, without GM involvement, because buses were seen asnew technology attimewere more flexible than streetcars, ascould route around track blockagesinstance,could use any road, not just roadstracks, thereby off-loading infrastructure costs tomunicipality.

Some documentation ofrapid transit interurban systemsoften best provided byhistory buffs, such as The Electric Railway Historical AssociationSouthern California.

FramingArguments

Part ofcontroversycontained infact that popular articles on this subject have been framed by describingissue asGeneral Motors Streetcar Conspiracy,bycontention that GM's motivation waspromote automobile purchases by destroying streetcar systems. The problem arises because:

General Motors did not act alone. It combinedFirestone Tire, Standard OilCaliforniatwo other companiesform National City Lines, which actually purchased streetcar systems. Therefore, if "conspiracy" isproper description,would rightly beNational City Lines conspiracy.
Streetcar systems failedother reasons than National City Lines: System deterioration during World War II; politically or socially motivated opponentsstreet car systems, such as Robert Moses Fiorello LaGuardia; federal subsidycompeting systems; competitionautomobilesroad space;suburbanization all played roles. Nonethat means that National City Lines was notsignificant player.
A central part ofargument concerns motivation--that GMits business partners wanteddiscontinue streetcar linesincrease automobile demand. Thisan interpretation, but itfairly undisputed thatwantedcreatemarkettheir own products.

External links

"General Motors' DestructionCalifornia Transit Systems" provides some documentationGM front companieshostile takeovers'Key System' transit systemsCalifornia.
Bradford C. Snell makes his case against GM.
Full textAmerican Ground Transport (except footnotes).RTF format
Remembering U.S. vs. National City Lines Summary ofSnell Report