The Great American Streetcar Scandal

Blutorse4792

Now T:ANE I can get into
To what extent was the "busification" of these traction lines a conspiracy, versus a simple matter of cost-effectiveness?

The more I look into it, the more it seems as though many of them would have required substantial public investment to maintain into the 1950s and beyond.
 
The biggest corruption scandal since Disney, secretly set dozens of brokers loose to covertly buy up all the swamp land property, and turned it into Disneyland.

Eisenhower, conspired with Ford, GM and Oil Companies, to buy up all the streetcar stock, so as to purposely bankrupt the trolley systems, and to tear up their track, in lieu of the Interstate Road System... the biggest legal criminal monopoly in the US ... SHAME FULL !
 
The biggest corruption scandal since Disney, secretly set dozens of brokers loose to covertly buy up all the swamp land property, and turned it into Disneyland.

Eisenhower, conspired with Ford, GM and Oil Companies, to buy up all the streetcar stock, so as to purposely bankrupt the trolley systems, and to tear up their track, in lieu of the Interstate Road System... the biggest legal criminal monopoly in the US ... SHAME FULL !
You mean Disney World. Disneyland was built on orange groves.

And I think instead of Ford, it was Firestone. GM built the buses, Firestone supplied the tires, and the oil companies (might've been Standard Oil) provided the fuel. If I understood my research on the conspiracy correctly, the conspirators created a company to buy up all the streetcar lines and convert them. It started with the National City Lines and spread across the nation from there.

Seeing as most of the streetcar companies included at least one interurban line in their systems and used streetcars set up in either multiple-unit configuration or with at least one non-powered trailer, one train could easily carry more passengers than a single bus. Combine that loss of revenue with the training required to drive a bus as opposed to driving a streetcar (stop, go, and steering as opposed to just stop and go), plus maintaining and fueling the buses (there were more of them so as to handle a comparitive number of passengers to the streetcars/interurban cars), paying the drivers, paying the mechanics, constructing places where this increased number of buses can be stored and serviced, converting streetcar hubs into bus terminals, all on top of ripping out/covering up the streetcar tracks, I'm not seeing how busification would be cost-effective either in short-term or in the long run.
 
What we consider to be cost effective isn't in the mindset of people that want to maximize the quick profits of those trying to gain from a quick buck. Boston lost a few lines before the director was arrested for taking bribes. The lines going to South Boston, Dorchester, Cambridge, Watertown, and Belmont, were justified. Some of the lines were electrified with trolley buses, but the streetcars never returned.
 
My blood boiled when I first read about this debacle in a book, event though it happened decades before I was born in a country on the other side of the globe. The perpetrators of this ought to have been dragged out and shot.
 
My blood boiled when I first read about this debacle in a book, event though it happened decades before I was born in a country on the other side of the globe. The perpetrators of this ought to have been dragged out and shot.

This has bothered me too and it took place just before I was born. Sadly, the people that perpetrated this caused problems later on because people that worked under them continued to erode at city transport networks as they were more bus-centric and discontinued tram (trolley) service. This happened in Boston within the last decade. We lost the Watertown to Brookline branch and the old Huntington to Forrest Hills line. This was supposed to be restored, but this was dragged on in court. Eventually, the NIMBYs got wind of it and their lawyers came out in full force. The "T" never had its heart in restoring the line since the then current management was trying to do away with surface trolley lines. They didn't cut any other lines, but removed the Watertown tracks even though people wanted the service restored, and let the Heath Street to Forrest Hills line die in court. They didn't even bother to appeal the decision, or put up a fight. I wonder if they actually egged on the NIMBYs to fight the line. Today both lines are now diesel buses or hybrids.

I wonder today how many areas kick themselves for not keeping their service. I thought of this when I saw an old video on the North Shore and Milwaukee the other day. Today a portion is still used, but if the whole line was still in service, I'm sure it would be heavily travelled.

In my area the Eastern Mass. Street Railway was forced out of business. They ran trolleys all the way up to Lowell, and all over the greater Boston and North Shore region. Today the traffic is so bad it's miserable to drive. If the street cars were still running, I'm sure people would be using those rather than clogging the highways.

John
 
When I lived near Richmond, VA this made my blood boil. Richmond had the first widespread and practical streetcar network in a huge network that even connected nascent resort towns and proto-suburbs to the main city network. It's recognized as an engineering milestone and several cities, notably Boston's previously mentioned network in this thread, based their lines on Richmond's. They dismantled it in the late 40s and burned all the trolleys in the street in some bizarre spectacle celebrating the birth of a supposedly more modern bus network. Today, instead of the world-class trendsetting public transit network of the past, Richmond has a poorly functioning bus network that barely leaves the incorporated city limits and a joke of a carpool finding service. To top it off Richmond has tossed around the idea of a multi-million dollar light rail system that essentially duplicates the old trolley lines they ripped up half a century ago. I'm sure everyone in the United States has a similar tale.
 
In Altoona they burned up the streetcars in a public bonfire also, I guess burning them with gasoline at 14 cents a gallon, was cheaper than dismantling them :hehe:

Altoona had a wonderful streetcar system, and you could ride it all the way from Hollidaysburg to Juniata, for 15 cents, and another 25 cents to ride all the way up to the top of the mountain, Wopsononock Lookout, on the 36" NG steam train Wopsy RR :cool:
 
Last edited:
People call this progress, but I call it regression. People don't realize the underlying damage that our oh, no so wonderful, interstate system caused. Many towns along the interstates literally shriveled up. Many of them were on the main roads and lost business once the interstates opened up. This is very evident as one crosses Mid-America. The areas around the interstates, where the most traffic is located, is busy with gas stations, restaurants, and shopping centers. Go a few miles into town and everything is a ghost town. Where I live in the Merrimack Valley, the old state route 110 was the road to the beaches. People would travel from Lowell and beyond along Route 110 to the shore. This brought a lot of seasonal business to the towns and as a result there were many, many restaurants, gas stations, and other small mom and pop type businesses. Once I-495 opened up completely in the early to mid-1960s, the businesses died and so did these towns. Towns like Merrimac (Yes, a different spelling from Merrimack River which it sits on), had some famous drive-in type restaurants. Today there is only one left which has been in business since the 1930s. All the others disappeared once the interstate opened up. Amesbury did a little better because Route 110 intersects I-495 there, and Salisbury did better because that was where everything converged. Sadly, it's the stuff in between in Methuen, Haverhill, Merrimac, and Amesbury that lost out.

Many people would call this progress and a change of times, but seeing what I do and where the businesses have remained successful, it makes me wonder how much more damage the interstate has done to the local economies.

John
 
Well it's all gone now ... and what was torn out, will never come back again ... thank goodness for old photographs, 8mm videos, and Trainz ... or there would be nothing to remember things by.

Forever gone, and never the likes to return again:
The Mt Lowe Rwy
Mount Tamalipais Rwy
Wopsy railroad
... etc ...
 
But what was the reason behind all the other closed tram networks this side of the pond? Great Britain closed all trolleybus networks and all but Blackpool's tram networks.

In my country the tram closures weren't so severe: in the capital city one line was replaced with trolleybuses and some others were relocated from main streets to smaller streets - not to disturb the traffic. In another city the network was reduced from 4 lines to just 1. No other tram lines have been closed. Although 2 trolleybus lines were closed in early 2000 - at that time the city council wanted to sell all the trolleybuses to buy new, "ecological" buses.
 
When I lived near Richmond, VA this made my blood boil. Richmond had the first widespread and practical streetcar network in a huge network that even connected nascent resort towns and proto-suburbs to the main city network. It's recognized as an engineering milestone and several cities, notably Boston's previously mentioned network in this thread, based their lines on Richmond's. They dismantled it in the late 40s and burned all the trolleys in the street in some bizarre spectacle celebrating the birth of a supposedly more modern bus network. Today, instead of the world-class trendsetting public transit network of the past, Richmond has a poorly functioning bus network that barely leaves the incorporated city limits and a joke of a carpool finding service. To top it off Richmond has tossed around the idea of a multi-million dollar light rail system that essentially duplicates the old trolley lines they ripped up half a century ago. I'm sure everyone in the United States has a similar tale.

Richmond had a very practical system and probably developed around the same time as Boston's did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Boston's network is actually made up of multiple systems and is now the consolidation of the routes that belonged to the Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway, the Metropolitan Transit Authority, and the Boston Elevated. The lines grew up, just like the railroads did, from the center, or Hub as they refer to Boston as today. Many of the outlying districts, such as Dorchester, Brookline, Roxbury, Needham, and Hyde Park, were developed by the street car companies. These areas were known as the streetcar suburbs. The wealthier merchants moved outside the noisy downtown area and out to the suburbs, and used to commute to work on the trolleys and EL.

Today the EL is gone, having been dismantled in the 1970s and 1980s as the line was moved to the former B&M and NH ROWs - the tracks share the ROW with these respective former railroads and then split off on their own branches and into tunnels. The north from Government Center to Revere running Blue line was once the ROW of the Boston Revere Beach and Lynn. In the early 1950s, what was left of the ROW was converted from narrow gauge to standard gauge. Interestingly they kept the catenary instead of using third rail beyond Logan Airport. The Red line was known as the Cambridge Subway and opened up about 1908. It's one of the largest, tunnel-size, and runs some of the longest subway cars. The trolley bus system in Cambridge is all that's left of that system which was instituted to replace the street cars out of Harvard Square. This line used GM and Mack buses initially. There are samples of these still up running up at the Seashore Trolley Museum. What is left of the extensive trolley system is the main core of a few branches plus the tunnels. The Tremont Street tunnel was one of the lines cut, and this occurred right at the end before the head of the authority was sent to prison for taking bribes. Sadly the lines out to Blue Hill Avenue, via Dudley Street, South Boston, Watertown via Harvard, and many, many other branches disappeared before the damage was done.

Now after removing the tracks, and scrapping the line from Cambridge (Lechmere) to Somerville and Medford, the MBTA is in the process of rebuilding a branch again at the tune of many millions of tax payer's dollars. If they had left the system in place, the investment would have been only to keep the lines running instead of starting over again.

John
 
Basically these days about 70% of the cost of running a bus is the driver. So bigger buses make sense and trams or light rail as it is called these days makes even more sense. More passengers to smear the costs out on.

There are also other costs that may or may not be recognised. Electric trams have lower emissions so that cuts air pollution and air pollution has its own set of costs recognised or not.

Cheerio John
 
Hi everybody.
Speaking from a European perspective, many cities prior to World War 2 had extensive rail tram systems operating within the city boundries. The wholesale destruction of many cities due to bombing, shelling and ground fighting in the above war meant that a public transport rebuild was necessary following 1945. Virtually all cities throughout Europe decided to go with a bus infrastructure for public transport rather than relaying and rebuilding the tram systems.

The reason for the above was quite simple. Buses are more versatile than street trams as they use the same roads as cars and trucks and so have no special infrastructure which needs maintenance other than normal highway repairs. One example of that versatility would be that if one bus breaks down others on the same route can just drive around it. If a tram breaks down then every other tram on that line comes to a stop. Another example would be when a bus comes to a sharp gradient (Hill) it just changes down a couple of gears and goes up or down it. However, when it comes to trams in that situation special mechanisms have to be introduced either on the line or in the tramcar itself to enable it to negotiate the gradient (all very expensive)

In Britain two cities have reintroduced trams in recent years, one being Manchester which carries large numbers of people across the largely pedestrianized city centre and the other is Edinburgh which has just opened on a much reduced scale than originally planned. Both were extremely expensive to construct and at one time it looked as if Edinburgh would not open at all due to staggeringly high cost.

The above stated, rail transport supporters (of which I am one) certainly should not be disappointed that this one section of rail transport is not expanding. In Britain for the financial year ending 2013 1.5 billion passenger rail journeys were taken in a country where the total population is 60 million. Rail passenger transport is increasing at a rate undreamt of even by the Victorians who built Britain’s railways.

However, it is buses that you see taking those rail passengers from their terminus stations to their town or city final destination. At large stations those buses are every 2 to 3 minutes on every route which can be numerous in large cities.

Sadly, we shall not see the return of the street tram any time soon. However, if you look at the continued development of the London Underground and the Paris Metro along with others it is there you see the development of city rail transport.

Bill
 
The above stated, rail transport supporters (of which I am one) certainly should not be disappointed that this one section of rail transport is not expanding. In Britain for the financial year ending 2013 1.5 billion passenger rail journeys were taken in a country where the total population is 60 million. Rail passenger transport is increasing at a rate undreamt of even by the Victorians who built Britain’s railways.
Sadly the situation is not that good in other parts of the world. In 1990 we had 144,5 million passenger rail journeys for a country of just 2,7 million. Now it's just 19,8 million journeys...
But that's off-topic.

Okay, so car and oil companies are the reason for the American streetcar demise, the war - for mainland Europe's. But western and northern Britain didn't see that much war - why was, for example, the Swansea tramway closed? Did they really just though up one day "A bus would be better. Let's close the tram line!"?
 
Hi viesturs and everybody.
Sadly the situation is not that good in other parts of the world. In 1990 we had 144,5 million passenger rail journeys for a country of just 2,7 million. Now it's just 19,8 million journeys...
But that's off-topic.

Okay, so car and oil companies are the reason for the American streetcar demise, the war - for mainland Europe's. But western and northern Britain didn't see that much war - why was, for example, the Swansea tramway closed? Did they really just though up one day "A bus would be better. Let's close the tram line!"?

Viesturs, with the greatest of respect I am afraid you are wrong in stating that northern and western Britain did not see much of the war with regard to damage. In the North Manchester, Liverpool, Coventry and other cities were badly subjected to air bombardment. In the West, Bristol, Exeter and even bath suffered the air blitz again along with other major towns. In 1941 my father being away at the war, my mother emerged from yet another night in the air raid shelter in Bristol to find her home destroyed. She was then evacuated with my brother who was less than a year old to Devon which is where I was born in 1943. But that’s off topic.

Therefore it was the damage in Britain as it was in many other European cities that destroyed the tramways and in reconstructing the cities it was decided to rebuild the public transport systems with a bus infrastructure. With regard to other towns such as Swansea then as you stated it was a simple decision to get rid of the trams and change to a bus infrastructure because they are far more versatile in operation and cheaper to maintain.

Bill
 
Last edited:
Don't forget Firestone. GM made the buses and firestone the tires. They both made investments in streetcar companies and then forced them out of business.
 
Don't forget Firestone. GM made the buses and firestone the tires. They both made investments in streetcar companies and then forced them out of business.

Or perhaps their was no conspiracy, it was simply the fact that that world war 2 brought forward the development of the diesel engine to such an exetent that it made the demise of the tram inevitable. That together with bus versatility was the end of the streetcar.

Bill
 
Or perhaps their was no conspiracy, it was simply the fact that that world war 2 brought forward the development of the diesel engine to such an exetent that it made the demise of the tram inevitable. That together with bus versatility was the end of the streetcar.

Bill


Hi Bill,

You might find this article interesting regarding this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Streetcar_Conspiracy

It was obvious when they went after the big companies. I could see this as a bonus for smaller, more rural systems.

John
 
I believe that there was some conspiracy afoot, but even without it, I feel as though many (though perhaps not as many) systems would've died off.

The Interstates were inevitable, and I think they were a good idea. The real issue was that more governments didn't step in to retain what was already there (although many of them were glad to see the trolleys gone and out of the streets).

Of course, in the case of Chicago (and other cities) it was the loss of the interurban lines that finally convinced the communities to band together and save the remaining commuter rail.

Chicago was an unusual case in general, as it was not only Expressway construction, but other railroads (particularly the Chicago & Northwestern) that put them out of business. Even then, the two that we lost outlasted the majority of systems elsewhere, and we still have one interurban line operating.
 
Back
Top