9 ms·

This is false, revisionist history. During the war maintenance was deferred and many operators either went bankrupt or dramatically reduced operations. By the

This is false, revisionist history. During the war maintenance was deferred and many operators either went bankrupt or dramatically reduced operations. By the time the war ended the tracks and rolling stock were all in need of replacement. The public did not love streetcars for many reasons. The ride was rough, they were boiling in the summer and freezing in the winter. They forced all manner of people into close quarters with one another. Insufficient capacity meant it was not unusual for riders to cling to the sides of cars where that was possible. When freeways and buses were presented as an alternative the public embraced building new infrastructure over rebuilding the old. Part of that is because the downsides had not yet become clear. Blaming some corporate bogeyman is always tempting but does not change the facts. The streetcars were replaced because they fell out of favor with the public who wanted to try the new and shiny thing.

subpixel 4y ago
> They forced all manner of people into close quarters with one another. I'm convinced this is the root of all animus towards public transport in the USA. Racism plays a huge part, but it's not exclusively racist, it's also classist - my parents for example would never want to be seen on a bus in their midwestern home town.
- rch 4y ago
  Where I live the classism is reversed, in that arriving by bus means you can afford to live by public transit. The same goes for showing up to a party with a salad from your backyard garden or fresh baked bread. Having the time and space for these is a luxury now, whereas my mother would prefer to pick something up on the way.
  - hammock 4y ago
    > Where I live the classism is reversed, in that arriving by bus means you can afford to live by public transit. Interesting thought, I had to think of what kind of places these are. Maybe urbanized bedroom communities or connected suburbs like Naperville in Illinois? Where do you live?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jeromegv 4y ago
    Perhaps if you have the « choice » for public transit. What we saw in toronto for example during Covid is that ridership dropped in higher income neighborhood (especially the ones that have access to the subway). The highest ridership lines were bus routes in low income neighbourhood, where people still had to go to work as some type of essential workers and did not have a car. Let’s not make a blanket statement that transit is for the rich, the reality is that the rich takes it when it gets good enough but they always have other choices. Some people just don’t have that choice and transit is their only way to go to work, that’s why it’s essential to the economy.
    - throw0101a 4y ago
      So the rich people of Toronto first wanted picket fences and built the inner-suburbs, and drove everywhere, plus forced the elimination of transit payment zones. And now the rich are living more in Old Toronto and the poor(er) folks are forced to the inner-suburbs where the design does not condone efficient transit.
    - rch 4y ago
      I wouldn't say transit is for the wealthy... Only that that transit should be more ubiquitous within population centers and widespread regionally, with high enough frequency to be a workable option for everyone.
- deepdriver 4y ago
  This view obscures real problems with safety and hygine on buses and trains. It isn't racist or classist to hate meth smoke blown in your face, or teens setting off fireworks and assaulting passengers on the subway: https://web.archive.org/web/20220214165552/https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/drugs-on-buses-have-become-an-everyday-hazard-seattle-area-transit-workers-say/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220214165552/https://www.seatt... https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/metro-transit-police-investigating-juveniles-allegedly-set-fireworks-train-dc/65-8cd9d818-54a3-47a3-859f-ad16077558c2 https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/metro-transit-po... These days, a much bigger problem for public transit than racism/classism is a general lack of public safety on buses on trains, for all passengers no matter their race or class. Most actual public transit passengers know this. For example, the jury that acquitted Bernie Goetz included two black people; half the jurors had been victims of crime on the subway themselves. A black woman who witnessed the shooting said the teenagers "got what they deserved:" https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/06/17/jury-exonerates-goetz-in-4-subway-shootings/53973777-a617-4ed5-88ed-e841e0643746/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/06/17/j...
  - jonny_eh 4y ago
    > It isn't racist or classist to hate meth smoke blown in your face Cases of crime on public transit are a symptom of the lack of investment in them.
    - deepdriver 4y ago
      Lack of investment in metro cops, maybe. By every other metric, American mass transit costs more and underperforms compared to European and Asian systems: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-26/the-u-s-gets-less-subway-for-its-money-than-its-peers https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-26/the-u-s-g...
      - autoexec 4y ago
        Just like with healthcare and internet service, America often pays a lot more while getting a lot less. Just because America paid more for its mass transit doesn't mean they were better designed, more pleasant to ride on, or that those system are well maintained. It could also mean things like our public transportation had to cover more ground, that unique challenges in geography increased expenses, that politicians were wasting tax payer money in exchange for kickbacks and favors (no-bid contracts), or companies were simply overcharging Americans for the work. Real, meaningful investment in infrastructure and improvements to the environments people spend their time in can do a hell of a lot more to prevent crime than cops do. There is a lot of research to support this. I don't doubt that if we invested more in making our mass transit systems better and more enjoyable to use crime rates would drop. Here's a start if you want more information on the impacts of our environments on crime: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hKWLY1lZrs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hKWLY1lZrs https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/cut-philly-shootings-93-percent/ https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/cut-philly-shootings-93-p... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUAuuJ-hGPI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUAuuJ-hGPI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zktWPAZ6Es https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zktWPAZ6Es https://www.manhattan-institute.org/cleaning-up-vacant-lots-can-curb-urban-crime https://www.manhattan-institute.org/cleaning-up-vacant-lots-...
- adolph 4y ago
  Along with public transportation there was a time when pools closed rather than integrate. https://www.npr.org/2007/05/26/10407533/plunging-into-public-pools-contentious-past https://www.npr.org/2007/05/26/10407533/plunging-into-public...
- oldjavacoder 4y ago
  It isn't racist or classist bullshit. It was that people liked cars for the independence they provided. Today's live in their parent's basement generation can't comprehend the concept.
  - actually_a_dog 4y ago
    It absolutely is. Often, the determining factor as to whether one rides public transportation or not given its availability is whether driving is an option or not. Driving is never an option when one doesn't have a car. Cars cost money, and money (in the US) is pretty directly linked to both race and class.
    - slater 4y ago
      > Driving is never an option when one doesn't have a car Zipcar?
  - subpixel 4y ago
    Hogwash, cars have serious appeal that isn't why Robert Moses made overpasses too low for buses to get to the beach.
- asiachick 4y ago
  And yet all over the world plenty of cities people rich and less rich ride public transit all the time in close quarters with one another. Go ride the public transit in Paris, London, Singapore, Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo, just to name a few. Nobody bats an eye. It's just "normal"
Melatonic 4y ago
I have mostly seen Los Angeles as the epicenter for this conspiracy which has pretty damn ideal streetcar weather. Subways also went away around the same time which leads me more toward believing the conspiracy side of things given that they would not have a lot of these same problems. The way I see it street cars are a great solution to local traffic and not very good for long distance travel. Within downtown LA for example they would be awesome or within the city of Santa Monica.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- volkl48 4y ago
  Streetcars in the modern "done right" sense - with a dedicated right of way, signal priority, and other similar treatments for efficiency can be great for local getting around. Streetcars in the sense of what they were at the time - Stuck in ever increasing traffic with everything else and less able to navigate around issues than a bus, boarding in traffic in the middle of the street, sitting at all the lights - are not.
rmason 4y ago
My father frequently told me the story of mass transit in Detroit. He was a fan of the interurbans which were street cars that travelled between cities, some of them fifty miles from Detroit. Cars and later freeways totally killed off the interurbans. In fact freeways killed off passenger trains as well. But streetcars still thrived in Detroit. You could get anywhere with them and even in the car capital of the world people went without them. But then in a flash they were gone. My father was a life long believer in the so called conspiracy. He was regarded as a conspiracy theorist. As a kid I wished he'd just stop talking about it. But then as a young adult the proof started coming out that maybe he was right all along. But now with a big media push it's going the other way. I know one thing in Michigan the politicians go along with whatever GM wants, always. Michigan has some of the worst roads in America while at the same time having the largest gas taxes. Yet when billions of dollars became available as a result of COVID what did the governor do who ran on the slogan, 'fix the damn roads'? She gave the money to GM for battery plants! This Wikipedia page just looks like more spin to me.
- hnuser123456 4y ago
  Michigander here, can confirm the roads are more pothole than road in some places. The rich neighborhoods get re-paved every 10 years. The poor ones every 20. Some places they'll just fill them in with something that breaks up in under a year. Some places, why even bother with that? Citycars that assume relatively flat roads in downtown centers are misguided here. The state highways are smoother than midtown hubs.
  - supertrope 4y ago
    Colder states have more potholes. Each freeze thaw cycle and plow run degrades the asphalt. It's not just DOT management and funding.
- 7speter 4y ago
  >Yet when billions of dollars became available as a result of COVID what did the governor do who ran on the slogan, 'fix the damn roads'? She gave the money to GM for battery plants! I understand the discontent, but the logic seems to follow. Assuming you have Michiganders working in the battery plants, they get paid producing batteries, and then taxed by the state. The taxes pay for the roads, and workers can buy homes and other things while remaining in Michigan (flight seems to be a bit of a crisis in Detroit, last I read). And the cycle, ideally, repeats year after year.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> blaming some corporate bogeyman is always tempting but does not change the facts The article is well written. It discusses the facts of the antitrust case. And then it goes into detail on the “lingering suspicions” and “urban legend” that you, rightfully, rail against. The Role in decline of the streetcars section practically debunks the conspiracy.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 4y ago
Even Curbed, a pro-urbanist site, has strongly called into question this theory: https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/20/16340038/los-angeles-streetcar-conspiracy-theory-general-motors https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/20/16340038/los-angeles-streetc.... It notes that by the 1930s, LA’s streetcar system was falling into disrepair and running massive losses. What people forget is that during the mid-20th century, cars were progressive, forward looking, and egalitarian. They were seen as ushering in a future where ordinary people could leave overcrowded cities and travel in speed and comfort. Faced with the need for massive investment to bring street car systems into good repair, cities chose to invest in what they saw as the future: roads and highways for personal transit. (Remember these are the same people who thought babies in drawers was progress: https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/our-story/our-history/baby-in-the-drawer-helped-turn-the-tide-for-breastfeeding https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/our-story/our-history/bab....) It’s also important to note that southern cities that grew rapidly post-1950, such as Atlanta, uniformly adopted a car-centric approach. These cities were outside the alleged scope of the GM conspiracy, but developed on the same track because everyone back then saw individual car ownership as the future.
- TylerE 4y ago
  Uh, if you actually read the page you linked to it sounds like actual progress? Popular with patients and nurses, increased Breast feeding, cost effective using a standard mass-produced object…
  - rayiner 4y ago
    So do cars! But many folks of the same folks who now consider cars regressive also consider baby drawers and bottle feeding to be regressive.
    - TylerE 4y ago
      But baby drawers were created precisely to decrease bottle feeding and encourage breastfeeding (and did).
    - mmastrac 4y ago
riffic 4y ago
the war was only a period of 4 or 5 years. We've been in many wars for far longer than the one specific war you are talking about.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  The streetcars were not around for those other wars though, and the war effort was not nearly as total. The US went through the war unscathed, and even then most goods were highly rationed and citizens were encouraged to make do and use less. Stopping all maintenance on any kind of complex system for four or five years will almost certainly bring it to a state of ruin.
  - bogomipz 4y ago
    Except they didn't "stop all maintenance" on the trolley system during those years, as it was too important. It's what got all the new migrants to LA to all those new factory jobs in aviation in defense to support the war effort. This is sometimes referred to as the "Second Great Migration" in LA history [1]. There was also fuel and rubber rationing which forced people onto the trolley, making it all the more important. https://www.kcet.org/history-society/the-great-migration-creating-a-new-black-identity-in-los-angeles https://www.kcet.org/history-society/the-great-migration-cre...
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      Rationing did affect streetcars as well; steel was for the navy, air force and army, and so basically no regular fleet renewals or construction/repair happened during this time. Then after the years of good profits, the legacy of deferred maintenance had to be dealt with; all that heavy usage took its toll.
  - actually_a_dog 4y ago
    The US has been at war almost continuously since its existence. See, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni... In particular, note that the US has been involved in one conflict or another during some part of the vast majority of years from 1946-1999.
Spooky23 4y ago
That doesn’t really add up. Like many things, wartime deferred maintenance and demand shifts disrupted capital intensive businesses like streetcars and trolleys. The thing that you’re missing is the multi-trillion dollar investment in free road infrastructure. Streetcars and passenger trains were replaced because you can’t make money selling tickets when your competitors benefit from the unlimited purchasing power of the US government. The only places that were spared were urban areas like NYC and Boston, but even there the cities were almost destroyed by that massive investment. I think calling this a conspiracy theory is a way to marginalize and revise reality. It was a strategy that maximized employment and drove a half century of US industrial dominance and prosperity. But it had a cost and fundamental inefficiency that remains difficult to measure.
bombcar 4y ago
It's literally the plot of Who Framed Roger Rabbit but somehow people think it's gospel. Amusing.
- bogomipz 4y ago
  Yes but that's because "Cloverleaf Industries" in the movie was based on the National City Lines, the company that bought the trolley service.[1] It's not hard to imagine a script writer in Los Angeles being stuck in traffic and and mulling this bit of urban lore. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
JeremyNT 4y ago
> This is false, revisionist history. During the war maintenance was deferred and many operators either went bankrupt or dramatically reduced operations. By the time the war ended the tracks and rolling stock were all in need of replacement. Just to be clear, when you are stating that "This" is "revisionist history," I believe you aren't actually referring to the contents of the article itself, but rather the conspiracy theory mentioned in the article. Note that there are two conspiracies mentioned in the article. The first is a conspiracy that did in fact occur: conspiracy to create a monopoly. The second is the theory that this was part of an intentional plan to dismantle public transit (which is effectively refuted on the wikipedia article).
jayd16 4y ago
The paradox of 'unpopular because its overcrowded' always cracks me up.
- twoodfin 4y ago
  In this case it’s not a paradox: These services could not effectively scale to meet demand without sacrificing comfort. Whatever their other problems, automobiles won out here and continue to do so.
  - pantalaimon 4y ago
    How can you not effectively scale a streetcar system when you can just attach more carts?
    - twoodfin 4y ago
      I dunno, but somehow rush hour for public transit is often crowded and unpleasant, which suggests a solution is non-trivial.
      - Sharlin 4y ago
        Rush hour in a private car is a very unpleasant experience to most people as well, it doesn't help much that you get sit inside your own metal box. Cars take so much space that vast amounts of taxpayer money has been poured on infrastructure in order to try to keep traffic flowing – and we still have congestion.
    - chordalkeyboard 4y ago
      if it is running near capacity, its crowded, and therefore unpleasant, which causes people to attempt to adjust their schedule to use it at other times, shifting the load if its not running near capacity, its wasting a lot of space, and therefore more wasteful than private automobiles in both cases the scale of the system and the centrally planned nature of the system make its response time lag behind the people using it, causing them to seek alternatives if they are able
0xbadcafebee 4y ago
Streetcars were also dangerous because you had to cross traffic to get to one: https://66.media.tumblr.com/36d0c242182fea08ecbac621504c2e96/tumblr_n4wd4oOZOC1s6mxo0o1_1280.jpg https://66.media.tumblr.com/36d0c242182fea08ecbac621504c2e96...
sbf501 4y ago
This is a false dichotomy. You are telling us how awful streetcars were, as if there was no other choice but to tear them up and convert to a car-based society. Instead of fixing the problems: fix the track, better cars, more cars, more accessibility, like what was done all over European cities... Instead of doing that, opponents torched it all, invested HEAVILY in car-based infrastructure and helped create the mess we have today. Just like today, dollars were thrown at the car-based solution and the superior mass-transit solutions are left to rot, so that people can make your argument. Your argument is specious at best.
bogomipz 4y ago
It's odd that you assert this to be "revisionist history" and then go on to make a statement that is itself false. No other event has shaped Los Angeles like World War II. During the war years Los Angeles experienced a population boom as people moved there to work in defense and aviation. These job opportunities were plentiful in order support the war efforts. The people who came to work in those factories depended on the Red Cars and Yellow Cars as did the factories for getting their worker there. In fact Red Car and Yellow Car ridership peaked during the war years. They were most certainly not allowed to go derelict due to lack of maintenance as they were far too important. In fact there was rubber and fuel rationing at that time which only served to make their operations that much more important. >"The public did not love streetcars for many reasons. The ride was rough, they were boiling in the summer and freezing in the winter. They forced all manner of people into close quarters with one another. Insufficient capacity meant it was not unusual for riders to cling to the sides of cars where that was possible" There's a lot wrong with this. Southern California has mild winters and cars were also enclosed with windows that could open and close depending on the weather. There's pictures here which clearly document that [1]. Saying that people had to cling to the sides of the cars is also a complete fabrication. There was nothing on the outside of the cars to cling to. >"When freeways and buses were presented as an alternative the public embraced building new infrastructure over rebuilding the old." This is also untrue. The bus began competing with the electric trolleys as early as the 1920s.[2] >"Blaming some corporate bogeyman is always tempting but does not change the facts." And yet it's well established fact that National City Lines bought up these mass transit assets and were sued by the DoJ on antitrust grounds for conspiring to monopolize urban transit(they had purchased many other cities transit assets as well.) [3][4]. Conspiracy theory notwithstanding, I don't think it's a stretch to say Detroit and other automotive special interests certainly hastened the decline of the electric trolley. [1] https://libraries.usc.edu/article/red-cars-and-las-transportation-past https://libraries.usc.edu/article/red-cars-and-las-transport... [2] https://metroprimaryresources.info/our-grand-concourse-historic-images-of-wilshire-boulevards-double-decker-buses-other-forgotten-history/1914/ https://metroprimaryresources.info/our-grand-concourse-histo... [3] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-02/explaining-la-with-patt-morrison-who-killed-la-streetcars https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-02/explaini... [4] https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-retrospective-red-car-20160103-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-re...
raylad 4y ago
They were convicted of antitrust violations in destroying the streetcars to monopolize transportation, but it was overturned basically on technicalities: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/334/573.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/334/573.html
runarberg 4y ago
> The streetcars were replaced because they fell out of favor with the public who wanted to try the new and shiny thing. You might be correct, but it is very simplistic view of history to attribute change to the will of the people. Democracy is not such a driving force for change as to become the single factor for it. Historically corporate interests has weight far higher as a driving force (as evidenced by our current global warming crisis; but notable exceptions include e.g. the new deal). Sometimes the will of the people might align with corporate interest, and that may have been the case here. But I would argue then that is only a bonus for the politician which will reap the returning votes. The main point of the change was first and foremost to serve the interest of the corporation which funded the campaigns.
joe_the_user 4y ago
The Wikipedia article has a considerable number references. Your claims don't.
- onionisafruit 4y ago
  Their claims don't contradict the wikipedia article either. They are almost entirely unrelated except for the subject matter of streetcars.
  - joe_the_user 4y ago
    Their first sentence, describing the wikipedia article, is "This is false, revisionist history". Seems like a contradiction to me.
    - onionisafruit 4y ago
      Yes they start out with that, but then argue against something the article never claims.
cowmix 4y ago
Nope, GM total f'd everyone. Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-I8GDklsN4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-I8GDklsN4
bamboozled 4y ago
I still don't believe any of what you said would make people hate streetcars. Maybe if the ride was ruff, but that's obviously been remedied since. People didn't have air conditioning in their cars back then, so their cars were hot and cold. People had very rough suspension in cars back then too, I don't think the ride would've been dramatically better.

subpixel 4y ago

> They forced all manner of people into close quarters with one another. I'm convinced this is the root of all animus towards public transport in the USA. Racism plays a huge part, but it's not exclusively racist, it's also classist - my parents for example would never want to be seen on a bus in their midwestern home town.

rch 4y ago
Where I live the classism is reversed, in that arriving by bus means you can afford to live by public transit. The same goes for showing up to a party with a salad from your backyard garden or fresh baked bread. Having the time and space for these is a luxury now, whereas my mother would prefer to pick something up on the way.
- hammock 4y ago
  > Where I live the classism is reversed, in that arriving by bus means you can afford to live by public transit. Interesting thought, I had to think of what kind of places these are. Maybe urbanized bedroom communities or connected suburbs like Naperville in Illinois? Where do you live?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jeromegv 4y ago
  Perhaps if you have the « choice » for public transit. What we saw in toronto for example during Covid is that ridership dropped in higher income neighborhood (especially the ones that have access to the subway). The highest ridership lines were bus routes in low income neighbourhood, where people still had to go to work as some type of essential workers and did not have a car. Let’s not make a blanket statement that transit is for the rich, the reality is that the rich takes it when it gets good enough but they always have other choices. Some people just don’t have that choice and transit is their only way to go to work, that’s why it’s essential to the economy.
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    So the rich people of Toronto first wanted picket fences and built the inner-suburbs, and drove everywhere, plus forced the elimination of transit payment zones. And now the rich are living more in Old Toronto and the poor(er) folks are forced to the inner-suburbs where the design does not condone efficient transit.
  - rch 4y ago
    I wouldn't say transit is for the wealthy... Only that that transit should be more ubiquitous within population centers and widespread regionally, with high enough frequency to be a workable option for everyone.
deepdriver 4y ago
This view obscures real problems with safety and hygine on buses and trains. It isn't racist or classist to hate meth smoke blown in your face, or teens setting off fireworks and assaulting passengers on the subway: https://web.archive.org/web/20220214165552/https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/drugs-on-buses-have-become-an-everyday-hazard-seattle-area-transit-workers-say/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220214165552/https://www.seatt... https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/metro-transit-police-investigating-juveniles-allegedly-set-fireworks-train-dc/65-8cd9d818-54a3-47a3-859f-ad16077558c2 https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/metro-transit-po... These days, a much bigger problem for public transit than racism/classism is a general lack of public safety on buses on trains, for all passengers no matter their race or class. Most actual public transit passengers know this. For example, the jury that acquitted Bernie Goetz included two black people; half the jurors had been victims of crime on the subway themselves. A black woman who witnessed the shooting said the teenagers "got what they deserved:" https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/06/17/jury-exonerates-goetz-in-4-subway-shootings/53973777-a617-4ed5-88ed-e841e0643746/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/06/17/j...
- jonny_eh 4y ago
  > It isn't racist or classist to hate meth smoke blown in your face Cases of crime on public transit are a symptom of the lack of investment in them.
  - deepdriver 4y ago
    Lack of investment in metro cops, maybe. By every other metric, American mass transit costs more and underperforms compared to European and Asian systems: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-26/the-u-s-gets-less-subway-for-its-money-than-its-peers https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-26/the-u-s-g...
    - autoexec 4y ago
      Just like with healthcare and internet service, America often pays a lot more while getting a lot less. Just because America paid more for its mass transit doesn't mean they were better designed, more pleasant to ride on, or that those system are well maintained. It could also mean things like our public transportation had to cover more ground, that unique challenges in geography increased expenses, that politicians were wasting tax payer money in exchange for kickbacks and favors (no-bid contracts), or companies were simply overcharging Americans for the work. Real, meaningful investment in infrastructure and improvements to the environments people spend their time in can do a hell of a lot more to prevent crime than cops do. There is a lot of research to support this. I don't doubt that if we invested more in making our mass transit systems better and more enjoyable to use crime rates would drop. Here's a start if you want more information on the impacts of our environments on crime: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hKWLY1lZrs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hKWLY1lZrs https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/cut-philly-shootings-93-percent/ https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/cut-philly-shootings-93-p... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUAuuJ-hGPI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUAuuJ-hGPI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zktWPAZ6Es https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zktWPAZ6Es https://www.manhattan-institute.org/cleaning-up-vacant-lots-can-curb-urban-crime https://www.manhattan-institute.org/cleaning-up-vacant-lots-...
adolph 4y ago
Along with public transportation there was a time when pools closed rather than integrate. https://www.npr.org/2007/05/26/10407533/plunging-into-public-pools-contentious-past https://www.npr.org/2007/05/26/10407533/plunging-into-public...
oldjavacoder 4y ago
It isn't racist or classist bullshit. It was that people liked cars for the independence they provided. Today's live in their parent's basement generation can't comprehend the concept.
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  It absolutely is. Often, the determining factor as to whether one rides public transportation or not given its availability is whether driving is an option or not. Driving is never an option when one doesn't have a car. Cars cost money, and money (in the US) is pretty directly linked to both race and class.
  - slater 4y ago
    > Driving is never an option when one doesn't have a car Zipcar?
- subpixel 4y ago
  Hogwash, cars have serious appeal that isn't why Robert Moses made overpasses too low for buses to get to the beach.
asiachick 4y ago
And yet all over the world plenty of cities people rich and less rich ride public transit all the time in close quarters with one another. Go ride the public transit in Paris, London, Singapore, Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo, just to name a few. Nobody bats an eye. It's just "normal"

Melatonic 4y ago

I have mostly seen Los Angeles as the epicenter for this conspiracy which has pretty damn ideal streetcar weather. Subways also went away around the same time which leads me more toward believing the conspiracy side of things given that they would not have a lot of these same problems. The way I see it street cars are a great solution to local traffic and not very good for long distance travel. Within downtown LA for example they would be awesome or within the city of Santa Monica.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
volkl48 4y ago
Streetcars in the modern "done right" sense - with a dedicated right of way, signal priority, and other similar treatments for efficiency can be great for local getting around. Streetcars in the sense of what they were at the time - Stuck in ever increasing traffic with everything else and less able to navigate around issues than a bus, boarding in traffic in the middle of the street, sitting at all the lights - are not.

rmason 4y ago

My father frequently told me the story of mass transit in Detroit. He was a fan of the interurbans which were street cars that travelled between cities, some of them fifty miles from Detroit. Cars and later freeways totally killed off the interurbans. In fact freeways killed off passenger trains as well. But streetcars still thrived in Detroit. You could get anywhere with them and even in the car capital of the world people went without them. But then in a flash they were gone. My father was a life long believer in the so called conspiracy. He was regarded as a conspiracy theorist. As a kid I wished he'd just stop talking about it. But then as a young adult the proof started coming out that maybe he was right all along. But now with a big media push it's going the other way. I know one thing in Michigan the politicians go along with whatever GM wants, always. Michigan has some of the worst roads in America while at the same time having the largest gas taxes. Yet when billions of dollars became available as a result of COVID what did the governor do who ran on the slogan, 'fix the damn roads'? She gave the money to GM for battery plants! This Wikipedia page just looks like more spin to me.

hnuser123456 4y ago
Michigander here, can confirm the roads are more pothole than road in some places. The rich neighborhoods get re-paved every 10 years. The poor ones every 20. Some places they'll just fill them in with something that breaks up in under a year. Some places, why even bother with that? Citycars that assume relatively flat roads in downtown centers are misguided here. The state highways are smoother than midtown hubs.
- supertrope 4y ago
  Colder states have more potholes. Each freeze thaw cycle and plow run degrades the asphalt. It's not just DOT management and funding.
7speter 4y ago
>Yet when billions of dollars became available as a result of COVID what did the governor do who ran on the slogan, 'fix the damn roads'? She gave the money to GM for battery plants! I understand the discontent, but the logic seems to follow. Assuming you have Michiganders working in the battery plants, they get paid producing batteries, and then taxed by the state. The taxes pay for the roads, and workers can buy homes and other things while remaining in Michigan (flight seems to be a bit of a crisis in Detroit, last I read). And the cycle, ideally, repeats year after year.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> blaming some corporate bogeyman is always tempting but does not change the facts The article is well written. It discusses the facts of the antitrust case. And then it goes into detail on the “lingering suspicions” and “urban legend” that you, rightfully, rail against. The Role in decline of the streetcars section practically debunks the conspiracy.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 4y ago

Even Curbed, a pro-urbanist site, has strongly called into question this theory: https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/20/16340038/los-angeles-streetcar-conspiracy-theory-general-motors https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/20/16340038/los-angeles-streetc.... It notes that by the 1930s, LA’s streetcar system was falling into disrepair and running massive losses. What people forget is that during the mid-20th century, cars were progressive, forward looking, and egalitarian. They were seen as ushering in a future where ordinary people could leave overcrowded cities and travel in speed and comfort. Faced with the need for massive investment to bring street car systems into good repair, cities chose to invest in what they saw as the future: roads and highways for personal transit. (Remember these are the same people who thought babies in drawers was progress: https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/our-story/our-history/baby-in-the-drawer-helped-turn-the-tide-for-breastfeeding https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/our-story/our-history/bab....) It’s also important to note that southern cities that grew rapidly post-1950, such as Atlanta, uniformly adopted a car-centric approach. These cities were outside the alleged scope of the GM conspiracy, but developed on the same track because everyone back then saw individual car ownership as the future.

TylerE 4y ago
Uh, if you actually read the page you linked to it sounds like actual progress? Popular with patients and nurses, increased Breast feeding, cost effective using a standard mass-produced object…
- rayiner 4y ago
  So do cars! But many folks of the same folks who now consider cars regressive also consider baby drawers and bottle feeding to be regressive.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    But baby drawers were created precisely to decrease bottle feeding and encourage breastfeeding (and did).
  - mmastrac 4y ago

riffic 4y ago

the war was only a period of 4 or 5 years. We've been in many wars for far longer than the one specific war you are talking about.

bobthepanda 4y ago
The streetcars were not around for those other wars though, and the war effort was not nearly as total. The US went through the war unscathed, and even then most goods were highly rationed and citizens were encouraged to make do and use less. Stopping all maintenance on any kind of complex system for four or five years will almost certainly bring it to a state of ruin.
- bogomipz 4y ago
  Except they didn't "stop all maintenance" on the trolley system during those years, as it was too important. It's what got all the new migrants to LA to all those new factory jobs in aviation in defense to support the war effort. This is sometimes referred to as the "Second Great Migration" in LA history [1]. There was also fuel and rubber rationing which forced people onto the trolley, making it all the more important. https://www.kcet.org/history-society/the-great-migration-creating-a-new-black-identity-in-los-angeles https://www.kcet.org/history-society/the-great-migration-cre...
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    Rationing did affect streetcars as well; steel was for the navy, air force and army, and so basically no regular fleet renewals or construction/repair happened during this time. Then after the years of good profits, the legacy of deferred maintenance had to be dealt with; all that heavy usage took its toll.
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  The US has been at war almost continuously since its existence. See, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni... In particular, note that the US has been involved in one conflict or another during some part of the vast majority of years from 1946-1999.

Spooky23 4y ago

That doesn’t really add up. Like many things, wartime deferred maintenance and demand shifts disrupted capital intensive businesses like streetcars and trolleys. The thing that you’re missing is the multi-trillion dollar investment in free road infrastructure. Streetcars and passenger trains were replaced because you can’t make money selling tickets when your competitors benefit from the unlimited purchasing power of the US government. The only places that were spared were urban areas like NYC and Boston, but even there the cities were almost destroyed by that massive investment. I think calling this a conspiracy theory is a way to marginalize and revise reality. It was a strategy that maximized employment and drove a half century of US industrial dominance and prosperity. But it had a cost and fundamental inefficiency that remains difficult to measure.

bombcar 4y ago

It's literally the plot of Who Framed Roger Rabbit but somehow people think it's gospel. Amusing.

bogomipz 4y ago
Yes but that's because "Cloverleaf Industries" in the movie was based on the National City Lines, the company that bought the trolley service.[1] It's not hard to imagine a script writer in Los Angeles being stuck in traffic and and mulling this bit of urban lore. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...

JeremyNT 4y ago

> This is false, revisionist history. During the war maintenance was deferred and many operators either went bankrupt or dramatically reduced operations. By the time the war ended the tracks and rolling stock were all in need of replacement. Just to be clear, when you are stating that "This" is "revisionist history," I believe you aren't actually referring to the contents of the article itself, but rather the conspiracy theory mentioned in the article. Note that there are two conspiracies mentioned in the article. The first is a conspiracy that did in fact occur: conspiracy to create a monopoly. The second is the theory that this was part of an intentional plan to dismantle public transit (which is effectively refuted on the wikipedia article).

jayd16 4y ago

The paradox of 'unpopular because its overcrowded' always cracks me up.

twoodfin 4y ago
In this case it’s not a paradox: These services could not effectively scale to meet demand without sacrificing comfort. Whatever their other problems, automobiles won out here and continue to do so.
- pantalaimon 4y ago
  How can you not effectively scale a streetcar system when you can just attach more carts?
  - twoodfin 4y ago
    I dunno, but somehow rush hour for public transit is often crowded and unpleasant, which suggests a solution is non-trivial.
    - Sharlin 4y ago
      Rush hour in a private car is a very unpleasant experience to most people as well, it doesn't help much that you get sit inside your own metal box. Cars take so much space that vast amounts of taxpayer money has been poured on infrastructure in order to try to keep traffic flowing – and we still have congestion.
  - chordalkeyboard 4y ago
    if it is running near capacity, its crowded, and therefore unpleasant, which causes people to attempt to adjust their schedule to use it at other times, shifting the load if its not running near capacity, its wasting a lot of space, and therefore more wasteful than private automobiles in both cases the scale of the system and the centrally planned nature of the system make its response time lag behind the people using it, causing them to seek alternatives if they are able

0xbadcafebee 4y ago

Streetcars were also dangerous because you had to cross traffic to get to one: https://66.media.tumblr.com/36d0c242182fea08ecbac621504c2e96/tumblr_n4wd4oOZOC1s6mxo0o1_1280.jpg https://66.media.tumblr.com/36d0c242182fea08ecbac621504c2e96...

sbf501 4y ago

This is a false dichotomy. You are telling us how awful streetcars were, as if there was no other choice but to tear them up and convert to a car-based society. Instead of fixing the problems: fix the track, better cars, more cars, more accessibility, like what was done all over European cities... Instead of doing that, opponents torched it all, invested HEAVILY in car-based infrastructure and helped create the mess we have today. Just like today, dollars were thrown at the car-based solution and the superior mass-transit solutions are left to rot, so that people can make your argument. Your argument is specious at best.

bogomipz 4y ago

It's odd that you assert this to be "revisionist history" and then go on to make a statement that is itself false. No other event has shaped Los Angeles like World War II. During the war years Los Angeles experienced a population boom as people moved there to work in defense and aviation. These job opportunities were plentiful in order support the war efforts. The people who came to work in those factories depended on the Red Cars and Yellow Cars as did the factories for getting their worker there. In fact Red Car and Yellow Car ridership peaked during the war years. They were most certainly not allowed to go derelict due to lack of maintenance as they were far too important. In fact there was rubber and fuel rationing at that time which only served to make their operations that much more important. >"The public did not love streetcars for many reasons. The ride was rough, they were boiling in the summer and freezing in the winter. They forced all manner of people into close quarters with one another. Insufficient capacity meant it was not unusual for riders to cling to the sides of cars where that was possible" There's a lot wrong with this. Southern California has mild winters and cars were also enclosed with windows that could open and close depending on the weather. There's pictures here which clearly document that [1]. Saying that people had to cling to the sides of the cars is also a complete fabrication. There was nothing on the outside of the cars to cling to. >"When freeways and buses were presented as an alternative the public embraced building new infrastructure over rebuilding the old." This is also untrue. The bus began competing with the electric trolleys as early as the 1920s.[2] >"Blaming some corporate bogeyman is always tempting but does not change the facts." And yet it's well established fact that National City Lines bought up these mass transit assets and were sued by the DoJ on antitrust grounds for conspiring to monopolize urban transit(they had purchased many other cities transit assets as well.) [3][4]. Conspiracy theory notwithstanding, I don't think it's a stretch to say Detroit and other automotive special interests certainly hastened the decline of the electric trolley. [1] https://libraries.usc.edu/article/red-cars-and-las-transportation-past https://libraries.usc.edu/article/red-cars-and-las-transport... [2] https://metroprimaryresources.info/our-grand-concourse-historic-images-of-wilshire-boulevards-double-decker-buses-other-forgotten-history/1914/ https://metroprimaryresources.info/our-grand-concourse-histo... [3] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-02/explaining-la-with-patt-morrison-who-killed-la-streetcars https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-02/explaini... [4] https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-retrospective-red-car-20160103-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-re...

raylad 4y ago

They were convicted of antitrust violations in destroying the streetcars to monopolize transportation, but it was overturned basically on technicalities: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/334/573.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/334/573.html

runarberg 4y ago

> The streetcars were replaced because they fell out of favor with the public who wanted to try the new and shiny thing. You might be correct, but it is very simplistic view of history to attribute change to the will of the people. Democracy is not such a driving force for change as to become the single factor for it. Historically corporate interests has weight far higher as a driving force (as evidenced by our current global warming crisis; but notable exceptions include e.g. the new deal). Sometimes the will of the people might align with corporate interest, and that may have been the case here. But I would argue then that is only a bonus for the politician which will reap the returning votes. The main point of the change was first and foremost to serve the interest of the corporation which funded the campaigns.

joe_the_user 4y ago

The Wikipedia article has a considerable number references. Your claims don't.

onionisafruit 4y ago
Their claims don't contradict the wikipedia article either. They are almost entirely unrelated except for the subject matter of streetcars.
- joe_the_user 4y ago
  Their first sentence, describing the wikipedia article, is "This is false, revisionist history". Seems like a contradiction to me.
  - onionisafruit 4y ago
    Yes they start out with that, but then argue against something the article never claims.

cowmix 4y ago

Nope, GM total f'd everyone. Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-I8GDklsN4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-I8GDklsN4

bamboozled 4y ago

I still don't believe any of what you said would make people hate streetcars. Maybe if the ride was ruff, but that's obviously been remedied since. People didn't have air conditioning in their cars back then, so their cars were hot and cold. People had very rough suspension in cars back then too, I don't think the ride would've been dramatically better.