Cincinnati Streetcars (Hamilton, Beavercreek, Beaver: big house, taxation, moving)

[Cincy-Rise]

Those were not personal attacks at Wilson, but a legitimate point as to why he does not care to implement an option.

As far as auto companies having a hand in ridding rail transportation, that's like saying the holocaust never happened. Hell, a city manger in L.A. even talks about their subway system being purchased by Good Year and Ford and others on a documentary I watched on the History Channel.

[jjakucyk]

The streetcar conspiracy was not imagined, but it didn't directly affect the entire country either. Companies like National City Lines, which was owned by GM, did buy out many important street railway systems, but they certainly didn't buy all of them. What they did do was set a precedent for economizing operations that looked like a good one to follow.

Deferred maintenance throughout the Great Depression and WWII, combined with the massive ridership during the war, left most streetcar systems in pretty rough shape. What National City Lines did was show how street railway companies could get around the cost of renewing the tracks by buying "sleek modern" buses, cheerfully supplied by GM of course. It was a marketing campaign that the cities not under control by National City Lines swallowed lock stock and barrel. Buses were advertised as smooth riding, flexible, and of course modern. They were "teh new shiny!" while streetcars were painted as old fashioned and obsolete. Of course, once the switch was made the patrons realized that these new "modern" buses were noisy, cramped, bumpy, smelly, and slower than streetcars. Buses are completely at the mercy of traffic, while streetcars (historically in the middle of the street) had priority. People said "forget this" and the transit agencies found their costs were still very high due to driver's salaries, maintenance, and fuel costs.

It was a very calculated move, and GM among several other companies were found guilty of monopolistic practices, receiving a mere slap on the wrist. By the mid 1950s there was little recourse as most streetcar systems had been junked. Also, President Truman appointed Charles Wilson, then president of GM, as the Secretary of Defense in 1953. Truman also brought onboard Roger Keyes, GM's head of their transit bus division, as Deputy Secretary of Defense at the same time. Is it any wonder national policy would not favor streetcars and transit anymore? It was only 3 years later that the "National Interstate and Defense Highways Act" was passed. That's no coincidence considering who was in charge.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

Those who believe some great conspiracy among large US automotive companies to drive the railroads out of business are very smug in their beliefs.

Misstating facts are not persuasive.
It is no belief, but a fact that:
[] GM, et al, did conspire to drive URBAN ELECTRIC RAILROADS (streetcars) out of business.
[] In the first half of the 20th century, cheap and plentiful oil was a reasonable argument to oppose electrification of existing railroads. (Diesel-electric locomotives came into widespread use after 1949)
[] Collusion between politicians and certain industries did favor the "rubber tire on pavement" mode over "steel wheel on steel rail" mode, despite the physical laws favoring the latter. ("What is good for GM, is good for America...")

Facts in support of rail based land transportation
[] Laws of Physics (rolling resistance, etc)
[] Superior performance of electric traction over diesel-electric and steam locomotives
[] Economical, frugal, and resource conservation

Roads (paved) have a finite capacity, roughly 2000 to 2050 vehicles per hour, regardless of speed (because the safety margin must increase with speed). To deal with ever rising populations, and resulting increase in transportation, too much surface area is needed to support the automobile mode. (Not only multilane roads, but parking areas and logistical support)
In contrast, rail based transportation requires far less surface area when scaling up in capacity.
In terms of fuel consumed per passenger per mile (or cargo per mile), rail is far superior.
With respect to longevity and durability, rails need far less maintenance, and have far longer lifespans. And the rolling stock may last for decades, if not centuries.

Drawbacks
[] Requires a consolidation of population near rail station points - which is more suited to compact urban design.
[] Current FRA rules enforce overweight designs for "safety reasons" - which doesn't make sense with modern technology.
[] Urban streetcars and automobiles don't mix well

Opposition
[] Entrenched interests in the automobile, fuel, and highway construction business
[] Suburban sprawl developers who would be financially ruined
[] Property owners who would find themselves no longer subsidized by government

Based on current state of the art, steel wheel on steel rail is still the most efficient land based transportation. If/when something superior arrives, then we should reconsider.

However, until that superior form appears, we should re-evaluate our individual and group goals to deal with the facts - finite surface area - limited fuel supply - limits to amount of pollution we can tolerate - and economics.
The optimal solution is to build / rebuild electric traction railways to provide 85-90% of our land transportation needs.

Which includes electrification of mainline railroads, construction of subways, trams / streetcars, interurban, light rail, funiculars, and any other form that is required to do the job.

Scaling back automobile volume from 250 million to 25 million** should be sufficient to eliminate petroleum imports. And also have a positive impact on air quality.

(** roughly the vehicle density of Jamaica or Hong Kong)

[Wilson513]

The conspiracy theory is just silly. Its like "911 was an inside job." The coincidence of GM's aggressive competition with hedging their bets with vertical integration has all of these nuts' panties in a bunch. Trains are pre-WW2 technology. Diesel buses were 40's and 50's technology, still useful but not desired today. Private cars is what we American want and what we have. People have cars because they want them, not because they don't have a train nearby. And, we have the resources to have what we want. If people wanted trains they wouldn't require a subsidy from the taxpayers of $10-20 per trip to make it work. GM would be all over it today. But, no one but some noisy misguided tree huggers want trains. Too bad. We aren't squandering any more taxpayer money on trains. So ride a bike if you don't like cars. Boo hoo.

[Cincy-Rise]

^ Honestly, I've never met anyone that thought motor/oil/tire companies didn't have a hand in monopolizing the transportation system? If I'm not mistaken the U.S. Justice Department fined GM for "Commercial Conspiracy" ... or something like that because of them controlling National City Lines?

Jetgraphics, can you post a link for us? ...

This blows my mind ... It's like certain Islamic groups believing the Holocaust never happened. Wow.

[rrtechno]

Originally Posted by wilson1010

...Private cars is what we American want and what we have. People have cars because they want them, not because they don't have a train nearby. And, we have the resources to have what we want.

And as more and more people become unemployed or underemployed, eliminating the cost of owning and maintaining a private automobile will need to be one of those "options" that will need to be looked at as a way to save money (resources), especially if you are still employed in the downtown area and you have to include the cost of parking in the overall total. Not everyone lives within walking or biking distance of all their destinations, or due to health or physical restrictions are unable to walk or bike that far. Why not consider another form of mass transit for these people.

I believe there were also people opposed to an electrical distribution system, saying it wouldn't work, back in Edison's day.

[Wilson513]

Why all the pessimism? The specter of America as some third world county is depressing. Get rid of the socialists, make people go to work like those of my generation did and we will succeed. What a bunch of doomsayers we have.

[jjakucyk]

But without the socialists we wouldn't have our "free" highways, subsidized gasoline, government-mandated parking lots, and government bailed-out car companies.

[deg1114]

Originally Posted by wilson1010

Why all the pessimism? The specter of America as some third world county is depressing. Get rid of the socialists, make people go to work like those of my generation did and we will succeed. What a bunch of doomsayers we have.

Are you from the generation that gave us the WPA? You know, when Capitalism failed and the government created infrastructure projects to put people to work. Or was it Social Security, Medicare, public schools, etc. etc.

Originally Posted by jjakucyk

But without the socialists we wouldn't have our "free" highways, subsidized gasoline, government-mandated parking lots, and government bailed-out car companies.

It's funny how there are some who act like Socialism is something new to this country and how it is something to be afraid of.

Here Wilson, I fixed your post for you:

Originally Posted by wilson1010

People have cars because they need them, because they don't have a train nearby.

[Cincy-Rise]

I have a job, a good paying job. I love cars, especially exotic sport cars, i.e. BMW, Audi, etc., but I don't want to have driving as my only option. I'd rather hop on a streetcar, take it to a lightrail hub - then take that to work. I'd love to never pay for a single drop of gas and I'd love to lower my insurance cost. I'm a working professional so I'd live to not have to keep my eyes on the road wile commuting. I'm that guy next to you on 75 dialing a code to enter a conference call. Yeah, that's me. I get road rage and our traffic jams make me sick. I'd do anything to take a bus, but as of right now, that'll add an extra hour and a half to my commute. I want options, that's all.