In a message dated 10/18/2009 11:41:24 AM Central Daylight Time, snipped-for-privacy@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
On Oct 17, 6:49 pm, Thad Floryan wrote:
> Both gentlemen told me in the early 1950s that GM was behind the
>> push to eliminate streetcars in favor of diesel buses. Now that's
>> almost 60 years ago they said that during normal conversation,
>> neither gentleman had any axes to grind, and they had no reason >> to lie to me.
>
> This is true.
>
> Baltimore was one of the cities NCL took over and converted to
> buses. I believe there's a book, "Who made our streetcars go?"
> documenting this.
>
> In 1974, with the country facing jam packed roads and an oil
> shortage, the mayors of both San Francisco and Los Angeles pointed
> out that NCL had taken over key streetcar routes in their cities
> (Key System in SF) and converted them to buses, contributing to the > mess.
>
> As mentioned, NCL converted streetcars to buses in Philadelphia. >
> Now, NCL was not the only reason streetcars lost favor, there were
> other reasons, too. Nor would I call it a "conspiracy", rather, it
> was a business decision by automotive makers to vertically integrate
> to sell more of their products. >
>
> None the less, the actions of NCL were not in the nation's long term
> interest. The LA and SF mayors testified in detail before Congress
> of the problems that resutled.
>
> As to commuter trains, high taxes assessed on them while roads had
> no taxes certainly was a very significant factor. When commuter
> trains first got into difficulty, the NYT did a study of the issue
> and noted [the] very heavy burden; back then, the commuter lines
> serving New York City were paying about a billion dollars in
> property taxes (in today's dollars). That's quite a hefty sum,
> especially when the competition is paying zero. The NYT also found
> that local towns were not about to cede the railroads any tax
> relief.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The more I think about it, the less sure I am that this is a valid
> comparison. Railroads, as private corporations, are expected to pay
> taxes: public roads are paid for by the taxpayers, and while they
> don't generate any tax revenue while idle, the vehicles that use
> them pay exorbitant taxes: everything from levies on fuel to excises
> to "sales and use" taxes (which are 5% of "Blue Book" value in my > state).
>
> IMHO, pointing to a lack of taxes on roads, (which are, as public
> property, exempt) isn't an effective argument at a macroeconomic
> level. Railroads faded from prominence because they are too
> efficient, i.e., because selling, fixing, fueling, and taxing
> automobiles and trucks is both easier and more profitable than
> convincing the public to suffer the indignity of sitting next to
> someone who likes a different kind of newspaper than you do or wears
> different clothes.
>
> Despite the barriers placed on them, some commuter rail systems
> continue to do well: with the economy down, suburban car owners are
> realizing that all the "little" costs of owning a car add up to a
> _lot_ more than the cost of a rail pass.
>
> FWIW. YMMV (No pun intended).
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
Most street car systems were unable to pay the massive costs of maintaining their trackage and cars. As a result, many, perhaps most, of them were in very poor condition. Too, the public didn't like them for two reasons: first, because they were perceived as an impediment to traffic with their embedded paths, and secondly, many people did not find it desirable to sit next to anybody, same newspaper or same wardrobe styles or not. Also an automobile can go when you want to and make stops along the way for useful (or not useful) purposes as desired by the drivers or riders. Taking the same street car or bus or interurban day after day is the epitome of being in a rut. In many cases, the reason for the routes changed their character, and the cost of building new routes to areas newly needing service was prohibitive. Buses could move flexibly to new routes with no great trouble. As an example of routes needing maintenance I can cite the Oklahoma Railway Company interurban between Oklahoma City and Norman, which I rode many times. As you went over most trestles or bridges you could feel them subsiding under the weight of the car as it passed over. They company had no money to replace the tracks and bridges. The ORC (which by this time carried so little carload freight as to be insignificant, was bought by the City Bus Company, which was owned by the same local interests as three thriving intercity bus companies. Soon they could see their was no profit in the future for their interurban lines, and converted them to buses. The city street car lines went in a couple of more years for lack of passengers, and they were converted to buses. The City Bus Company soon had to be rescued by the city partly with federal money and it now operates the city buses. There are [rumblings] now to get the citizens to vote a bond issue to study light rail and commuter rail. Wes Leatherock snipped-for-privacy@aol.com snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com