General Motors streetcar conspiracy

The General Motors streetcar conspiracy refers to a contention that General Motors (GM), acting in conjunction with several other companies and through the National City Lines (NCL) holding company, illegally acquired many streetcar systems in various cities around the United States, dismantled and replaced them with buses for the express purpose of promoting the automobile.

The legal case

Government attorney Bradford Snell has written that in 1949 GM and its partners in NCL were convicted in U.S. District Court in Chicago of criminal conspiracy in this matter and fined $5,000 each for anti-trust violations (contracts in restraint of trade, i.e. forcing subsidiaries to buy products from their owners: GM buses, Firestone tires, Standard and Phillips oil).

The claim above is often repeated and is based on testimony by Snell to a United States Senate inquiry in 1974.

The case ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court in United States v. National City Lines Inc. 334 U.S. 573, 596 (1948) ("National City I")[1] which reversed lower court rulings on the case.

The proceedings were against General Motors and its subsidiary National City Lines, along with seven other corporations. They were indicted on two counts under the US Sherman Antitrust Act. The charges, in summary, were:

Conspiring to acquire control of a number of transit companies, forming a transportation monopoly;
- All defendants were acquitted on this charge.
Conspiring to monopolize sales of buses and supplies to companies owned by National City Lines.
- General Motors alone was convicted on this charge.

The case for the conspiracy

It is argued that Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., long-time president of GM in the early 20th century, developed a business strategy to expand auto sales and maximize profits by eliminating streetcars. In 1922, according to GM's own files, Sloan established a special unit within the corporation which was charged, among other things, with the task of replacing the United States' electric railways with cars, trucks, and buses.

For instance, between 1926 and 1936 GM acquired New York Railways. Bad service reduced reliability and thus actively created the trend towards the private transport that was GM's primary, profitable business. By underinvestment and poor service the public transport system was systematically destroyed.

A 1974 report by government attorney Bradford Snell ignited the conspiracy theory by claiming that General Motors was convicted of conspiracy in 1949 (and fined $5000) in its program to buy up and destroy electric urban trolley systems so that urban transit would be forced to rely on GMC buses, and that this is the principal reason that modern-day trolley systems are rare in the United States today. Between 1936 and 1950, National City Lines, a holding company sponsored and funded by GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil of California, bought out more than 100 electric surface-traction systems in 45 cities (including New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Tulsa, Baltimore, and Los Angeles) to be dismantled and replaced with GM buses. As noted above, in 1949 GM and its partners were in fact convicted in U.S. district court in Chicago of criminal conspiracy in this matter and fined $5,000.

A central part of the argument concerns motivation: that GM and its business partners wanted to discontinue streetcar lines to increase automobile demand. It is undisputed that all the corporations involved wanted to grow their businesses.

Additionally, some conspiracy theory advocates go further by asserting that riding a bus is so unpleasant compared to a train that the consortium's ulterior motive was to get people away from mass transit altogether and into automobiles of their own. Certainly, the lurching braking and acceleration characteristics of a bus do not compare favorably with the smooth power of an electrified rail line in the eyes of many passengers.

The case against the conspiracy

This belief has been questioned by urban studies professor Sy Adler (1991) who points out, among other things, that GM was not convicted of buying up urban trolley systems but rather merely of forcing bus companies owned by General Motors to use General Motors buses, and that trolley ridership peaked in the year 1920, before GM's actions. The trolley industry's problems largely predated GM's interest. Some transportation historians argue that the conversion to buses would likely have occurred anyway, and that streetcar ridership was steadily declining through this period for a variety of reasons:

Deterioration of streetcar systems during World War II, during which no new rolling stock and few replacement parts were manufactured
Politically or socially-motivated opponents of streetcar systems, such as the controversial urban developer Robert Moses and New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia
Federal subsidy of competing systems
Competition with automobiles for road space
Suburbanization

A degree of evidence against the conspiracy lies in the fact that Los Angeles had two separate trolley systems, known as the "Red Cars" and the "Yellow Cars." National City Lines owned only one of the two systems, yet both were dismantled. (It should however be noted that the systems were often used in conjunction by travelers and cutting service on one line made the other less convenient compared to automobiles.)

Additionally, during this period automobile ownership was rising everywhere, in cities both with and without GM purchasing the local streetcar systems. Streetcar routes were being converted to buses in major cities around the world, including cities like London, without GM's involvement, because buses were seen as the new technology at the time. Buses were also seen as more flexible than streetcars, as they could route around track blockages, and could use any road, and not just roads with tracks, thus off-loading infrastructure costs to the municipality.

Some documentation of the rapid transit interurban systems is often best provided by amateur historians, such as The Electric Railway Historical Association of Southern California.

Name of the conspiracy

According to the allegations, General Motors did not act alone. It combined with Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California and two other companies to form National City Lines, which actually purchased streetcar systems. Therefore, if "conspiracy" is a proper description, it would rightly be the National City Lines, or the "General Motors-Firestone-Standard Oil-National City Lines Conspiracy." This is a minor point, however; as GM was the most prominent of the companies and engaged in similar behavior before the alleged conspiracy, the name fits. The name Standard Oil is mostly unknown today; in 1911 it was broken up into companies that dominate the American oil industry today, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, Sunoco, and others. Firestone is now a mere subsidiary of Japanese-owned Bridgestone Tire Company.

External links

General Motors streetcar conspiracy

Contents

The legal case

The case for the conspiracy

The case against the conspiracy

Name of the conspiracy

Further reading

See also

External links