I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on the link that Bob Yarger provided for the Railroading America site which is against light rail in every way. The site is heavily slanted and full of bs. Not to mention the grammar and presentation appears that it was created by some high school hack. Obviously I'm for mass transit, especially the rail kind. I miss the old trolleys and interurbans. This page is all for the "sprawlsville" and multi-million car congested highways.



Railroading america
x98salmonson@wmich.edu

I am shocked to see it even was given the time of day by the fine folks here at RYPN. I am sure that the site mentioned is backed by someone who sells blacktop, highway equipment, or something like that. Here in America we let everyone speak freely and even the dummies get a chance to have a voice. Lord knows I have had the chance to say a few dumb things in my lifetime and so does everyone else.<br>

More proof that Mencken and Barnum were right. <p>Only a fool would fail to understand why we can't pave the entire world and drive big gas guzzlers everywhere. Anybody who disputes this can try living in metro Atlanta for a month.<p>OTOH, I just returned from a short but enjoyable trip to California which included a few days in San Francisco, where for a measly 6 bucks, less than daily parking, you can ride trolleys, light rail, busses, and cable cars all day anywhere you want to go. 3 day passes are even cheaper by the day.<p>Dave<br>



lathro19@idt.net

So can a National City Lines Historical Society be far behind?<p>For those who may not know, National City Lines was a company formed by General Motors, Goodyear and Standard Oil to buy up streetcar systems across the nation and run down service to a point where streetcars had to be abandoned and replaced by GM buses on Goodyear tire burning Standard Oil fuels. Some of their "success stories" include the LA Railway and the Key System.<p>If rail transit is so evil, I'd sure like to know why the Altamont Commuter Express trains between Stockton and San Jose run almost full to capacity on each trip. Could it be that these folks are fed up with the Highway alternative? Could be!<p>Everyone is entitled to an opinion and now a web site to push that opinion, even when it can be shown to be in error.<p>Roger<br>



rogerc38@aol.com

Is there a book, article or web site with information on the history of the "National City Lines?<br>



shack_19@hotmail.com

I may be incorrect, but I was under the impression that the tire company in the "National City Lines" was Firestone. I also understand that they were prosecuted for conduct against the public, (could someone please correct me here) anyway, they were found guilty in federal court, but were fined the sum of $1. They also funded congress and were rewarded with a law that provided significant tax breaks for abandoning transit rail systems. <br>

I had often wondered about the truth of the rumored conspiracy by GM and other automotive/bus interests to put trolleys out of business. There was a PBS show on Point of View about this subject a couple of years ago. That show tended to support the conspiracy claim. The link below tends to refute it somewhat.<p>I don't know enough about the subject to argue it one way or the other.<br>



hkading@rypn.org

No Message<br>



Conspiracy Article

The PBS POV show which claimed the GM conspiracy did exist is reviewed and rebuffed in this article (link below).



No Conspiracy Link

"National City Lines and the Requirements Contracts<p>National City Lines (NCL) was organized in 1936, "for the purpose of taking over the controlling interest in certain operating companies engaged in city bus transportation and overland bus transportation." At this point, it appears that the manufacturers’ and suppliers’ involvement with NCL was in the form of loans, as opposed to direct investment.<p>Direct investment in NCL by GM – through Yellow – did not occur until 1939. This investment in NCL – and the turning point in the relationship from a legal standpoint – occurred after E. Roy Fitzgerald, the president of NCL, approached Yellow, explaining that he wanted to expand NCL but needed additional financing. An arrangement was agreed upon that resulted in purchase requirements contracts. These requirements contracts specified that, in exchange for NCL’s promise to purchase certain percentages of new equipment – and refrain from purchasing equipment not using gasoline or diesel fuel – GM and the suppliers would give financial assistance to NCL by purchasing preferred stock from NCL at prices in excess of the prevailing market prices. <p>The contracts also specified that thereafter the operating companies would not purchase any new equipment using means of propulsion other than gas. In the early 1940s, this clause was changed to permit the purchase and use of diesel equipment. This provision effectively ruled out the use of electric buses or modernized track-tied electric streetcars, both of which were fairly popular forms of mass transit at the time.<p>Although the judge in the 1949 court case would find that "it is not unlawful to make a requirements contract," it is nonetheless precisely this contract that resulted in so much controversy over GM’s relationship with NCL and the subsequent charges that this was a conspiratorial relationship that brought about the destruction of urban mass transit."<p>I'm not an expert, but this certainly sounds like conspiracy to me. Isn't this the same kind of contract that is a key element of the Microsoft Anti-Trust case?<p>"The second count charged that the defendants had violated Section II of the Sherman Act by conspiring to eliminate competition in the sale of motor buses and supplies to National City Lines companies. The defendants were convicted on this count. GM was fined $5,000 and its treasurer was fined $1. GM appealed.<p>In 1951, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court upheld the criminal conviction. Within four years, the civil case concluded, with the judge ruling that no further remedy from GM would be necessary."<p>Ok, but guilty is still guilty where I come from. <p><p>I appreciate the information provided.<p>Roger<br>



rogerc38@aol.com

I would recommend that anybody interested in this topic and the fall of transit read "Getting There" by Steven Goddard. This books is available through Simmons Boardman. Anybody needing a phone number can email me.<p>Thanks,<br>Gerry<br>



hottshot65@aol.com

This kind of ties to the topic above, but the other part of this debate is the supposed tax subsidy that encouraged the abandoning of rail rows is something that seems to fit right into Eisenhour's thinking. He was a strong trucking supporter, and even was a member of a pioneer cross-country truck expo in the late teens. (could have been early 20's) In any event I don't know if this is true, but the privailing rumor has for years been that the Susquehanna Corporation netted a bundle when they liquidated the North Shore. Here in Southeast Wisconsin, 38 years after it's demise, a lot of people still lement the loss of their train. This isn't some foamer thinking, the North Shore is sadly missed by both the business community and the riding public. In Milwaukee, and the entire area, the old row from the TM&ERL would be a great asset to the area if it were still intact. <br>