Houston-Dallas Bullet Training starting in 2020

[Slick Vik]

History learned from the great historical documentary "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".

A few facts:

GM indeed bought a bunch of electric street car lines beginning in the 1930s. Many of the streetcar lines were in fact failing financially. But more to the point, GM was converting them to buses. GM sold buses. It had nothing to do with "forcing people to buy cars". People were already buying cars in droves. Nobody needed to be forced to buy them.

No doubt, at one time only 10% of people drove. That tells us nothing. At one time only 10% of people had electricity in their homes. At one time only 10% of people had indoor plumbing. Relative to the great "GM destroyed public transit to force people to buy cars" conspiracy theory, it is important to note that by 1929 (before GM started buying up electric streetcar systems), 4 out of 5 families already had a car.

There was a time in America when even small towns hummed around on electric trains and trollies. Around the end of World War I, urban railways accounted for 90 percent of trips taken in vehicles, and there was no reason to believe they were going anywhere. Urban railways meant that the average workaday citizen didn't have to invest time and money in learning to drive, paying for gas and maintaining a car. At the time, driving a car was considered a novelty. A fun thing to do on a Sunday that allowed the moderately wealthy to feel fancy without having to buy a boat. Plus, the railways were so lucrative that the local government didn't have to pay a dime to maintain them, since small businesses did the work for them. Everyone was a winner, except for a handful of very rich people who had overestimated the demand for automobiles back when they were known as horseless carriages.

In 1921, only 10 percent of Americans owned cars, and after losing $65 million in a year, General Motors had to face the fact that cars just weren't worth it for the other 90 percent. Today, the ascendance of the automotive industry is a foregone conclusion, but at the time it seemed more like a bunch of rich guys had forgotten that not everyone was rich. Imagine if the wealthiest people in your city invested all their money in limousines, under the assumption that everyone would stop taking cabs because why take a taxi? Limos only cost a couple hundred dollars extra!

This is where less successful men would have come to terms with the fact that they'd backed the wrong horse. Capitalism had spoken, and its answer was: "We'll take the clearly superior alternative that doesn't cost half a year's paycheck up front." Instead, General Motors decided to find a way to make cars worth it to the average citizen. After waiting for the laughter in the room to die down when someone suggested that they lower car prices, the car industry looked at the people who rode electric rails to work and decided to make them what's known in the mafia as "an offer they can't refuse."

According to a Senate report, in the 1930s, GM, Goodyear, Firestone Tire and a bunch of oil companies joined together to form a number of fake rail companies. They would buy up all the small companies that operated America's small town railway systems, then destroy the systems, and soon enough America would run on gasoline-powered tires. By the mid-1950s, the fake rail companies had replaced 900 of the 1,200 public railway systems with gas-powered buses and cars and were ready to take on the biggest electric railway system in the world: Los Angeles. Yes, the city that's famous for bumper-to-bumper traffic once hummed along on 1,500 miles of electric railways. GM bought out the local railway companies, and a few years later there wasn't a single electric streetcar operating in Los Angeles. Today, the smog over LA is so thick that most of the people who live there have no idea they that live at the foot of a beautiful snowcapped mountain range.

Of course, you can't just form an illegal monopoly and get away with it. In 1947, the government convicted 10 of the biggest corporations in America of conspiracy, and fined GM $5,000. GM was able to survive the fine, since the illegal conspiracy had made it one of the most successful companies of the 20th century. And all they had to do was destroy the infrastructure of some of America's biggest cities and screw the next dozen or so generations who lived there out of clean, affordable transportation.

[TheNiche]

It should be noted that Slick Vik is plagiarizing from another website, cracked.com. And that the true author is making a lot of suppositions about the way things might've been.

[Slick Vik]

It should be noted that Slick Vik is plagiarizing from another website, cracked.com. And that the true author is making a lot of suppositions about the way things might've been.

Not plagiarizing just passing along information. This isn't a thesis. But the fact that GM along with others bought up tracks and ripped them out all across the country is damning. Unless you're in the practice of selective reasoning.

[TheNiche]

Hell yeah Niche, now you're talkin'!!!

That would be cool.

I do a lot of talking. Just look at my post count. It's only that you're ignoring the bottom line, that this is something that should be seriously considered and studied. It's a good idea, but I'm not necessarily in favor of it. I'd really like to see cost estimates and a few outlines by way of which it might be financed.

If you like the idea, then spread the word. Talk to your legislators.

[TheNiche]

Not plagiarizing just passing along information. This isn't a thesis. But the fact that GM along with others bought up tracks and ripped them out all across the country is damning. Unless you're in the practice of selective reasoning.

Whatever the case, it's over and done with. We should move on with whatever makes sense today, after the fact, 70-ish years later.

And what you've done is plagiarizing. You should write with your own words or link to other peoples' copyrighted and/or trademarked works. Whether you're embarrassed for your transgression or not, I'm embarrassed for you.

[Slick Vik]

Whatever the case, it's over and done with. We should move on with whatever makes sense today, after the fact, 70-ish years later.

And what you've done is plagiarizing. You should write with your own words or link to other peoples' copyrighted and/or trademarked works. Whether you're embarrassed for your transgression or not, I'm embarrassed for you.

My point is it's embarrassing that we are light years behind what we were 100 years ago in mass transit, basically due single handedly to GM. It's a tragedy of the worst kind.

[TheNiche]

My point is it's embarrassing that we are light years behind what we were 100 years ago in mass transit, basically due single handedly to GM. It's a tragedy of the worst kind.

No, this (see below) is a tragedy of the worst kind. And I still think that the article is largely bogus. Whether or not there was a conspiracy, private automobiles and buses were on their way in and streetcars were on their way out.

[Slick Vik]

No, this (see below) is a tragedy of the worst kind. And I still think that the article is largely bogus. Whether or not there was a conspiracy, private automobiles and buses were on their way in and streetcars were on their way out.

Your choice to remain a hapless follower of GM. Ignorance is bliss.

[Slick Vik]

Loveearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm

[Slick Vik]

Lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm

[TheNiche]

Your choice to remain a hapless follower of GM. Ignorance is bliss.

I'm not a follower of GM. I've never bought a GM product. It's just that I live in the here and now without a choice between parallel universes. I can no sooner go back and change what GM did as I might could go back and kill Hitler to stop the Holocaust to prevent Israel's existence. OTOH, I'm not going to speculate what might've actually ended up happening if the past could be changed.

[Houston19514]

There was a time in America when even small towns hummed around on electric trains and trollies. Around the end of World War I, urban railways accounted for 90 percent of trips taken in vehicles, and there was no reason to believe they were going anywhere. Urban railways meant that the average workaday citizen didn't have to invest time and money in learning to drive, paying for gas and maintaining a car. At the time, driving a car was considered a novelty. A fun thing to do on a Sunday that allowed the moderately wealthy to feel fancy without having to buy a boat. Plus, the railways were so lucrative that the local government didn't have to pay a dime to maintain them, since small businesses did the work for them. Everyone was a winner, except for a handful of very rich people who had overestimated the demand for automobiles back when they were known as horseless carriages.

In 1921, only 10 percent of Americans owned cars, and after losing $65 million in a year, General Motors had to face the fact that cars just weren't worth it for the other 90 percent. Today, the ascendance of the automotive industry is a foregone conclusion, but at the time it seemed more like a bunch of rich guys had forgotten that not everyone was rich. Imagine if the wealthiest people in your city invested all their money in limousines, under the assumption that everyone would stop taking cabs because why take a taxi? Limos only cost a couple hundred dollars extra!

This is where less successful men would have come to terms with the fact that they'd backed the wrong horse. Capitalism had spoken, and its answer was: "We'll take the clearly superior alternative that doesn't cost half a year's paycheck up front." Instead, General Motors decided to find a way to make cars worth it to the average citizen. After waiting for the laughter in the room to die down when someone suggested that they lower car prices, the car industry looked at the people who rode electric rails to work and decided to make them what's known in the mafia as "an offer they can't refuse."

According to a Senate report, in the 1930s, GM, Goodyear, Firestone Tire and a bunch of oil companies joined together to form a number of fake rail companies. They would buy up all the small companies that operated America's small town railway systems, then destroy the systems, and soon enough America would run on gasoline-powered tires. By the mid-1950s, the fake rail companies had replaced 900 of the 1,200 public railway systems with gas-powered buses and cars and were ready to take on the biggest electric railway system in the world: Los Angeles. Yes, the city that's famous for bumper-to-bumper traffic once hummed along on 1,500 miles of electric railways. GM bought out the local railway companies, and a few years later there wasn't a single electric streetcar operating in Los Angeles. Today, the smog over LA is so thick that most of the people who live there have no idea they that live at the foot of a beautiful snowcapped mountain range.

Of course, you can't just form an illegal monopoly and get away with it. In 1947, the government convicted 10 of the biggest corporations in America of conspiracy, and fined GM $5,000. GM was able to survive the fine, since the illegal conspiracy had made it one of the most successful companies of the 20th century. And all they had to do was destroy the infrastructure of some of America's biggest cities and screw the next dozen or so generations who lived there out of clean, affordable transportation.

GM's loss in 1921 is irrelevant to the discussion. They were profitable on strong sales the following year, despite having had to "face the fact that cars weren't worth it to the other 90%" (in your, or I guess I should say in Cracked.com's, analysis).

You continue to ignore several very vital facts:

New manufacturing methods and technologies made automobiles much more affordable to the masses. Ever hear the history of Henry Ford? This (combined with the desire of people to have the personal freedom provided by the auto) is the reason the auto industry was successful and autos exploded in popularity beginning in the 1920s. It had nothing to do with the demise of the electric railways.

GM's purpose in buying the electric rail lines was to sell buses, not to sell cars. Cars were selling just fine, thank you very much (see prior paragraph).

If the conspiracy was established in order to sell cars, it would have to have been the most foolish conspiracies ever hatched. Car sales were doing quite well. There was no reason to spend millions of dollars buying up electric railways to boost the popularity of cars. That would have been a complete waste of money. ESPECIALLY, if, as you tell us, cars were too expensive for 90% of people to be able to afford.

Hilarious, really, to imagine the scenario you are positing. The heads of Firestone, GM, etc. are sitting around one day in the mid-1920s saying: Gosh, in 1921 only 10% of Americans owned cars. Nobody else can afford them. One of them says, "Hey, I have an idea! Let's buy up a bunch of the electric rail lines in towns across the country (both profitable and unprofitable, thriving and failing). We'll shut them down and replace the trains with buses (because that is actually what they did). That will FORCE people to buy our cars that they cannot afford." Note that for the conspiracy to proceed as proposed by SlickVic and his plagiarizees at cracked.com, nobody in the room mentioned (i) the foolishness of trying to "force" people to buy cars that they cannot afford; they already wanted the cars; if they couldn't afford them, they couldn't afford them or (ii) um, if we're trying to force people to buy cars, why are we spending millions of dollars replacing the electric rail lines with brand new buses? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose, and obviate the need for people to buy cars?, or (iii) car ownership was already exploding; Perhaps in 1921 only 10% of Americans had cars; buy 1929 80% of American families owned at least one car. This was before the first electric railroads were purchased by the GM conspiracy.

Not plagiarizing just passing along information. This isn't a thesis. But the fact that GM along with others bought up tracks and ripped them out all across the country is damning. Unless you're in the practice of selective reasoning.

If you didn't give credit, it's plagiarizing, and a violation of copyrights.

[Slick Vik]

GM's loss in 1921 is irrelevant to the discussion. They were profitable on strong sales the following year, despite having had to "face the fact that cars weren't worth it to the other 90%" (in your, or I guess I should say in Cracked.com's, analysis).

You continue to ignore several very vital facts:

New manufacturing methods and technologies made automobiles much more affordable to the masses. Ever hear the history of Henry Ford? This (combined with the desire of people to have the personal freedom provided by the auto) is the reason the auto industry was successful and autos exploded in popularity beginning in the 1920s. It had nothing to do with the demise of the electric railways.

GM's purpose in buying the electric rail lines was to sell buses, not to sell cars. Cars were selling just fine, thank you very much (see prior paragraph).

If the conspiracy was established in order to sell cars, it would have to have been the most foolish conspiracies ever hatched. Car sales were doing quite well. There was no reason to spend millions of dollars buying up electric railways to boost the popularity of cars. That would have been a complete waste of money. ESPECIALLY, if, as you tell us, cars were too expensive for 90% of people to be able to afford.

Hilarious, really, to imagine the scenario you are positing. The heads of Firestone, GM, etc. are sitting around one day in the mid-1920s saying: Gosh, in 1921 only 10% of Americans owned cars. Nobody else can afford them. One of them says, "Hey, I have an idea! Let's buy up a bunch of the electric rail lines in towns across the country (both profitable and unprofitable, thriving and failing). We'll shut them down and replace the trains with buses (because that is actually what they did). That will FORCE people to buy our cars that they cannot afford." Note that for the conspiracy to proceed as proposed by SlickVic and his plagiarizees at cracked.com, nobody in the room mentioned (i) the foolishness of trying to "force" people to buy cars that they cannot afford; they already wanted the cars; if they couldn't afford them, they couldn't afford them or (ii) um, if we're trying to force people to buy cars, why are we spending millions of dollars replacing the electric rail lines with brand new buses? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose, and obviate the need for people to buy cars?, or (iii) car ownership was already exploding; Perhaps in 1921 only 10% of Americans had cars; buy 1929 80% of American families owned at least one car. This was before the first electric railroads were purchased by the GM conspiracy.

If you didn't give credit, it's plagiarizing, and a violation of copyrights.

You can sit and laugh but this is what happened. And we are all worse off for it.

[IHB2]

You can sit and laugh but this is what happened. And we are all worse off for it.

You might want to check the #s on miles of automobile-capable roadway in every state in 1920 vs. 1930 vs 1940 and ask yourself why states were building those roads so fast (especially given the majority % of the US population was still rural pre-WW2, not urban).

Unless you believe GM's conspiracy and control reached into every state legislature by 1920, you'll have to give individual Americans some credit for voting with their wallets for their personal transportation preference.

Working and middle class flight from unhealthy, dangerous industrial city centers was a fact by the very early 1900s, the longer commute to the industrial core made possible by electric streetcars.

Ford, not GM, democratized automobiles as a transportation choice by cutting prices through assembly-line production of a limited # of models.

The resulting explosion of automobile ownership merely accelerated a process already well underway. The superior personal mobility granted by private auto ownership became an essential cog in a larger social mobility phenomenon in industrial America that led to the creation of successions of outer rings around our industrial cities. But private auto ownership was only 1 aspect of that phenomenon...

GM's role in shaping American consumer behavior is undeniable, and maybe greater than Ford's over the long run, but your (uncredited) source, and you, want to deny any agency to individual consumers and make them all helpless pawns of evil corporations.

Edited August 19, 2012 by IHB2

[Slick Vik]

You might want to check the #s on miles of automobile-capable roadway in every state in 1920 vs. 1930 vs 1940 and ask yourself why states were building those roads so fast (especially given the majority % of the US population was still rural pre-WW2, not urban).

Unless you believe GM's conspiracy and control reached into every state legislature by 1920, you'll have to give individual Americans some credit for voting with their wallets for their personal transportation preference.

Working and middle class flight from unhealthy, dangerous industrial city centers was a fact by the very early 1900s, the longer commute to the industrial core made possible by electric streetcars.

Ford, not GM, democratized automobiles as a transportation choice by cutting prices through assembly-line production of a limited # of models.

The resulting explosion of automobile ownership merely accelerated a process already well underway. The superior personal mobility granted by private auto ownership became an essential cog in a larger social mobility phenomenon in industrial America that led to the creation of successions of outer rings around our industrial cities. But private auto ownership was only 1 aspect of that phenomenon...

GM's role in shaping American consumer behavior is undeniable, and maybe greater than Ford's over the long run, but your (uncredited) source, and you, want to deny any agency to individual consumers and make them all helpless pawns of evil corporations.

That's just one source. Bradley Snell has devoted over a decade to studying this. There's also the documentary taken for a ride. Also GM helped kill the electric car as well, check out who killed the electric car some day.

[IHB2]

I didn't cite a source or sources. sauce for the goose...

[LTAWACS]

LInks anyone?

[Pleak]

I'm telling y'all - William Durant was the head of the Reptilians. It was his evil plot to destroy safe efficient, clean transportation for the masses and ruin the world by selling zillions of oil-guzzling cars. And his minions are still monitoring us today.

They are presently casing the Heights in white Chevy vans(notice the connection) disguised as old long-haired hippies.

[LTAWACS]

What can we do to escape from this tyranny?

[Marksmu]

I'm telling y'all - William Durant was the head of the Reptilians. It was his evil plot to destroy safe efficient, clean transportation for the masses and ruin the world by selling zillions of oil-guzzling cars. And his minions are still monitoring us today.

They are presently casing the Heights in white Chevy vans(notice the connection) disguised as old long-haired hippies.

I for one welcome our new insect overlords!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKbFb6TPVEA

[IHB2]

LInks anyone?

if Slick don't need 'em, I don't need 'em.

but you could start with The New Urban Landscape by David Schuyler, and Crabgrass Frontier by Kenneth T Jackson, and The Five Dollar Day: Labor Management and Social Control in the Ford Motor Company, 1908-1921 by Stephen Meyer.

I realize those aren't links, but hard copy academic monographs, and require a bit more critical thinking than Wikipedia...or simply believing Bradley Snell, who spent a decade....

[RedScare]

I doubt it has occurred to anyone, I thought I'd throw it out there. This thread is about bullet trains running between two cities. Intercity rail, as it were. GM is accused of buying up intracity electric trolley systems in order to replace them with rubber wheeled buses. Crazy, I know, but intracity trolleys are an entirely different mode of transit than intercity rail systems. As such, GM's actions have nothing at all to do with a potentially privately funded high speed rail company.

Further, GM is still near bankruptcy. They probably won't revive their rail killing schemes in the next couple of fiscal quarters. I think we can safely move on to airlines, Greyhound, Megabus, and Tory Gattis blogs for our next rail killers.

(j/k Tory. As a gesture of friendship, here is a link to Houston Strategies. http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/ )

[Slick Vik]

if Slick don't need 'em, I don't need 'em.

but you could start with The New Urban Landscape by David Schuyler, and Crabgrass Frontier by Kenneth T Jackson, and The Five Dollar Day: Labor Management and Social Control in the Ford Motor Company, 1908-1921 by Stephen Meyer.

I realize those aren't links, but hard copy academic monographs, and require a bit more critical thinking than Wikipedia...or simply believing Bradley Snell, who spent a decade....

Watch Taken for a Ride

I doubt it has occurred to anyone, I thought I'd throw it out there. This thread is about bullet trains running between two cities. Intercity rail, as it were. GM is accused of buying up intracity electric trolley systems in order to replace them with rubber wheeled buses. Crazy, I know, but intracity trolleys are an entirely different mode of transit than intercity rail systems. As such, GM's actions have nothing at all to do with a potentially privately funded high speed rail company.

Further, GM is still near bankruptcy. They probably won't revive their rail killing schemes in the next couple of fiscal quarters. I think we can safely move on to airlines, Greyhound, Megabus, and Tory Gattis blogs for our next rail killers.

(j/k Tory. As a gesture of friendship, here is a link to Houston Strategies. http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/ )

GM can go to hell. What goes around comes around.

[Subdude]

Further, GM is still near bankruptcy.

Not at all. They're burdened with Opel and lost share since Toyota re-started some production, but that doesn't mean they are tottering on the brink.

[barracuda]

Also GM helped kill the electric car as well, check out who killed the electric car some day.

Wouldn't you say cheap gas, challenges with battery technology, and high manufacturing costs have more to do with the paucity of electric cars? And even despite of those challenges, there are a growing number of electric and plug-in cars on the market today, including one made by evil GM.

[TheNiche]

Watch Taken for a Ride

GM can go to hell. What goes around comes around.

Sure, and after that you can watch Ancient Aliens for all it matters.

Mods, can someone please split this GM stuff off onto another thread? I want to talk about a bullet train.

[IHB2]

Mods, can someone please split this GM stuff off onto another thread? I want to talk about a bullet train.

following the NBA's plan for peace and brotherhood, could you please refrain from calling it a bullet train and start calling it a wizard train?

[LTAWACS]

LOL

[Slick Vik]

Wouldn't you say cheap gas, challenges with battery technology, and high manufacturing costs have more to do with the paucity of electric cars? And even despite of those challenges, there are a growing number of electric and plug-in cars on the market today, including one made by evil GM.

I don't think any electric car on the market today is as good as the EV1 was.

[Pleak]

I don't think any electric car on the market today is as good as the EV1 was.

Yes. Of course. Because circa-1996 battery technology was light years ahead of where we are now. And two seats, no trunk/storage space to speak of and factory claimed (not real life) range of 100 miles are far better than what is on the market to day from Nissan, GM (yes, the evil GM), Tesla, soon to be Ford, and others. They only have a variety of options like four seats, real storage space, real acceleration, real-world range of a couple-hundred miles.

Your point makes total sense.