[rexreed]

The future you cite is also our past. In the 1930s most large urban cities had plenty of non-car transportation options, including electric-powered or cable-pulled streetcars, overhead-powered electric as well as gas-powered buses, trams, light rail, underground subways (since early 1900s in NYC), and hackneys of all sorts in the US and Europe and many other places around the world. In fact, it was the spread of gas-powered buses that killed much of the electric-powered streetcars in large cities in the US in the 1950s. With the growth of suburbs and loss of streetcars, the growth of cars in city centers grew unchecked as did air pollution and smog.

[xattt]

My mind goes to the healthcare staff who still have to report to their facility for 7:30 in the morning no matter the weather.

There has been a lot of social change since the 1930s. Back then, nurses were seen as subservient and likely lived in residence attached to a hospital. Reporting for duty was not an issue on bad weather days.

No one will live apart from their family in this day and age without appropriate compensation, like the way nurses do working for FHNIB nursing stations up north.

[dantheman]

I know you like the film roger rabbit, but that's not why trams died.

[rexreed]

It's not the entire reason but it's actually a key part of it [0]. Hey Roger Rabbit isn't entirely fiction but all the good parts are :)

[0] https://www.planetizen.com/node/76622

[jonny_eh]

> It's not the entire reason but it's actually a key part of it [0].

I don't see that in your reference. It's a full-on debunking of the claim that it was a conspiracy.

[rexreed]

From the above referenced article:

"For the record, there was a conspiracy according to the 1949 U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in UNITED STATES v. NATIONAL CITY LINES, Inc., et al. "

and more to the point it actually says it up top in the title part of the article: "Yes, there was a conspiracy led by General Motors to replace streetcars with their buses in the 1930s."

I know it was somewhat mingled with the other points in the article, but it was confirmed in a Supreme Court ruling that there was indeed a conspiracy by the National City Lines and others to buy up streetcar lines and close down operations. What the article says is that despite the conspiracy, the industry was already in decline, with the streetcar companies acquired because many were in bankruptcy. And as such, the decline can't be solely and specifically blamed on the conspiracy, which is a matter of trial case law at this point. What the conspiracy did was simply accelerate a process that might have been inevitable. This is why I'm saying (and Roger Rabbit) that it played a part, even if not the central part.

[jcranmer]

> "For the record, there was a conspiracy according to the 1949 U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in UNITED STATES v. NATIONAL CITY LINES, Inc., et al. "

That conspiracy was a conspiracy to monopolize bus operations, not a conspiracy to replace streetcars with buses. The streetcars themselves were replaced largely because the streetcar companies had already failed and were bankrupt, and the lower maintenance costs of buses vis-a-vis streetcars made them a better route to maintaining public transit.

[jonny_eh]

I see, so there was a conspiracy, but it didn't matter.

[rexreed]

This is a fantastic little video on this topic if you're interested in digging further: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnFVBfhpprU. And a bit more from 60 minutes that makes a stronger point about the conspiracy and who was really motivated to make freeways and highways a reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WORIrHpC8M