It's a reference to the GM streetcar conspiracy (most notably retold in Who Framed Roger Rabbit).

While it's a decently well-known anecdote, most experts nowadays believe that the very real attempt to monopolize the selling of buses to city transit did not contribute in any significant way to the dismantling of the streetcars--the streetcars were already in rude health and dying, and their rapid dismantling happened even in cities where the bus transit companies were not involved.

> the streetcars were already in rude health and dying

You can't be both in rude health and dying at the same time! They mean the opposite thing!

Rude health isn’t really a common term. I interpreted it as poor health which seems rather obvious from the context. It does appear to actually mean good health but it’s pretty obscure.

GM is already laying the groundwork for the next bailout with their plans to stop building cars, they just don't realize it yet. As for the plan to ban cars from city centers, I am all for that. I want to see mass amounts of money invested in public transit.

Rude health means good health, not poor.

I think, more importantly, is why does it matter? We have the infrastructure we have now. Maybe GM should be held accountable for what they did, but what does that have to do with access to cities for people with cars today?

I see a lot of vitriol towards drivers in this thread, and any other time this topic comes up. We didn't make the world the way it is. It ultimately feels like classism. I'm glad these folks are able to take advantage of the privilege of living in a dynamic, multicultural city. But not everyone can afford that.

I think it matters because people often think we "naturally" progressed to today's city arrangements because they're better than the alternatives. And this GM example highlights that it's not necessarily the case.

> I see a lot of vitriol towards drivers in this thread, and any other time this topic comes up.

Understand that it is a frustrating topic. Cars are one of the top killers in the U.S. both directly and indirectly. They make our places of living less safe and less pleasant. It's especially frustrating when people who live in the suburbs commute in to where we live, then complain about how unpleasant city living is—in large part because they're making it unpleasant.

> It ultimately feels like classism. I'm glad these folks are able to take advantage of the privilege of living in a dynamic, multicultural city. But not everyone can afford that.

And this is another piece of frustration. Yes, given current government incentives, it can be more affordable to live in the suburbs than in cities. But this is artificial. Urban dwellers ultimately subsidize those living in suburban/rural areas, thanks to government policy carried over from the cold war era. It's so bizarre that we live in a time/place where driving a personal automobile to work is seen as "lower class" than riding bicycles or taking the bus/train to work. Something's broken.

Because there's an argument that the way the world is currently arranged is the best, most ideal way because people are perfectly rational, etc. If it's obvious that someone made suboptimal choices in the past because of a profit motive, shouldn't we examine that and attempt to correct for it, rather than assuming that the status quo is as good as we can get? We may need to save ourselves out of a local maxima and that's not a painless process.

I am very aware of driving's safety statistics. And I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to design their spaces the way they see fit. It's on San Fransiscans to decide what is best for the city, and everyone outside can just deal. Buy neither is "GM blackmailed people" and excuse to treat drivers like murderers in these conversations.

I am OP and quite the driver myself. However, I never drive in the inner city (~ 5km radius from city hall) in my town because:

a) it's annoying due to overloaded traffic

b) it's annoying due to parking

c) my job provides me with year-long public transport ticket and taking a car and paying for all certain and possible costs is economically disadvantageous

d) public transport is amazing, taxis work and ride sharing and car sharing exist on top of it for cases when public transport shuts down (during major incidents usually, e.g. finding yet another WW2 bomb at some construction site)

Just cut it down to business/public traffic and reinvigorate inner city life with more sensible things. It actually already happens from now and then for festivities and other events and people start using ALL of the space that cars uselessly take up.

So, this is an extremely well-known claim for which you can find numerous reasonable-looking citations if you actually cared to spend the couple seconds to ask Google, but FWIW there is a lot of argument as to whether it is really true in such simple terms, despite so many sources and citations.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/06/be-careful-ho...

> So, this is an extremely well-known claim for which you can find numerous reasonable-looking citations

I didn't see any mention of blackmail in that article? Which bit were you referring to?