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