Corruption of the street-railway companies: the reform minded urban groups were reacting not to the trolley per se but to the rapacity and corruption of the street-railway companies. The companies were granted highly remunerative use of municipal property, i.e. city streets while the city obtained nothing in return.

Electrification promised major cost savings to the owners of street railroads, but the companies refused to pass these savings on in the form of lower fares or increased payments to the city.The anger was augmented by the arrogance of the street-railroad companies which remained unmoved by public protests. The spokesmen for the companies insisted that street railroads had the right to define what technology was best.
           
In 1890 the electrical engineer T.C. Martin said: the trolley created a great investment opportunity by reducing costs as much as 50 percent but this reduction was not to be passed on in the form of lower fares. Instead of lowering fares Martin argued for building hundreds of roads into suburban districts. Such a strategy would blunt radicalism among working class and check the rate of profit to fall by opening up profitable investments.

In fact, this strategy benefited the middle-class families who could afford to move to the suburbs and who paid the same 5 cent fare for their long commute as did urban workers for short trips within the city.

.