stephglobal

On 3/6/2024 at 3:27 PM, Snaefell3 said:

My 2¢:

 

• Eisenhower had a specific, military, rationale behind the "National System of Interstate and DEFENSE Highways" -- remember he was a 5-star general.

 

• Population density greatly affects the "roads vs rail" equation: if you look at only the US East the answer is "rail", and if you look only at the US West the answer is "road".  But, with the Interstates in place for military reasons, the US national answer is "roads".

 

This post has nothing do to with Oceania's decline. But agree with you Snaefell3 (and Hlitner) re: The US interstate highway system initiated in the 1956 Act basically launched the interstate highway system. It had several good intentions--- but in hindsight, likely at the expense of a better railway system. The goals at the time were to first support national defense.  Major military things at the time relied primarily on ground transport.  Second, to support a now little-acknowledged goal, to allow people to escape cities in the case of possible [atomic] bombings. It was the Cold War era.  There were of course more goals, such as business/economic, which also matter.

Moving on, it is great to support non-automobile means of transport. I value the folks on CC that post on these alternatives!