4 ms·
"Over the next two decades, however, streetcar lines either were bought up and then closed down by automobile companies or simply went bankrupt." Ah, America.
by thatfrenchguy 10y ago
"Over the next two decades, however, streetcar lines either were bought up and then closed down by automobile companies or simply went bankrupt."
Ah, America.
- my_first_acct 10y agoA bit oversimplified. See Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#Role_in_decline_of_the_streetcars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... The article is about the "General Motors streetcar conspiracy"; the link jumps to the section where other factors in the decline of streetcars are discussed.
- jklinger410 10y agoLet the market decide!
- bluedino 10y agoRemember that in 1915 there were only 100 million people in the US. There are a little over 300 million now. Picture how big the US is, almost 4,000,000 square miles. A country like England has 50 million people in just 50,000 sq miles. Sure, there were a few rail lines running across the country, but building the nations highway system, plus the luxury of the general population to own cars really allowed people to travel the country for business and pleasure. Without the automobile the country wouldn't have been as well connected and arguably wouldn't have became what it did.
- astazangasta 10y agoWe can have a national highway system AND light rail around cities. We can have growth AND equality. We can have an energy intensive economy AND environmental sustainability. Beware false dichotomy.
- ommunist 10y agoYes you can. But are you allowed to?
- Retric 10y agoAlaska and DC have similar population sizes even though Alasca has 10,000 times the land area. Hell more people live in DC than Wyoming. However, Alaska's area is irrelevant when talking about DC. Nobody wants to build street lights or a subway station in the middle of an Iowa corn field, but reasonable infrastructure where people actually live is important. PS: America seems to have forgotten that infrastructure drives economic development. From dirt roads to high speed internet society's live and die based on past investments not what happens to rich or powerful people.
- gozur88 10y ago>Nobody wants to build street lights or a subway station in the middle of an Iowa corn field, but reasonable infrastructure where people actually live is important. Should people who live in that corn field pay for a rail system in DC? >PS: America seems to have forgotten that infrastructure drives economic development. From dirt roads to high speed internet society's live and die based on past investments not what happens to rich or powerful people. Infrastructure that make sense enables economic development. But not all infrastructure makes economic sense. Sure, you can stimulate economic growth in a place by pouring a bunch of money into it. But how much growth did you suppress in other places by taking money out?
- Retric 10y agoPeople in city's subsidize corn fields not the other way around. If you look at net tax flows rural areas get a ridiculously huge subsidy's. Things like the ever popular completely unneeded military bases. Or SS disability checks because someone has no job skills and can find a friendly doctor. Or how about: Between 1995 and 2011, the federal government paid $172.3 billion in commodity subsidies, $46.6 billion in crop insurance subsidies, $37 billion in conservation subsidies and $21.4 billion in disaster subsidies. Compare with the much hated bank/auto bailout which cost a net $21bn. Really, rural areas should love for city's to become more efficient so they can leach even more money from them.
- gozur88 10y ago
- adamio 10y agoRelated, car companies campaigned to invent "jay walking" and give cars the legal right of way
- astronautjones 10y ago"maldito país"