3 ms·
In nearly every case the city is there only because the railroad was there first. Obviously reasonable and pertinent safety measures should be taken ("Safety F
by phs2501 7y ago
In nearly every case the city is there only because the railroad was there first. Obviously reasonable and pertinent safety measures should be taken ("Safety First", etc) but I think it's pretty unreasonable to ask the railroads to move their 100+-year-old routes because people built a city around it.
- asveikau 7y agoAnd even for the cases of older cities that predate rail, what exactly would be the point of a railway that doesn't go anywhere? Seems like a world seen through north american suburbs... "Why did you have to build the rail so close to where people live?!" Question answers itself.
- dkarp 7y agoI don't see why it matters that the railroad came first. It's just a piece of infrastructure, not a native people. This happens all the time where a main road now goes through a town that has developed. A bypass is built so it doesn't have to go through the town anymore.