4 ms·
I think that puts the cart before the horse. Why build a railroad to no-where? Surely the small towns pre-existed the railroad.
by engineer_22 3y ago
I think that puts the cart before the horse. Why build a railroad to no-where? Surely the small towns pre-existed the railroad.
- Arnt 3y agoThe two end stations existed, and enough in between the make the railway feasible. Then the existence of paths to two big cities made some villages grow, and grow, and grow.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agothe two end stations exist because people were already there, they didn't build that railway across the US before these areas were settled. What you're arguing is that there are towns that would pop up around these railways after the fact, and while that's true, they would also pop up around water, gold, and other natural resources. It turns out there's lots of reasons why communities form, but one thing we know for sure is that railways require demand FIRST, not second.
- Arnt 3y agoSome demand has to be present first, sure. But "not second" doesn't follow. No law prevents the planners from expecting demand to grow, and basing their decision to build on that.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoyeah, because second doesn't necessarily come after first!
- Symbiote 3y agoThe USA has several many towns and cities which were built because of railways. Railways induce demand, both for work for the railway (moving trains, moving goods between trains, services for passengers), and for the excellent transport connections they provide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_railway_towns_in_the_United_States#cite_note-hudson-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_railway_towns_in_the_U...
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoplease re-read my post, you misunderstood it.
- TheCoelacanth 3y agoFrom one big town on a navigable waterway to another big town on a navigable waterway. The small towns in the middle came later.