Thank you
@DaveBrt for the interesting thread. I pulled a few deep thoughts out while reading it. Hopefully I can word it properly so my point is made.
1. These cities were already rewarded by the railroad lines; thinking on how towns out west dried up or went bust when the railroad junction was rewarded to some other city. I can understand the argument of connecting the existing rails, due to the owners wishing to cull a majority of the profits. The city planners had to also be involved, and this brings me to point #2.
2. Within my life time I can remember when the Interstate system was sporadically strung across the country, State to State. It had not been fully connected, and toll booths were set within some cities to glean a tax for use of the road and upkeep (Richmond and U. S. 64 is an example. Then when these Interstates advanced to the point of connectivity they passed many times directly through the heart of the city with numerous on/off ramps, creating a bottleneck due to the trucking industry and vacationers. So to alleviate the setback they put in Interstate Byway systems that would circumnavigate the major cities. Point three is a question that lingers after drawing up this comparison.
3. I wonder if these two systems were understood to be similar in planning, and if the same shortfalls occurred or not. It seems that is similarities existed, the planners either misjudged the growth rate, or were totally unaware. I know the Government accessed land with eminent domain when Interstate problems arose. I also understand the railroads were given many right-of-ways in conjunction with their freight requirements, at least in the current age. There is more here to it all than meets the public awareness.
Do you feel these situations are in fact very similar, and whether it was successfully advanced for the future needs and requirements of industry vs. public ergonomists?
Lubliner.