Closing the Confederate City Rail Gaps

Lubliner

Captain
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
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.
 

DaveBrt

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Location
Charlotte, NC
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.
1. The cities were not rewarded by railroad lines -- they invested their own money to build the lines, at great personal financial risk for many of the leaders.
3. The railroads started with no plans but to connect one place (a farming region or a town) to another (a port). Only after the railroads began to prove themselves did the idea arise to connect city to city. The interstates system started with the idea of connecting all sections of the country for national defense -- the massive trucking and personal car use was a byproduct of the initial plan.
Remember the old road trips? The travel through anything like a city took a long time, with many stop lights and a long stretch of 30 mph streets. So when the interstate was built through town, everyone looked at this high speed, no stops route as a MAJOR improvement and used it for all it was worth. With the explosion of personal cars and the post-war economic boom, the city interstates became so jammed that both the city and the truckers demanded the bypass to keep the speed up for those who did not need to stop in the city.
So, I think the two systems started from very different places and had very different goals. Then things changed.
I don't know anything about modern land acquisitions.
 

Lubliner

Captain
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
I think the planners were able to see the investment payoff as a lucrative business opportunity. But it also reminds me of the saying 'Money doesn't grow on trees', and many of these places were farming communities with a local market, school, church, with very little extra. To raise capital for the project would be seen as time consuming and also a necessary pittance of income. The new ideas along with the advancements of technology allowed people to grasp the potential and broaden those opportunities.
Lubliner.
 
Top