Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (374782)	3/23/2008 1:12:01 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577122

"Don't you think that's a bit odd that a Sec. of Defense is helping to create freeways in country where its mainland cities had been attacked since 1819[?]?" No. Do you know what sparked the idea of the interstates? Eisenhower, when he was in Europe, saw the German autobahn system. He saw how useful it could be for moving stuff internally in the country. And the interstate system had a link to civil defense. Not just in evacuations, the original plan was the embankments for overpasses was to have bomb shelters in them. They built a few, but not very many. If true, the interstate system is hardly comparable to the autobahn system. In fact, the two systems only bear a slight resemblance to each other. The autobahn system is designed to carry cars between German cities......the American system took it all one step further.......it was designed to help commuters leave the city as well as avoid cities completely in addition to carrying traffic between cities. Furthermore, large portions of German cities were not destroyed to make room for the autobahn like was done in American cities. In Texas at least, the first interstates went in to connect the military bases with ports. That isn't true for most interstates.......in CA they initially provided roads for traffic traveling between the cities and then as commuter routes for suburbanites. Places like Seattle and DC, beltways were developed around the cities to avoid the cities completely. "When the first freeways opened in the 1930s, 40s and 50s, there was very few cars using them." Say what? The first freeways were in California linking some of the most heavily populated areas. The first freeway in S. CA was between LA and Pasadena. It opened in the late 1930s. Pictures from back then show few cars using the road and traffic then was nothing like the heavy traffic we see now. The point I was making was that at one point freeways opened ahead of the curve. By the 1960s, that had changed and freeways were opening behind the curve. There certainly were cars to use them. In Texas, there was the stretch of I45 between Houston and Galveston. And it certainly was used. I didn't say they weren't used......they just weren't as popular as they are now. It was a different time......people were not wired to the clock and did not have a need for speed. Besides, what is the connection between the interstate system and the death of streetcars? Freeways went to new suburban developments and streetcars did not. The message was loud and clear......you need a car to live in post WW II American life if you want to participate in the good life....suburban living. "GM was buying streetcar lines where they immediately cut service and forcing ridership to drop off" Ridership was dropping off in cities where NCL didn't have a presence. What was the story there? Ridership was dropping off? I haven't read that any where......not saying it wasn't true but...... What I did see is that the cost of maintaining the streetcar lines became harder for private enterprise which is not a surprising development. Public transportation is rarely a true money maker. Unfortunately, American cultural ideology expects everything including mass transit to pay its own way. So if ridership was dropping off on non GM lines, it could be that they were experiencing cutbacks in service as well. "Ironically, Cleveland sold its streetcars to Toronto....where those streetcars operated for another 35 years before they were retired permanently." Yep. The streetcars themselves could last a very long time. The right of way, however, did not. It was expensive to build and expensive to maintain. Buses, however, used the roads. Which didn't cost the bus companies anything. So then, the streetcar lines were expected to maintain their own lines but road maintenance was not a cost to bus companies. That's a whole other issue but I don't think that's what made the difference...after all, someone has to pay for road maintenance. "Who benefited? GM and Ford, of course." Sure they did. But, while follow the money is always something to consider, it is by no means foolproof. Just look at Harris and some of his harebrained theories. Please......this is hardly a "harebrained theory". It was a president of GM who once said that "What's good for GM is good for America". That president was Charles Wilson.....the same guy who was appointed Sec. of Defense under Eisenhauer and helped create the freeway system. And this so called hare brain theory led to a major lawsuit. Frankly, CJ, I think you are being a little naive. Not that GM is any angel. But the death of streetcars was inevitable in the US. Not only was the Great Depression restricting funds to keep up and expand the streetcar systems, the changing technology with the rise of the automobile was stressing them. American city management is usually focused on growth at all costs. And it has only been relatively recently that mass transportation started to figure into the equation at all. If its death was inevitable, why did streetcar/light rail systems not die in non American cities? I don't think their death was inevitable......that's why a conspiracy is believed behind their disappearance from the American scene. Our system is not set up to be far-sighted. We have short time horizons and, every once in a while, it catches up with us. Like with this current crisis with the financial system. There was a whole host of people who were far sighted and fought the death of streetcars. They had no power. The power resided with the Charles Wilsons of the country. Coincidently, he was a descendant of GM's corporate culture. Was it coincidence? I don't think so. And more importantly, the whole approach to mass transit in this country contributes mightily to the energy crisis. Fortunately, more and more non American cities have stopped trying to emulate American cities. And now American cities are having to go back and reverse the alleged progress made in previous generations.....hence, the growing development of light rail and commuter trains in American cities and the increasing push for density. Given the general ineptitude we see GM exhibit these days, I continue to believe they played a fairly strong role in what happened to American cities and streetcars after WW II.