The “relative” peace of the USA during the 1800s is one reason we have so few trains.
No it isn’t. The US was absolutely full of trains by the end of the 1800s. Our map looked a lot like Europe’s until after WWII, when we started ripping them out!
The US was built on railroads, we just ripped up and paved over most of our passenger service in favor of cars. A lot of highways going through cities use the land the old main rail line used. Basically every city over a few 10s of thousands of people had some kind of light rail service. And then we decided that every public service had to also be independently profitable. So instead of pooling transportation costs across a population we each have to buy and operate personal vehicles for everything, not just leisure or convenience.
I’m not going to bother, since the point of trolling is to waste my time. I’ve studied American history, so if you want to argue your alt-history, it’s up to you to prove that the U.S. wasn’t built by rail.
I didn’t claim the US wasn’t built by rail, you’re making that assertion on my behalf for some reason.
I’m speaking to European and US history here, you may be ignorant/uninformed about the slant I’m taking but that doesn’t make it less true and I’m unwilling to argue in bad faith with you.
I said that Europe has the rail it does because of the wars of the 18th and 19th century. I also asserted that if the USA was beset by the wars of Europe the same way that it would have developed a similar rail infrastructure.
The rail infrastructure of the US never matched Europes, and it had no reason to. If you have something to say about my claim that the wars of Europe drove the mass adoption of rail then I’m all ears.
I’m similarly not making any claims about the dismantling of the rail infrastructure we did have, but shockingly the pushing of roads wasn’t just “auto industry” there was genuine “roads > rail for national defense” belief even if it was/is misguided ( even if deliberately so circling back to the auto industry )
Okay, now that is at least debatable. Maybe there was genuine belief that roads were better than rail for defense purposes, or maybe the Secretary of Defense was the ex-CEO of GM. In any case, the belief that the Interstate Highway System was intended for military purposes is an urban legend, not supported by the original proposal documents, nor by the public statements of people backing it.
But the idea that the U.S. just never developed a rail system like Europe has now is in the same level of ridiculousness as claiming that Julius Caesar was a small man who sold pizza, or that Napoleon invented dynamite. It’s just such common knowledge that rail was so ubiquitous that it shaped the nation, and the physical legacy still manifest everywhere.
I’m not making any excuses. I’m giving an explanation for the explosion of trains in Europe.
Yall can hate the truth for some weird reason.
That said … the logic of your response seems to highlight my point as opposed to refute it.
Roads supplanted trains as they are quicker to lay down, cost less (in initial investment) and the vehicles that can use it are more varied.
Which is why the autobahn was created.
Had the US been blasted by the wars of 18th/19th century Europe we would have trains too.
The civil war proved to the USA how valuable trains were BUT we didn’t have the same constant local wars with industrialized nations like Europe did driving many parties to build against each other.
Why the USA doesn’t invest in raid NOW is another story altogether.
Military use had the opposite effect particularly in the East where leaders were wary of railways being used to invade their area. This led to the late adoption of the technology there.
Europe is rife with trains because they were the fastest and most efficient way to move heavy cargo.
Europe is rife with trains because of war.
The train single handedly changed warfare in Europe and was one of the most influential reasons that standing armies became a thing.
That non-military people and goods can be carried on them is a happy accident.
The “relative” peace of the USA during the 1800s is one reason we have so few trains.
Clausewitz is a good start if you want more infos
No it isn’t. The US was absolutely full of trains by the end of the 1800s. Our map looked a lot like Europe’s until after WWII, when we started ripping them out!
If only there was some kind of thing happening nonstop in Europe making their use more efficacious and strategically advantageous.
Lots of non-stop wars in Europe after WWII?
The US was built on railroads, we just ripped up and paved over most of our passenger service in favor of cars. A lot of highways going through cities use the land the old main rail line used. Basically every city over a few 10s of thousands of people had some kind of light rail service. And then we decided that every public service had to also be independently profitable. So instead of pooling transportation costs across a population we each have to buy and operate personal vehicles for everything, not just leisure or convenience.
If this isn’t trolling, you might want to read some U.S. history.
I’d encourage the same to you.
We had some war in the Americas but they were largely an extension of the wars in Europe.
Relative to what was happening in Europe between the major players the Americas were peaceful
California was connected to the east coast via rail to prevent secession, not for infrastructure purposes (beyond the general connection).
Okay, trolling, got it.
These gotcha statements you’re throwing around aren’t working.
If you have something you’d like to say that is counter to my take, by all means refute it.
I’m not going to bother, since the point of trolling is to waste my time. I’ve studied American history, so if you want to argue your alt-history, it’s up to you to prove that the U.S. wasn’t built by rail.
I didn’t claim the US wasn’t built by rail, you’re making that assertion on my behalf for some reason.
I’m speaking to European and US history here, you may be ignorant/uninformed about the slant I’m taking but that doesn’t make it less true and I’m unwilling to argue in bad faith with you.
I said that Europe has the rail it does because of the wars of the 18th and 19th century. I also asserted that if the USA was beset by the wars of Europe the same way that it would have developed a similar rail infrastructure.
The rail infrastructure of the US never matched Europes, and it had no reason to. If you have something to say about my claim that the wars of Europe drove the mass adoption of rail then I’m all ears.
I’m similarly not making any claims about the dismantling of the rail infrastructure we did have, but shockingly the pushing of roads wasn’t just “auto industry” there was genuine “roads > rail for national defense” belief even if it was/is misguided ( even if deliberately so circling back to the auto industry )
deleted by creator
Okay, now that is at least debatable. Maybe there was genuine belief that roads were better than rail for defense purposes, or maybe the Secretary of Defense was the ex-CEO of GM. In any case, the belief that the Interstate Highway System was intended for military purposes is an urban legend, not supported by the original proposal documents, nor by the public statements of people backing it.
But the idea that the U.S. just never developed a rail system like Europe has now is in the same level of ridiculousness as claiming that Julius Caesar was a small man who sold pizza, or that Napoleon invented dynamite. It’s just such common knowledge that rail was so ubiquitous that it shaped the nation, and the physical legacy still manifest everywhere.
Same with the highway or Autobahn, so what’s the excuse there?
I’m not making any excuses. I’m giving an explanation for the explosion of trains in Europe.
Yall can hate the truth for some weird reason.
That said … the logic of your response seems to highlight my point as opposed to refute it.
Roads supplanted trains as they are quicker to lay down, cost less (in initial investment) and the vehicles that can use it are more varied.
Which is why the autobahn was created.
Had the US been blasted by the wars of 18th/19th century Europe we would have trains too.
The civil war proved to the USA how valuable trains were BUT we didn’t have the same constant local wars with industrialized nations like Europe did driving many parties to build against each other.
Why the USA doesn’t invest in raid NOW is another story altogether.
Military use had the opposite effect particularly in the East where leaders were wary of railways being used to invade their area. This led to the late adoption of the technology there.
Europe is rife with trains because they were the fastest and most efficient way to move heavy cargo.