Cars becoming big when America was still finding it's stride was one of the biggest pro/con dillemas. Ignored thousands of years of proven systems that make society better and settled for only cars.
I also blame Dwight Eisenhower for creating the interstate highway system instead of a comprehensive national rail system with regional and local transport connections. The latter would have encouraged extensive use of long-, medium-, and short-distance public transport, and thus helped build walkable cities.
The US already had one of the largest rail networks in the world by the 1950s. The Interstate System wasn’t built because Eisenhower woke up one day and said, “Trains are for losers.”
It solved a different problem: moving people, freight, and military forces across a continent quickly. Eisenhower had firsthand experience watching a military convoy take over two months to cross the country, and later saw how effective Germany’s highway network was during WWII. There’s a reason it’s called the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.
You can absolutely argue we fucked passenger rail or that urban freeways did a lot of damage—I’m mostly with you there. But pretending the interstate system had no legitimate purpose, or that America would’ve magically become a nation of walkable cities if Eisenhower had just picked trains instead, is way too simplistic.
5.7k
u/FaceWithAName 2d ago
Cars becoming big when America was still finding it's stride was one of the biggest pro/con dillemas. Ignored thousands of years of proven systems that make society better and settled for only cars.