Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rootusrootus 1062 days ago
> They were destroyed in the 1950s due to pressure from car/oil lobbies

Popular explanation but largely false. They were destroyed because people quit using them.

3 comments

Why and how did people quit using them? Suppose you're in a world where the interstate highway system hasn't been built and subway trains are the dominant mode of transportation, and you would like to stop taking trains to get to places, what do you do? Walk? Bike? Ride a horse? Drive offroad in a car with a manual transmission and no seatbelts or airbags, with no gas stations in between?

Seems like you'd be S.O.L. unless the government kindly free-markets a continent-wide network of paved roads, with conveniently placed roadside stops along the way where they sell gasoline. Can't imagine why they would undertake such an exorbitant public works project when the transcontinental railroad already exists; it's not like the government is disproportionately influenced by any industries that would very obviously materially benefit from such a thing.

People use e-mail more than snail mail nowadays too. Funny, that.
But it's far more satisfying to blame some change you don't like on $EVILCORP than a more complicated narrative that revolves around people as a whole preferred something different so it didn't really make sense for government/a company to keep pouring money into a pit to keep a small minority happy.

The story often goes that someone destroyed a fully operational system for profits when in fact the system was badly deteriorated and not really used a lot.

Do you REALLY think gasoline subsidies and government backed 97% LTV mortgages is a free market? People were coaxed out of cities with very generous subsidies as well as race baiting (redlining)
People moved out to the suburbs for a lot of reasons--not least of which was the post-war baby boom. The US government certainly didn't discourage it (though they were arguably pursuing policies the majority of the population wanted) and the exodus added fire to a self-reinforcing cycle of urban problems (including race-related ones)which lasted at least through the 1980s. And arguably we could see movement out of at least some cities again.

I'm not especially pro-suburbia--I live in an exurban/almost rural location. But I think it's perfectly understandable why many people wouldn't live in a city given a choice which they increasing had post-WWII in the US.