Ohio Erie Canal |
Similarly, the leftovers of the rail systems in our area are scattered all over the region. Most notably, bridges and bridge abutments from the interurban railways from the early 20th century are visible from the roadside, or from trails around the area and the former railbeds are bike paths.
In Ohio, it wasn't possible to maintain multiple transportation networks. The canal system is particularly interesting. In its heyday, the canals were operated by the State. In its decline it was maintained by private companies. It limped along for three decades or so until a flood finally destroyed much of the infrastructure of the canal system. None of the operators were able to repair it, so it finally officially "closed".
It's interesting that these different modes of transportation couldn't really coexist in any significant way, especially as passenger systems. I have no idea if it's an issue of "cost" per passenger/mile. The road system today, and the person per car commuting that we all do all the time today is hella expensive. It might be many more times the expense per mile compared to the Interurbans, which covered the same geographical area that people commute through today.
The dominance of any one system might arise from human behavior patterns rather than economic explanations about resources or money. That is, there's only one dominant way of life possible within a given region at a time. People only have so much time in a day to think about how to get from point A to point B. If there's a solution that works they'll use it.
No comments:
Post a Comment