"todd" wrote in message
. ..
Guess the military got some benefit; however, with out the interstate
system, where would we be today?

Did the US make a good infrastructure investment?

You tell me.

I can't tell you - it's a question of opinion. An improved railway
system
would have been a possible good alternative or addition.

Enough with the railway system talk. Railways make great sense in densely
populated areas. Eurpoe and Japan come to mind. If we had Europe's
population density, we'd have over a billion people in the US. Christ, if
we had Japan's density, we'd have over 3 billion people. When we reach a
billion people or so, I imagine an interstate rail system will make a lot
more sense. I live near Chicago, and the regional commuter railway system
is pretty good, as long as you're going to/from the city. The east and to
a lesser extent the west coast are good places to have passenger rail.
Other than that, there isn't much point right now to have it anywhere else
besides a few places.

Problem was that the railroads were privately owned. We weren't so keen on
capitalizing them, because the same sort of talk about corporate welfare and
being in the pocket of big corporations would have begun ad nauseam. They
were occupied trying to get the firemen off the diesels at the time.

Without eminent domain the highways would be impossible, much less railroad
rights of way. Though we can take for purposes of economic development now,
right? Then there's the demand to get them all off of street level anyway so
that motorists who can't wait or like to challenge trains won't get hurt.
Think of the liability insurance, the toxic spills, the horror....

I remember the Chicago, South Shore and South Bend as quite a ride. Still
there?