With a post-1900 P.O.D. it seems to me that the rise of the automobile and the construction of the Interstate Highway System are both inevitable and (to an extent) practical with the way that the U.S. have developed. That said, was near-total dependence on the automobile an inevitable outcome?
- The interstates were originally intended to connect cities, not bisect them. Is it possible to keep them out?
- Can more Americans be convinced that commuter rail should be municipally operated/subsidized prior to the 1970s? Some cities had started as early as the 1950s.
- Many major streetcar networks were converted to bus operation under municipal ownership, independently of the alleged GM scandal. Can cities be convinced to spend money moving the tracks out of the streets rather than ripping them up?
- When did cycling become considered a "serious" form of transportation as opposed to leisure or sport?
Somehow lessening the political influence of the automobile & petroleum lobbies as well as public distrust of the interurban & street railway industry (the "traction trusts") would also be necessary.
Ah, we discussed something like this over on the 2Georges thread in ASB fairly recently. Let me see if I can find some of my links.
Here we go:
http://transportationfortomorrow.co...ical_documents/content9bda.htm?name=05_report
I'd cite this study here to discuss the information that prompted the discussion of the Interstate Highway System: it is extremely comprehensive. I'm going to cite these figures in particular: (14 & 26).
Which goes to point out just how much car ownership had risen by 1943. We're looking at roughly one car owned per ever four people in the entire United States, with the interstate system serving 2/3 of all registered. However, I'd draw attention to the registration numbers even more. In other regions not serviced by the proposed system (cities smaller than 10k), the amount of vehicles registered outnumbered those that would be serviced by the proposed system. And, of course, this is before the growth of suburbia and the gradual deurbanization of the US in the following half-century.
We can see that the state highway systems have already begun a degree of urban sprawl, provided by the state highways and smaller roads that existed. This phenomena would not be avoided otherwise.
This goes back to point out that automobiles have any rail system beat in the "last mile" of any transport option. With the automobile, cities and towns now have the ability to build off of the railroad tracks and, more importantly, ship their goods and services to the railyard (or directly to the destination). It's a matter of availability when compared to a better option. In those last 100-150 miles of any shpiment, it is far more likely that a truck can make the rest of the shipment far more efficiently than a train or any fixed service can. There's no way to really eliminate that issue unless trains are built literally everywhere, which is a complete impracticality. The trains are going to give way in that regard.
For trains, it's opportunity cost. the more efficient shipping is counteracted by the greater amount of time wasted, as the max speed limit of rail is roughly 10 mph higher than that of automobiles (not that trains can operate at that max speed constantly). And, as a hub and spoke system, they compete directly with air travel.
We can also look at rider loss, which was already beginning to be felt by the 1920s.
Here we can see that rail traffic was already starting to level out by the mid 1910s; WW1 changed that by quite a bit, of course, but after that and its aftereffects ended we can already see the drop beginning afterwards. Only the Depression saved the rail for any length of time (as automobiles became more expensive to operate). We can see the uptick from WW2 and, I believe, Korea as well. Note that, after the initial dropoff at the start of the depression, the rail traffic only grew to 1900 levels, per capita, through WW2 and the end of Korea, and hasn't gotten near that since.
Trolleys and rail do tend to be more prestige products than anything. if there is an intercity transit option that needs selected, it would be more expensive to continue to maintain two separate systems which have a limited scope rather than disassembling the old one and switching to the new one. That, and as cities grow and spread out, it becomes more difficult to connect all the important parts of the cities.
For most, it's simply easier to use the existing infrastructure and switch to bus lines. Less maintenance (as the road maintenance costs are barely going to be affected). Relocating the rails somewhere else won't work until you have a large population that you know will service the transit methods.
As for bicycles being a serious form of transportation, they were until the automobile came along. And, in the end, bicycles can't replace automobiles in most respects because they require a resource that automobiles don't: human exertion. This is a source which can be a luxury: those disabled can have a harder/more difficult time. Those who are weaker in general cannot operate as efficiently, nor can the elderly. I'm speaking generally here, as there are exceptions. Not only that, it is physically draining and it has very low carrying capacity. I'm not sure of the statistics on that, but bicycle usage is probably relatively similar to long walking distances and short drives in the US. It only really works in major urban environments, not in locations which are spread out.
So, to make it work, I'd wager you need a few things:
Trains: Remove the 79 mph limit that emerged in the 30s (the accidents weren't actually caused by the trains violating that limit, anyway). Let a higher speed option develop naturally to combat the airlines on short and medium turn routes. They have to make money on more routes than they currently do (as it is today, only 4 of Amtrak's routes turn a profit, though I believe 8 or so are barely missing a profit. Get those 8 into profitability through any method, and you might have something).
Trolleys: I'm not too sure on how light rail itself could succeed, but It would likely require city planning from the start, and have trolleys operate in an area that is not affected by traffic and doesn't interfere with it. This really requires a metropolitan that is both large enough to support it while also being well-off enough, or have enough patrons, to support the construction.
Bicycles: This is either a necessary method of transit for those who can't afford automobiles or a luxury method of transport for those who can expend the effort needed to use them (especially over long distances or rough/hilly terrain). As such, it's probably helped by the recent growth of service industries and other types of work where manual labor is not such a key component, and where physical fitness has become a principal of current lifestyle.
In all cases, increased urbanization helps them, and while this would be helped by the reduced growth of suburbia, I don't think this can be eliminated entirely.
Oh! missed your first point. Let me address it. This was also addressed in that article I linked back at the top (See Penetration of Cities and Principles of Route Selection in Cities). Relevant figures (28 & 29):
Basically, the larger a city is, the more traffic that is destined for the city. Only for the smallest of towns is the percentage less than half. For anything larger than 10,000, the percentage is 78% or higher. In the first figure, we see the majority of the traffic is transient (entering and leaving same day) while a smaller but significant portion is overnighting in Baltimore. Only a small minority is bypassing.
It would be fruitless to build interstates that do not enter cities themselves, as that is the actual destination of the traffic. Else, they would never have built them in the first place. The better option might be for beltlines/beltways to be part of the original construction, as their value was recognized as an important release valve on traffic snarls within a city. However, the ability to enter a city without having to enter surface level streets and deal with constant starting and stopping is the largest point of linking the various cities together.
So, to connect the cities, the interstates must enter them, otherwise their advantages over the existing state highway network are drastically reduced. The bypass is important, but auxiliary to the intended purpose.