Driving home yesterday, I was remembering back growing up in a small town in Florida what business was like on U.S. Highway 90 for my father's general store. This was before Interstate 10 was opened. I remember vividly that business was booming and it would take several minutes to be able to get an opening in traffic before I could cross 2-lane U.S. 90...
When the interstate opened, the great majority of the traffic was moved off of U.S. 90 and went to Interstate 10. Business declined, life got slower and it was easier to cross the road. As much as I like the interstate system in this country, I think that small towns drying up was possibly an unintended consequence of the opening of the interstate system.
It would seem that improved and restored rail service could possibly help restore some of the economies lost from these small towns after the interstate opened. I understand it wouldn't put as much traffic back through small towns as was lost to the interstate system, but it sure seems like it could and would help tourism and general economic development in many of these "off the beaten path" areas. Is my thinking flawed here?
When the interstate opened, the great majority of the traffic was moved off of U.S. 90 and went to Interstate 10. Business declined, life got slower and it was easier to cross the road. As much as I like the interstate system in this country, I think that small towns drying up was possibly an unintended consequence of the opening of the interstate system.
It would seem that improved and restored rail service could possibly help restore some of the economies lost from these small towns after the interstate opened. I understand it wouldn't put as much traffic back through small towns as was lost to the interstate system, but it sure seems like it could and would help tourism and general economic development in many of these "off the beaten path" areas. Is my thinking flawed here?