Global Warning/Climate Change

[Neto]

There was also no federal mandate outlawing the sale of new horse drawn carriages. The point is regarding federal interference in what should be a natural progression - IF the new idea is actually an attractive one. If you want to call it hand-wringing, fine by me. But Americans don't cotton to having things stuffed down their throats (so to speak). These past changes came about because they were attractive to the majority of the people.

[Ken]

There was also no federal mandate outlawing the sale of new horse drawn carriages. The point is regarding federal interference in what should be a natural progression - IF the new idea is actually an attractive one. If you want to call it hand-wringing, fine by me. But Americans don't cotton to having things stuffed down their throats (so to speak). These past changes came about because they were attractive to the majority of the people.

Actually that's not exactly true either. Sale of horse-drawn carriages were not banned. That is true. But once automobiles became a viable alternative many cities quickly imposed a variety of restrictions on the use of horses for sanitation and congestion reasons. In the 1890s and early 1900s horse manure was an enormous problem in American cities, piling up knee-deep in places and causing the spread of smell, filth, and disease (from flies). Cities quickly started regulating horses out of existence by doing things like banning stables in middle class and wealthy neighborhoods, restricting their use on certain roads, etc. By the 1920s it was virtually impossible to keep a horse drawn carriage in many cities because all the stables had been regulated out of existence and/or converted into car garages. You can't keep a horse in the city if there is no place to keep it.

Of course rural areas were different. But the country was rapidly urbanizing by the early 1900s.

https://99percentinvisible.org/article/ ... isis-1894/

[Neto]

There was also no federal mandate outlawing the sale of new horse drawn carriages. The point is regarding federal interference in what should be a natural progression - IF the new idea is actually an attractive one. If you want to call it hand-wringing, fine by me. But Americans don't cotton to having things stuffed down their throats (so to speak). These past changes came about because they were attractive to the majority of the people.

Actually that's not exactly true either. Sale of horse-drawn carriages were not banned. That is true. But once automobiles became a viable alternative many cities quickly imposed a variety of restrictions on the use of horses for sanitation and congestion reasons. In the 1890s and early 1900s horse manure was an enormous problem in American cities, piling up knee-deep in places and causing the spread of smell, filth, and disease (from flies). Cities quickly started regulating horses out of existence by doing things like banning stables in middle class and wealthy neighborhoods, restricting their use on certain roads, etc. By the 1920s it was virtually impossible to keep a horse drawn carriage in many cities because all the stables had been regulated out of existence and/or converted into car garages. You can't keep a horse in the city if there is no place to keep it.

Of course rural areas were different. But the country was rapidly urbanizing by the early 1900s.

https://99percentinvisible.org/article/ ... isis-1894/

I reckon you're right on this. Hadn't thought of that angle. Not a city person, so I shouldn't venture to say anything about what city life was, is, or should be like. I would say, however, that as I understand what you've written here, these were city government decisions, not federal, or even state (as in California now). There seems to be little or no consideration for the differences between city and rural life, the differences and special considerations you point out here.

[temporal1]

Neither of which were supported or subsidized by government.

i believe it all flourished because industry, enterprise, profits, and military defense, all these are substantiated/justified investments.

Without, it looks like the Congo, or remote Brazil.

The best infrastructure doesn’t just appear out of thin air because welfare recipients “want” it.

It’s not unlike stories of men who worked hard to build great family businesses, only to bequeath to incompetent heirs, for all to be quickly lost. Reinvestment and upkeep are mandatory. It can’t be all take.

It’s laughable to think gov can replace .. example, Henry Ford. They come from different motivations with altogether different rules.
Gov consistently inflates costs, lowers standards - with no fear of being put out of business.

I reckon you're right on this. Hadn't thought of that angle. Not a city person, so I shouldn't venture to say anything about what city life was, is, or should be like. I would say, however, that as I understand what you've written here, these were city government decisions, not federal, or even state (as in California now). There seems to be little or no consideration for the differences between city and rural life, the differences and special considerations you point out here.

Neto,
you’re overly humble on this.

[Ken]

There was also no federal mandate outlawing the sale of new horse drawn carriages. The point is regarding federal interference in what should be a natural progression - IF the new idea is actually an attractive one. If you want to call it hand-wringing, fine by me. But Americans don't cotton to having things stuffed down their throats (so to speak). These past changes came about because they were attractive to the majority of the people.

Actually that's not exactly true either. Sale of horse-drawn carriages were not banned. That is true. But once automobiles became a viable alternative many cities quickly imposed a variety of restrictions on the use of horses for sanitation and congestion reasons. In the 1890s and early 1900s horse manure was an enormous problem in American cities, piling up knee-deep in places and causing the spread of smell, filth, and disease (from flies). Cities quickly started regulating horses out of existence by doing things like banning stables in middle class and wealthy neighborhoods, restricting their use on certain roads, etc. By the 1920s it was virtually impossible to keep a horse drawn carriage in many cities because all the stables had been regulated out of existence and/or converted into car garages. You can't keep a horse in the city if there is no place to keep it.

Of course rural areas were different. But the country was rapidly urbanizing by the early 1900s.

https://99percentinvisible.org/article/ ... isis-1894/

I reckon you're right on this. Hadn't thought of that angle. Not a city person, so I shouldn't venture to say anything about what city life was, is, or should be like. I would say, however, that as I understand what you've written here, these were city government decisions, not federal, or even state (as in California now). There seems to be little or no consideration for the differences between city and rural life, the differences and special considerations you point out here.

My only point is that I think technological and societal changes that happened a century ago were not that different from today.

Both then as now we have change spurred by a combination of technological advances, private sector development, and subsidies and various forms of encouragement from the government. You can't really disentangle private and public sector. When society moves in a new direction it is a combination of both. Whether we are talking about the development of the railroads or telegraph in the 19th century. The car and airplane and electricity in the 20th century. Or clean renewable energy and electric powered vehicles in the 21st century.

I suppose there were people who griped about change back then. But their complaints and whining are mostly lost to time. And maybe it just feels like we are a more a whiny culture than we used to be. I really don't know.

[Szdfan]

Of course the US Interstate System was built and funded by the federal government with the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, fundamentally changing how Americans traveled and making car travel much more desirable over other forms of transportation.

[Robert]

Of course they were.

Once automobiles became common the United States went on an absolutely MASSIVE highway building binge, first with all the US highways criss-crossing the country and later the interstate highways.

Automobiles started in the early 1900's and highways came in in 1950's. That is half a century afterwards. Many state and local municipalities created roads, but they would not if there was not a strong need generated by private industry of the automobile.

Roads often have to be governmental since they take existing lands through emanate domain. Private companies have no such tool.

Private industry will be our way through the pollution and other issues created by industry and technology. Government is only good at demanding, not thinking.

Without public roads and public airports you don't have much in the way of car or air travel.

There are plenty of private toll roads in the US. They function just fine. If we did not have taxes and public roads, private roads would develop more. This way only those using them pay for them, instead of everyone having to pay no matter if they use them or not.

Public is not the ONLY way, nor the best way. Private research can help us through the changing climate.

[Ken]

Of course they were.

Once automobiles became common the United States went on an absolutely MASSIVE highway building binge, first with all the US highways criss-crossing the country and later the interstate highways.

Automobiles started in the early 1900's and highways came in in 1950's. That is half a century afterwards. Many state and local municipalities created roads, but they would not if there was not a strong need generated by private industry of the automobile.

Roads often have to be governmental since they take existing lands through emanate domain. Private companies have no such tool.

Private industry will be our way through the pollution and other issues created by industry and technology. Government is only good at demanding, not thinking.

Without public roads and public airports you don't have much in the way of car or air travel.

There are plenty of private toll roads in the US. They function just fine. If we did not have taxes and public roads, private roads would develop more. This way only those using them pay for them, instead of everyone having to pay no matter if they use them or not.

Public is not the ONLY way, nor the best way. Private research can help us through the changing climate.

The first national (or federal) highway system was constructed in the 1910s and 1920s. Those are all the iconic old US highways like Route 66 and US 101 along the Pacific Coast. The Golden Gate Bridge is part of US 101 and was built in the early 1930s. You are thinking of the interstate highways that replaced them and that were started in the 1950s during the Eisenhower Administration. This is a 1926 map of the US Highway System. All that red was built in the 1910s and 1920s using federal tax dollars. Highway building was the single biggest federal budget item for all of the 1920s. Bigger than national defense or any other program and this was the result. Here is a full size view: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... icials.jpg

[nett]

There was also no federal mandate outlawing the sale of new horse drawn carriages. The point is regarding federal interference in what should be a natural progression - IF the new idea is actually an attractive one. If you want to call it hand-wringing, fine by me. But Americans don't cotton to having things stuffed down their throats (so to speak). These past changes came about because they were attractive to the majority of the people.

Actually that's not exactly true either. Sale of horse-drawn carriages were not banned. That is true. But once automobiles became a viable alternative many cities quickly imposed a variety of restrictions on the use of horses for sanitation and congestion reasons. In the 1890s and early 1900s horse manure was an enormous problem in American cities, piling up knee-deep in places and causing the spread of smell, filth, and disease (from flies). Cities quickly started regulating horses out of existence by doing things like banning stables in middle class and wealthy neighborhoods, restricting their use on certain roads, etc. By the 1920s it was virtually impossible to keep a horse drawn carriage in many cities because all the stables had been regulated out of existence and/or converted into car garages. You can't keep a horse in the city if there is no place to keep it.

Of course rural areas were different. But the country was rapidly urbanizing by the early 1900s.

https://99percentinvisible.org/article/ ... isis-1894/

This was not necessary either. How to design cities to prevent these issues has been understood since the medieval time. As usual, American cities, towns and villages were poorly planned, with almost the entire emphasis being on speed of construction and efficiency in terms of dollars, rather than long term viability, ecology, sanitation etc.

[Ken]

There was also no federal mandate outlawing the sale of new horse drawn carriages. The point is regarding federal interference in what should be a natural progression - IF the new idea is actually an attractive one. If you want to call it hand-wringing, fine by me. But Americans don't cotton to having things stuffed down their throats (so to speak). These past changes came about because they were attractive to the majority of the people.

Actually that's not exactly true either. Sale of horse-drawn carriages were not banned. That is true. But once automobiles became a viable alternative many cities quickly imposed a variety of restrictions on the use of horses for sanitation and congestion reasons. In the 1890s and early 1900s horse manure was an enormous problem in American cities, piling up knee-deep in places and causing the spread of smell, filth, and disease (from flies). Cities quickly started regulating horses out of existence by doing things like banning stables in middle class and wealthy neighborhoods, restricting their use on certain roads, etc. By the 1920s it was virtually impossible to keep a horse drawn carriage in many cities because all the stables had been regulated out of existence and/or converted into car garages. You can't keep a horse in the city if there is no place to keep it.

Of course rural areas were different. But the country was rapidly urbanizing by the early 1900s.

https://99percentinvisible.org/article/ ... isis-1894/

This was not necessary either. How to design cities to prevent these issues has been understood since the medieval time. As usual, American cities, towns and villages were poorly planned, with almost the entire emphasis being on speed of construction and efficiency in terms of dollars, rather than long term viability, ecology, sanitation etc.

That may be so. But the fact is that the horse was essentially regulated out of existence in most cities by the 1920s through land use regulations and other indirect prohibitions. If there are no longer any stables within 10 miles of your home you effectively can't own a horse for transportation because where are you going to put it at night? Obviously rural areas and farms are different as the Amish still use horses. But they don't live in NYC. Or if they do they don't keep horses in Manhattan.

More or less the same as how gasoline cars will eventually be mostly regulated out of existence. If not directly then through things like the lack of available gas stations in many areas. Already gas stations are closing in many large cities like NYC because they are a low margin business with high costs and property owners can make so much more money developing the land for other uses. If you have to drive half an hour out of your way to get gas that gasoline powered car suddenly looks less appealing than an electric car you can charge in your driveway or parking space.