For some time context, the first New York to San Francisco telephone call was in 1915:
“Six months later, amidst the celebrations surrounding the Panama–Pacific International Exposition, on January 25, 1915, Alexander Graham Bell, in New York City, repeated his famous statement "Mr. Watson, come here. I want you," into the telephone, which was heard by his assistant Dr. Watson in San Francisco, for a long distance call of 3,400 miles (5,500 km).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_transcontinental_telepho...
And for some more context, Henry George remarked in Progress and Poverty (1879) that a banker in London could submit a trade order in London and have it executed (I assume by telegraph relays) in San Francisco that same morning (SF time).
"could he have realized the enormous saving of labor resulting from ... the order given by the London banker in the afternoon executed in San Francisco in the morning of the same day;"
I wonder if that was really the first call across that line, or just the 'official first.' I know if I was one of those technicians trying to make sure everything was ready to be demoed by the biggest celebrity in American telephony, I'd probably test it myself first to make sure I wasn't wasting Bell's time working the kinks out of the system.
I also assume that as you're unspooling the line across the entire United States, you are also stopping every few miles and calling back to make sure the line is working.
> A telephone call, which for marketing purposes is claimed to be the first transcontinental telephone call, occurred on January 25, 1915, a day timed to coincide with the Panama–Pacific International Exposition celebrations. However, the transcontinental telephone line was first completed on June 17, 1914, and successfully first voice tested in July 1914. A 1998 U.S. postage stamp commemorates the completion of the line in 1914.
> On May 14, 2nd Lt. George S. Patton raided the San Miguelito Ranch, near Rubio, Chihuahua. Patton, a Pershing aide and a future World War II general, was out looking to buy some corn from the Mexicans when he came across the ranch of Julio Cárdenas, an important leader in the Villista military organization. With fifteen men and three Dodge touring cars, Patton led America's first motorised military action, in which Cárdenas and two other men were shot dead. The young lieutenant then had the three Mexicans strapped to the hood of the cars and driven back to General Pershing's headquarters.
The most remarkable part of that is that they were willing to risk breaking bridges then broke them then fixed them on their own without being sued into doing so by the municipalities that owned the bridges. It truly was a different time.
Not sure why you're so shocked. This was standard practice back in the day for measuring & testing bridge capacity; you'd build the bridge then drive a bunch of heavy trucks over it until it breaks, then rebuild the bridge. That's just how things were done.
I said it was remarkable though upon reflection I guess that was mostly sarcasm. I guess I mostly wanted to call attention to the fact that that's how things were done back then and that things <gasp> actually got done.
It was a propaganda effort to get funding for road building. (That's what it means when they say the idea was “to develop a through route from coast to coast for motor transport”.)
Breaking bridges helped demonstrate the need.
Fixing bridges avoided lasting negative feelings towards the demonstration that could backfire politically.
> The auto lobby hoped a transcontinental convoy would grease the wheels for increases in highway appropriations and drive profits for the sign-making industry.
Neat, just like how gov projects still get done today.
To me one of the most sobering experience of my life was visiting Hoover Dam.
Yes, they needed a consortium of companies because no one company was big enough, they built a railroad, a town, the concrete is still curing, yadda yadda yadda.
But for me the biggest moment was at the end of the filmstrip, they said "the government contract was delivered early and under budget." I nearly fell out of my seat.
No way that ever happens today. Not only the Accentures, GD, Northrup Grummans of the world, but even the little guys like the ones I used to work for all use up every dollar available on the contract. If the contract is worth $291 million, then dammit you bill the government $291 million and not a dollar less! If anything you're figuring out how to do a contract mod to squeeze them for more money.
It's amazing that, together, multiple of the largest construction companies in the United States, not only got the job done in record time, but left money on the table. I'd like to think it might happen again because that's the type of thing that makes me proud to be an American.
What does the government completing projects under budget in 1919 vs today have to do with capitalism?
Capitalism is still capitalism, really the only thing that changed between 1919 and today is the size and scale of administrative state (and subsequently far more lobbying groups to exploit it). The entire economy is way less capitalist than back in 1919.
Unless that’s what you mean by “late state capitalism”?
"Some of the chaos was deliberately engineered mischief. One evening in Wyoming, Eisenhower convinced the soldiers that their camp was vulnerable to attack by Native American warriors."
Possibly the ultimate "Oh man this guy..." moment for the soldiers ;)
The guy who discharged his weapon later maybe thought "Ok fine let's play along and put an end to this..."
Eisenhower had been at West Point a few years before, in 1912 when the Carlisle Indians football team, many of whom considered the game a rematch of the real Indian wars, beat the cadets to a pulp.
Sounds like a fun trip. I only knew what you were talking about because I've been from Tooele to Dugway in Utah. Based on what I can recall, it seems likely that the route through there didn't really change, it was just finished and paved.
If you've watched Ken Burns documentary series* (it's on netflix) about The West, the comical anecdote about a faked attack by the clearly irrelevant natives isn't so funny any more.
*I had to give up after a few episodes, it was too depressing.
Or any bullet train for that matter... The French and Japanese have had a friendly rivalry for decades. But both like the Chinese are willing to dedicate right of way for high speed trains. The American system's shared lines for passenger and freight traffic creates limitations the other systems do not share.
Switzerland has shared lines, but the freight traffic is required to be able to go at the same speed as the passenger trains. They have shorter trains with more engines than you'd see in the US as a result.
I don't know if it's just where I happen to see them (near inhabited areas), but US freight trains seem to literally move at walking pace. Ringing the bell the entire time while they do it.
They can get up to 50-60mph but only outside of built up areas with long straight track (e.g. in the Great Planes). They mostly go slow for fuel efficiency (it takes a lot of power and distance to build up speed).
Right, that's the point - a dual system can be made entirely workable. You just can't let the freight railroads set the rules like they have here in the US.
No way not going to happen. The only way this will happen is if 1) they find a way to make high speed work on the NA railway gauges and 2) you convince the cargo companies to make passenger a priority.
1) seems like an engineering problem and 2) seems like a pipe dream.
Option 3) would be build dedicated high speed lines. Unless you’re a developing nation it sounds way too expensive. Especially a rail system as big as NA (US, Canada and Mexico are connected, maybe others in Central America).
Whilst I understand where you are coming from, the statement "Unless you’re a developing nation it sounds way too expensive" is a bit crazy.
Yes many countries without a legacy rail system are getting to hop straight to high speed. But that doesn't mean its not worth investing in for countries that already have a system. Doesn't mean it always is either of course.
0) Getting the right-of-way to straighten our existing rail lines anywhere useful is politically and financially impossible.
Also, too, not stopping at every podunk town and city. I take a train ~80 miles in New York each day, and the difference between the 90 minute train ride and the 135 minute train ride is how many stops they make along the way. Getting the political will to make a train go from Boston to DC and not stop at most of the cities in between -- especially after you seize a lot of very expensive land in those cities to build your nice, straight tracks -- is a tall order.
Isn't it possible to build some sidings for these smaller stops and have different lines (express/local) running along the same set of long rails, provided they join into the main line at the proper speed?
For 1), isn't most high speed rail in the world standard gauge (1.435 meter width)? That's also what most of North America uses, though existing tracks are probably not up to spec for high speed in other regards, such as 'smoothness', or turn radius and banking.
Never underestimate the ability of some President to waste tens of millions of dollars reaching the same conclusion after doing exactly what OP suggested.
The California High Speed Rail project failed miserably, and cost the taxpayers $12.4 billion[1] to go from Bakersfield to Merced or about 160 miles (two cities nobody commutes from...but I digress).
At it's cancellation point, it was estimated to cost over $98.1 billion for a Los Angeles to San Francisco route - but we should note the cost estimates were going up $10+ billion every year they were re-estimated. The entire thing was supposed to "only" cost around $30 billion when introduced.
To make a High Speed Rail line that covers the entire United States... you're looking at hundreds of billions, up into the trillions of dollars... if not more.
At these cost rates, it's well over $200 billion for a straight line between San Francisco and New York City... but of course it won't be a straight line and it'll need to go to more places than those two cities in order to attract any sort of reasonable ridershare.
One way to interpret these facts is at face value - that 98 billion was how much the route would actually cost.
I argue otherwise - cronyism and a whole lot of contractor bullshit continually inflated the cost as everyone tried to stick their hand into the infinite jam jar of taxpayer's money, until suddenly the whole thing broke apart and now nobody's getting paid.
One day I'll sit down and actually research this theory of mine - right now I'm only working off my experience with contractors in large construction projects (oil and gas) in the past. Their mentality - if it's tax funded, the amount of money you can get from it is limited only by your ability to bullshit.
I think this has a large part to do with it too - however, that won't be any different with a national rail line... in fact, I'd wager it would be much, much worse.
The US is too big to make crossing it by train (even high speed) plausible when airplanes are a thing. High speed trains proved successful in medium distances. It sounds reasonable for California (LA-SF) and for east coast cities (New York-Washington), but covering the entire US is really not very useful.
However, I'm pretty sure that a large part of the costs of the California rail are related to private land, which probably isn't an issue through the majority of the route.
It took me a while to realize it, but one thing I like about Europe is that the financial centers and economically relevant places are centrally located
Compared to US where you have commute across the entire continent to leverage the largest pools and networks
This would be similar to commuting from Portugal to Estonia and thats not a thing.
And China is even bigger, yet they never tried any sort of excuses.
When you factor in check in, security, getting to and from the airport which often isn’t near the city, etc, high speed rail is way better. Drop in 10 minutes before you need to leave and the stations are right in the middle of town. For distances under a thousand miles, rail can easily be faster.
Is there a great unmet need to travel across the US on a 15+ hour train? We have airplanes and most people that need to travel across the country can afford a Southwest Airlines ticket to do so. The US also has 700 million people fewer than China, so there is less need for a China-style train system since air capacity handles the current needs just fine. Also, it’s highly doubtful than a long range train ticket would ever be cost effective. If people really want to cross the country on the cheap, buses exist. Trains also have the disadvantage of being inflexible. As populations shift, it’s much easier adjust air capacity to fit demand. While trains can only go where there are tracks. Airplanes are also safer than trains.
counter-intuitively, bullet trains offer a great alternative that airlines cannot: travelling from SF to NY in about 10-12 hours. 8 hours to sleep on a flat bed, and an hour or two for dinner and breakfast on either end.
This would be far superior to the 5-hour red eye flights.
fair point - not sure why you are being downvoted.
Lets say SF to Chicago, then? Its about 2000 miles.
I was trying to illustrate a more general point that speed isn't necessarily the best or most optimal criteria even for long distances. My choice of example could have been better.
That article was good. Good length, informative, interesting. Most articles these days try to be excessively wordy and long - and end up with too much filler.
Also, good color on how someone's early experiences help shape their future. In this case Eisenhower got his highway system 37 years later with the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. Basically it took another World War to get this going: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
You don’t like 3 self indulgent paragraphs of what the author was thinking and doing before the actual story starts and before every new heading? Hey me neither
Journalists trying to be writers where they insert themselves into the story and who can actually pull it off are rare. And some have pulled it off successfully (which is why these people keep trying it). But so many journalists/bloggers are convinced they fit this category because they went to school for English literature, despite having little of their own literary success or a unique personality worthy of a story itself, and think they should do it for some random big story on a C list news platform. /rant
Interesting rant. I suppose that's one of the many reasons I dislike modern journalism (this New Journalism subjective style of writing ) and I appreciate you putting it into perspective.
“Six months later, amidst the celebrations surrounding the Panama–Pacific International Exposition, on January 25, 1915, Alexander Graham Bell, in New York City, repeated his famous statement "Mr. Watson, come here. I want you," into the telephone, which was heard by his assistant Dr. Watson in San Francisco, for a long distance call of 3,400 miles (5,500 km).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_transcontinental_telepho...