>>1692880> it's trueAnd what do you think you've been doing "'muh data' is irrelevant, I have personal experience"-kun?
>That's not what the Eisenhower Interstate System was conceived and built forBecause the Interstate System (and decades of proposals before it) weren't stupid.
>It absolutely doesSource?
>including growth when interstates were builtI-20 and I-59 were both connected to it in the 1960s. The interstates did not spring into completeness in 1956; they took decades.
>shrank once outsourcing to other countries came en vogueNext to nothing was being outsourced in the 1960s, when it began shrinking.
>Questionable utility, extremely high potential for corruptionHe says, while shilling for politically-driven construction projects, in the hopes that truck stops and gas stations will radically boost the economy.
>It's still served by railroads and even has daily Amtrak service~9000 boardings a year. Truly a vital hub of passenger rail.
>that makes it more viable than comparable cities without interstate connections.It's on the route from Jackson to Birmingham/Atlanta; it's geographically favoured even before interstates are built. I-14 offers no similar natural route. Majority of traffic (see
>>1691996) is short distance; most of the route is a wasteland of population, economy, or demand.
>You cannot stay on topicI was establishing that I'm not intrinsically against highways, i.e. not a shill. And whether congestion is EW or NS is highly relevant, if congestion is an argument for this. Notably, YIC, politicians, and PR pieces don't make congestion arguments.
