Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
Early industrialization in Britain, France, and the US was built around and shaped by the modes of transport that were available at that time. They didn't decide to eschew motors and roads because of the potential consequences; they used what they have. That mode is not likely to be repeated in places that have the road-and-motor option, unless geography supports it strongly, as in Singapore and Brunei, which also have most excellent roads and plenty of motors. Once upon a time industry developed along fall lines where shops could be powered by water wheels; this pattern is also not likely to evolve again!

Seems to me that the concrete road phenomenon was driven by the reduction of the internal combustion engine to a size that made small, independently mobile vehicles feasible. People use what's available to them, and convenience generally outweighs conscious policy.

Somewhere poor Colin is rolling his eyes and wondering where we took his thread!
Eh? I've seen worse threaddrift.

There is a reason they might. Both rail and canal transport are expensive to build, in terms of man hours mostly, but cheap to operate. Roads are also expensive to build, and not cheap to operate. If you're in a place where man hours are cheap...well...what's the downside? (There are a couple, of course. Rail requires a high degree of managerial expertise, discipline, and of societal stability. Hmmm...quick check....hmmm...Zimbabwe: 3 crashes and 105 fatalities in the last seven years. Electrically powered sections turned off in 2008.)