What would happen if major freeways had to be built TODAY?

[Zeffy]

So, here was something that just popped in my mind. What would it be like if the major freeways in the United States had to be built today? 50 years ago, there wasn't as much sprawl as there is now, so it was a bit easier. Nowadays, it's incredibly hard to imagine getting a new freeway built in some of the densely populated areas.

Which freeways do you think would be incredibly hard to build - or which ones do you think would have to suffer a major change in their alignments to get built?

[JakeFromNewEngland]

I think Interstate 95 in general would be a big example for a freeway that wouldn't be built today, especially through Connecticut. The route cuts across many wetlands and other environmental concerns that today's freeways usually avoid. Also, it literally ripped some cities along it's route in half. Some examples could be Stamford, Bridgeport, and New Haven. I-95 cuts right through the downtown areas of Stamford and Bridgeport. In New Haven, it practically cuts off the rest of the city from the waterfront. I think if I-95 was built today through these cities, it would either be tunneled through them or the route would probably go inland a few miles. Another major issue is that most of the road was built for 1960s-70s traffic patterns. In some places it's very narrow and the widest it ever really gets is 8 lanes through Bridgeport and in the future New Haven. If it was built according to patterns for 2014 and so on, it would definitely be much wider at 8-10 lanes. ConnDOT has proposed widening I-95 to 8 lanes through southern Fairfield County, but I'm sure it won't happen. At least they're widening it through the major cities it passes through.

[NE2]

They wouldn't have to be built. Freeways were built back in the day because enough people, including those in their path, either bought into the idea of freeways or were marginalized to the point of being unpersons.

[CtrlAltDel]

A lot of the sprawl happened precisely because the freeways were built. So, if they hadn't been built, there would likely be less sprawl to ram them through. Building rural freeways in rural areas would then probably be fairly easy. Also, without the sprawl, it is likely that the cities would be denser than they currently are. Which means that building freeways in them would be pretty much impossible due to the sheer number of people who would be opposed to them. As a result, I think pretty much every major city would be bypassed by the freeways, making them an almost exclusively rural phenomenon, with parkways and other arterial roads making up the backbone of urban roads. Possibly, too, there would be widespread public transportation use within the cities.

For an actual example, there is simply no way you'd get the 101 to run right through downtown Santa Barbara if the road were built today. The Santa Barbarians would throw a fit if it were even suggested, which it likely wouldn't be, because the land aquisition costs would be astronomical.

[jakeroot]

I have to agree with above (CtrlAltDel). Much of the sprawl we see today is the result of freeways. I assume without freeways, our cities would be scattered with long, two-lane roads connecting them. Most people probably wouldn't leave their city except for vacations. Most cities would have thriving downtown areas, since shopping malls never became necessary.

So, if this alternate universe decided to construct freeways, they would only be built as bypass roads. Larger cities would get full ring roads.

In other words, we would look a lot like Europe.

[TheStranger]

I assume without freeways, our cities would be scattered with long, two-lane roads connecting them. Most people probably wouldn't leave their city except for vacations. Most cities would have thriving downtown areas, since shopping malls never became necessary.

A couple of thoughts:

1. Wouldn't we have had at least four-lane conventional roads between major cities, as was the case in the later 1940s?  Dual carriageway/widening projects were happening even in the middle period of the US route system

2. With the advent of streetcar suburbs in the early half of the 1920s, at least some shopping would have occurred there rather than entirely in big-city downtowns, though the balance would have not shifted entirely towards non-downtown retail.

[The Nature Boy]

The first strip mall was built in Kansas City in the 1920s, people were already looking to escape downtown for shopping. The interstate just made this a lot easier.

Honestly, with no interstate system, we would've likely still seen sprawl. The Pennsylvania Turnpike and New York Thruway both predate the interstate system so it's not like the idea wasn't already there. As New Jersey illustrates, the existence of a toll road is not a barrier to sprawl. With no interstates, we likely just get long toll roads that connect cities.

The invention and wide availability of automobiles, combined with post-World War II veterans benefits and easy availability of FHA backed loans in the 50s drove sprawl more than the interstate system ever really could.

[Henry]

I have to agree with above (CtrlAltDel). Much of the sprawl we see today is the result of freeways. I assume without freeways, our cities would be scattered with long, two-lane roads connecting them. Most people probably wouldn't leave their city except for vacations. Most cities would have thriving downtown areas, since shopping malls never became necessary.

So, if this alternate universe decided to construct freeways, they would only be built as bypass roads. Larger cities would get full ring roads.

In other words, we would look a lot like Europe.

I think Canada is a better comparison. That country gets by fine without freeways everywhere, because its Trans-Canada network for the most part has four lanes and is built mostly as a series of at-grade expressways. The 400-series highways in ON and the Autoroutes in QC serve their own purpose well, but again, the Canadians have proved that a properly-built road can handle traffic just as good as the freeways we have in the States.

[adventurernumber1]

I think pretty much every freeway in NYC would probably be pretty dawgawn hard to build today.

[Laura]

The invention and wide availability of automobiles, combined with post-World War II veterans benefits and easy availability of FHA backed loans in the 50s drove sprawl more than the interstate system ever really could.

This, combined with 90% federal funding from the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, is what exponentially created sprawl as we know it today.

I spent a fair amount of time studying "the highway city" from an urban planning perspective this past semester, and there was really only a short window where all of the downtown urban highways got built (late 50s-early 60s). Basically, if a city had all of its plans together from the moment the funding became available in 1956, they got built. If they got delayed for whatever reason and got pushed into the 60s, they bypassed downtown, had a spur (or spurs) instead, or got cancelled.

Contrary to how we think of highways today, leaders in the mid 1950s saw highways as a way to bring life back into downtown and genuinely feared that if they didn't build them, people would move to the suburbs and never return to the city. If the city provided a high speed road, then the suburbanites would return downtown to work and shop. This is why they pushed for highways to be considered not only as defense but for urban renewal and changed the system to include mileage for downtown routes. There was the obvious problem of using them for slum clearance, but other routings that would never get passed today are the ones that go through industrial and waterfront areas as well as parks and riverfronts.

Ultimately, without all of the funding, pretty much all of the highways in populated areas would have been toll roads and all of the rural highways would have been two or four lane and would not be limited access.

To answer the original question, I think sprawl would have happened, but not to the extent that it is seen today. There still would be enough lane available to build highways, particularly in rural areas. It's actually quite likely that if a city or region still owned land from the 1950s that it could use that land to build a road today. This is how the ICC in Maryland was able to be built over 50 years after the original proposal - the land had been saved from the 1950s. The initial reason that the project was put on hold in the 50s was that it did not qualify for any federal funding. You would see a lot more examples like this (and, to go with it, all of the protests and the like, with the road eventually being built).

[jakeroot]

To explain my "European" comparison, I've excerpted a piece from Wikipedia on Ireland's road system, but changed key items (and added some other items) to match America (though it is very fictionalized). Basically, I'm imagining fictionalized freeway-less America as something similar to real-life Ireland (circa early 90s). I'm not good at numbering schemes so try not to focus too much on that:

Primary Highways form the main cross country roads in the United States. This category of road is numbered from 1—99 with the prefix "PH". The routes numbered PH-1 through PH-99 radiate anti-clockwise from Kansas City. Ring Roads have "-0" at the end of the Primary Highway number that serves the city in question. PH-250 is the Los Angeles Ring Road, PH-600 is the New York City Ring Road and PH-950 is the Chicago Ring Road. Secondary Highways (see next section) are numbered under the same scheme with higher numbers. On road signage, destinations served but not on the route in question are listed in brackets, with the connecting route also listed.

Secondary Highways fill in the rest of the main cross country routes in the United States. They connect large towns (such as Spokane) which are not served by Primary Highways. They are indicated with a "SH" prefix followed by a number from 100-999. They are numbered under the same scheme as Primary Highways, with numbers radiating anti-clockwise from Kansas City.

Secondary Highways are generally more poorly maintained than Primary Highways (although their quality can vary widely), but often carry more traffic than State Roads. Almost the entire network of Secondary Highways is single carriageway, although there are some short sections of dual carriageway on the Denver bypass section of the SH-140, on SH-168 near Portland (Oregon), on the SH-460 near Baton Rouge and on the SH-520 outside Charlotte. Typically, Secondary Highways are of a similar standard or higher than State Roads although some are of lower quality than the better sections of State Roads. Many of them have been resurfaced with higher quality pavements in recent years with relatively smooth surfaces and good road markings and signposting. However, road widths and alignments are often inadequate, with many narrow and winding sections.

Secondary Highways generally do not bypass towns on their routes although there are a number of exceptions.

[The Nature Boy]

Without interstates, we might see more suburban development. The push away from downtown was underway before a mile of interstate highway was laid. You might see more people commuting from suburb to suburb.

Immediately after WWII, we began seeing "Levittowns" and other cookie cutter suburbs pushed as the ideal. The idea of a house on a plot of land with a white picket fence seemed awfully enticing to city-dwellers who had previously been stuck in rowhouses with no space or land of their own. Sprawl would probably be WORSE if not for the interstate system honestly. People wouldn't be working downtown, they'd be working in a suburb and you'd see a lot more suburb to suburb commuting. The interstate system provided an easy means to get downtown, which might have actually saved a lot of cities.

[cpzilliacus]

Much of the sprawl we see today is the result of freeways.

I disagree.

There was suburban growth going on in many parts of the U.S. as soon as transportation technologies improved to allow people access to formerly rural land from downtown employment centers. This happened in the United States and in more than a few places on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

In some cases, it happened because the developers of those lands provided improved transportation connections to the homes they were selling in the form of electric street railways (consider the streetcar networks in Los Angeles County, California as an example), in other cases, it happened because mainline railroads found that there was profit in carrying passengers in addition to freight.

In still other cases, sprawl happened as soon as Henry Ford's Model T started to roll off his assembly lines, but long before there was much in the way of freeway or expressway networks.

[WashuOtaku]

Things would likely look similar to other places in the world, like Australia and Brazil, where only the big city areas had freeways and are island off from other big cities with their own highway structure.  Freeways would still exist, but wouldn't be the network system it is today.

[The Nature Boy]

Things would likely look similar to other places in the world, like Australia and Brazil, where only the big city areas had freeways and are island off from other big cities with their own highway structure.  Freeways would still exist, but wouldn't be the network system it is today.

I disagree

American development is driven by the idea (that slightly predates the interstate system) that everyone is entitled to a house, land, a white picket fence, two kids and a dog. Other countries have people who LIKE living in cities, Americans largely want the amenities of a city without actually having to live there. We are so unique in our preferences that we would've still developed differently than other nations.

[cpzilliacus]

Immediately after WWII, we began seeing "Levittowns" and other cookie cutter suburbs pushed as the ideal. The idea of a house on a plot of land with a white picket fence seemed awfully enticing to city-dwellers who had previously been stuck in rowhouses with no space or land of their own. Sprawl would probably be WORSE if not for the interstate system honestly. People wouldn't be working downtown, they'd be working in a suburb and you'd see a lot more suburb to suburb commuting. The interstate system provided an easy means to get downtown, which might have actually saved a lot of cities.

Maryland's Levittown, the City of Bowie in Prince George's County, east of Washington, D.C., dates to around World War I, but it was enormously enlarged by annexing Levitt's development originally known as Belair (not to be confused with the county seat of Harford County, Bel Air), but now commonly just called Bowie.  Levitt purchased the Belair Stud horsefarm in 1957, and started construction on a massive greenfield parcel in the early 1960's (using essentially the same models as the other Levitt developments), not long after a non-Interstate freeway, the John Hanson Highway (U.S. 50) was completed between the Washington, D.C./Maryland border and the outskirts of Annapolis  (now it is "secret" I-595, but it was not back then).

[jakeroot]

Much of the sprawl we see today is the result of freeways.

I disagree.

There was suburban growth going on in many parts of the U.S. as soon as transportation technologies improved to allow people access to formerly rural land from downtown employment centers. This happened in the United States and in more than a few places on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

In some cases, it happened because the developers of those lands provided improved transportation connections to the homes they were selling in the form of electric street railways (consider the streetcar networks in Los Angeles County, California as an example), in other cases, it happened because mainline railroads found that there was profit in carrying passengers in addition to freight.

In still other cases, sprawl happened as soon as Henry Ford's Model T started to roll off his assembly lines, but long before there was much in the way of freeway or expressway networks.

My comment was a bit brash; if I had a chance to re-word it, I would have instead said "freeways assisted in the growth of suburban towns". A great example of what I mean is the Eastside, east of Seattle. The population basically exploded after the construction of the Lake Washington bridges (both freeways).

[cpzilliacus]

American development is driven by the idea (that slightly predates the interstate system) that everyone is entitled to a house, land, a white picket fence, two kids and a dog. Other countries have people who LIKE living in cities, Americans largely want the amenities of a city without actually having to live there. We are so unique in our preferences that we would've still developed differently than other nations.

It is also driven by a sense of hopelessness when it comes to public school systems in many inner-city school districts, along with the usual urban problems that I do not need to repeat here. 

Hence "voting with their feet." 

Not only white people did it. During the first three terms (1979 to 1991) of the years that the late D.C. Mayor-for-Life Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr. was in office, it was more African-American families that moved out of D.C. than it was families belonging to other ethnic groups, with the departures surging after the start of the crack cocaine epidemic during Reagan's second term in office (both Barry and Reagan seemed to be powerless to do much about it).

Barry jokingly (and probably resentfully) used to call Prince George's County, Maryland "Ward 9" (D.C. had and has 8 councilmanic wards), because so many former D.C. residents had moved away from his municipality across the border to Maryland.

[Brandon]

Things would likely look similar to other places in the world, like Australia and Brazil, where only the big city areas had freeways and are island off from other big cities with their own highway structure.  Freeways would still exist, but wouldn't be the network system it is today.

I disagree

American development is driven by the idea (that slightly predates the interstate system) that everyone is entitled to a house, land, a white picket fence, two kids and a dog. Other countries have people who LIKE living in cities, Americans largely want the amenities of a city without actually having to live there. We are so unique in our preferences that we would've still developed differently than other nations.

Exactly.  The earliest suburbs date from the 19th Century.  One of the first, albeit based around a rail station, was Riverside, Illinois.  The town was designed in 1869 by none other than Fredrick Law Olmsted and incorporated in 1875.  It was meant from the start to be a commuter suburb well before freeways or even the automobile.

[freebrickproductions]

If the interstates weren't built back in the day, the Staggers Act of 1980 probably wouldn't have been passed, and we probably wouldn't have had Conrail and/or Amtrak, if any of the modern railroads at all.

[cl94]

If the interstates weren't built back in the day, the Staggers Act of 1980 probably wouldn't have been passed, and we probably wouldn't have had Conrail and/or Amtrak, if any of the modern railroads at all.

Correct, but probably in a different way than you seem to be implying. The railroads would still operate passenger services as they would have a monopoly on high-speed land-based travel. Without competition from long-distance trucking, Conrail would not have existed as the New York Central, Pennsy, and other fallen flags would still be afloat from the freight traffic. Mergers wouldn't have happened and conglomerates such as CSX and Norfolk Southern wouldn't exist.

[Zmapper]

See Canada.

Perhaps the premise should be restricted to no master-planned and/or funded divided-highway interstate system.



First, rural areas. In short, any interstate in green would have been too uneconomical to construct, either by a spendthrift state DOT or as a toll road. Many rural interstates in the lower blue category, especially those that are primarily fed by 'green' interstates, would have likely not been constructed based on traffic projections. If constructed, it would have likely been because of undue "political" input; for example, pushed through the planning and financing process as a last-ditch attempt by an "urban liberal" governor to win the "conservative farmer" vote before a close election. While the generally-recognized cutoff, if I recall correctly, for widening to four lanes divided is about 10,000 AADT (the upper limit of the green category), induced demand today would have meant that many highways would see traffic volumes perhaps half to three-fourths of what they are today.

Most interstates today above 40,000 AADT (orange, red, and purple) would have been constructed somehow. My guess at this point is that the Northeast and Midwestern states with established populations would have constructed state-backed toll roads; Iowa had plans for a turnpike, which if it had been constructed would have likely led adjacent states to construct their own turnpikes. States in the Deep South and Sunbelt, excepting Florida due to its strong Northeastern influence which led it to develop its own state turnpike, would have first favored "public good" highways paid out of tax revenue, likely with greater amounts of "pork" highways created for vague economic development purposes compared to the Northeast and Midwest, which would have based their highways more off of established demand patterns. As funding would shrink due to the electorate's resistance to increasing taxes to pay for the looming maintenance bill, these states would have then turned to modern-day toll roads, especially roads with significant private-sector backing. For the most part, Mountain West states would have not constructed interstates due to low demand and more suitable rail networks for freight. The West Coast would have likely followed the Northeast by developing intra-state turnpikes between cities, but I would expect that I-5 would have a gap somewhere between Sacramento and Eugene due to the cost of constructing through mountainous terrain.

In cities, many highways would have been owned by the city and viewed as a high-speed extension of its street network, with a few owned by private, for-profit companies. It would have been cost-prohibitive to take any more land than the absolute minimum required, thus standards would have been comparable to the early 1950's, with design speeds between 40 and 55, no or right-only shoulders, many elevated sections on pillars, and with tight corners and ramps. Freeways would still exist in suburban areas, but as part of inter-city turnpikes or state DOT extensions. State and city DOT standards would be slightly less than today; no suburban freeway would have likely had a left shoulder with only eight lanes, much less six. For real-world examples today, see Japan for urban freeway standards and Germany for suburban freeway standards.

[GCrites]

Things would likely look similar to other places in the world, like Australia and Brazil, where only the big city areas had freeways and are island off from other big cities with their own highway structure.  Freeways would still exist, but wouldn't be the network system it is today.

I disagree

American development is driven by the idea (that slightly predates the interstate system) that everyone is entitled to a house, land, a white picket fence, two kids and a dog. Other countries have people who LIKE living in cities, Americans largely want the amenities of a city without actually having to live there. We are so unique in our preferences that we would've still developed differently than other nations.

Snowflake Americans; so different and special as compared to people from other countries. NOT. Anything heavily subsidized will be overconsumed. Starting in the Depression, very little money was put into our cities. By the end of WWII, the cities were looking very worse for wear since all the national effort was going into the war. After the dust settled, the subsidies ramped up for sprawl and rural areas -- a practice that continues to this day. Investment money follows subsidies.

[lordsutch]

If we'd not built major freeways in the past, we'd be building them today for the simple reason that the "freeway revolts" and NEPA never would have happened without freeway building. We'd likely see some specific differences based on timing and local circumstance (maybe the Claiborne Elevated never happens but Overton Park I-40 does; maybe I-676 through Philly doesn't get built but the Somerset Freeway succeeds) but the "lesson" that we need laws like NEPA wouldn't have been learned without the experience of building crap like the Embarcadero or the original Central Artery first.

[vdeane]

Given that, elevated freeways would probably be more acceptable if people's first though to the term "elevated freeway" was of China's modern viaducts instead of green 1950s monstrosities like the former Central Artery.