History, Landscape, Beauty on the American Freeway

[cpzilliacus]

NewGeography.com: History, Landscape, Beauty on the American Freeway

Freeways, particularly urban freeways, have had a bad press for several decades now.  They are accused of despoiling scenery, destroying habitat and causing urban sprawl.  Many observers report with glee on the latest news of a small segment of urban freeway being dismantled.

This blanket condemnation makes it easy to overlook the remarkable contribution that these freeways have made to the American economy and to American culture.  It is hard to imagine the growth in productivity in the country during the postwar years without these roads, which vastly increased the mobility of goods and people and connected parts of the country together in ways that were unprecedented.

[wphiii]

Driving along a two-lane roadway it is possible to pull off the pavement and look at an historic courthouse or a particularly interesting agricultural landscape or early gasoline station. That is not possible on a freeway.

Also the fact that, for the most part, restricted-access freeways tend to act as a barrier from most human life entirely. Historic courthouses and early gasoline stations generally don't exist alongside Interstates (or even within adequate viewing distance much of the time).

Still, there is no better way to get a good view of the larger features of the American landscape or cityscape than looking through the windshield of an automobile rolling along a freeway at 65 miles per hour. At that speed it is often easier than on a slower road to appreciate the changes that occur in plant species as the highway climbs a steep ridge or to appreciate the way massive cuts to lower the grades on the climb over a hill that provide a graphic illustration of the underlying geology.

This is a bit of a stretch. It's pretty difficult to really take in much of anything when you're traveling in excess of 65 mph. I suppose if you're only talking about the largest-grain changes in landscape, this argument holds some water, but even then I don't know why it would be easier to pick up, say, changes in plant species as elevation rises when you're going 65+ mph as opposed to 45 mph.

It might be difficult for many people to appreciate long stretches of flat country but, if a driver can put herself into the proper frame of mind, this experience can have its own rewards because of the way it accentuates the scale of the landscape.

I would say that freeways have less to break up the monotony of long stretches of flat country as opposed to a two-lane U.S. or state highway that runs right by businesses and through towns along the way.


It's a noble effort, but in the end, it seems like a fool's errand to try to make restricted-access freeways out to be something that they're not. The author is right in that they are fascinating from many points of view - engineering, history, sociology, etc. - but they are a boring way to travel for those whose primary goal isn't just getting from point A to point B as quickly as possible.

[agentsteel53]

freeways don't cause sprawl.  arterials without proper access restrictions cause sprawl.

[ET21]

freeways don't cause sprawl.  arterials without proper access restrictions cause sprawl.

Depends on the area though. We have an area along I-88 in Illinois called the Technology and Research Corridor, which runs from DeKalb through to about Oak Brook. This can then be said for I-90 "Golden Corridor", I-94 "Lakeshore Corridor, and I-55 Industrial Corridor. I would argue that these corridors are definitely focuses for parts of the Southwestern, Western and Northwestern suburban sprawls.

Now of course there are plenty of factors outside of just the freeway (Taxes, crime, poverty rate, appeal, entertainment, etc...)

[vdeane]

(Taxes, crime, poverty rate, appeal, entertainment, etc...)

Permissive zoning laws...

[theline]

I-80 and I-94 Pennsylvania Turnpike north of Pittsburgh.

Oops and oops again!

Some of the author's points are valid, such as the aesthetically pleasing Glenwood Canyon road. Many other assertions are way off base.

[Ned Weasel]

(Taxes, crime, poverty rate, appeal, entertainment, etc...)

Permissive zoning laws...

Restrictive zoning laws...

Really, it depends on your definition of "sprawl."

[Alps]

I'd ask that this not devolve into a sprawl discussion, since we've had plenty of that in other threads.

[NE2]

Sprawl, by its nature, expands into any available threads.

[Ned Weasel]

Interesting article.  This is a theme that I've been wanting to see developed more.

Even the billboards, which many drivers consider simply objectionable intrusions into the natural landscape, can, by their style and content, illustrate a great many regional differences.

I'm glad to see Bruegmann pointing out the visual interest created by billboards.  I've always thought they helped ornament the freeway landscape (not to mention, the industry is self-regulating and tries to avoid creating disturbances of noteworthy vistas).  I also think on-site business signs, such as those for hotels, restaurants, and gas stations, are an important visual element of freeway landscapes, in that they create a colorful, rhythmic array just outside of the freeway right-of-way, especially in commercial areas that center around interchanges between a freeway and a major arterial road.  Of course, commercial strips along arterial roads themselves have this feature, but the scale is different, and the pattern around freeways is much less linear.

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

While I really appreciate what this article is attempting to do, it just struck me as a pathetic argument overall. In my experience most interstate freeways, with the exception of parts of the rural intermountain West and Appalachians, are really quite banal in terms of scenery (at least in much of Louisiana and Mississippi this is very much the case - how scenic can hundreds of miles of monotonous, faceless woodlands be? Not much.). At best, they are no superior than the surface roads they supplanted.

At least in the South, interstates usually consist of hundreds of miles of monotony interrupted by some nice skyline views as they approach and pass through the larger city centers. Maybe it's different in other parts of of the country which are more urbanized and/or mountainous.

Now freeways themselves can be beautiful as marvels of engineering - just look at the High Five in Dallas, for instance, or the 18-lane freeways of Houston. But the interstates as travel routes were not intended, with a few exceptions admittedly, to be "scenic" - the purposes of the highways are to get the driver from point A to B as rapidly and efficiently as possible.

I doubt mine was the only "what?" when the writer compares a section of I-20 near Birmingham, an unremarkable portion of freeway virtually indistinguishable from thousands of other miles of interstate highway in the forested South, to an English picturesque landscape. Not to mention the xeriscaped section of I-10 in Phoenix which looks like nearly every other mile of urban Southwestern interstate that I've ever seen.

I'm not knocking interstate highways. They are a marvelous achievement of Western civilization, important to the economy, and annihilate distance thus bringing distant cities and people closer together. But, with exceptions of course, scenic by and large they are not.

[agentsteel53]

billboards can get too intrusive.  see I-70 across Missouri, for example.

buy an 18 wheeler!

learn the diversity of every small town by noting that some have McDonalds and others have Burger King!

Jesus says fuck your abortion!

whee!

[Ned Weasel]

billboards can get too intrusive.  see I-70 across Missouri, for example.

I've driven I-70 across (most of*) Missouri more times than I can count.  I don't find the billboards at all intrusive.  I think they help color the landscape, especially in places that could be otherwise monotonous.  And notice, too, that where the scenery intensifies with topographic vistas, especially approaching the Missouri River west of Columbia, the billboards diminish.  I'm not always a fan of the billboards' content, but speech is speech, and the page usually turns at 70 miles per hour.

(*I usually enter/exit at I-470 in Independence and MO 370 in St. Peters, in case you were wondering.)

[corco]

Still, there is no better way to get a good view of the larger features of the American landscape or cityscape than looking through the windshield of an automobile rolling along a freeway at 65 miles per hour. At that speed it is often easier than on a slower road to appreciate the changes that occur in plant species as the highway climbs a steep ridge or to appreciate the way massive cuts to lower the grades on the climb over a hill that provide a graphic illustration of the underlying geology.

That argument blows my mind- one of the reasons I prefer two lane roads to interstates is that they're not graded so well, so you can feel and experience the subtle changes in topography. See US 30 vs I-80 in Nebraska for a perfect example. Drive I-80 and NE seems totally flat, drive US 30 and hey, subtly rolling hills!

[WichitaRoads]

billboards can get too intrusive.  see I-70 across Missouri, for example.

I've driven I-70 across (most of*) Missouri more times than I can count.  I don't find the billboards at all intrusive.  I think they help color the landscape, especially in places that could be otherwise monotonous.  And notice, too, that where the scenery intensifies with topographic vistas, especially approaching the Missouri River west of Columbia, the billboards diminish.  I'm not always a fan of the billboards' content, but speech is speech, and the page usually turns at 70 miles per hour.

(*I usually enter/exit at I-470 in Independence and MO 370 in St. Peters, in case you were wondering.)

Off topic, I know, but I must ask - what is your avatar?

ICTRds

[wphiii]

While I really appreciate what this article is attempting to do, it just struck me as a pathetic argument overall. In my experience most interstate freeways, with the exception of parts of the rural intermountain West and Appalachians, are really quite banal in terms of scenery (at least in much of Louisiana and Mississippi this is very much the case - how scenic can hundreds of miles of monotonous, faceless woodlands be? Not much.). At best, they are no superior than the surface roads they supplanted.

More to the point, the scenery exists, or doesn't exist, completely independently from what style of road happens to have been built through a given landscape. Like, Glenwood Canyon isn't beautiful because there's an Interstate passing through it instead of a conventional road.

[Henry]

Being from Chicago, I've grown very fond of I-90/I-94 through Downtown, even with those infamous Rapid-Fire ramps north of there. And the Circle Interchange with I-290/Congress Parkway is a nice touch too.

[Ned Weasel]

I've driven I-70 across (most of*) Missouri more times than I can count.  I don't find the billboards at all intrusive.  I think they help color the landscape, especially in places that could be otherwise monotonous.  And notice, too, that where the scenery intensifies with topographic vistas, especially approaching the Missouri River west of Columbia, the billboards diminish.  I'm not always a fan of the billboards' content, but speech is speech, and the page usually turns at 70 miles per hour.

(*I usually enter/exit at I-470 in Independence and MO 370 in St. Peters, in case you were wondering.)

Off topic, I know, but I must ask - what is your avatar?

ICTRds

It's sort of on-topic, since it's a freeway scene!  See the answer here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9871.msg246258#msg246258

[Brandon]

freeways don't cause sprawl.  arterials without proper access restrictions cause sprawl.

Depends on the area though. We have an area along I-88 in Illinois called the Technology and Research Corridor, which runs from DeKalb through to about Oak Brook. This can then be said for I-90 "Golden Corridor", I-94 "Lakeshore Corridor, and I-55 Industrial Corridor. I would argue that these corridors are definitely focuses for parts of the Southwestern, Western and Northwestern suburban sprawls.

Now of course there are plenty of factors outside of just the freeway (Taxes, crime, poverty rate, appeal, entertainment, etc...)

For decades, I-55 ran outside the main urbanized areas to the southwest.  It was only recently that the urbanization has closed in on I-55.  As I've stated before, sprawl around Chicago started with the railroads, and everything has filled in in-between.  Even along I-88, the sprawl started with the rail line and spread north and south away from it.  It was the railroad, not the freeway/tollway that initiated the sprawl.  IDOT and ISHTA have had to play catch-up to this.

[31E]

At least in the South, interstates usually consist of hundreds of miles of monotony interrupted by some nice skyline views as they approach and pass through the larger city centers. Maybe it's different in other parts of of the country which are more urbanized and/or mountainous.

It is very different in more urbanized and/or mountainous places. The Virginia stretch of I-81 has a lot of scenery to offer, and on 581 through Roanoke you can see a cityscape and mountains at the same time. No road is going to be scenic if the landscape it passes through isn't scenic, and the flat woodland of most of the South isn't much to look at.

Still, there is no better way to get a good view of the larger features of the American landscape or cityscape than looking through the windshield of an automobile rolling along a freeway at 65 miles per hour. At that speed it is often easier than on a slower road to appreciate the changes that occur in plant species as the highway climbs a steep ridge or to appreciate the way massive cuts to lower the grades on the climb over a hill that provide a graphic illustration of the underlying geology.

This is a bit of a stretch. It's pretty difficult to really take in much of anything when you're traveling in excess of 65 mph. I suppose if you're only talking about the largest-grain changes in landscape, this argument holds some water, but even then I don't know why it would be easier to pick up, say, changes in plant species as elevation rises when you're going 65+ mph as opposed to 45 mph.

I take in the scenery very well at 70-80 mph (assuming conditions permit such speeds), and I usually find it more boring to travel at 45-55 mph, because I have to stare at the same scene for what seems like forever. If I'm traveling through a mountainous area at 65 mph a different mountain presents itself every few minutes, and that keeps things more interesting; the same goes for skylines. There are scenes that are better appreciated while going slow or standing still, but most of the time higher speed is a good thing.

[cpzilliacus]

I-80 and I-94 Pennsylvania Turnpike north of Pittsburgh.

Oops and oops again!

Some of the author's points are valid, such as the aesthetically pleasing Glenwood Canyon road. Many other assertions are way off base.

I-80 and I-94 Pennsylvania Turnpike north of Pittsburgh.

Oops and oops again!

You are correct and the text is obviously wrong.  I pointed it out to the editor of NewGeography.com.