Change one event in American road history. What impact does it have?

[planxtymcgillicuddy]

For me, I wonder how things would look if the freeway revolts happened in the 90s and 00s instead of the 60s & 70s......I don't know what impact it would have had at the local and state levels, but nationally, I dare say we don't see interstates such as 22 & 49 & 73 get built.

[Konza]

Please remember that the freeway revolts were largely an urban phenomenon.  The only real resistance to Interstate highways in rural areas was that they would reduce traffic through small towns that depended on travelers for their livelihood.

Even a couple of the highways you mention met little resistance in rural areas- but I-22, although it connects the Birmingham and Memphis areas, does not enter either city.  I-49 probably should end in downtown Kansas City, but the courts ordered that US 71 be a "parkway" with some grade intersections, north of I-435.  Southwest Missouri and Northwest Arkansas are very much looking forward to I-49 being connected across the state line; the new alignment will take a lot of through traffic off of local roads.

One wonders if we should have approached urban interstate construction as Paris did- with a ring road around the city, and no limited access highways inside it.

[sparker]

For me, I wonder how things would look if the freeway revolts happened in the 90s and 00s instead of the 60s & 70s......I don't know what impact it would have had at the local and state levels, but nationally, I dare say we don't see interstates such as 22 & 49 & 73 get built.

Please remember that the freeway revolts were largely an urban phenomenon.  The only real resistance to Interstate highways in rural areas was that they would reduce traffic through small towns that depended on travelers for their livelihood.

Even a couple of the highways you mention met little resistance in rural areas- but I-22, although it connects the Birmingham and Memphis areas, does not enter either city.  I-49 probably should end in downtown Kansas City, but the courts ordered that US 71 be a "parkway" with some grade intersections, north of I-435.  Southwest Missouri and Northwest Arkansas are very much looking forward to I-49 being connected across the state line; the new alignment will take a lot of through traffic off of local roads.

One wonders if we should have approached urban interstate construction as Paris did- with a ring road around the city, and no limited access highways inside it.

That would depend upon whether the freeway revolts remained a largely urban phenomenon as they were when they first emerged in the mid-'60's and peaked during the following decade.  If so, the calls for RE/T activities would be magnified, since there would have been considerably more urban mileage constructed earlier in multiple metro areas, including the I-95 corridor from DC north through Boston, as well as Memphis, Atlanta, Chicago, and S.F.   But even if those facilities had been constructed as originally planned, later opposition wouldn't have particularly targeted intercity connectors with a continued urban focus.  The chargeable portion of the Interstate network would have been truncated in '73 as it was in reality; further Interstate development after that time would have commenced largely as it has, with a combination of "filling in the gaps" (i.e., I-49, I-22) and politically/developmentally-motivated corridors such as I-69, I-73/74, and certainly I-14 (IMO, I-11 is a "hybrid" of perceived "gap-filling" and developmental desires). 

OTOH -- if freeway opposition was predicated on a more generalized, anti-auto/anti-mobility platform starting in the early '90's, and environmental concerns were incorporated into that agenda -- including economic impact on bypassed towns, decrying new intercity corridors would have likely been part of all that.  But even then things would have shaken out along political lines; states and regions dominated by urban areas or where environmental actions have found an audience (NY, CA, the Northwest, and New England in particular) would deem Interstate/freeway additions as "non-starters".  I-86 across upstate NY, I-99, and possibly I-68 may not have been developed as they have been to date.  In a contrary vein, parts of I-69 (at least Indy-Memphis) may still have been proposed; and I'd suggest that both I-22 and I-49 may have seen development simply because of (a) the fact that substantial portions had been completed before the opposition would have "gelled", and (b) because of the contrarian political environment in the states/regions through which their corridors run.   But anything on the West Coast would be dead in its tracks -- while Texas would still likely be promoting (and arranging federal legislation) for at least a Brownsville-Texarkana corridor; while national activists and PIRG's would piss & moan, TX would simply ignore them or show them a raised middle finger!  NC would be the mixed bag it is today, but they'd probably not have the I-73/74 corridor to deal with, so they might simply plan for a E-W corridor along US 74 as well as what's now being developed as I-42 (the I-40 extension to Wilmington having preceded the protestation peak). 

In hindsight, the Paris approach might have been the way to go back in the '50's -- but at that time many of the cities, seeing their economic base moving outward to the suburbs, pressed for Interstate connections to city centers in order to attempt to recoup and/or retain as much economic activity as possible.   Of course at that time those civic leaders were hardly as diverse a group as is found today; they tended to distill things down to essential dollars and cents rather than addressing socioeconomic issues (which reached the forefront not long after the Interstate system was being deployed).     

[Beltway]

No New York Central Railroad project started in Pennsylvania between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, or else the completion thereof of the project in the late 1800s.

That would mean no Pennsylvania Turnpike completed along the unused and partly completed railroad grade between Irwin and Carlisle in 1940.

The building of a Pennsylvania Turnpike would have occurred in the 1950s when the other turnpikes (and the rest of the PA Turnpike) were being built.

It would have followed a different route in that part of the state, probably the US-22 corridor between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg, as that was where the main population draw would be along the route.

I don't believe it would have had a major impact with regard to turnpikes in other states, other than possibly delaying the completion of the Chicago-New York turnpike system.

Early urban parkways and freeways were built in the U.S. in the 1920s and 1930s. 

New Jersey and Delaware in particular would have been likely to complete that turnpike by about 1951 as in the original timeline, given the very high demand.

[nexus73]

If there is no Eisenhower, there is no Interstate system.  We would still have freeways but they would not be as networked nor would there be such a thing as "Interstate standards".

Rick

[planxtymcgillicuddy]

If there is no Eisenhower, there is no Interstate system.  We would still have freeways but they would not be as networked nor would there be such a thing as "Interstate standards".

Rick

I disagree....even if Eisenhower had not come up with the interstate system, then someone after him certainly would have. Granted, it likely would have taken a lot longer to go from pen and paper to reality, but there would definitely be some form of Interstate-type system, though I don't know if they would be referred to as interstates or not.

[bassoon1986]

Well what's interesting about your original statement, is while there is great support for I-49 in what has been built and the parts to come...the portions of 49 that go directly through major cities are still unfinished. Kansas City didn't allow 49 north of 435. Shreveport and Lafayette's inner city portions are still at odds. I would argue that with Texarkana it looped and largely bypassed the main city and NWA it mostly traverses away from city centers.


iPhone

[Konza]

If the construction of what became the Interstate system were left to the states, there certainly would have been limited access highways constructed.

You have to wonder, though, if without 90% Federal funding, segments that connect points in different states would have been built.  Look at the Plains states; what would have been in it for Kansas to build I-70 west of, say, Salina?  I-80 in Nebraska west of Lincoln?  Any of the Interstates in eastern Montana?  Yet US 66 was pretty much two lanes in each direction from Chicago to Springfield, Missouri.  Oklahoma had started to build a turnpike to connect OKC and Tulsa.  Lots of toll roads in more densely populated eastern states.

I think if you go back to 1955 or so, you'd see what the system might have looked like, and it would be lots of highways that met intrastate and regional needs, but no national system.  Eisenhower had the standing to shepherd it through, but the need was out there, and if it weren't Eisenhower, it would have been someone else.

[Beltway]

I disagree....even if Eisenhower had not come up with the interstate system, then someone after him certainly would have. Granted, it likely would have taken a lot longer to go from pen and paper to reality, but there would definitely be some form of Interstate-type system, though I don't know if they would be referred to as interstates or not.

The foundational studies for Interstate highways occurred before Eisenhower's presidency (1953-1961).

A report to Congress on "Toll Roads and Free Roads" contains the first formal concept of the Interstate Highway System, January 1, 1939.

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 included the creation of a 40,000-mile (64,000 km) National System of Interstate Highways to connect major cities and industrial areas.

[sprjus4]

I disagree....even if Eisenhower had not come up with the interstate system, then someone after him certainly would have. Granted, it likely would have taken a lot longer to go from pen and paper to reality, but there would definitely be some form of Interstate-type system, though I don't know if they would be referred to as interstates or not.

The foundational studies for Interstate highways occurred before Eisenhower's presidency (1953-1961).

A report to Congress on "Toll Roads and Free Roads" contains the first formal concept of the Interstate Highway System, January 1, 1939.

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 included the creation of a 40,000-mile (64,000 km) National System of Interstate Highways to connect major cities and industrial areas.

In reality, Eisenhower didn't do much except sign the bill into law. He gets the fame because he signed it into law. The entire system was planned decades prior as you mention.

[cwf1701]

How about when the interstate highways system is passed in 1956, part of the bill would allow states to build service plazas ever 30 miles outside of urban aeras. How would that affect the growth of services (Gas Food motels) near many of the offramps?

[sparker]

Well what's interesting about your original statement, is while there is great support for I-49 in what has been built and the parts to come...the portions of 49 that go directly through major cities are still unfinished. Kansas City didn't allow 49 north of 435. Shreveport and Lafayette's inner city portions are still at odds. I would argue that with Texarkana it looped and largely bypassed the main city and NWA it mostly traverses away from city centers.
iPhone

The "mini-revolt" about the US 71/potential I-49 freeway in KC was in some respects similar to anti-freeway efforts twenty years previously except for the fact that it only affected two short segments interspersed with a completed facility; the legal victory (apparently the result of "judge-shopping" until a sympathetic jurist could be located*) for opposing parties was largely a "hey, look -- we beat the highway lobby/establishment" form of grandstanding.  But so far no one has challenged the court-ordered settlement (likely MODOT prefers not to put any more expenditure into counter-litigation -- it means that's about 3 miles of urban freeway they won't need to finance!).   But at this time it looks like Shreveport won't be following suit; the inner connector is likely to stand.   

As far as the smaller cities given relatively wide berths by I-49 -- that's due to its use of pre-existing facilities (particularly in NWA), and the deliberate choice to take the path of least resistance with other middle-sized urban areas (Fort Smith, Texarkana, Joplin -- although the ultimate pathway through the latter area may eventually move from the current I-49 routing partially multiplexed with I-44 to present MO 249).  And the circus atmosphere surrounding the Lafayette alignment has yet to play out fully; we'll just have to see how that one shakes out. 

*Not an uncommon tactic with urban activists; in the late '90's something similar occurred in Los Angeles, with MTA being sued by the Bus Riders Union for prioritizing new LR lines over expansion of conventional grid-pattern bus service, particularly in South Central L.A.   The Union knew which judges were predisposed to be sympathetic, and they waited until one's docket was relatively free.  That judge was Harry Pregerson, who issued an injunction against further work on the then-under-construction Gold Line until MTA placed 532 additional buses into service (the goal was saturation-level service -- bus lines with no more than 25-minute intervals on all major area arterials).  The buses were acquired or budgeted (including some older units from S.F.) and the injunction lifted after about 4 months.  Ironically, the I-105/I-110 interchange in South Central L.A. bears Judge Pregerson's name!

[DJ Particle]

IMHO probably would be more freeways in the long run, as much of the urban stuff that got built in the last 30 years would have been built sooner, or in different ROWs.  The 1990s would have been far too late for a freeway revolt.

For Minneapolis, we'd have had I-335, MN-77 Cedar freeway all the way to downtown, MN-280 freeway instead of the Greenway (feeding into a MN-7 freeway at Bde Mka Ska?), MN-252 frreeway, and the Hiawatha and Olson Freeways (likely connecting downtown since they're both MN-55)

[jeffandnicole]

I disagree....even if Eisenhower had not come up with the interstate system, then someone after him certainly would have. Granted, it likely would have taken a lot longer to go from pen and paper to reality, but there would definitely be some form of Interstate-type system, though I don't know if they would be referred to as interstates or not.

The foundational studies for Interstate highways occurred before Eisenhower's presidency (1953-1961).

A report to Congress on "Toll Roads and Free Roads" contains the first formal concept of the Interstate Highway System, January 1, 1939.

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 included the creation of a 40,000-mile (64,000 km) National System of Interstate Highways to connect major cities and industrial areas.

In reality, Eisenhower didn't do much except sign the bill into law. He gets the fame because he signed it into law. The entire system was planned decades prior as you mention.

And we almost didn't, even with Eisenhower.  It was a member of congress that came up with the original interstate highway system and its mapping.  Eisenhower wanted a network of toll roads, not free roads.  And there was disagreement within the House of how to fund the highway building. 

[Brandon]

How about when the interstate highways system is passed in 1956, part of the bill would allow states to build service plazas ever 30 miles outside of urban areas. How would that affect the growth of services (Gas Food motels) near many of the offramps?

We still would have had such growth at interchanges.  We can look at ON-401 for the template.  There are full service areas on the freeway, yet there are also services at many interchanges. Even many of our non-ticket toll roads have such services, I-90 in Illinois being another example.

[hotdogPi]

How about when the interstate highways system is passed in 1956, part of the bill would allow states to build service plazas ever 30 miles outside of urban areas. How would that affect the growth of services (Gas Food motels) near many of the offramps?

We still would have had such growth at interchanges.  We can look at ON-401 for the template.  There are full service areas on the freeway, yet there are also services at many interchanges. Even many of our non-ticket toll roads have such services, I-90 in Illinois being another example.

I would expect services at the interchanges for non-ticket toll roads. The reason that there aren't typically any on ticketed toll roads is because it costs more to get off and back on again.

[jeffandnicole]

How about when the interstate highways system is passed in 1956, part of the bill would allow states to build service plazas ever 30 miles outside of urban areas. How would that affect the growth of services (Gas Food motels) near many of the offramps?

We still would have had such growth at interchanges.  We can look at ON-401 for the template.  There are full service areas on the freeway, yet there are also services at many interchanges. Even many of our non-ticket toll roads have such services, I-90 in Illinois being another example.

I would expect services at the interchanges for non-ticket toll roads. The reason that there aren't typically any on ticketed toll roads is because it costs more to get off and back on again.

What ticketed toll roads you looking at?  There's a ton of services at most exits on toll roads with tolls at the ramps.

[D-Dey65]

OTOH -- if freeway opposition was predicated on a more generalized, anti-auto/anti-mobility platform...

What do you mean "if?"

[GaryV]

Henry Ford didn't make the automobile affordable to the masses.  That would have had a big effect on road history.  The Interstates would all be bicycle routes.

But, as in the other what-if's in this thread, if Ford hadn't done it, someone else would have.

[Henry]

IMHO probably would be more freeways in the long run, as much of the urban stuff that got built in the last 30 years would have been built sooner, or in different ROWs.  The 1990s would have been far too late for a freeway revolt.

For Minneapolis, we'd have had I-335, MN-77 Cedar freeway all the way to downtown, MN-280 freeway instead of the Greenway (feeding into a MN-7 freeway at Bde Mka Ska?), MN-252 frreeway, and the Hiawatha and Olson Freeways (likely connecting downtown since they're both MN-55)

In Chicagoland, I-494, I-694, the IL 53 freeway extension, Fox Valley Freeway, Prairie Parkway and Illiana Expressway would all be done by now.

And you're right, the freeways would've taken radically different routes than what was actually proposed. If this were the case, perhaps we'd see more complete routings, like I-70 going all the way to I-95 in Baltimore (but built on the edge of the park instead of smack-dab through the middle of it).

[SP Cook]

- Ike.  What we have in the USA is a quite high standard for interstates, in terms of design.  Over design in much of the country.  It is not much of a "what if"  to come up with a much less federally directed plan, which would mean a less standardized design (at grades, two lane segments, roads not connecting to other states).  We also have a preference for free roads.  Again not much of a "what if"  to come up with a plethora of turnpikes. 

- JFK/LBJ.  Every other aspect of the Appalachian Regional Comm. has been a failure, but its roads system has opened up areas of the country that could have easily just been left out totally.  In the core of Appalachia, there are few non-interstate, non-corridor roads that a capable of supporting even 40 MPH travel. 

- RMN.  Tricky Dick signed the NEPA, which marked the beginning of the end of an era that goes back to FDR and even to Hoover or even TR, where there was a broad, bipartisan consensus that building things like roads, dams, irrigation systems, soil conservation, and other things to make life better is a good thing.   

[jeffandnicole]

Who designed red to be stop, green for go?  How did yellow get mixed in?  Why not purple and blue? 

[hotdogPi]

Who designed red to be stop, green for go?  How did yellow get mixed in?  Why not purple and blue?

Yellow makes sense. As traffic signals emit light, yellow is both between green red and easier to see than medium/dark blue or violet. (This leaves cyan unused, which is why police car lights use this color.)

[vdeane]

IMHO probably would be more freeways in the long run, as much of the urban stuff that got built in the last 30 years would have been built sooner, or in different ROWs.  The 1990s would have been far too late for a freeway revolt.

Definitely.  We'd also probably have fewer freeway removals, and those got off the ground by targeting short stubs that were meant to be something more, and then using those as stepping stones to remove bigger and more major corridors.  Without those short stubs, the movement might not have even gotten off the ground.  In particular, when the I-480 viaduct in San Francisco was damaged by an earthquake, perhaps it wouldn't have been removed and would instead have become a west coast Big Dig.

Henry Ford didn't make the automobile affordable to the masses.  That would have had a big effect on road history.  The Interstates would all be bicycle routes.

But, as in the other what-if's in this thread, if Ford hadn't done it, someone else would have.

I read an article that said that, before Ford, it looked like cars were going to be electric fleets like ZipCar instead of personally owned.

[sparker]

OTOH -- if freeway opposition was predicated on a more generalized, anti-auto/anti-mobility platform...

What do you mean "if?"

Wasn't always that way.  Earlier protests (cf. Memphis, D.C.) were largely offshoots of the era's civil rights movement; the phrase "white man's roads through black man's bedrooms" were front & center to the discussions -- which invariably centered around urban corridors.  There were relatively few complaints about rural mileage except in those areas where parts of the system were planned near national parks or, in some cases, coastlines.  Remember that one of the principal rationales regarding the original push of the system was to enhance the "farm-to-market" commercial movements; rural sections of the system by and large were welcomed rather than vilified -- at least during the deployment of the chargeable network.   It wasn't until the '80's that environmental concerns started to eclipse the social concerns regarding the system and its future.

- RMN.  Tricky Dick signed the NEPA, which marked the beginning of the end of an era that goes back to FDR and even to Hoover or even TR, where there was a broad, bipartisan consensus that building things like roads, dams, irrigation systems, soil conservation, and other things to make life better is a good thing.   

Nixon giveth and Nixon taketh away!   NEPA notwithstanding, Nixon functionally shut the door on coordinated and/or regularized national efforts -- in the mold of the 1968 batch of Interstate additions -- by instituting the "block grant" system, which placed such things as the designation of new Interstate corridors in the hands of state & local jurisdictions.  This marked the beginning of the phenomenon of new corridors being largely political creations intended to enhance local interests rather than being part of a cohesive national system.  Of course, some corridors are logical system additions, others less so.  But the beginning of the institution of the process we have today can be traced back to 1973, when the Nixon administration pushed their block-grant legislation through Congress.