50th Anniversary of the Eisenhower Interstate System

[cityhawk 12]

I didn't realize this until my history teacher pointed it out in class the other day. The U.S. interstate highway system was brought about through the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act (the Interstate Highway Act), signed by President Eisenhower, which provided $25 billion to build an interstate highway system more than 40,000 miles long. New interstates continue to be built today, so I guess you can say that it's the 50th anniversary of the start of creating the interstate highway system. I just thought I'd bring this to everybody's attention, and y'all can comment on the interstate system as it stood back in the older days, how it stands today, and how it's continuing to be developed.

Note for mods: Since the interstate system is part of the urbanism and planning concept, I put this thread here and not in the Current Events thread, as it doesn't have enough significance to be put there compared to the current events that are always posted there.

[BarbulaM1 38]

http://www.dot.state.co.us/50Anniversary/index.cfm yep, here is my state's transportation department's page about the 50 years of the Interstate in colorado. (CDOT)

[dedgren 830]

It's a perfect place, Craig (cityhawk).  The interstate system changed the United States more than any other single thing in its history.  I'm really jazzed that it was built during my lifetime.

Seeing this thread made my day.  I thought I was going to be the only one wishing the I-highways a happy 50th.

David

[Menotyou 0]

I have heard that because of the interstate system, everyone saves about 2,500$ a year, because of faster movement of goods.

[marc 13]

Originally posted by: Menotyou I have heard that because of the interstate system, everyone saves about 2,500$ a year, because of faster movement of goods.quote>

Probably true, but the $2,500 saved goes for maintaining, repairing, and fueling a car, as well as for paying for treatments from highway-related ailments (air pollution, obesity, stress, etc.)

I personally do not wish the interstate system another happy fifty years.

[yoder7652 21]

Originally posted by: marcszar

Originally posted by: Menotyou I have heard that because of the interstate system, everyone saves about 2,500$ a year, because of faster movement of goods.quote>

Probably true, but the $2,500 saved goes for maintaining, repairing, and fueling a car, as well as for paying for treatments from highway-related ailments (air pollution, obesity, stress, etc.)

I personally do not wish the interstate system another happy fifty years.quote>

 

you must not have to travel on the road much.......

[Meg 368]

I remember when they first completed the Beltway around Washington, DC.  It was a fairly novel concept at the time, a highway going  "nowhere", just around in a circle.  Some of my neighbors drove around it just for fun but my dad refused to participate in such "nonsense".

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek I remember when they first completed the Beltway around Washington, DC.  It was a fairly novel concept at the time, a highway going  "nowhere", just around in a circle.  Some of my neighbors drove around it just for fun but my dad refused to participate in such "nonsense".quote>

And here in Houston, we're in the process of constructing our third or fourth beltway.

[Duke87 1,070]

....and here in New York, we haven't built any new highways in ages.

Anyways, a link:

http://www.interstate-guide.com/index.html

Not official, but nevertheless a wealth of information.

[Micah 16]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: SkiGeek I remember when they first completed the Beltway around Washington, DC.  It was a fairly novel concept at the time, a highway going  "nowhere", just around in a circle.  Some of my neighbors drove around it just for fun but my dad refused to participate in such "nonsense".quote>

And here in Houston, we're in the process of constructing our third or fourth beltway. quote>

 

Yeah, and that third beltway is tons of nonsense.  They plan to build that highway (The Grand Parkway) just two house lots north of my house.  Sometimes I just don't understand these highway planners... why are they destorying hundreds of homes in my neighborhood and neighborhoods around here when they can go north just a few miles where there is hardly any development yet?!  Segment F-1 of the Grand Parkway is bogus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Parkway

Qoute from Wikipedia:

Some groups in some neighborhoods are opposing the idea of the Grand Parkway going through their neighborhoods. For instance, a group called "United to Save Our Spring" is trying to stop the Parkway from going through a neighborhood off of F.M. 2920. Despite the name, the neighborhood is located in the boundaries of Klein Independent School District, and it is not located near the area considered to be "Old Town Spring"; Spring is an unincorporated community and does not have any official boundaries. The area has a Spring address because it is served by a post office designated as "Spring" near or on Texas F.M. 2920. Residents in other unincorporated areas such as The Woodlands have not shown the same opposition and support the construction of the Grand Parkway, namely segments E, F-1, F-2, and G, as this would give residents living in the outer suburbs a freeway option to drive to San Antonio, Austin, northeast Texas, or Louisiana without having to drive through the city of Houston.quote>

Whoops. Back to the Eisenhower Interstate System. My mom is surprisingly proud that she is a few years older than the Eisenhower Interstate System.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK Neat. Happy birthday asphault!  *hugs I-35*quote>

Just as long as you don't hug I-10 and sing it's praises.   Once you start getting up to Austin though, I-35 turns into a freakin' parking lot.

I have nothing against intercity freeways... well if we invested better in rail that wouldve been way cooler but I guess it didnt work out...quote>

Back in the 70s or 80s, there was a proposal to build a bullet train network between Houston, Austin, and Dallas.  Southwest airlines shot it down.

@micah

Yeah, the grand parkway is stupid. it only encourages more sprawl, and knowing houston its the cheap kind too.

I know its not GP territory, but that north side of town especially around the hardy toll road and magnolia...all these huge plots of nice forest are dissappearing for some fly by night developer who builds a bunch of junky tract homes that get foreclosed like a year later. Pretty sad. I read on another site that people that bought houses in those neighborhoods saw their home values actually dip quite a bit, and the real estates gurus are betting the market's toast but the developers dont listen....quote>

Yeah, the west and north sides of the city are turning into sprawl heaven from all the highways being built out there.  That's one of the downsides of badly planned transit systems.

[ACEfanatic 7]

Happy 50th, Interstates.

Now, budge aside and let us build some rails...

-ACE

[Micah 16]

Yeah, the northside of Houston (Especially the northside of Harris County) is exploding with growth. A few of my relatives thought they were close to Houston when they saw the Woodlands. The Woodlands is a spawl itself, just hidden in the woods. I don't see why they don't move the Grand Parkway near the Woodlands where all those skyscrapers are and where it would have a good impact for all the congestion between the Woodlands and Conroe.

Anyway, the northside and Montgomery County is expected to double in size by 2020. :S If that is true, we need anything that will improve traffic that won't destory any homes in the process which is the major problem right now. Perhaps building METRORail up here?? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/METRORail )

[josefmayor 8]

Lets not forgot that the interstate destroyed a lot of small towns and caused people to move out of the cities, other than that... THANK GOD FOR THE INTERSTATE, otherwise I wouldn't be able to go 100mph and get places quickly.

Although if the interstate didn't exist I would be in the city anyways...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY INTERSTATES!

[pgwrules 0]

how many of you live next to a highway? how many of you have had your houses torn down and your property values destroyed just to create a larger parking lot (AKA... The Freeway)? it is not good, thanks to the interstatet and planned expansion next to my house, our house is going to lose eqity and value on the housing market.

The only reason that the highways came around was because eisenhower envied Germany's autobahn and was corrupted by cement building interests and american auto-makers. were it not for this, hundreds of american cities would be far more condensed and healthy than modern cities. it is even true that the highways make people fat because you dont have to exersise to get to places anymore. look at people in New York City, there are very few people who are obese and live in New York because its impossible to drive their and it is hundreds of times fater to take the highways. i cannot drive yet, and my childhood was dismal, it was spent alone and friendless because route 35 is to dangerous to cross. and the space that they take is atrocious.

if you truly think that highways are better than building a new commuter rail or subway system, think again

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Interstates, however useful they are, cause disastrous sprawl, sprawl mostly occurs along interstates. As for Houston, i suppose a'beltway' is a bypass? confusing...Anyways, the only good sprawl is well hidden industrial kind (we seem to get a lot of that now throughout the South).

The interstates caused many small towns to shrivel up to nearly nothing, but it does provide for a unique backroad USA experience.

[bakercity 270]

The interstate system is based off the German Autobahn and surpasses it too. Most of you might not know, but the systerm also includes highways in Alaska, Puerto Rico. Hawaii Interstate highways are the only one of its kind here in the USA because it starts with the letter H for Hawaii. Don't beleive me, visit FHWA website or visit http://www.aaroads.com

[Jasoncw 12,060]

Burn in h--  I mean, Happy birthday interstate!

Highways have damaged this country, and imo they should be digging them out instead of adding more.

Interchanges and highways and overpasses and on ramps cost hundreds of millions of dollars +.  If that money was diverted to mass transit, the US would have the most thorough and effective mass transit on the planet within a decade.  Pollution would go down, health would go up, and the cost of living would go down.  Urban planning would change overnight, and developments would become more efficient.  As a whole, the economy would get much better, since living is more efficient, and because poor people would have mobility and would be able to get jobs.

I definitely see how back then it would have been necessary, but what it became and its effects were bad.

[Duke87 1,070]

*sigh* why is everyone badmouthing highways?

Highways are a vital part of out country. Yes, we shouldn't be completely reliant on them and they have a NIMBY effect but ripping them up wouldn't solve anything. Honestly, highways let you get places faster. How is that a bad thing?

Not all trips can be made via mass transit, even if said transit conveniently goes from your start point to your end point. If you're going on vacation (and not flying) chances are you're driving to your destination. Because you really can't easily carry all your bags on a train, and once you get there, you want a convenient way of getting around. So you take your car.

Besides, train tracks can have a NIMBY effect just like highways can. And busses (which are mass transit) can use highways to run express routes.

Now, we have fortunately come to realize that we shouldn't be ripping cities apart to plow highways through them... but the building of new highways in suburban and rural areas shouldn't be discouraged. Nor should the building of highways through cities. The key is doing it in a minimally disruptive manner. Put the highway underground where feasible. Use already existing rights of way. And where you absolutley can't avoid plowing through a neighborhood, put the highway below grade, and put air rights over it for sale so buildings can be built on top of it, to tie the neighborhoods back together. I-95 plows right through Washington Heights in Manhattan on it's way to the George Washington Bridge. But the highway here is entirely below grade, and it's largely covered over by the GWB Bus Terminal and the Bridge Apartments. And no street connections were severed in its construction. The result? The highway absolutely does not effectively cut the neighborhood in two! If only this could be used as an example for highways elsewhere!

[crazyyaya 4]

I agree with you, the interstate system is like the arterties of America, however like the arterties of many americans, many parts are clogged. My point is that they have many problems, just look at places like los Angelos when interstates are unbeivably congested. Anyway despite your problems, a happy birthday to the interstate system.

[hawkpride147 1]

http://www.ihoz.com/interstates.html

all sorts of stuff about the interstate highway system. i've seen a couple of things posted about the Trans Texas Corridor (TCC) i for one am in favor, but the plans call for it to be a part of the interstate highway system but the numbering would totally not fit into the current format.

[K1A 0]

Heres the Caltrans Page about the interstate here  http://www.dot.ca.gov/interstate/

[Deathamphetimine 2]

Happy b-day Interstates. You make my 60 mile round trip commute so much better at 90mph.

Man, people think the Interstate started urban sprawl or something. Sprawl really started with single family homes becoming popular with people coming back from WW2 in the 1940's, 10 years before the Interstate act was passed. So, don't blame the Interstste system for causeing sprawl, blame the Baby Boomers that wanted a big yard and modest home in which to raise.....our parents. Or you know what, blame Henry Ford for makeing it so people didn't have to walk everywhere. Blame anything you want, but don't knock the Interstate, it is an effective resource for those of us that live in areas where mass transit wouldn't be cost effective, because not everyone lives in built-up urban areas.

But how is it that Freeways decrease property value and overcrowded surface streets of dense urban areas don't? Because thats what you get without Inner-city freeways. And, let's not forget that only about 1/2 mile from these Interstates, away from the nose and exaust, property values go up because of increased connectivity, such as how my property value would skyrocket from a proposed beltway around Tampa, and has already benifited from the Suncoast Parkway, giving a direct route to TIA for us way out here in Hernando County. The Interstate is the lifeline of America, and like anything, has it's flaws. But the good outweighs the bad, I think. Just my opinion.

[willfryar 0]

I think the interstate system is great. Except when it passes through the cities instead of by them....

A little tidbit: the last project in the US that fell under the original Act was Boston's Big Dig Project....

[benvoliothefirst 36]

I saw a "Modern Marvels: U.S. Interstates" show on the Discovery Channel the other day while flipping through the channels, and somehow it kept my rapt attention throughout. I've never been so impressed with concrete. As far as the debate goes, yes, highways are crowded... but isn't that a testament to how successful they are? Before highways, planning a trip across country must've been a huge logistics nightmare. Now it's as simple as, "Take I-95 South and then I 90-West until you hit the ocean." Because it's easy, everything is simplified.

And I love the Big Dig... minus the shoddy roof work.

[paperboy15 4]

Happy birthday interstate system! How about saying hello to I-5:

http://www.myspace.com/i_5

Edit: (Notices OP date...ahh, check out the myspace anyway. Cheers!)

[yamaneko 2]

Before 1926, there were named highways crisscrossing the country.  The Lincoln Highway connected New York City and Oakland, CA.  In 1926, highway names were thrown overboard and US highway numbers were devised.  In general, odd numbers were assigned to north-south roads, increasing as you moved west.  Even numbers were assigned to east-west roads, increasing as you go south.  

The logistics of concern were not so much direction as they were keeping the car running and finding places to rest.  It was easier to get lost if the roads were not well-maked, and the old shields were harder to read than the new shields.  In some cases (Chicago -> Los Angeles) you could just take Route 66 instead of following its successors (I-290 to I-88 to I-80 to I-76 to I-70 to I-15 to I-10). 

[robos99 0]

Originally posted by: PGWrules@aol.com  it is even true that the highways make people fat because you dont have to exersise to get to places anymore. look at people in New York City, there are very few people who are obese and live in New York because its impossible to drive their and it is hundreds of times fater to take the highways. i cannot drive yet, and my childhood was dismal, it was spent alone and friendless because route 35 is to dangerous to cross. and the space that they take is atrocious.

if you truly think that highways are better than building a new commuter rail or subway system, think again

quote>

Explain to me how having the interstate highway makes people fat. Right now I drive about 60 miles round trip to work. So if I walked that entire trip I wouldn't get fat? Good to know. Of course I'd also spend 10 hours walking.

While it's true that the urban sprawl may have a hand in the obesity epidemic, I don't think you can really blame the interstate for any of it. The interstate is usually used for traveling some pretty substantial distances. Not many people take the interstate just to go down the local gas station, or to pickup groceries.

You also cite New York City as an example of how less driving gets rid of obesity. I find it hard to beleive there is no obesity in new york, but having never been there i can't say for certain. But what about Chicago? There are plenty of obese people in Chicago, and the traffic/walking situation is exactly the same.

And how exactly does replacing highways with commuter rail/mass transit solve obesity problems? Do people magically lose weight by riding the El? Sure there is some amount of walking involve to get to and from your destination, but that amount of walking is going to help much when said commuter eats the usual 5 donuts for breakfast.

Personally, I like the interstate highway system. If I had to take all local roads to work, it'd take way longer than it already does (which is already way too long since the Illinois tollways are a mess). If you truly think a new commuter rail or subway system will stop obesity, not decrease property values, and still allow you to get to work in a decent time, think again.

[crew101 0]

i'll tell ya what. i joined the military in south dakota. i got stationed in south carolina. i actually saved money by driving rather than flying. but i'll tell you what. if the interstates or (controlled traffic freeways) didn't exist, i would've spent a lot more than 24 hours on the road. Thank you General/President Eisenhower. I salute you.

[Explodingsims 3]

Ah yes, the one Good Thing Hitler inspired....

But without interstates, it would take a lot longer to get from state to state.