Slashdot Mirror
Interstate Highway System: 50th Anniversary
Steve Melito writes "This week, CR4: The Engineer's Place for Discussion and News, celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, "a giant nationwide engineering project" that transformed a nation. In 1994, the American Society of Civil Engineers described the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System as "one of the Seven Wonders of the United States". In 2006, this network of roads includes 46,000 miles of highway; 55,000 bridges; 82 tunnels, and 14,000 interchanges. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), excavation for the interstate system has moved enough material to bury the State of Connecticut knee-deep in dirt. The amount of Portland cement could build more than 80 Hoover dams, or lay six sidewalks to the moon. The lumber used would consume all of the trees in 500 square miles of forest. The structural steel could build 170 skyscrapers the size of the Empire State Building, and meet nearly half of the annual requirements of the American auto industry.
Check back with CR4 all week as we cover the 'Roots of the Road,' 'the Politics of Passage,' 'Adventures in Civil Engineering,' and 'The Road Ahead.'" One of the things that's interesting about why Eisenhower pushed for the highway system was that he saw the Autobahn system in Germany during the occupation post-WWII and knew that that was one of the things that the United States needed to develop.
Mass transit only works in areas with a high concentration of people. In the 1960s, heck even today, there are lots of people who live outside of these areas making mass transportation highly ineffecient and costly. In Europe, on the other hand, a larger percentage of people live in urban areas and are better served by public transportation. However, the people who live in the rural parts of Europe still rely on gasoline powered cars.
Actually, despite what the "wonderful" slashdot editor says, not only did Ike see the Autobahn, but also saw it as an easy way to move troops and supplies around the country. For instance, there were standards to make sure every curve of the expressway system could handle an automobile at 85MPH (talking about a 1960s Jeep, not a 2006 Ferrari Enzo).. so it would not flip over. It also made sure there were large enough gaps between bridges and other structures to allow large aircraft to land within 10 miles of any point on the highway.
Actually, I-90 in NY was supposed to become free quite a few years ago after the tolls paid off the construction costs. Now those tolls cover some of the maintenance, but are also the primary source of funding for the recreational Erie Canal system, which can't sustain itself.
1. Yes, it costs the equivalent of a few thousand dollars to go to Fahrschule (driving school) and you have to be 18 to be able to get your license.
2. The Autobahn is about twice as thick as the interstate. As a result, it doesn't crack as much. And when it does, they rip out that section and replace it. Think about that the next time you're on I-70 in Utah (north of Moab).
3. There are speed limits in lots of places on the Autobahn, especially around the cities.
4. Speed records were set, yes, even with its curves following the natural terrain.
5. Try driving on the Autobahn during Sommerferien (summer vacation). Parts of the Autobahn can literally turn into parking lots.
I think the biggest factors are 1 (better trained drivers who have to pass real tests) and 2 (better maintained roads) along with cars that are built to travel at higher speeds.
"If you mess with us, we're going to take you on, even to our utter destruction, whatever occurs." - Ralph Yarro (SCO)
It's a combination of a bunch of things.
In Germany the roads were designed with much higher speeds in mind, and are kept in much better repair than US interstates, which were designed (outside of an urban area) for maximum speeds of 65-75 mph. In the early 70s, when there was an energy crisis, there were studies done that the cars of the time were much more fuel efficient when only traveling at 55 mph. So, fedral legislation was enacted requiring states to lower their speed limits to 55 mph (if they wanted to receive fedral highway funds). After raising the limit a couple of times, in 1995, Congress gave full authority to the states to determine their own speed limits, and some states keep it lower for fuel/environmental reasons.
Germany also does a much better job at making sure the roads are well maintained. If you're going 120+ mph, and you hit a stretch where the road isn't completely smooth and there may be some pot holes.
Another reason is that Germany has laws regarding driving habits. You're not allowed to pass on the right, nor are you allowed to drive for extended periods in the left lane, and you can actually get fined if you're caught doing so. Until they actually put in some driving laws like this in the US, not having a speed limit is not something that's going to happen any time soon.
If there's anything more important than my ego around, i want it caught and shot now.
True, but the military aspect played a huge part in the funding for the interstate highway system. The interstates provide a tried-and-true platform for moving tanks and other heavy war material a very long distance, with minimal fuel and minimum time.
One of the specs for the interstate highway system was that it had to be wide enough to handle tanks. This came in handy during the '67 Detroit riots.
For the sake of completeness, even though you probably already know this, 3-digit 'interstates' have another pattern - if the first digit is even, it connects to its namesake twice - meaning it's an alternate route or a beltway (695 is Baltimore's beltway, and the 895 tunnel can be used if the 95 tunnel is backed up), whereas an odd-number means it connects once so it's a spur - usually to a popular destination (using Baltimore as an example again, 395 goes right into downtown, and 195 takes you to BWI airport).
The same is more or less true of most of the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut, which first opened in 1938. Most of the on and off-ramps have been lengthened and straightened, and a couple of big highway interchanges added where new roads sprung up, but the road itself hasn't changed in my lifetime. Believe me, the new ramps were necessary. The old ones were all decreasing radius blind curves dumping right into traffic with no runoff room. The Exit 27 Southbound onramp (technically on the Hutchinson Parkway, but essentially demarcating the border between the two as well as between NY and CT) was literally a 90 degree spur two car lengths long with a stop sign at the highway. It hit the highway right after an overpass with no visibility so there was no way to see if cars were coming. You just stopped your car perpendicular to the road, checked that there was nobody under the bridge at that moment, punched it and crossed your fingers. Another feature which has just recently changed is the Sikorsky Bridge over the Housatonic River. This engineering marvel did not previously support pavement. Instead its surface was an open steel grate. I'm not kidding. Riding a motorcycle over this in the rain with a passenger was perhaps the scariest thing a human being could undertake. But to be fair, at least half of this structure was part of the Wilbur Cross Parkway, not the Merritt (the WC, the Merritt and the Hutch were all Rt. 15 and shared an exit numbering scheme). The road itself is exactly the same size and shape as when it opened. It retains its rural charm scores of unique and beautiful overpasses.
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
In the end, though, what's repsonsible for dominance of the roadways over mass transit is the automobile industry.
I agree with you, but I also wanted to add in that it's a big handout to the trucking industry; the way we currently tax commercial use of the highway system is totally inadequate.
Truckers "pay" for the use of the highway network (theoretically) through the federal tax on diesel fuel. This is stupid: it's insufficent to pay for the network, and also discourages passenger-car use of diesel (because it makes the fuel artificially expensive).
A tax that was actually based on pound-miles travelled (pounds of cargo times distance travelled on the network) would be more fair, and it would create more competition for the transport of cargo over other means. I think you'd see even more containerized freight being moved by rail, with only the "last mile" occuring by truck, and at the same time you wouldn't be penalizing owners of diesel passenger vehicles for their fuel choice, and the result would be higher efficiency in all vehicles. (There's a reason why diesel vehicles are more popular than gas in other countries; it's only because of our tax structure and lingering public opinion that they aren't here.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
As someone who lives in Raleigh, you are entirely correct.
Before our light-rail system got de-funded by the federal government, there weren't any plans to run a line to the airport, because the airport authority didn't want it there. It turns out they make a ton of money from parking fees, so adding a mass-transit link would have cost them money, despite making things significantly easier for their hundreds-of-thousands of yearly patrons.
I'm surprised you didn't comment on the poor quality of the rail line between Raleigh and Washington. I rode it earlier this year, and it was a most un-impressive trip. Not only was the train an hour late arriving into Raleigh, it was an additional 30 minutes late getting into Union Station. The trip back was worse -- it took 8 hours instead of the scheduled 6. I won't get into the cackling witch seated two rows behind me who did not shut up for the entire trip, despite being in the quiet car. [rolleyes]
Compare that to the ICE trains in Germany, which (while crowded) run like clockwork. There are plans to bring high-speed rail to the southeast, but they're running into the usual pork-barrel project problems -- every little town wants a stop, which negates the purpose.
Chip H.
The fundamental problem is that Europeans cannot fully grasp the difference in scale invoved in America
I understand how you feel. I often find that Americans have a hard time understanding that not all European countries are Luxemburg-sized.
Once per day it travels between SF and SD, and you have to get up at 5AM to catch it. It takes 11 hours. San Francisco and San Diego are 500 miles apart.
Paris and Marseilles (both major cities in France) are 490 miles apart.
Total train trip time, from city center to city center: 3 (THREE) fscking hours with the TGV train. No, that's not a typo.
BTW, although the "normal" cost is about 70 euros, if you book one month early (and if you're happy with a ticketless reservation) you can get away with a 25 euros price. Of course this includes the mandatory reservation and taxes.
And before you ask: yes, the infrastructure was built with public money (just like the Interstate), but the actual service (including maintenance of the lines) is profitable.
What was your point again ?