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.

Re:Bridges galore?

[damburger]

I don't know for sure, but of the two I think the total mileage is most likely to be wrong. 46,000 miles seems kind of small.

Re:And has encouraged americans

[isa-kuruption]

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.

What the heck is an FHA?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been working in the industry for 10 years, and in every document and every reference, it's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). No one refers to them as the FHA.

Even their website is http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ [dot.gov]

If you can't even get basic things like this right...

Re:Cue the analogies...

[barzok]

How would charging for access to highways be any different from paying to ride on the bus or train? that way only the people who use it have to pay for it. Those unwilling to pay for the use of the highway can use other roads leaving the toll roads free for those who are willing to pay to save a few minutes.

If only it were so easy. In Upstate NY, I-90 (the only interstate crossing the state East-West, unless you count I-86 which is still being built and follows the PA border) is a toll road, but the alternative to taking it isn't matter of "a few minutes" - the difference can be 30 minutes to several hours, depending on the distance you're travelling. A few years ago, I travelled about half the length of the state one weekend on I-90, and the trip was about 2 1/2 hours, toll cost was a couple bucks. I made the return trip on non-toll roads and it took me nearly six hours. Toll cost: $0. Extra fuel cost, at least $5 (longer distance, even though the start and end points didn't change). So that was basically a wash. The time was a killer.

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.

Re:Why an Interstate Highway in Hawaii?

[mph]

It also has. just barely, but has the 2 mile straight length that was demanded in each highway every so often for landing endangered aircraft.

Nope. [snopes.com]

Re:No, no it wasn't

[Dun Malg]

At this point I'd like to see the next big infrastructure investment be in a European-style intercity, high-speed train network to give people an alternative to highways. It wouldn't work across the great expanses of the West, but it would work just fine from Chicago eastward and along the West Coast. Imagine getting from Boston to Washington in 3 1/2 hours without the hassle of airport transportation, TSA bullshit, etc., etc. and simultaneously reducing airport congestion. Sounds worthwhile to me.

There's already frequent train service between Boston and DC. Currently, it takes about 6.5 hours. So you're saying we should have faster trains? The stops on that route are already only like 15 minutes apart, so in order for a "bullet train" to make any significant difference it'll have to skip over the "small towns" like New Haven CT, Newark NJ, and Philadelphia PA. Are there really enough people going from Boston to DC to support a 4 hour train over a 7 hour one?

Re:I wondered that too...

[SCO_Shill]

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.

Re:Freedom of travel

[cnettel]

Just FYI, you can drive just fine from the northern-most parts of Finland to southwest Portugal and never cross any traditional border check (involving stopping/customs/passport check, just drive through). The only hassle would be that you have to cross one toll bridge (or take the ferry) and you may want to use the toll parts of the French highway network. This distance would be 4243 kilometers (2637 miles according to Google Earth) if you just go straight along the globe, ignoring that this would take you right into the Atlantic ocean and the details of that the road network is naturally not that straight. As a comparison, the distance Washington DC - San Francisco, measured in the same manner, is "only" 2438 miles.

As another point of reference, although Europe (and the E.U.) as a whole are quite densely populated, Sweden has about 1/20 of the land area of the U.S., but a 1/30 of the population. Even if you would be able to go the most direct route, you could drive for almost 1000 miles (1600 km, equal to New York - Minneapolis) without leaving the borders. Yes, there are actual roads to drive on, as well, although the quality deteriorates if you leave the main ones in sparsely populated areas. And, as I noted, the border is nothing more than a sign along the road.

You can also easily find two sites with the parameters "significant city" and "major airport" with more than a 6 hour drive, in one direction, between them, within for example Germany and France.

Re:if Eisenhower saw Autobahns

[demeteloaf]

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.

Re:Tank movers

[biobogonics]

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.

Re:You're way off base...

[rnelsonee]

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).

Tank Welfare

[Doc Ruby]

Eisenhower saw how German tanks overran Europe, as he was in charge of America's work helping roll them back in defeat. The Interstate Highway system was designed to pave roads for American tanks to reach every part of the country. It served as a vast government subsidy for car makers to compete with the railroads that settled the continent.

My favorite Interstate website is Interstate-Guide [interstate-guide.com], with pictures, history, plans and lots of other transit geek info. As long as the people have paid for this vast system, we should get the most out of it.

Re:Parts of PA "Interstate" pre-dates 1950's

[Pig Hogger]

I think there are parts of the PA Turnpike in its original form (engineering wise anyways) that predates the Interstate system by 20 years!

The Pennsyvania Turnpike was built on the roadbed of a nearly completed totally new rail line between New-York and Chicago [wikipedia.org] that was built by the New-York Central to compete directly with the Pennsylvania Railroad's direct route (the NYC detoured through Albany and Buffalo) in the 1880's. Following intense backroom negociations aboard J.P. Morgan's yatch (who, as a major bankroller, hated to see such money poured into competition), and eventually, the Baltimore & Ohio (which was then controlled by the PRR) purchased the roadbed to make sure it would never be opened.

In 1937, the unused roadbed was purchased by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the Pennsylvania turnpike.

Re:Parts of PA "Interstate" pre-dates 1950's

[good soldier svejk]

The same is more or less true of most of the Merritt Parkway [kurumi.com] 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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [bergerlehman.com] 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 [wikipedia.org] scores of unique and beautiful overpasses. [wikipedia.org]

Re:You're way off base...

[Negadecimal]

There is only one allowed intersection between any two Interstates.

There are many, many examples that contradict this. I-76, I-270, and I-25 all intersect at one point north of Denver. The three have been "separated" a bit in the last couple years, but for the better part of a century, each exit gave you two to three options.

Exits are numbered with the current mile marker value...but as far as I know, everything is mile marked now.

New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts...

And besides, the Autobahn has a few extra features/laws that we don't find in our interstate highways:

1) Emergency phones every 1-2 kilometers. Everywhere. And, reflectors on 100-meter markers that direct you to the nearest emergency phone. Granted, it predates cell phones, but it's still a nice thing to have.

2) Traffic radio subbands that inform drivers of looming traffic jams.

3) Laws prohibiting passing on the right-hand side of another car, or driving a truck in the left lane. This prevents dangerous weaving and those scary moments when you suddenly realize the truck in front of you is traveling at 1/3 your speed.

4) Concrete roadways. Virtually every mile of Autobahn is thick concrete. No asphalt, no potholes, washes, biannual resurfacing, grading, etc.

Also, trucking.

[Kadin2048]

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.)

Re:data point (trains)

[krlynch]

I think a better indicator of the demand for *real* trains is in the ridership on short-range airline shuttles. Those planes are packed, causing enormous airport congestion and worsening the already significant hassles inherent in modern air travel.

In that market, Amtrak already IS a big player. They move roughly half of the non-driving intercity passengers between NY and Washington, as much as the shuttles. In the NY to Boston segment, they move 1 for every 2 airline customers.

I'll elaborate a bit... imagine going Boston to Washington in 3.5 hours, with no security checkpoint, room to stretch your legs, no seat belt sign, quiet (and the ability to change cars to get away from screaming babies), enjoyable scenery out the window, the train station a short cab ride from where you want to go on both ends, no mad scramble for seat assignments, and no need to pay outrageous change/cancel fees.

You don't have to imagine it ... I did it last week. It's called the Acela Express. Eight weekday roundtrips Boston to NY, and 14 weekday roundtrips NY to Washington. The US already HAS a reasonable _short-haul_ intercity passenger rail system. The Northeast Corridor, California Coast, and the Northwest function well, with continually increasing ridership numbers. And many of hte markets you mentioned are under consideration for the development of highspeed rail. Beyond those limited corridors, however, the time penalty in crossing between populated areas of the country by rail is prohibitive given the cheap domestic airline market.

Re:Government vs. Private

[Anonymous Coward]

(I can purchase a reasonable Cessna in great shape for less than US$20K)

No, you can purchase an 35 year old Cessna powered by an engine that was obsolete when new for less than US$20k. Carbureators, magnetos, breaker points, manual chokes, flat heads and leaded gas are all gone from automotive use (and most of us would say "good riddance"), but you'll find them on a Cessna. If you thought the air in LA was bad in the 70s and 80s, just imagine the number of people who live there now all operating engines with no pollution control, carbs calibrated to run rich, and burning 10 gallons of 110LL an hour...

Re:Moonwalk

[smellsofbikes]

I want to see any slashdotter walk 400,000 km. It took Albert Speer thirteen years to walk the equivalent of the circumference of the Earth [amazon.co.uk] and he had absolutely nothing else to do with his time during his walk. It took my father 20 years of riding his bike to work every single day before he'd ridden 400,000 km. It's a great idea, but by the time you got there you'd be wishing you'd taken the bus.

Re:You're way off base...

[DG]

I-76, I-270, and I-25 all intersect at one point north of Denver.

Ah, but that's allowed. The rule isn't "any given intersection must join only two routes" but rather "any two routes (excepting bypasses) may only have one intersection"

You won't find another intersection between I-76 and I-25 anythwere else.

3) Laws prohibiting passing on the right-hand side of another car, or driving a truck in the left lane. This prevents dangerous weaving and those scary moments when you suddenly realize the truck in front of you is traveling at 1/3 your speed.

With a few exceptions (Michigan being one of them) there are similar laws on the US Interstate. Trucks are only allowed to use the rightmost two lanes (on a three-laner) and it is supposed to be illegal to pass on the right. Sadly, this isn't enforced much, and Americans are nowhere near as law-abiding as Germans when it comes to traffic laws.

A prime example is that Germans tend to view speed limits as absolutes, where North Americans view them more as guidelines. When a speed limit changes down, a North American will (might) lift throttle and coast down to the lower speed, where a German will wait as long as possible, then nail the brakes to enter the speed zone at exactly the proscribed speed. Scared the crap out of me the first time I encountered this - in North America, a wall of lit brake lights means "something bad has happened; prepare to test how good your brakes are".

I DO wish Americans respected the "don't pass on the right" rule. The blind spot on the right side of a rig is enormous; you can be tucked up in there and I'll *never* see you. Because I'm on your left, I'm expecting to be moving faster than you, so I'll see you enter the blind spot and I won't move over until I see you come out of it. If you enter that right side blind spot from behind, I probably didn't see you go in there, and I may move over on you.

As a rig (and a fast mover rig) I'll keep the leftmost lane open for fast car traffic if there are three lanes. The rightmost lane is dangerous for rigs because of merging traffic; if somebody pops out ahead of us, we can't stop, we have a hard time speeding up to get out of the way of a merger, and we're long so we block a good sized chuck of the merge lane - it is WAY safer for everybody if we stay out of the rightmost lane as much as possible. But you take your life into your hands if you pass on the right.

If it is a two-laner and I'm in the left lane (which normally happens in urban areas with a lot of exits so I can't do the rural practice of staying right and moving left when approaching exits) all you need to do is give me a quick flash of the brights and I'll move over at first opportunity to let you by. "Flash to pass" is good manners and I'll respect it if I can do so safely.

But my safety trumps your impatience. "Left side == passing side, Right side == suicide".

Concrete roadways. Virtually every mile of Autobahn is thick concrete. No asphalt, no potholes, washes, biannual resurfacing, grading, etc

All the Interstate referb work that has been going on in the last few years has been concrete whenever possible. Blacktop is being phased out.

DG

Re:No, no it wasn't

[b0s0z0ku]

No thanks, I'll stick with my car. I couldn't even possibly imagine how people that take trains go grocery shopping.

You order the staples (milk, bread, veggies, etc), and they get delivered to you regularly. "Special" items can always get picked up when you need them - and it's surprising how much a bike with panniers can carry.

-b.

Re:No, no it wasn't

[Peter Mork]

Someone else has already squished (2), so allow me to reference information [snopes.com] pertaining to the use of highways as landing strips.

In my hometown it came through about 36 years ago

[RPGonAS400]

When I was in 5th grade in North Branch, Minnesota our entire elementary school walked over a mile to the grand opening of I-35 going through the town. It was a great occasion for all of us. It saved us oodles of time over the years. I think the system is great.

I lived near Winnipeg in Canada for 6.5 years and they have nothing that compares. Their Highway 1 that crosses the country from east to west is a joke. They have stop lights and 2 lane roads and no fast access around cities. On top of this, twice in the short time I lived there the entire road was washed out in western Ontario by beaver dams breaking!! All east/west traffic had to be diverted to the U.S. for almost a week each time.

Re:Less obvious reason to make the roads straight

[imageek]

Not true, according to Snopes:

Claim: The American interstate highway system was designed to be used for emergency airstrips in case of war. Status: False. http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp [snopes.com]

Re:Bad Streets...and why no US Autobahn?

[cayenne8]

"I thought that had more to do with puritan morality than engineering? Is/was the Autobahn built so differently?"

My understanding is YES. I saw a very interesting thing on the Autobahn...either on the History or Discovery channels...sounds like a 'Modern Marvels' thing. But, from that I got that the Autobahn was designed from the start with speed in mind. It is much thicker and made with stronger materials, and engineered for speed (better banks, etc).

Also, they have by law that you HAVE to yield the left lane for allowing faster cars behind you to pass. I wish to hell people in the US would at least remember to let people pass in the left lane....especially if you flash your lights quickly when behind them to get their attention. Here..half the people don't seem to know what that means anymore...and you get the finger.

Over there...you get a ticket if you don't yield...at least as I understand it.

Re:No, no it wasn't

[chiph]

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 [sehsr.org], but they're running into the usual pork-barrel project problems -- every little town wants a stop, which negates the purpose.

Chip H.

Re:Ike made a mistake...

[It's all Krista's Fa]

LA is also built in a semi-arid bowl valley with a predominant eastward wind -- blowing right up against a wall of mountain. It's kind of a perfect storm of haze.

Compare to Chicago, which doesn't have that wall -- no haze.

Re:Bad Streets...and why no US Autobahn?

[thedave]

Colorado and Texas have so-called "road-hog" laws allowing police to ticket for failing to yield to faster traffic.

It's just not enforced very often.

Re:The Geography Problem

[stef0x77]

> France and Texas are the same size, and shape, but Texas along the I-80 is filled with
> 10 hours of nothing but desert and homocidal cops (a long story for another time).

Texas has no I-80. The I-80 runs from Chicago to San Francisco.

Re:The Geography Problem

[Thomas Miconi]

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. [idtgv.com] 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 ?