Interstate Highway System: 50th Anniversary 718
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.
Errr, hold on. Say what? (Score:5, Funny)
>"The amount of Portland cement could build more than 80 Hoover dams, or lay six sidewalks to the moon"
Wait a minute, nobody told me six sidewalks to the moon was one of the options! I would have totally voted for the sidewalk thing...
Re:Errr, hold on. Say what? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Errr, hold on. Say what? (Score:5, Funny)
But how much is that in Libraries of Congress per Nielsen market shares?
Re:Errr, hold on. Say what? (Score:5, Funny)
Please stop comparing our size to the size of other things; please stop covering us to a certain thickness in material; please stop laying our women end to end (and remarking that no one would be surprised); please stop filling in other places or events with multiples of our population. Enough is enough!
-- Connecticut Residents Against Nonconsensual Comparisons
Re:Errr, hold on. Say what? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Errr, hold on. Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad part is when you look at it the other way: The American auto industry would only survive six months on all the steel in all the Interstate highways in the entire United States. Do we really need that many cars?
Pennsylvania (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pennsylvania (Score:5, Funny)
In 1994, the American Society of Civil Engineers described the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System as "one of the Seven Wonders of the United States".
"Why the hell do I have to get a wheel alignment every two months"... is the only thing I ever 'wonder' about when driving on the NEO highway system.
Parts of PA "Interstate" pre-dates 1950's (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Parts of PA "Interstate" pre-dates 1950's (Score:3, Interesting)
And let me echo the original poster's sentiments, but add that by no means is that situation limited to just *northwest* Pennsylvania, but really anything under the governance of PennDOT.
Re:Parts of PA "Interstate" pre-dates 1950's (Score:3, Informative)
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 ma
Re:Parts of PA "Interstate" pre-dates 1950's (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Parts of PA "Interstate" pre-dates 1950's (Score:3, Interesting)
Bad Streets...and why no US Autobahn? (Score:3, Insightful)
You think that's bad....try the streets in and around New Orleans pre-K!! It has often been commented that they don't need to post speed signs...the whole city is one big speedbump!!
Digressing a little...but, the original article mentioned Eisenhower being moved to create hwy's here by the Autobahn.
Too bad they didn't set out to BUILD our interstate system with the same engineering and materials, to allow us
Re:Bad Streets...and why no US Autobahn? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Autobahn is built differently. The biggest difference is that the road surface throughout the Autobahn system is somewhere around 27 inches thick. Most interstates, by comparison, are only 16-18 inches thick. The extra durability makes for a road that's consistently in better condition, which is why it's no big deal to do 100+ mph with a properly-maintained car over there. OTOH, they're more expensive to build. If the interstates were built to the same spec as the Autobahn, the system wouldn't be nearly as extensive as it is.
This page [att.net] has some interesting Autobahn info.
Re:Bad Streets...and why no US Autobahn? (Score:5, Insightful)
You would think with us being the country that depends on cars more than anyone else we would have at least gotten this right
Re:Pennsylvania (Score:5, Funny)
Moonwalk (Score:5, Funny)
That's what they should have done instead. I'd walk to the moon.
Re:Moonwalk (Score:5, Funny)
They left off the part... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They left off the part... (Score:3, Funny)
Cue the analogies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cue the analogies... (Score:3, Interesting)
Gaah! No they're not! Several businesses that all ship goods to their customers rely on the effectiveness of the businesses that actually operate the vehicles that carry the freight, and the sophistication/efficiency of those operations. That's why UPS, FedEx, DHL et al duke it out so thoroughly. But since those companies adjust their business practices and prices around what they tend to be recently carrying, and for whom, and to which destinations..
Re:Cue the analogies... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Bridges galore? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait a minute, that would be more than one bridge per mile, on average. Is that actually correct? I don't remember there being that many bridges on any of the interstates I've driven on.
Re:Bridges galore? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bridges galore? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps the second number is referring to all the bridges that are on the designated, numbered highways (i.e., the ones commonly called "Highway" or "Route": Rt. 1, Rt. 66, etc.), even when they're not Interstates.
Alternately, the number might just b
Re:Bridges galore? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bridges galore? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not every bridge crosses the Mississippi.
Doubt they'd count overpasses/underpasses, that'd probably really inflate the number...
Re:Bridges galore? (Score:3, Interesting)
Prior to that though, you have the crap like you see in Leominster MA. Rt. 2. The main access road to Leominster was just cut into the town and there's no bridges to connects the roads it bisects. You'll be driving along, say Abbott Ave and suddenly, Bam two lane divided highway with people going 70mph...
It does sound a way off (Score:3, Insightful)
The info here (http://interstate50th.org/trivia.shtml) and here (http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/highway.htm) seems to bear this out... but it still sounds funny
Re:Bridges galore? (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition to what the others have said, any bridge where the highway traffic directions are separated probably counts as two bridges, not one.
Re:Bridges galore? (Score:5, Interesting)
And has encouraged americans (Score:3, Insightful)
And has encouraged americans to use enough gas to fill a swimming pool, each year.
Ike also saw the wonderful mass transit capable of the european trains, but that wasn't good enough...
Re:And has encouraged americans (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:No, no it wasn't (Score:3, Insightful)
I get really bitter when I think at how marvelous it would be to have railroads in place of every interstate...gah! Oh well.
Re:No, no it wasn't (Score:3, Insightful)
Current train system != Possible train system
Re:No, no it wasn't (Score:5, Insightful)
What's this obsession with using screwdrivers to bang nails in?
Your example of a camping trip is possibly the absolute worst thing that a mass-transit system would be good for. Nobody in their right mind would suggest building a railway simply to take three people out into the wilderness. That's the kind of thing that cars are ideally suited for.
Conversely, commuter traffic, or bulk transport, are the absolute worst thing that personal transport systems are good for. You're using a separate vehicle, each with its own engine, for each person? When most of them are travelling the same route at the same time? That's just silly.
What's appropriate is to use a rail system for commuting from suburbia to the city centre twice daily, or to carry a million tonnes of coal from Texas to New York City (or whereever). And you use the car when you want to go camping.
The first step when decided what the right tool is for a particular job is to be aware that more than one tool exists!
Re:No, no it wasn't (Score:3, Interesting)
Where enough people really want to use mass transit, we have mass transit
Re:No, no it wasn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Sheesh, he wasn't a troll... it's a valid point, if simplistically put. /rolls eyes
We need both highways and mass transport, and the failing of 1950s planning was that it prioritized highways above all else. A better use of resources would have been to build the rural and interstate parts of the system the same way they were built, but to substitute trains for some of the capacity in the urban network.
In Europe, they've got it all. Their intercity highways are better than ours. And for commuting, they have train networks that actually work and are pleasant enough that people want to use them. Saves gas, saves time (the high-speed trains are faster and you don't have to park them), and you can still drive your car just fine when you are going somewhere the trains don't go or don't reach effectively.
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.
Re:No, no it wasn't (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that the market is doing surprisingly well at encouraging people to take mass transit -- I've noticed ridership on my current bus line, as well as my previous train line, increase as gas prices have gone up. Real estate in towns with train stations is more in demand than real estate in towns without mass transit.
The next step is for states (with grants from the federal government) to build more mass transit. If you build it, they will come & all that. There are two problems:
1) NIMBYs objecting to railroad tracks near their property
2) People in government thinking that the government should not subsidize mass transit.
I believe that, in urban areas, mass transit should be funded at the same amount as the road system.
One other thing -- our roads are getting much more expensive to maintain -- tar is getting more expensive (it's a petroleum product, after all). Much cheaper in the long run to maintain rails than roadways.
In the end, though, what's repsonsible for dominance of the roadways over mass transit is the automobile industry. The federal highway system is a handout to the auto manufacturers, the fuel companies, and the workers in those industries -- not that I disagree with public works, I think they are necessary and good, but it's important to realize that the lack of support for mass transit initiatives among our legislators is due to the auto lobby and the auto workers' lobbies.
Also, trucking. (Score:4, Informative)
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:No, no it wasn't (Score:3, Informative)
There's
Re:No, no it wasn't (Score:4, Interesting)
Are there really enough people going from Boston to DC to support a 4 hour train over a 7 hour one?
Add stops in Philly and New York, and, absolutely. Boston to Washington is under 450 miles. A good train should be able to cover that distance in 3 hours, or 3.5 with stops at the outer edge. Shuttle flights run either hourly or half-hourly between *all* the city pairs in that group and are usually full. "Chinatown" buses leave almost as frequently and are also full; a faster, cleaner and safer train with reasonably priced tickets would probably peel off some of those travelers. And I expect if people could travel around the Northeast without the hassles of the other methods, or the insanity that is parking in New York or Boston, they might travel more often. I know I would -- as a Boston-area resident (for the moment) I'd go to New York every month just for the hell of it.
In my world the trains would not only be faster but cleaner, more pleasant, and much more frequent and reliable. My vision is modeled on the intercity line between Geneva and Zurich, Switzerland. Those trains run hourly and are a wonderful way to get places, unlike anything we have here.
Slower trains could cover the regional lines between each city. With the rebuilding that would be necessary for the high-speed trains, the regionals would speed up too.
Re:No, no it wasn't (Score:5, Interesting)
In Europe, they've got it all. Their intercity highways are better than ours. And for commuting, they have train networks that actually work and are pleasant enough that people want to use them. Saves gas, saves time (the high-speed trains are faster and you don't have to park them), and you can still drive your car just fine when you are going somewhere the trains don't go or don't reach effectively.
I live in the UK. We used to have the best railway network in the world. Hell, we invented them. Then we had Margaret Thatcher, who loved cars, and we had decades of apathetic state-funded railway management, and then we sold the whole lot off to Railtrack, who didn't maintain the network for ten years and caused several huge railway crashes, and as a result the rail network these days is expensive, unreliable, and slow.
And it's still orders of magnitude better than the US system. The last time I went there --- it was to North Carolina, and I'm quite aware that North Carolina is not the US's best point --- it was like visiting a third world country. Where any European airport is smoothly integrated into a quiet, cleanly running mass transit hub, we got out at Raleigh into a dirty, smelly car park full of honking horns. We had to hire a car to get to the fairly large town where we were going simply because we couldn't find out any other way to get there. (There may have been buses, but we were all completely unable to find any kind of centralised bus timetable system.) It was a hell of a culture shock.
This April I went skiing in Austria. I got the bus from my house to Reading railway station; got the bus there to Heathrow; flew to Munich; got on the mass transit from the airport to central Munich; got a long-distance train to Jenbach; got on the Zillertalbahn mountain railway to Mayrhofen; and then got on the Postbus from Mayrhofen to the guest house where I was staying; I got dropped off at the door. Sounds complicated? I went to the Deutschbahn website, told it I wanted to go from Reading, UK to Juns, Austria and it routed the whole lot for me. Through three countries. Everything was on time, too.
Re:No, no it wasn't (Score:4, Informative)
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.
The Geography Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
The fundamental problem is that Europeans cannot fully grasp the difference in scale invoved in America, especially in the American West. (It's big. It is really really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. You may think it is long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to Texas.) I travel rather often from San Diego, through Los Angeles, and to the Bay Area / San Francisco (these are the three major cities in California, incidentally). The trip takes 8-10 hours to complete, depending on traffic passing through Los Angeles. There is a single rail line that runs down the coast. 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.
By comparison, Amsterdam to Paris is 500 *km* apart. The distance from San Diego to San Francisco would span the breadth of England (London to Inverness was 8 hours by train, and is about 550 miles, as is Paris to Nice). When I was in Europe, I was constantly surprised about how little time it took to travel from one city to the next while I was on a train. When you live in the American West, you get used to 6 hour drives at 75-80 miles per hour where you literally see no living human beings outside of the gas stations and rest stops. And maybe some farms.
Europe is very heavily built up. It's dense. Rail networks make a lot more sense in dense networks than in sparse ones. That same rail line that runs to Oxford (60 miles from London) can be used to connect to Warwick, or Stratford-upon-Avon (if my memory serves). The rail network in California is essentially a 3-node graph with a line between SF, LA, and SD. With two mountain ranges in between, to boot. The train company loses money on the line pretty consistently. There's literally nothing in between to make the run profitable. San Luis Obispo and Santa Cruz are nice places, don't get me wrong, but they simply aren't volume destinations. And because it's not profitable, there won't be any more private infrastructure development. The State of California has been toying with the notion of building a high speed line from SF to SD for a while now, but, hell, I ran the numbers myself. Japan wouldn't have built a high speed rail line if their cities were all 500 miles apart. It's too costly. The main island of Japan is about 600 miles long, total.
It's not a better-than or worse-than comparison, I'm simply stating the facts. You have to have a certain critical mass of density to make rail networks worth your while. An analogy that works well with Europeans I've met: Imagine France. Now imagine there is nothing in the country but Paris, Lyon, and Marseille. None of the little villages, towns, and cities. Nothing but desert. Now consider the practicality of a rail network in the country. This is Texas.
-----
This isn't an America-is-bigger-is-better argument. In fact, I can pretty firmly say that I would greatly prefer being able to travel to another city in an hour or two. I lose an entire day whenever I make the trip. A drive to Phoenix, first major city east of San Diego (Yuma doesn't count) is 6 hours (@75 MPH) through almost nothing but desert. To the average San Diegan or San Franciscan, the other city is akin to a vacation destination. Road Trips are boring as hell unless you find a way to entertain yourself -- I personally go through audiobooks like water.
Rail Networks simply don't work when the graphs are so sparse. Out in the middle of the desert, a car moves faster than a train, and costs less, so why bother going to the hassle of parking your car in long term parking (unless you have a garage of your own), and paying more money to travel slower? I'd do it just for the scenic-ness of it, except you have to board at 5AM to get in
Re:The Geography Problem (Score:4, Informative)
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 ?
Re:data point (trains) (Score:3)
Amtrak isn't doing too hot. They handled 0.1% of all intercity traffic passenger miles in 2003 (most recent data point I could dig up).
Amtrak isn't a real train system. It's dirty, the equipment is old, it's horribly unreliable, it's slower than driving (which no passenger train has a right to be), trains don't run on any kind of reasonable schedule, and customer service is inconsistent. When I'm in Europe, I'm a train fanboy, but I don't consider riding Amtrak.
I think a better indicator of the demand
Re:data point (trains) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:data point (trains) (Score:3, Informative)
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... ima
Re:No, no it wasn't (Score:5, Insightful)
I have never felt more free than when I hopped on a Shinkansen with little more than 30 minutes' notice, and traveled all the way across Japan in less than four hours -- all while reading a book.
I have never felt less free than when paying for an auto loan, auto insurance, registration, maintenance and gasoline, just to make life in my home city possible.
Latent taxation, poor public transportation and a national dependence on black goop sucked from beneath some of the most US-hostile countries on earth: you have a funny definition of freedom.
Re:No, no it wasn't (Score:4, Insightful)
People in sensible countries just take a walk down the street to a local shop, or at most, hop on a bus or train to the city centre, market, or supermarket for a couple of bags of food.
Buying fresh produce is a delight. Fresh fruit, vegetables, meat from a butcher counter, warm freshly baked bread. You just can't expect to buy that in bulk weekly/fortnightly.
Besides, you can have a car too, or take a taxi, if you have a big family or genuinely need to stock up for some big meals.
Re:No, no it wasn't (Score:4, Insightful)
"People in sensible countries just take a walk down the street to a local shop, or at most, hop on a bus or train to the city centre, market, or supermarket for a couple of bags of food."
That is NOT a poor choice of words, that is directly saying "I am better than you" and I am sick of it. Non-American's love to say how American's always act like they are better than non-American's yet they love to do the same exact thing, how is that right?
"You people have bread that lasts more than a few days... that's just not right. Most of the stuff in the shops in the US is atrocious "long life" processed rubbish."
That was another line that just spews "I am better than you". We have A LOT more people to feed over here and we do have local bakeries available for people who prefer freshly baked bread but with the amount of mouths we have to feed I think having bread that doesn't spoil quickly (and other foods too) is better since less will be wasted. Of course, having a diet that consists ONLY of processed food is a bad idea but just having it available is not "atrocious", we have plenty of fresh foods available as well.
"And if a beating is Chicago's response to criticism of American food-shopping habits, it doesn't exactly project the image of a sensible country."
No that doesn't project the image of a sensible country and I was going overboard since I was pissed off, but what do people do when you continually pick on them? They retaliate, and sometimes harshly. It might not seem like a big deal this one time but thats just it, it wasn't this one time, it is over and over and over again.
In closing I want Europeans to stop bringing up the above things I mentioned since it is tired, old, and for the most part baseless when put into perspective of the real situation over here in America.
Re:No, no it wasn't (Score:3)
Yes, it's simply impossible that different people can have different preferences. There is only One True Way - congratulations on discovering it once and for all.
Re:Freedom of travel (Score:3, Informative)
Happy birthday! (Score:5, Funny)
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Government vs. Private (Score:5, Insightful)
I think in cases like this, private industry just would not have the resources and coordination to pull it off. Nor the motivation.
But in any case, NOBODY, public or private, wants to do mega-projects anymore. Complacency is the word of the day.
Re:Government vs. Private (Score:5, Interesting)
I've lately become enamored with private planes and flying. One of my neighbors (actually, he lives about 2 miles from me) has 2 private runways in his backyard. He lands his 4 passenger and 6 passenger prop planes on his lawn. Safely. For years.
Most of his flying is to other private runways such as his, that dot almost every area and region in the U.S. How do we know we wouldn't all be flying inexpensive planes rather than cars? Maybe the highways have made it easy to rip us off with gas taxes and excessive tolls because they were built. They were built before the real boom in inexpensive airplanes began (I can purchase a reasonable Cessna in great shape for less than US$20K).
While the fuel cost is likely higher, we really don't have a competitive marketplace yet because it was stillborn for so many years while the auto industry pandered to Congress to build more roadways at taxpayers expense rather than let the free market of billions of consumer decisions create what we really want and need.
I'm not putting any faith in the highways, either. My best friend is the son of the largest highway contractor in a big western state, and he's told me how much collusion and theft occurs every day in that industry. Thank government? Not for this mess.
Re:Government vs. Private (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Government vs. Private (Score:4, Insightful)
2. How many people can't handle light traffic on a Sunday, or for no reas run off the road into a telephone pole? How would these people do flying?
3. How many impatient assholes are out there that cut you off in traffic so they can get to the red light ahead 5 seconds faster? What would these guys do while waiting in a holding pattern to land, or waiting to take off?
That right there is why flight as the preferred private travel means would never work. Oh and how many people have the room on their property for a runway?
Re:Government vs. Private (Score:3, Interesting)
Today, Boston has "The Big Dig" which puts the central artery underground and is probably the last piece of the interstate system to be completed. It's amazing how much the government has done to accomodate status quo in contrast to the 50s.
It's much harder for the anyone to do a large project today. Environmental concerns, cost & existing
Whooptie doo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whooptie doo (Score:3, Insightful)
Drive from Chicago to Los Angeles, you run into traffic once along the way (Denver).
Ike had a dick-size war with the Soviets, and won (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks Ike, for giving the US the upper hand in the Cold War. He's also the one whose parting words were something like "Beware the military-industrial complex." A wise man, why can't we get Presidents like this anymore?
Re:Ike had a dick-size war with the Soviets, and w (Score:5, Insightful)
Because anyone with huevos enough to buck the status quo or speak unpopular truths gets the Rove treatment.
So we'll be getting agreeable dunces from now on.
Dunces with strings to make them dance.
Re:Ike had a dick-size war with the Soviets, and w (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, giving a speech after you've quit the job doesn't strike me as the bravest action one can imagine. If Ike really had huevos, he should have done something when he still had the power to do so, rather than escalate the cold war. If Bush gives a speech in 2009 about the importance of a strict separation between executive and jud
Highways vs. Autobahn (Score:4, Interesting)
An interesting factor in difference between our highway and Germany's autobahn is the 'curviness' of the road. The Germans wanted their highway to curve with the natural landscape, and be created with a minimal of environmental destruction, which we thought was stupid. As a result, we built straighter roads, blasting through mountains and paving over forests where necessary. The result of course, was highway hypnosis, which contributes to the higher death toll and accident count on U.S. highways.
You're way off base... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing the Autobahn has going for it are the occasional unlimited speed sections, most of which seemed absent on my drives from Stuttgart->Nurburg and Stuttgart->Munich - there were speed limits on most of the distance (either 120 km/h or 140 km/h)
Incidentally, posted speed limits notwithstanding,average car traffic speed on Interstates in the Midwest is between 120-140 km/h.
So what has the US system got on the Autobahn?
1) Interstates are numbered odd numbers North/South and even numbers East/West. Main routes have 2 digits, and connectors and bypasses have 3 digits, where the last two digits are the ID of the MSR that it connects to. This makes it very easy to tell (in most cases) which Interstate you need to be on, even if you don't know local geography that well. If you are West of Detroit, and you want to go to Toledo (south of Detroit) and you are on I-96 approaching the the I-275 interchange, you can tell that:
a) you are travelling E/W
b) 275 runs N/S
c) 275 links up with 75, also N/S
d) So taking 275 to 75 is moving you in the right direction.
2) There is only one allowed intersection between any two Interstates. The intersection of I-69 and I-94 is unique. That is NOT the case with Autobahns, which can loop back on each other and cross in multiple places. This very nearly got me lost on the way to Stuttgart from the Nurburgring, and the only reason I caught it was that the sun was in the wrong place after the interchange....
3) On/off ramps onto Interstates are labelled with the name of the nearest major city AND the direction of travel - so you might see "I-70 West - Topeka" and "I-70 East - Kansas City". Autobahns are labelled with the name of SOME city in that direction, but I never discovered the pattern; and with the city density in Germany, trying to find the city on the map (in one of two directions) while rapidly approching the exit, without the aid of a dedicated navigatrix, can be daunting.
4) Exits are numbered with the current mile marker value, and the mile marker value itself is the distance along the Interstate within that state. Working out time, distance, and fuel problems in your head become VERY simple. If I am at mile marker 20, and I need to take exit 140, and I am travelling at 60 MPH, then I have 2 hours of travel before my exit. Note that this wasn't always true - Florida and Georgia held out on sequential exit numbering for a long time - but as far as I know, everything is mile marked now.
5) I refute the claim to "highway hypnosis" being a problem; having done multiple all-night driving stints trying to make it to events on time, the general straightness of the Interstate makes the road network safer (especially in bad weather) gives you much better sightlines, and saves fuel, especially with big rigs. The few exceptions to this rule can really stand your hair on end imagine coming around a corner at 70 MPH with 14,000 lbs of car hauler to find that traffic has stopped dead... yikes!
Seriously, the US Interstate system is a wonder of design and is transportation networking done nearly perfectly. It takes almost all the best features of the Autobahn and then improves on them.
DG
Re:You're way off base... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You're way off base... (Score:3, Informative)
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 e
What happens when roads are obsolete? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What happens when roads are obsolete? (Score:4, Insightful)
Getting off track a bit.. I think it's outrageous that we're spending billions to make bigger and bigger roads. The highway system isn't scalable to the point we need it to be. They just finished expanding the highway I commute on from 2 lanes to 3 (in each direction). It helped, but it's going to draw more people to live in those communities now when they wouldn't have considered living there before because of the traffic. So then what? Four lanes? Five? Underground tunnels?
What we need is effective mass transport, at least in populated areas of the US like eastern MA. I don't want to be stuck on the highway everyday but there is no real alternative. I'd rather take rail if it were available, at least I could read or use a laptop or do something partially productive. That would also cut down on our dependency on oil, road rage, traffic fatalities, stress, insurance premiums, so on and so forth. Use the land the highways take up and build a decent rail system.
Both WWI and WWII (Score:5, Interesting)
After the Normandy invasion Ike's troops were again slogging, this time through French hedgerows. Finally when he got to Germany and could use the Autobahn, well, you know the rest of the story...
Re:Both WWI and WWII (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Both WWI and WWII (Score:4, Funny)
If we had only stuck with the autobahn... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you look at a map of any place with urban sprawl, like Atlanta, highways are the first cancerous veins that spread the disease of McMansions and thirty mile commutes. If there were far less highway entrances and exits, and someone besides complete idiots in the zoning office, the inconvenience of driving five miles to the nearest highway exit would cause more people to buy homes closer to town. Cities would then be more efficent and better served by mass transit systems. With less cars, and fewer and shorter car commutes, we'd also lessen our dependence on foreign oil. People would be forced to do more with less, so instead of having entire floors that go unused (yet still air conditioned), more efficient townhomes and apartments would be used instead.
Proper city planning will determine which civilization survives the 21st century the best. It's too bad America is doing so poorly.
Uh, its called the BYPASS ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Alternatively cities like Chicago have express lanes that switch direction depending on time of day (in to town in the morning, out of town in the afternoon) that are basically the innermost lane(s) but barricaded off, and have no exits.
I can't speak for atlanta
They missed a statistic (Score:5, Insightful)
One major thing that Ike failed to bring over from the German system: driver's education.
The U.S. education, licensing and renewal of drivers is a joke. Personally, I don't want anyone who didn't make 95% on their test on the road, but here we have most of the drivers who made 70% and it shows, every day. To further agitate the issue, law enforcement and insurance companies have too much forgiveness: four tickets/year allowed (in TX), defensive driving courses (what a joke).
I wouldn't drive to work every day if I had an alternative. Personally, I'd rather go back to horses.
Re:They missed a statistic (Score:3, Interesting)
The driving tests today are filled with political garbage. There's virtually nothing on them about actually driving an automobile, whilst the vast majority of the test is filled with questions regarding the dollar-amounts of the penalties for DWI, the maximum number of weeks you have to change your registration after you move, the (startlingly high) number of points you get on your license if you cut off an ice cream truck (no joke! this was on my test), etc.....
The first time I took the test was a
Too Bad.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why an Interstate Highway in Hawaii? (Score:3, Interesting)
Because all military bases, when the project was created, had to be linked to the interstate system. It was one of the selling points to the public... we can move troops and equipment in case of need to other parts of the US. So the intertate highway system in Hawaii connects the militray bases.
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.
Also from the discovery or history channel learned that lots of it was designed from the German Autobahn system and how the intersections don't stop traffic.
Re:Why an Interstate Highway in Hawaii? (Score:5, Informative)
Too bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad he didn't notice their train system while he was over there too. Our lack of a national public transportation system is wasteful and embarassing.
Re:Too bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Right, except the Northeast is practically as dense, and thus could use a decent transit system. Unfortunately, what we have is a bunch of not-too-well-connected systems run by local authorities (there are no local direct trains between NYC and Philly, for example) and Amtrak, which is a sorry excuse for a joke.
I don't think that "high-speed rail" is the answer yet, either. What we need is, first of all, a reform of Federal railroad regulation
Let's Do It Again (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember, the Interstate Highway System was a response to the problems of moving military assets across the US during WWII. It's great for visiting grandma, but it's really a national security asset.
So our current national security risk is our dependence on foreign sources of energy. I'd love to see a project on this scale to rebuild the national grid, make it easy to get wind power from the Dakotas or Solar power from New Mexico to Boston or LA. Our current grid can't do this and it's a big deal to make one that can. Tie in end-user-generated solar and build out broadband to everybody at the same time and you'd do a real benefit to the country.
When that's done we can get started with upgrading the Interstates for Personal Rapid Transit.
I look forward to reading the part of the series on the politics of passage.
Cultural side-effects (Score:3, Funny)
Ike made a mistake... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ike made a mistake... (Score:3)
And some of us don't. Choice is a wonderful thing, eh? Personally, I'm working my ass off to retire early so I can get the BLEEP out of the city. The noise, the smells, the crime, the riff raff (both kinds: those with no money and those with too much)... you can keep it.
All the other issues are fixable given the political will. Yeah, yeah... I know.
Re:Ike made a mistake... (Score:3)
I personally prefer the European lifestyle in large built-up cities.
Good for you. Have fun living on top of your neighbors, with constant noise, overcrowding, everything asphalted / concreted over, and paying $2000 / month for a 400 sq. foot apartment. Don't assume that everyone wants to live the way you do just because it your opinion it's "better."
Re:Ike made a mistake... (Score:3, Insightful)
When we went to Berlin (via car - we toured Germany via car and I also had a quick stop to drive 6 laps of the Nords
Re:Ike made a mistake... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a *benefit*?! Yes, driving is fun. As I said before, *having* to drive sucks royally for a variety of reasons.
5. American teens can break out of their shell when they turn 16.
Even if they weren't able to drive, they'd still break out of their shells. If fewer people drove, more people would live in denser conditions, where it's possible to walk or bicycle to places worth going to. Being able to drive is a sign of coming of age. It does not in itself make you come of age...
-b.
Tank movers (Score:5, Insightful)
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. A column of tanks can move across the whole of our nation in about three days time. That's significant when you consider an enemy force not wanting 2,000 M1s staring at them.
Re:Tank movers (Score:4, Informative)
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.
So, trees were not harmed? (Score:4, Insightful)
What do they mean "would"? If that's the amount of wood used, then 500 square miles of forest was most definitely consumed, no?
-dZ.
Tank Welfare (Score:3, Informative)
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.
I wondered that too... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. In the USA, everyone can drive, and does. Every kid 16 and over drives on the freeway. In Germany, I understand that a drivers license is not a gimme like it is here. I hear there are higher costs and stuff like that. So that filters out a lot of people as dumb as you and I were when we first drove on I-70.
2. Cost. They showed the way the Autobahn is constructed, and it can handle higher speeds than the freeway.
3. Terrain. From the little I saw, there are no Rocky Mountains for the Autobahn to cross. This makes a difference in what is a safe speed, and what kind of money you spend on making expensively-safe surfaces.
4. Tradition. I guess the Autobahn was always a speeding zone, and land speed records were even set there.
5. Congestion. Does the Autobahn have anything like the amount of traffic that the Interstates have on them?
Now, not all of these factors apply in all cases (no Rocky Mountains in Nebraska (That John Denver's full of crap!), no congestion on I-70 in Utah, etc.), but I think that when taken together they make a good case.
I guess there are other reasons, too, like different traffic laws that might have a greater impace or something, but I don't know.
Re:I wondered that too... (Score:5, Informative)
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:if Eisenhower saw Autobahns (Score:3, Informative)
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 wan