No Interstate Highway System

Hi!

I don't know if this is ASB, but here goes.

How would America have developed in the 50's and 60's had Eisenhower not decided to set up the Interstate Highway System? Would there have been fewer people on the West Coast? Would small roads and highways like Route 66 see more traffic. Would people be less dependent on cars? Would trains be more popular (though obviously you have less freedom on where you go on a train)

The POD involves the money that went into the Interstate Highway system going into Cold War defense funds and/or improving the rail infrastructure. The premise is that it's easier to fix an existing train track than create superhighways from scratch.

ACG
 
Hi!

I don't know if this is ASB, but here goes.

How would America have developed in the 50's and 60's had Eisenhower not decided to set up the Interstate Highway System? Would there have been fewer people on the West Coast? Would small roads and highways like Route 66 see more traffic. Would people be less dependent on cars? Would trains be more popular (though obviously you have less freedom on where you go on a train)

The POD involves the money that went into the Interstate Highway system going into Cold War defense funds and/or improving the rail infrastructure. The premise is that it's easier to fix an existing train track than create superhighways from scratch.

ACG

The problem is that there was a limit on what rail infrastructure could do. And the rise of the Interstate Highway System seems almost impossible to have prevented.
 
So it gets postponed for a while, and by the time they realize they need it in the 1960's or so there's no money or something like that and it's either postponed further or scaled back enough to limit traveling. Perhaps the superhighways don't go all the way across the country -- they only put them in the major cities.
 
There was a thread about something like this a few months back which came up with some pretty interesting ideas- and there was also one in Chat which talked about the feasibility of medium and long distance rail transport in the US. Can't remember the thread titles though.

There was quite a good point made about rail being useful for the "too far to drive, too close to fly" destinations- intensive commuter rail could work very well in California between San Francisco and LA. Regional rail networks could be seen in most of the rest of the country connecting towns to regional air hubs- light commuter air would be a lot more prevalent in TTL, which might well work. You've got a lot of former WW2 pilots in the 50s- they could well set up their own regional air services.
 
Perhaps we could have a different attitude about private property and eminent domain. Even though Eisenhower set up the Interstate system in 1956, it was well into the sixties when enough long distance roads were completed to make a significant impact on transportation patterns.

Without the federal program, you would have more toll roads/turnpikes in heavily traveled corridors.
 
Without the Interstate Highway System there would be the Intrastate Highway System. Individual states would initially build their own highways, parkways, freeways, etc. which may or may not interconnect with the systems in the neighboring states.

Of course there would already be a Federal Highway system since there were a few built initially under the Roosevelt Administration (and probably a few earlier).

Given the poor state of the US rail system by the end of 1940s its probably inevitable that the freeway will rise. At some point the Federal Government will step in and insist on linking intrastate systems together.
 
The Feds were building roads in an odd burst of government intervention in the 1920s, in response to road erosion, and the fact that most roads were only fit for horses.
 
And the rise of the Interstate Highway System seems almost impossible to have prevented.

Not necessarily. But yes there is a limit on how much rail infrastructure can do but preventing the Interstate Highway System is not entirely ASB and it brings forth some big time cultural butterflies (which in turn affect political ones) that are usually underrated.

Lets say as it was proposed that the funds go instead into defense and so the construction of the IHS is delayed. If you delay it long enough railroads have stayed in used maybe even expanded which takes care of short distance travel. Delay it to the 60s and flight gets developed even more taking care of longer distance. With less competition from the IHS these modes of transportation get developed further.
Interstate Bullet Speed Trains might be around, more common, and developed earlier. And America's fear of flying (which was there before 9/11 is not there. Airlines do better and cheap airlines such the as small European ones in OTL develop.
All this is only to help the IHS from ever developing. Hold it off long enough and people wont see its need.

However the most important factor comes in how it will affect the designs of American cities and as a consequence American life.

Though the head of General Motors never said his famous quote of "What is Good for General Motor's is Good for America" the spirit of such quite is still there in OTL. In a TL with no (or a smaller) IHS you do not have the giant automobile corporations that ran America for a very long time. This translates to less problems with the oil industry. Once you have high-speed electric trains there is very little reason to delay the search for alternate fuels as it has happened in OTL. Though the larger and more powerful airlines companies ITTL might throw a fit.
Relations with oil exporting countries are completely different and that is a huge butterfly.

In everyday life things also change. For one less people have cars. This means that edge cities like Los Angeles and Atlanta (and every mid western city) develop differently. Instead of becoming Drive-Thru paradises they are built more compact centered around public transportation and over all better designed for community living. People will live closer to work if they do not have the Highway that connects them from the suburbs to downtown. The suburbs have unfortunately already appeared and they are one of the major causes for the ISH to develop as it did. But without the IHS hopefully their appeal is soon disappears as people cant stand living that far from work.

Along with the Intestate Highway System, Fast Food with Drive Thrus have helped homogenize America to the point in which it is today. They are both very interconnected in their history and have been very important in the development of American culture in the last 40-50 years.

Indeed without the IHS the west will be very different. It would be less settled but that will not stop from LA, San Fransico, Seatle from becoming major cities. San Jose which is now bigger than San Francisco will very likely stay smaller as it is a prime example of an American city that benefited from the IHS, the suburbs, the Drive Thrus, and the Edge City design.
Depending on the effect of the railroad system even food will be very different. Distinctive local food will not disappear as they did in OTL for the most part rather than being able to fish a lobster in Maine and ship it to California where it will be eaten. I know you can get a Miane lobster in Australia nowadays but the idea does not become popular until much later on.

Over all it is a major POD, and a cultural timeline on it would be very interesting to read.

(BTW Edge city refers to a city where people live on the edge, ei the suburbs, and work in the center, downtown. Usually instead of having its poor neighborhoods on an outer belt it has them near downtown. It been the prominent design employed in American cities since the construction of the IHS)
 
IIRC a major reason LA developed urban sprawl was because of it's extensive trolley network, highways were then superimposed onto an already sprawling city.

I don't know if the IHS would be aborted, but with the other transport options supported instead of being abandoned for the IHS then it wouldn't occupy the dominant position it has today.
 
What if like the IHS focused on the military aspects, so until the mid '70s the system was made and expanded upon but was only allowed to be used for military vehicles?

With this the US government funds massive public transport programs in cities and, to pay for all of it, there is a massive gas tax to pay for it all.

I mean Ralph Nader would be still around as long as the Corvair was still around. Michael Moore will be making films as long as there is something moderately right-wing to piss him off.
 
The increased military funding would mean that the US would have an easier time in Vietnam but still would not win. Therefore the war might last longer into the 70s, but I don't think America ever could have won that war.

Also the US would not have the enormous fuel dependence that it has today. Railroads are much more efficient than trucks at moving materials, and the United States wouldn't be saddled decades later with such huge energy dependence issues.
 
However the most important factor comes in how it will affect the designs of American cities and as a consequence American life.

Though the head of General Motors never said his famous quote of "What is Good for General Motor's is Good for America" the spirit of such quite is still there in OTL. In a TL with no (or a smaller) IHS you do not have the giant automobile corporations that ran America for a very long time. This translates to less problems with the oil industry. Once you have high-speed electric trains there is very little reason to delay the search for alternate fuels as it has happened in OTL. Though the larger and more powerful airlines companies ITTL might throw a fit.
Relations with oil exporting countries are completely different and that is a huge butterfly.

In everyday life things also change. For one less people have cars. This means that edge cities like Los Angeles and Atlanta (and every mid western city) develop differently. Instead of becoming Drive-Thru paradises they are built more compact centered around public transportation and over all better designed for community living. People will live closer to work if they do not have the Highway that connects them from the suburbs to downtown. The suburbs have unfortunately already appeared and they are one of the major causes for the ISH to develop as it did. But without the IHS hopefully their appeal is soon disappears as people cant stand living that far from work.

Along with the Intestate Highway System, Fast Food with Drive Thrus have helped homogenize America to the point in which it is today. They are both very interconnected in their history and have been very important in the development of American culture in the last 40-50 years.

Indeed without the IHS the west will be very different. It would be less settled but that will not stop from LA, San Fransico, Seatle from becoming major cities. San Jose which is now bigger than San Francisco will very likely stay smaller as it is a prime example of an American city that benefited from the IHS, the suburbs, the Drive Thrus, and the Edge City design.
Depending on the effect of the railroad system even food will be very different. Distinctive local food will not disappear as they did in OTL for the most part rather than being able to fish a lobster in Maine and ship it to California where it will be eaten. I know you can get a Miane lobster in Australia nowadays but the idea does not become popular until much later on.
I think you overestimate the influence of IHS. You're right about the development of "standardized" foods; it led directly to the explosion of McDs & the like. It had little or no impact on the creation, & explosion, of 'burbs. These had already begun to sprout by the '20s, even being known as "streetcar suburbs"; the auto industry dramatically expanded their scope & number, without any help from IHS. Add the G.I. Bill, which encouraged building new homes, rather than renovating old ones,:eek::confused: which directly contributed to the explosion of 'burbs postwar, again without any help from IHS. Add frankly lunatic tax laws which taxed farmland at city limits on its potential value for development,:confused: rather than its strict value for farming.... Also add stupid tax laws which gave developers a free pass on the cost of sewage, power, & street systems,:confused: which city taxpayers picked up the tab for, & you get suburban housing cheaper than city center... Between these & the de facto subsidy for driving (since streets are paid for by everybody, but transit systems usually are expected to pick up their own costs in the main)....:confused: If you really want to remove the 'burbs, you've got to get at the transit systems before 1910 or so, & the local tax subsidies to driving, & rewrite the G.I.Bill; I'd pick the G.I. Bill, since it had the bigger effect in the long run.
 
Top