WI the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which authorized the construction of the Eisenhower National Interstate system, hadn't been passed by Congress? Would the national interstate idea been brought up later or not at all?
The Bald Imposter said:What would be the POD that would keep the bill from passing?
EvolvedSaurian said:Make it associated with Hitler. It was based on the AutoBahn, after all.
The Bald Imposter said:Does Godwin's Law apply to Congress?
The Bald Imposter said:What would be the POD that would keep the bill from passing?
The Interstate Highway System was designed for high speed transfers of military equipment. Most Congress Critters were aware that the Auto Bahn System had its orgins in the Nazi era,but another Boogie Man called the USSR made that a non starter as a arguement. The US doesn't automaticly reject good ideas just for who first thinks of it,it would have taken more than that to override the military need for a better ground transport system.EvolvedSaurian said:The Internet wasn't around yet.
It could kill the idea though, with WW2 being only 10 years behind.
Well a fairly obvious result of having no interstate system would be smaller suburbs and denser urban centers. Also I would imagine that the entire west in general would be alot less populated than in OTL although its possible that the southern and west coast sunbelt states would still thrive.Braniff said:In Colorado . . . Governor Ed Johnson and others would fail to get a highway tunnel blasted under the Continental Divide. Therefore, without said tunnel, Summit County could fail to become a popular resort area with its ski areas, art festivals and other activities. (Without a tunnel, the areas on the west side of the Divide are inaccessible during the winter months. The road which crosses Loveland Pass is often closed.) Moreover, the resort areas of Vail and Aspen would not thrive.
King Gorilla said:Well a fairly obvious result of having no interstate system would be smaller suburbs and denser urban centers. Also I would imagine that the entire west in general would be alot less populated than in OTL although its possible that the southern and west coast sunbelt states would still thrive.
I suspect just the opposite. Without easy intercity car traffic, they might die even sooner. Of course, something like Bantam might survive, providing cheap, small citycars. European imports (in particular Mini or Fiat 500) might be much more popular, while big Detroit iron might not be.Another possibility: it's conceivable that a couple of the postwar independent automakers might have survived and merged into something that could at least run with the big boys. That is, I'd envision a grander version of American Motors, possibly incorporating Kaiser-Frazer along with Nash and Hudson (and maybe even Studebaker and Packard).
That's them. Thanx. I'd agree, rwys'd be in better shape. So would pollution & global warming, IMO. More demand for electric rail power might've encouraged development of solar power satellites or ocean thermal conversion by now...I think what your thinking of is the Harvey girls,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Harvey_Company
Plus I think railroads would be in better condition then in our time line.
docfl
The problem is, the trend in the latter half of the 20th century has been away from electrification- except for a few specific situations, (for example, underground stations with poor ventilation) diesel engines tend to be more cost-efficient, especially if fuel is cheap... Still, trains do tend to be more effective than cars at limiting emissions per rider per mile.That's them. Thanx. I'd agree, rwys'd be in better shape. So would pollution & global warming, IMO. More demand for electric rail power might've encouraged development of solar power satellites or ocean thermal conversion by now...![]()
Part of the justification for the Interstate system is that it included straight sections of rural highway, without interfering bridges or signs, that could function as landing strips in an emergency, hence the original name "defense highways." The idea was to close the Interstates to civilian traffic during such an emergency.
http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp said:Richard Weingroff, information liaison specialist for the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Infrastructure and the FHA's unofficial historian, says the closest any of this came to touching base with reality was in 1944, when Congress briefly considered the possibility of including funding for emergency landing strips in the Federal Highway-Aid Act (the law that authorized designation of a "National System of Interstate Highways"). At no point was the idea kited of using highways or other roads to land planes on; the proposed landing strips would have been built alongside major highways, with the highways serving to handle ground transportation access to and from these strips. The proposal was quickly dropped, and no more was ever heard of it. (A few countries do use some of their roads as military air strips, however.)
Some references to the one-mile-in-five assertion claim it's part of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. This piece of legislation committed the federal government to build what became the 42,800-mile Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, which makes it the logical item to cite concerning regulations about how the interstate highway system was to be laid out. The act did not, however, contain any "one-in-five" requirement, nor did it even suggest the use of stretches of the interstate system as emergency landing strips. The one-out-of-five rule was not part of any later legislation either.
I suspect just the opposite. Without easy intercity car traffic, they might die even sooner. Of course, something like Bantam might survive, providing cheap, small citycars. European imports (in particular Mini or Fiat 500) might be much more popular, while big Detroit iron might not be.
Greyhound would probably not exist; interurban or trolley would probably serve "short" routes where "heavy" rail doesn't.
And there's something most of us don't consider, since we take it so much for granted: the U.S. would be much more regional & less national. Chains like McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, so forth, wouldn't be everywhere, since travellers would have much less demand for "sameness" (surety of quality & taste) wherever they go. Local restaurants, local customs, would be more accepted, instead of being supplanted. Not to say "railway diners" (what were they? Kelly's? The Kelly Girls...?) wouldn't exist (& fulfill the same role as McD's &c), but they'd be far less prevalent.
And there's something most of us don't consider, since we take it so much for granted: the U.S. would be much more regional & less national. Chains like McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, so forth, wouldn't be everywhere, since travellers would have much less demand for "sameness" (surety of quality & taste) wherever they go. Local restaurants, local customs, would be more accepted, instead of being supplanted. Not to say "railway diners" (what were they? Kelly's? The Kelly Girls...?) wouldn't exist (& fulfill the same role as McD's &c), but they'd be far less prevalent.