No Interstate

Architecture, art, fashion, accents, food, etc. would all be much more varied depending on where you were, instead of the unified culture we have today. North-South, East-West differences would be much more magnified.
Maybe not so much. Don't forget the influence of national TV networks & Top 40 radio, which have unifying effects.
I think it would require a much smaller threat from the Soviet Union or a much more limited WWII.
I'm not sure there's any relationship there. If Ike was interested in rapid movement, he should be relying on WW2 experience, he should be encouraging rail improvements, especially hi-speed, the likes of TGV or Nozomi.

(P.S.:#500!:D)
 
Last edited:
As I recall, the interstate system incorporated some existing toll roads, so I would anticipate more toll roads would be built. Eventually, states would fund roads on many of the existing interstate routes. I wouldn't be surprised to see an interstate consortium agree on standards for long-distance roadways (two lane minimum each direction, high speed, limited access) that largely resemble modern interstates. However, big cities, and a lot of smaller cities, wouldn't have these roads through/around them. Legislators would lobby to keep the traffic flowing to their local businesses.
 
That said, one of the interesting things you might get is less demolishing of downtowns to put highways through the middle. That would certainly shift favour from conventional suburbs at the very least.
Would you, though? The trend of predates the Interstate- the Central Artery was constructed in Boston by the state government through the 1950s, not as part of the Interstate highway system, and similarly for the Southeast Expressway which led to substantial growth in the suburbs south of Boston. (and killed the Old Colony Railroad)
 
As I recall, the interstate system incorporated some existing toll roads, so I would anticipate more toll roads would be built. Eventually, states would fund roads on many of the existing interstate routes. I wouldn't be surprised to see an interstate consortium agree on standards for long-distance roadways (two lane minimum each direction, high speed, limited access) that largely resemble modern interstates. However, big cities, and a lot of smaller cities, wouldn't have these roads through/around them. Legislators would lobby to keep the traffic flowing to their local businesses.

When the Interstate system was proposed, the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Turner Turnpike were in use and the Kansas Turnpike was under construction.

As far as large cities are concerned, if the planners could do it over again, they would build the long-distance highways to skirt around the cities, with commuter roads into the downtown areas arranged like spokes (the three-digit interstates, first digit odd). The course of Interstate 80 south of Chicago would be the rule, not the exception.
 
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.
I'll buy diesel; electric was the first thing that occured to me. If it's going to approach TGV, tho, it really should be electric.
I don't think this necessarily gets rid of highways, though, it just shifts the burden to the states.
I don't suggest no highways, just dramatically reduced mileage.
However, a crucial element of the interstate highway system was creating a new set of standards, and upgrading older state-built highways to the new standards. Without the interstate standards, state-built highways will be more likely to have less safety features to cut costs, and you may see an overall increase in accidents.
You could be right. I'd posit, with more rail use, the total usage of highway would be way down, especially if rail absorbs freight & trucks (or trucks are only used short haul from railheads). The rate of accidents (#/trip) will probably be higher. Of course, there's issues of infrastructure & fed $; do the feds finance bridge & highway upkeep co-operatively with states anyhow?
I think you'd still see it, but possibly taking off in the seventies instead of the sixties. There would be an even greater demand for cheap air travel between cities in TTL and so you could see the development of a budget airways type market with really cheap flights between major cities by the 70's.
My thinking is much of this is taken by hi-speed rail, per TGV/Nozomi. You might get joint rail-air companies. You might also jet turboprop jumbos for lo$ flights NYC-L.A.
 
Top