The Effects of the Interstate Highway System - Assignment Example

Effects of the Inter Highway System on U.S. Cities The federally funded inter highway system in the United States is intended to provide particular solutions to the transportation congestion problems experienced in U.S. cities. The interstates have produced wide-ranging effects on not only urban but on suburban and rural aspects of society as well. Interstate highways have altered not only by what method the country travels but how much it travels. The federal roadway system has also greatly modified the very configuration of regions and communities in many ways such as in the variety of options that people have regarding where they work, play, live and shop. Enhanced travel opportunities have generally had a positive effect on cities development, configurations, its people, lifestyles and economy. Congress enacted the Interstate Highway Act in 1956. This act authorized more than 42,000 miles of interstate highways to be constructed by the year 1972 at a cost of almost $25 billion spread out over that 16 year period. The financing of the most expensive public works project in American history was made possible by the strong economic expansion of the 1950’s.1 Prior to this national project, engineers planned city-to-city roadways that had high radius, sweeping curves and that were built as inexpensively as possible. The interstate highways were constructed to the higher standard of rural highways and employed emergency lanes so that people could drive safely at higher speeds on all highways. This new method was safer but required the use of more property than did previous styles of road design. The older interstate highways that connected the cities of the country were normally designed by state agencies who did not consider the larger urban area needs or concerns to a great extent. These state agencies consulted big companies and city officials but seldom took the public’s greater good into consideration when deciding on routes. Environmental and social interests were of little matter to the decision makers. The most inexpensive of roads frequently were routed through city parks and underprivileged neighborhoods. It was in inner-urban areas where the problems were the most obvious. Numerous businesses and houses along with their occupiers were dislodged by these roadway developments. The people of the suburbs also experienced a disruption to their traditional way of life because interstate highways were generally built on partially or undeveloped land in areas that did not fit their needs.2 The Interstate Highway Act was a new concept intended to make travel between and around cities more efficient and to better serve the public and commerce. It did so by linking cities with routes that safely allowed high-speed travel and that were designed to enhance the flow of traffic throughout cities. Loops, or Beltways, roads that encompassed cites, were initially intended to assist the flow of traffic passing through the city but they also served the unintended benefit of carrying massive quantities of local traffic in addition.3 As networks of interstate highways were completed, they quickly began becoming a vital part of transportation within the cities. “In 1991, the 131 federal aid urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more had 8,505 miles of interstate highways.”4 At that time, though the urban interstate highways consisted of less than two percent of total roadways, they carried more than a quarter of all traffic within cities. The most important contributions of the interstate highway system includes a reduction of transportation costs, improved safety and a more improved connectivity and accessibility between all regions of the country. It has also allowed for a higher capacity of traffic and an increased speed of travel. “A 365-mile trip that took 10 hours in 1956 took only 8 hours on the interstate highway system in 1970, a 20 percent reduction in travel time.”5 The widespread reduction of travel costs had a significantly positive effect on the economy as it lowered the prices of goods for the consumer and permitted businesses to compete more effectively. In addition, and arguably more importantly, the building of the interstate highway system has resulted in fewer accidents per mile driven as measured against traveling on other varieties of roadways. Wider lanes which were designed for traffic traveling at higher speeds resulted in a safer highway system. Interstate commerce was enhanced because trucking became more reliable and safer. Transportation became more efficient because the improved highways allowed for the use of larger vehicles in which to move more goods and at a faster pace. Furthermore, “the interstate highway system increased connectivity of regions and metropolitan areas spurring a growth in trucking and shift in logistics, such as to just-in-time deliveries.”6 In urban areas, the interstate highway system has made possible a proliferation of truck and automobile use. Increased connectivity and lower travel expenditures that the highway system provided also affected those businesses that interconnect with the transportation industry such as warehousing which was now able to better consolidate locations thus saving both industries money and time. This, in turn, was a cost savings for retailers and ultimately the consumer.7 However, this improvement in highway conditions and its benefits to travel did not live up to its long-term expectations, specifically, that Interstate highways would allow unimpeded flows of high-speed traffic at any time of the day or night. The demand for use was much higher than anticipated in many areas thus reducing the expected benefits. “Some interstate highways rapidly became congested during peak periods because the improved travel conditions encouraged more travel or caused shifts in travel from other routes, times, or modes.”8 The interstate highway system came with economic and social consequences that were also not foreseen by its designers. Originally thought to enhance predominantly urban areas, the system actually caused a mass exodus of the population to from inner cities to the surrounding suburbs. The increased speed of transit enabled people to move away from the city and into larger homes on larger lots on the outskirts because their commute time was now justifiable. “Households used the accessibility advantage of interstate and other highways to move away from central locations to larger homes and lots in the suburbs.”9 Following the construction of the interstate highways, those persons who wanted to buy a new home discovered that they could more easily buy in the suburbs because land was plentiful. The Federal Housing Administration could, therefore, insure the mortgage for new single-family homes. This provided a subsidy of sorts for the middle-class to leave the big city for the quieter life in the suburbs and well beyond access of mass transit systems. Interstate highways accelerated the deterioration of inner cities but not simply from the mass evacuation of the middle class. “The physical nature of the highways themselves, given the way they sliced through neighborhoods, turning them into dusty, congested no-man’s lands during their construction.”10 Suburbanites disregarded the transit system altogether and drove their autos everywhere they went even in locations where public transportation was available. Mass transit was now the transportation of the poor and other unfortunate persons who remained in the inner city. “Because most of the suburbs did not have mass transit, and thanks to the FHA were laid out in a low-density spread of single family homes, distances between stores, workplaces and homes there became so great that one couldn’t live there very effectively without having a car.”11 As a consequence, two and three-car families were the rule, not the exception as it was before the interstate highways were introduced. The abandonment of mass transit and the increase of single occupant auto usage on the spurs emanating from the interstate highways caused enormous traffic problems in inner cities which were not designed for the escalated amount of cars. However, there were now plenty of parking places available because of the vacancies downtown caused by the population shift to the suburbs.   The highway system created economic development but not in the interior of cities causing the public’s disillusionment of the system’s supposed purpose.12 By the 1960’s, many people including politicians and business leaders were already becoming of the opinion that the increased transportation efficiency and economic expansion that enhanced life in the suburban areas did not justify the physical or social devastation caused by the Interstate Highway System. As the suburbs grew in population, businesses migrated out of the city to support this growth. The transit industry lost a percentage of its market share as it was serving the needs of an ever decreasing amount of households. By 1990 most commuters (44 percent) drove from their house in the suburbs to their job in the suburbs. A mere 20 percent commuted from the suburbs to a major city.13 Mass transit systems such as busses and subways have focused their efforts to transporting individuals to the cities’ central business districts where an ever decreasing proportion of a metropolitan area’s workers are employed. “The interstate system helped continue the downward spiral of public transportation and virtually guaranteed that future urban growth would perpetuate a centerless sprawl.”14 Though interstate highways have caused negative unintended and unforeseen effects, the system has generally produced positive economic outcomes. On the whole, businesses have enjoyed a more competitive advantage because of interstate highway intersections and corridors. The improvements of the highway system reduced travel times and facilitated easier, more efficient passage between the locations that are connected by the highways. Because of enhanced accessibility and higher visibility of corridors adjoining the interstate highways, business and public activities gathered together in these areas. By locating at these newly made corridors, businesses found they could significantly trim down the expense of production inputs, increase the accessibility to employees and expand the assortment of potential consumers who can more easily access these locations.15 The intersections of interstate and other highways have spawned the mass development of businesses in the suburbs. Retailers and those looking for prime office space are willing to pay a premium price for these amalgamated settings. However, manufacturing and industry, entities that need ready access to these highway networks so as to ease the flow of workers and goods in and out will locate as near to these locations as they can but seldom can justify the cost of these popular locations. The new highway system facilitated the redistribution of people and businesses to many locations around the cities but not in them. Larger cities, by necessity, have been forced to develop a variety of specialty centers in the downtown area so as to entice people and their dollars back to the inner city.16 Manufacturers desiring to purchase more land in which to expand have found it less expensive outside the city’s center. Instead of having to build skyward because of higher priced downtown property, businesses have generally selected the suburbs in which to locate new plants where they can build larger one-story facilities giving them ample room for loading areas. The new highways have facilitated this trend. “Interstate highways have given suburban manufacturing and warehousing advantages in moving goods and attracting workers. In addition, interstate highways have facilitated the development of suburban industrial parks that provide agglomeration economies and prestige locations within the suburbs.”17 Interstate Highways lived up to their promise by connecting cities and making travel between and surrounding them more useful thus better able to aid businesses and citizens. They improved the road system by providing enhanced safety and accessibility to wider areas in addition to allowing an increased rate of speed and capacity. Once completed, the highway system allowed suburban areas similar accessibilities as downtowns. Towns in the suburbs developed their own central business districts by the 1980’s which functioned much the same as the larger city it sprung from. These new satellite downtowns possessed little or no transit service and were almost completely reliant on cars. The result included a declining investment of transit systems and caused most inner cities to deteriorate. Most major cities in the developed world are vibrant, exciting, charming and convenient locations in which to work and live unlike those in the U.S. which by comparison are barren and lifeless. Downtowns, once the life-blood of society are but a shell of their former glory, their people and commerce scattered over wide areas. This unintended consequence of interstate highways was the price paid for the convenience, safety and overall economic benefits provided by the new highway system. References Altshuler, A.; Womack, J.P. & Pucher, J.R. (1981). The Urban Transportation System: Politics and Policy Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Caro, Robert A. (1974). The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. New York, Toronto, 1974. Deakin, E. (1994). “Urban Transportation Congestion Pricing: Effects on Urban Form.” Transportation Research Board Special Report 242: Curbing Gridlock: Peak-Period Fees To Relieve Traffic Congestion. Vol. 2. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, pp. 334-355. Federal Highway Administration. (1992). “Highway Statistics 1991.” Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. Garrison, W. L. & Souleyrette, R.R., II. (March 1996). “Transportation, Innovation, and Development: The Companion Innovation Hypothesis.” The Logistics and Transportation Review. Vol. 32, N. 1, pp. 5-38. Jackson, K. T. (1985). Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 249. Kemp, M. A. & Cheslow, M.D. (1976). “Transportation.” The Urban Predicament. W. Gorham and N. Glazer (Eds.). Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute. Louis Berger International, Inc. (October 1995). Transportation Investment and Economic Expansion: Case Studies, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Project 20-7, Task 59. Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Meyer, J. R. & Gomez-Ibanez, J.A. (1981). Autos Transit and Cities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Muller, P. O. (1995). “Transportation and Urban Form: Stages in the Spatial Evolution of the American Metropolis.” The Geography of Urban Transportation. (2nd Ed.). S. Hanson (Ed.). New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 26-52. Payne-Maxie Consultants & Blayney-Dyett. (1980). The Land Use and Urban Development Impacts of Beltways. Final Report No. DOTOS-90070. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation and Department of Housing and Urban Development. Pisarski, A. E. (1996). Commuting in America II: The Second National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends. Lansdowne, VA: ENO Transportation Foundation Inc. Rose, M. H. (1990). Interstate: Express Highway Politics, 1939-1989. (Rev. Ed.). Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press. Wilens, David. (April 10, 2000). “The Interstate Highway System and the Disfiguring of America, A Tale of Two Kinds of Cities: Part 5.” Capitalism Magazine. Retrieved October 28, 2006 from Read More