h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The interstate system was actually built very much with military purposes in mind. After World War Two, the Army wanted to see how fast they could move a unit of troops across the continental United States using available roadways. The results were abysmal, as the unit was constantly showed down by local construction, toddling farm machinery, and generally unkempt one-and-a-half-lane roads. So the military put lots of money into the interstate system to facilitate troop movement. Similarly, they required that (don't quote me on the numbers exactly, but it's something like) each ten-mile stretch of interstate have one mile going as straight as possible, so that they could be used as runways for (military) aircraft to take off and land in the event of invasion.

No $ for that. If you want fame, recognition or sheckels, you've got to research your comments instead of just passing along hot air you picked up at some cocktail party, like that the bridges on the Interstate Highway system are all "x" feet high to accomodate early truck based ICBMS, etc. The truth is interesting; hot air is worthless.

I reccomend:

Divided Highways: Building the Interstate Highways, Transforming American Life. By Tom Lewis. (New York: Viking, 1997. xiv, 354 pp. Cloth, $27.95, isbn 0-670-86627-X. New York: Penguin Books, 1999. xiv, 354 pp. Paper, $13.95, isbn 0-14-026771-9.)

So the military had absolutely nothing to do with constructing the interstate highway system? Though I didn't learn that at a cocktail party, I apologize for misleading everybody. What, dear Researcher, is the Truth?

And also: do you know how the rumor about the military got started? I included a posting about it merely because I'd heard it so often (usually while driving with someone on an interstate) that I assumed there was something to it. Granted, one can only trust common knowledge so far, but it also makes sense. Has the military been trying to live it down?

All right. Based on your chastising me earlier, I went and did a little digging. Quickly, I found the abbreviated internet version of a book entitled _40 Years of the US Interstate Highway System: An Analysis_. From this book, I learned that the official name of the interstate highway system is The Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways. People had been talking about building it since the 30s and 40s, but the government didn't put up the big bucks until the 50s, in response to a perceived need during the early days of the Cold War for a better way to move armies around the country. The book says that "[o]ne of the principal reasons for building the interstate highway system was to support national defense...national security dictated development of an efficient national highway system that could move large numbers of military personnel and huge quantities of military equipment and supplies." Given that the interstate system was explicitly developed for the purpose of moving "large numbers of troops" and "huge quantities" of supplies, and given that they were working from what those phrases meant in the mid-50s (i.e. transport aircraft, missiles), is my (admittedly unsubstantiated) claim of runway stretches for airplanes, and your (also unsubstantiated) claim of ICBM missles fitting under overpasses totally inconceivable to you? In my eyes, a properly developed transport system in the 1950s would clearly include these sorts of things, and the government would surely never have them far from discussion of the standards for highway building, especially if they're the ones ponying up the dough for it. At some point I'll dig around and see what else I can find out--I have a peculiar interest in Cold War history. In the meantime, thanks.

Wow! Four continuous entries by me, in an effort to dig myself out of the inaccuracy I laid at the beginning of this thread. Here goes:

My "common sense" knowledge about what is known as the "one in five" rules re: the ability of airplanes to land on highways (sounds so silly when I put it that way) is indeed false, quite false. I want to be emphatic about this point because so is Richard F. Weingroff, who works for the Department of Transportation and wrote an essay on its website explaining, in an exasperated tone of voice, that the one-in-five rule has absolutely no basis in legislation (or reality) of any sort.

Weingroff also offers an explanation as to how the urban legend/rumor/whatever you want to call it got started: the Department of Transporation at one point was in the business of building airstrips, and airstrips that would be convenient to major roads and fuel stations. But that program ended before the highway system program began. The rumor may have sprung from this loose association between the DOT and airplanes--or it may have started due to sheer human foolishness.

The End

Well, thank you Dr. Funk for your consecutive postings and research into this matter. I can add (from reading book reviews) that one inspiration for the interstate system was the example of Nazi Germany, which constructed the autobahn system before World War II. It is also the case that the original interstate-type highway was the New York State Thruway, which is I-87 from Westchester to Albany and I-90 west to Buffalo. The U.S. federal government actually recently paid the state of NY back for expenses incurred in building the Thruway.

I also know that the original plan was to limit the federal funds available for highway building to intercity routes. The ability of localities to draw on federal money to build highways through (and around) cities is one example commonly cited as a reason for the decline of U.S. cities through the late 50s and into the 70s.