Alt History...What if Eisenhower signed a bill for rail?

[Dennis Toy]

Lets say it's 1956 and President Dwight Eisenhower decides instead of signing the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, he signs a bill that funds, constructs and manages a massive passenger and frieght railroad system. What if instead of hulking freeways, he get rialroads and as the years go by we get high-speed rail and eventually mag-lev. What if Eisenhower signs a bill that calls for mass transit to be created in all cities of a certain size. What if all cities of certain sizes get subways or ligh-rail. What if this proposed rail system connects all cities to each other. What would the country be like? Would we have sprawl like we have today? Would pollution and resources being wasted be minimalized?

Personally i think that we wouldn't have the out-of-control suburban sprawl that we have today that ruins lands and destroys the character of cities and towns if we didn't have hulking freeways aimed at drivers. I think cities would be efficiently designed. I think america wouldn't have an obesity problem if we didn't have big freeways aimed at the car culture.

I have actually heard that other countries like Europe and Germany think that we have a piss-poor transit system.

[Gil Hamilton]

I actually had this conversation recently.

The creation of the highways created the American car culture, which has lead to alot of sprawl and pollution. It would certainly cut down on our petroleum consumption and production of pollution. It would also likely encourage less urban migration, since the rail network was a bit more small town friendly than the highway system which screws over small towns if the highway system simply bypasses them.

[Archaic`]

Of course, there were more reasons for the highways than just simple transportation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the military want the highways too, for quicker movement of troops, and emergency runways during times of war?

[Broomstick]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the military want the highways too, for quicker movement of troops, and emergency runways during times of war?

Dwight was so impressed with the German autobahn when he was marching towards Berlin that he thought it would be a grand idea if the US had a similar road system - and that was the inspiration for the Interstate system. I don't know how the "emergency runway" meme got started, but it's been largely debunked. Sure, they could be used as such - so could a lot of other roads, salt flats, and some of the nearly six thousand airports in the US.

Back to the OP - I don't think a rail system would entirely eliminate urban sprawl. Here in Chicago, which has a fairly robust rail system, sprawl follows the rail lines. While this, in a sense, seems to control it somewhat it's still urban sprawl.

[Enforcer Talen]

From what Ive been told, the concept of the interstates are particularly for the movement of tank units - the road being thick and wide enough for large troop movements.

No source on hand though.

[Thinkmarble]

Dwight was so impressed with the German autobahn when he was marching towards Berlin that he thought it would be a grand idea if the US had a similar road system - and that was the inspiration for the Interstate system. .
.

Going to quote Brysons Made in America

One of the enduring myths of American travel is that the nation´s superhighways were modelled on Germany´s Autobahnen. In fact, it was the other way round. Dr. Fritz Todt, Hitler´s superintendent of roads, came to the United States in the 1930s, studied America´s sparkling new parkways and went back to germany with a great deal of enthusiasm and a suitcase full of notes.

I do not know which truth value this quote has.

[K. A. Pital]

I do not know which truth value this quote has.

I suppose not much. Autobahns in Germany were designed even during the Weimar Republic, and Hitler also supported their building when he came to power (did he travel anywhere), since 1933 onwards, with Todt leading it.

Did Todt travel to the US in 1920s? If so, then it may be that Autobahns were designed based on US roads, but if not, this claim doesn't have a fucking shred of truth - designs for Autobahns were created even prior to the Nazi rule.

[K. A. Pital]

Just as I supposed, the claim is bollocks. US-wanking lies. Autobahn plans date far earlier than Hitler and Todt, and they both embraced the already-existing plans and A-bahns in construction straightaway:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/reichs.htm

Although the 1919 convoy shaped Eisenhower's views, his perspective would be supplemented years later by his observations of the German autobahn network of freeways.

Plans for the autobahn date to the 1920's. Construction of the first segment (Cologne-Bonn) began in 1929 and was dedicated by Mayor Konrad Adenauer of Cologne on August 6, 1932. When Adolph Hitler assumed power as Chancellor of the Third Reich in 1933, he took the program over, claiming it for his own. "We are setting up a program," he said later that year, "the execution of which we do not want to leave to posterity."

And Eisenhower himself lays this idiotic claim to rest:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/met.htm

In "At Ease", former President Eisenhower said:
"The old convoy had started me thinking about good, two-lane highways, but Germany had made me see the wisdom of broader ribbons across the land."
He added:
"This was one of the things that I felt deeply about, and I made a personal and absolute decision to see that the nation would benefit by it."
Because of his experiences, President Eisenhower fought hard to get Congress to pass the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.

[Broomstick]

And keep in mind that while the Autobahn was an inspiration and an example, the US Interstate system is not simply the Autobahn with signs in English. There are some significant differences and many are based on US characteristics that Germany does not share, including much more varied terrain and climate, and much greater distances to cover. We might have wound up with something similar in the end even without the German influence on Eisenhower, but perhaps later in time.

[Gil Hamilton]

There was a military purpose, that it was designed for troops to be able to move quickly from one place to another in the United States. That's why bridges have to be built with a minimum clearance to allow a tank to move under them. However, that purpose is completely obsolete nowadays.

However, as I understand it, the real thing that got Eisenhower was that during his time, he attempted to cross the United States by road with his staff and it took 3 months to get to California from Washington DC, which he found unacceptable.

[Uraniun235]

Personally i think that we wouldn't have the out-of-control suburban sprawl that we have today that ruins lands and destroys the character of cities and towns if we didn't have hulking freeways aimed at drivers. I think cities would be efficiently designed.

By the 50s, loads of people already owned cars. Car ownership was already entrenched into the American psyche. A lot of people would still commute by car and a lot of suburbs would spring up; suburbia is not dependent on the interstate freeways.

I also am skeptical of the US having high-speed maglev trains running clear across the nation; the East Coast would have them, certainly, but it seems to me that running the power and rails for it across the Rockies, and then maintaining it, would be very expensive. (I could be wrong. But that does sound like a big logistical problem.)

[Broomstick]

However, as I understand it, the real thing that got Eisenhower was that during his time, he attempted to cross the United States by road with his staff and it took 3 months to get to California from Washington DC, which he found unacceptable.

It was in 1919 that Eisenhower crossed the US, and he wasn't a general that the time. He was part of a group of military guys charged with crossing the country to evaluate how easy/feasible such transport was. If I recall, he wasn't even in charge of the group.

Which is not to say that the trip didn't have an effect - it certainly did impact his later views on roads and the military - just that as you heard it the cart is before the horse.

[Gil Hamilton]

It was in 1919 that Eisenhower crossed the US, and he wasn't a general that the time. He was part of a group of military guys charged with crossing the country to evaluate how easy/feasible such transport was. If I recall, he wasn't even in charge of the group.

Which is not to say that the trip didn't have an effect - it certainly did impact his later views on roads and the military - just that as you heard it the cart is before the horse.

Clearly, my high school civics class sucked balls.

[phongn]

Dwight was so impressed with the German autobahn when he was marching towards Berlin that he thought it would be a grand idea if the US had a similar road system - and that was the inspiration for the Interstate system. I don't know how the "emergency runway" meme got started, but it's been largely debunked. Sure, they could be used as such - so could a lot of other roads, salt flats, and some of the nearly six thousand airports in the US.

IIRC, one of the original non-implemented plans had the interstates contain hangers and whatnot at overpass complexes along with support facilities in the event of war. While the US certainly had a lot of airports more dispersion can't hurt, especially in event of nuclear war. Also, AFAIK one of the purposes was to provide a sort of "backbone" for ARADCOM. This became unimportant after Nike was dismantled, but there is some truth to it.

[Magus]

IIRC, one of the original non-implemented plans had the interstates contain hangers and whatnot at overpass complexes along with support facilities in the event of war. While the US certainly had a lot of airports more dispersion can't hurt, especially in event of nuclear war. Also, AFAIK one of the purposes was to provide a sort of "backbone" for ARADCOM. This became unimportant after Nike was dismantled, but there is some truth to it.

Right, and every certain number of miles along the freeway there is supposed to be a mile long straight section to use as a runway for the military, IIRC.

[phongn]

Yeah, there were proposals for the "straight and uncluttered" sections but that part was killed.

[Magus]

Yeah, there were proposals for the "straight and uncluttered" sections but that part was killed.

Pity. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, there were proposals for the "straight and uncluttered" sections but that part was killed.

Pity. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Can't land an airplane on a highway full of cars fleeing cities about to be nuked and/or tanks trundling about the place.

Besides which, most overpasses are marginal at best for getting an airplane tail underneath even for the small things I fly - regional jets, airliners, military transports, etc. would be hopeless.

[Darth Servo]

Any rail system in the US would be of limited use. Trains and mountains don't seem to mix very well. A rail system would be great for the plains states but everything west of Denver would be a lot more hassle.

[CmdrWilkens]

Several thoughts which run the gamut from the fact that rail lines used to run from virtually every major city into the surrounding towns and minor cities. In the Baltimore - Washington Corridor the equivalent of light rail and trolley systems operated as far west as Frederick MD essentially right up until the Interstates began to supercede rail. I think the effect would be partial but very unique in how things would have shaped out:

1) Interstate commerce was already booming and short of serious regulatory changes in right of ways the rail system was (and today still is) simply not designed to carry the load of goods that the Interstate Highway system would (and does). What I mean to say is major highways connecting hub cities are almost inevitable given the fascination with the automobile and the prevelance of cheap petroleum in the 1950s.

2) The big differnece may be in center cities. With the money from the FAHA no longer readily available cities and states are not going to tear up entire neighborhoods in the service of major highways. Imagine the current interstate system with not a single one running through the center of a major city but rather only in beltways and half loops, sure there might be spurs into the center of the city but getting downtown will still be dominated by interstate rail.

3) If we imagine a major pro-rail push then we might see the emergence of systems such as BART and METRO in the 1960s which will alter the settlement patterns and commuting patterns of major cities while keeping the residents already in the city from leaving as easily given that their options for easy commute are more limited unless they situate themselves around rail lines or subject themselve to lonely commutes down two and four lane avenues.

[Kettch]

Sorry its too late to looking for references, but:

One of the reasons for the interstate highway project was to break the interstate rail road monopolies and force them to compete even more with the growing truck lines.

Good night.