Pretty sure these roads were built to efficiently get you to your destinations, not for being a destination. If your dad didn’t see anything interesting it’s because he couldn’t be bothered to take exits and actually visit places. He chose to complain because of his lack of forethought.
@@zach11241 your comment is literally what his dad wanted to say. That it's so efficient that you won't see anything. All you're doing is agreeing while repeating what he said, but in more words/slower Edit: pretty ironic you insulted someone's foresight but didn't follow your own advice lol
@@GolfClash2718 Well yeah. If I want the scenic route I'd take US-89 over I-15 but if I'm looking to get from Vegas to Idaho in less than a day I'm going to take I-15 every time.
For comparison, Pete Kostelnick ran across America on foot with a world record time of 42 days, 6 hours, 30 minutes from San Francisco's City Hall to New York's City Hall in 2016.
@@chrislambert9903 In total, running 3,067 miles. He slept 6 hours a night to cover more ground and faced snow storms, 35 mile per hour winds, and a major motor accident destroying his support vehicle.
Incredible! I could MAYBE do that on a bike or something after years of training but it would take me a month or 2 just to run to alabama from Georgia and I'm only 30 miles from the border lol.
I like how the highest ranking military officer in one of the greatest war mankind has fought and his conclusion was: "Man, infrastructure is really important"
Logistics is what wins wars, so it makes sense that he took that away from his wartime experience. I heard from some serving soldiers that if you want big bucks when you go back to civilian life you go for a logistics related job role, as there is a lot of demand, and thus high wages for experienced people in that field once you get out.
6:20 Know where Gen Eisenhower “stole/copied” the invention of the Interstate highway system? From the leader of Germany in WWII (he who shall not be named lest censored) 🤬
There is an old saying, "Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics." Many of the best Generals in history were such because they took that to heart.
He wasn't the highest rankng alone. He shared the rank with Macarthur who was the supreme allied commander of pacific theatre and became 5 star general 2 days before Eisenhower.
It's funny how back in 1919, trains were considered the dominant form of transport, with roads in desperate need of improved infrastructure. Now it's the opposite.
I was referring more to the transportation of people rather than goods. While I'm sure America's freight industry has done a fantastic job of keeping their tracks in good shape, you can't deny that the infrastructure for passenger service in the U.S. is absolutely abysmal.
@@ronitjalihal2586 It's hard to create demand for something most Americans have never tried, or whose only experience was with a system so heavily neglected that it's only being held together with chewing gum and duct tape.
@@homiej2548 You're forgetting about daily commutes and trips between cities which are relatively close to each other. That's where rail's niche is, not traveling across the country. Trains are supposed to compete with cars, not planes.
6:20 Yet Gen Eisenhower “stole/copied” the invention of the Interstate highway system from the leader of Germany in WWII… he who shall not be named lest censored. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsautobahn
It is a surprisingly well thought number. High enough to not offend anyone. Low enough to be usable as a metric. And I think we can all agree that in reality most human life is worth much less than that if we consider their economic and social impact.
@@MCTogs Because that is only the value of your life as it stands for a safety perspective. Demanding that amount of money "since that's how much they say you're worth" only demonstrates a total lack of understanding what it even means
@@supernenechi sounds like government propaganda to me, if the department of transportation says I'm worth 11.7 million and I don't get a single penny then I might as well become a safety hazard
It's a shame we didn't take more from the Autobahn network, not going through city centers, allowing for no speed limits where practical, actually adhering to lane discipline, etc...
For that to work you would also need to federalise driving standards. Your level of erratic driving is close to the Italiens, but with much bigger cars.
I don't know where you took that from, but the German Autobahns regularly go through city centres all over the place. Like, a lot. Also, lots of Autobahns actually do have speed limits, and the national debate on implementing an overall speed limit is getting ever closer to that being the case.
Fun fact: the interstates are numbered so that even numbers are west-east running and odd run north-south. Three digit interstates are loops for a given interstate. The lower number interstates are further south and/or west (i5 runs in the west coast states whereas i95 runs east coast states).
Not always though. i99 runs through Altoona, PA, and is farther west than i81, which runs through Harrisburg. i74 runs through Southern North Carolina, and is farther south than i64, which runs through Richmond, VA.
@@poisondog88 I believe though that the majority of i74 is further north than i64, but the bit in nc is just much further south and on its own not connecting much. But there are definitely exceptions
Surprised he didn’t mention this, the interstate is literally a grid across the US. I 10 from Los Angeles to Jacksonville, I 90 from Seattle to Boston. Pretty clever
And there’s a logic to the auxiliary routes too. If it is an odd number (I-390) it leaves the main interstate but doesn’t reconnect. If it’s an even number (I-405) it loops back to the main interstate
@@poisondog88 I-99 is an exception only because it was built so much later than everything else. The original plan from the 50s had 79 and 81, and there’s no other odd numbers between those, so they chose 99. Rep. Bud Shuster, the main guy that pushed for I-99, also used to ride trolley 99 when he was a kid so he liked that number
Fun fact about the Interstates: On occasion, they were also used to experiment other things. The main one I know of the I-19, which was an experiment to see if America could convert to the Metric system. I was on it recently just to see it, and apparently, it's not too different from other Interstates, but most distance-related stuff is in meters/kilometers instead of miles. Exit numbers are based on the distance in kilometers (e.g. exit 101 is probably the last exit going north before you get to the I-10, even though the highway is only 62 miles long) and instead of mile markers, you get kilometer markers. The only thing that isn't in metric is speed limit signs, which are in miles per hour.
The metric signs are completely off though. I measured them via Google Maps in the past and a simple 500 meter sign could be as much as 300 meters off, or more.
My father is a former military logistics specialist. He always told me that Ike's plan for the interstate system was to connect military bases, but also serve as emergency runways. This is really obvious on Oahu, where the interstates all terminate at military bases, and the section of H-1 near the airport is clearly engineered to accommodate landing a C-130 or C-17 cargo plane.
The runway thing is a myth. There are plenty of airports in the US to support emergency military traffic, which makes designing portions of the interstate for aircraft use unnecessary. The same cannot be said in Europe.
6:20 Yet Gen Eisenhower “stole/copied” the invention of the Interstate highway system from the leader of Germany in WWII (he who shall not be named lest censored) 🤬
@@bthemedia So what, the Germans built a national highway first, and no no other country is allowed to build one? Do you realize how idiotic that sounds. This video even acknowledges that the US Interstate was inspired by the Autobahn.
Fun fact: the I-5 was built through the Central Valley instead of along California's Pacific Coast so that it was less likely to be targeted in a naval/aircraft bombardment.
@@metrofilmer8894 Considering the times and that they were military roads, that makes perfect sense. I remember that the original DARPA net lines were constructed near the Interstates, for the same reason. That became the Internet, of course.
I have driven up PCH, a lot of time I was white knuckling my steering wheel through whindy roads where one side is a 200 foot cliff up and the other side is a 200 foot clip to the ocean the ocean. I think that is a reason as well. The cliffs wouldnt be so bad but how bad in snaked got to me.
If the interstate system didn't exist, there would be that many more ports! It is crazy to truck from Oregon to Oakland just get to a major port. Even if you get rid of the Jones Act, chances are much greater that goods would flow from Oregon and Washington to California via ship.
“A 7-hour trip from DC to Maryland” Me, a Marylander: Did you just say SEVEN HOURS FROM DC TO MAR- you know what, that makes perfect sense and is still quite accurate
@@stovexlvii3579 I feel like we need to take infrastructure a step further and invest into more high speed trains. This could connect the country even more. Also it would reduce traffic a significant amount .
The construction of I-70 through Glenwood Canyon deserves a video of its own. The balancing of construction with environmental protection was truly amazing.
While super impressive and beautiful, the recent fires and continuing extreme costs of keeping it open make it clear we should have just gone south through Cottonwood and then back north along the river to rejoin the Colorado at Glenwood. Leave the train going through the canyon and add the biking path and parking locations for nature stops and sight seeing but upgrading to a full interstate through there was a mistake.
Pity that the interstate is crumbling for how poor the maintenance in certain are is, Nasa is gettingittle funding so it can't really innovate as much and science is getting disregarded more and more
I REALLY appreciate that you have moved to a model of sharing a companion video on Nebula vs. an extended version. With the extended versions I would debate if the frustration of scanning through the video to find the extra content was worth it. I usually wouldn't even try. With the companion video, it is clear cut and easy. I believe I have watched every one you've released. Please tell your peers they should try this as well. It's increasing the value of Nebula and my engagement with the app.
I agree with you, even though I have a nebula subscription, I usually still watch from TH-cam because it is more convenient, and it is easier searching for a companion video rather than the extended cut which can be anywhere in the video.
This is the reason I unsubscribed from Nebula. I got so tired of watching a video to completion on TH-cam, only to find out right at the end that I could have watched a better version on Nebula, but by that point it's not worth it anymore. This might actually make me resubscribe again.
interstates between cities - fantastic. Interstates around cities - great (ring roads) interstates through city centers and urban neighborhoods (always low income) - DOG SHIT. The biggest failure of the interstate highway system is the insistance that freeways must go right through downtowns meanwhile taking up huge percentages of the total land available in an area already pressed for land. TRANSIT not urban freeways is the answer.
A good portion lumber in Oregon is shipped on trains. Oregon’s got a lot of railroad throughout. Railroad is how it should be done. Shipping less than a carload by truck is way less efficient.
@@Artuchu The port of Portland has recently not operated as an export hub due to the longshorman's union causing shipping companies to move to California or Washington instead of striking a deal. This was in 2017. Some have come back, but most businesses are not taking interested in risking their supply chains again for the time being.
Another cool thing: they have long sweeping turns so you need to pay more attention and it’s harder to doze off. Every 5-10 miles though, they have a long straight section which is there in case the military needs to set up an emergency air base. There’s thousands of potential spots to turn into a runway all around the country. Brilliant design. Also, the interstates in West Virginia have parts that don’t comply with the regulations because they were built before the regulations came out and it would take too much work and money to change it.
@@sidneyblack1036 the regulations can into effect in the 60s or 70s and most roads have been built since then or been upgraded. The West Virginia interstates are harder to upgrade because it involves removing part of the mountain.
@@sidneyblack1036 Interstate 64(east of Beckley) 79 and 77(the turnpike). The terrain does not make it simple to build a traditional Interstate there at all.
That part about requiring a straight section at regular intervals for the military is actually a myth. A quick Google search will bring up sites from the Federal Highway Administration, Reuters, etc. debunking it. Which is too bad, because it sounds pretty cool.
I've driven about 60% of the Interstate Highway System. So many epic sections from I-70 out in Colorado and Utah (Glenwood Canyon, Vail Pass, The San Rafael Swell), to the Grapevine along I-5 in Southern California, the Virgin RIver Gorge along I-15, the Franconia Notch along I-93 in New Hampshire, Interstate H3 in Hawaii, I-90 through Snoqualmie Pass, and the list goes on. Great video. FYI, if anyone is reading this, I and my friend Jim upload a multitude of time-lapsed driving videos under our FreewayBrent and FreewayJim names. I also have some footage from Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Cheers, Wendover Productions!
Well and the willingness to develop and use alternatives like public transport and such. A city in CS that mainly relies on an interstate like system is almost always prone to congestion, except when you have replaced half the city with highways
You forgot to mention one important part of Eisenhower's life: His wife Maime was born and raise only about a mile from the Lincoln Highway. She fully understood how much of a lifeline having a trough road was to her upbringing.
Regarding the numbering of interstate highways: (1) 'primary' roads are all single- or double-digits, with the most 'major' ones ending in 0 or 5 (like I-5, I-80, or I-95) (2) for these 'primary' roads, odd-numbered roads run north-south and even-numbered roads run east-west (3) also for 'primary' roads, values increase from west to east (odds) and from south to north (evens); thus, I-80 runs along the northern part of the US while I-95 runs along the east coast (4) three-digit interstate roads are offshoots of the 'primary' roads, with their last two digits signifying the 'primary' road; e.g.: I-295 and I-495 would both be offshoots of I-95 [these cannot repeat within a single state but can be reused by others, so one can have multiple I-295 roads in different parts of the country]
There's more Roads that end in 0 are coast to coast Roads that end in 5 are border to border Three digit roads with an even number first go around a city (285 in Atlanta) Three digit roads with an odd number first spur into and out of a city
In the UK we have 3ish numbered designations of roads: M - Motorway (Like a US interstate) i.e. M1, M6, M5 Primary A-roads (Green signs) - Usually old major routes and connections between urban centres where a motorway isn't practical i.e. A59, A30, A39 Secondary A-roads - Usually link smaller towns + narrower i.e. A3083 B-roads - Usually connect villages to larger towns and the main route through a certain area i.e B3293, B3303 The first number of the road signifies where in the country it is i.e 3 for the south-west, 6 for the north-west, 1 for east coast. The number of numbers in a road designation usually indicates the seniority, i.e the A30 is more of a major route than the A394 or the A674, whilst the A1 is senior to all those.
@@JohnnyB35 those last two points aren’t always true. 3 highways in Illinois disprove them. I-290 goes through Chicago, I-190 is just a spur to O’Hare airport, and I-355 doesn’t go into any major city and just serves as a connection between the northwest and southwest suburbs of Chicago
@@daleftuprightatsoldierfield there's exceptions to every rule. Chicago, sitting right on the shores of a great lake, would of course provide exceptions. 190 does a pretty good job going around Chicago considered it goes all the way out to Bloomington, but it ends in Chicago because where else would it end?
To add to #4, if an offshoot begins in an even number, it circles a major city. If it begins in an off number, it connects two highways(not always 2 interstates)
6:20 Yet Gen Eisenhower “stole/copied” the invention of the Interstate highway system from the leader of Germany in WWII (he who shall not be named lest censored) 🤬
Breeze I suggest you read the actual history of the Autobahn... prior to “the party” it was the “Lincoln Highway” equivalent and small scale... the party made it a strategic military asset for WWII - much like DARPA made the Internet.
Fun fact: Interstate 95 is the most recently completed interstate, having been completed in 2018 with the completion of the I-95/Penn Turnpike Interchange Project in Bristol, PA.
If there is one thing I really appreciate about these videos, is the conversion from Imperial to Metric. It's such a simple thing, but because I watch a lot of content from the US not having the conversions can get confusing. So just that bit of extra effort is so appreciated! :)
I find it rather annoying. Videos about the US should be in Freedom units, videos about the rest of the world in normal units. It drives me crazy to have conversions either way, as they aren't the units used in their areas.
I find it very annoying and distracting and makes it difficult to understand. When he says the numbers all so fast they blend together and mean nothing. What he should do is pick one of them and say that, then put a graphic on the screen with the other one so people can easily focus on one.
@@woodalexander Freedom units? Miles came from Imperial measurements and Roman ones. The Metric system won't kill you. I grew up on Miles and the old system but I can convert in a blink ...it isn't that hard.
@@marklittle8805 Metric won't kill be but in 'MURICA we use Freedom units. Everywhere else uses normal units. The units should be correct to the locality being talked about.
As a Canadian, I had no idea what roads could be until I drove from Michigan to North Dakota. Seriously, infrastructure is such a gamechanger, and we take it for granted so much.
@@niubi42069the thing is, traffic is horrible near cities. It’s not so much the Infrastructure, just that there’s no people. If Canada and the US built good train systems, then the highways and trains would be used equally and traffic would be better.
The closest thing is BC's coquihalla which was modeled on Autobahn, Interstate and turnpike design standards but its a single special piece of road. Coquihalla design standards follow the autobahn's strict "no left exits period" policy though.
This is one of my favorite videos you have done. People take out interstate for granted. It really wasn't all that long ago that they even existed. Late 1950's is nothing compared to others. Eisenhower was the man of his time!
I personally love the interstate highway system and the way it connects cities. However, I also feel that has been a major roadblock for rail expansion in US which is comparatively better for the environment compared to car or an airplane. NYC-BOS is ~4 hours by car and ~1.5 hrs (+transfer from airport) by plane. Would be awesome to have a regular economically fared train that takes 2-3 hours or so.
I can tell you have never driven on I-95 in the State of Connecticut. The average speed on that section seems like only 25MPH so it has taken me like 7 hours to make the trip between NYC and BOS. Also there is the Amtrak Acela and Regional trains that take about 4 hours.
Trains are great and work excellently for city to city transport (and I think we definitely should invest in them) but if you live in even a remotely rural area then trains and other forms of public transport become infeasible. The sheer amount of rail you would have to lay to connect the rural US in a manner that's even rivals state highways would be incredibly carbon intensive and I'd imagine that in the end it would probably be no more efficient than just using the interstate.
@@mattguey-lee4845 My family and I have made that trip for years and we have never taken 7 hours, the most it has taken us, and this is with a Tesla (charging stop included) was 4.5 hours. We usually take Ct-15 to bypass some parts of I-95
@@brockcast4659 Completely agree to that. There needs to be a balance. Dense communities can be connected via trains. Having a train serve a remote location is not optimal. However, many govt. who have invested in it still try to connect them as it gives an opportunity for it to grow. Similar to 4 lane road systems extended to small rural communities when they were built. On paper it may not look optimal to build it for few hundred people. However, the expectation is for it to be the impetus for growth
@@mattguey-lee4845 I am actually from tri state area and I have used I-95 numerous times. I understand the traffic issue it has because of the busy corridor (try ct-15 it is relatively light on traffic and no trucks). The problem with Amtrak Acela is it is expensive (I have personally never traveled in it, so can not rate the experience) and regional trains are 4 hours from what I heard on paper. It does take a little longer than that. Also, another problem is greater boston area is not as well connected with rail transit as the greater new york area is. So, you end up needing a bus or a long cab ride from the south station.
I'm really glad that you covered the negative impact that the interstate system had on cities. I would really love a video on the urban renewal that is coming about from the removal of freeways. One that I know of specifically is the one in Milwaukee which paved the way for the building of the new Bucks arena and surrounding entertainment district which has had a HUGE positive impact on the local economy and has made future development projects possible. It has honestly really brought the city together and it has made a nice gathering place that has a space for pedestrians that is separate from cars, which is one of the most important parts of the urban renewal movement
The people of San Francisco successfully shut down the construction of California SR 480 back in the 80s/90s, which turned an ugly overpass that encircled the city on its beautiful coastline into one of the best city roads in the country, complete with surface rail, bike lanes, and wide sidewalks. It helps that an earthquake destroyed it when it was almost done being built, too.
the interstate is spike driving through the heart of many major american cities. clogs them all up with cars. hopefully more cities will remove their highways in the future
I-95 had this strange discontinuity near Philadelphia. You would drive up I-95, then turn south in this sort of upside down U. You are shunted over to I-295, then cross into New Jersey on I-195 and rejoin 95 on the New Jersey turnpike. They fixed this pretty recently --- fall 2018. I don't remember exactly how, but now I-95 connects to the Pennsylvania turnpike.
I was on I95 last week going from the bottom of Florida to the top of Virginia. The drive was about 16 hours. Hearing it takes a coast to coast trip took 2 months before Interstates existed sounds terrifying.
The “Interstate” part of the system was obviously important for the country. Putting it through the middle of cities was madness and has made US Cities the most unliveable in the OECD.
Really though would they have stayed not in the middle of cities? Where there's transportation infrastructure we've managed to build cities and towns on both sides.
@@gregessex1851 I'd say that it's probably not a great idea to plow through neighborhoods and lay down miles of concrete physically separating areas of the city. What's stopping development along a freeway that was built outside of the city? It happened with the rivers, the canals, railroads and highways. At that point you still end up with a freeway through the city.
Ngl the highway system really separates the areas around Chicago. It feels like completely different states/areas just going to a different neighborhood.
Even where i live in Arizona, the Suburbs are behind the 1-10 and some fields and right across all that is the Ghetto main urban area, which looks a bit like Los Angeles, just in the Desert.
That 12 mile run through the Rockies on I-70 is by far my favorite stretch of freeway and I've been on a lot. The next big infrastructure project has to be the upgrade to railways and the addition of high speed rail.
It doesnt need to start big either, just start with HSR in the Acela corridor, then do Cali and Florida, and finally each coast and a trans-continental connection
So I think that there's not been a realization of the fact that high speed railways are slower and less efficient than flights at long distances especially across sparse terrain.
@@lukasnel4828 HSR is, indeed, slower than airliners at say, cross country flights, however, they are more environmental. But nonetheless. What we need is HSR in the big metropolis areas. Northeast, Southeast, Texas triangle, West coast. Chicago hub. Way quicker, efficient, and environmental. And then we need much better regional rail. Every small town used to have passenger train service to the nearest big city, now it's mostly just heritage lines and freight. Look at Europe. There it is about the same conditions as what I mentioned above.
Fun fact: The guy who decided on green for interstate signs was colorblind and thought he was selecting blue. But it turned out to be a good thing since green is more reflected than blue.
That is not only false but quite the opposite. William Potts, the invetor of the 3 color traffic light, chose these 3 colors because they are easier for color blind people to see the different hues.
Ike campaigned for decades to build a national system of highways. The response from conservatives was always the same: "There is no business case for it." His proposed "System of Interstate Highways" was a nonstarter. Then he added two words to the title, and beat conservatives at their own game. Thus it became "The System of Interstate and Defense Highways". Ike was smart.
@Account NumberEight : Some of it, certainly. The thing is that there is lots of money to be made providing products and services to governments at all levels honestly. One of the best ways to get into the top 0.1% income bracket is to provide a product or service to the federal government. Especially to the military-industrial complex.
And conservatives are STILL like that today...those mindless idiots want to keep our wages low because they think that having six hundred billionares controlling all the money is good for the economy.
Proof that conservatives always set everything and everyone back. I don’t know why anyone likes conservatives. It was conservatives that supported slavery conservatives that wanted to succeed from the US and everything else. Even though the Conservative party used to be the democrats it flip flopped and now the Democratic Party is progressive.
@@andreipopescul2439 Continental US: 3.797 square miles Europe: 3.931 square miles This is estimated so sources vary; my initial measure was inaccurate but *total* US with all 50 is larger than Europe.
I live in Topeka KS. We were very lucky to be one of the first places in the country to have interstate highway. In fact were the first to have the test mile. My Dad took us out to drive on the test mile. By 1962 we drove to Washington State and down the west coast, largely on interstate highway . Eisenhower was from Kansas and the first interstate runs through his hometown of Abilene. Stop in and visit the Eisenhower library.
I got another quirk of the Interstate Highway System for you. There’s a stretch of I-93 through Franconia Notch in New Hampshire that is the only two-lane freeway section of the entire IHS. It’s only one lane north and one lane south, and the speed limit drops to 45 mph. It is in conjunction with NH Route 3, and was granted the exception by an act of Congress to preserve Franconia Notch State Park, its trailheads, campgrounds, and scenic areas.
There are a number of exceptions on the Interstate system. There is a traffic light on one in Syracuse NY during the fair season. A few rural ones in Texas have intersections so farmers can cross and access them.
@@bpugsy719 There may be others, but I think the distinction the is that this stretch of I-93 is the only “compliant” stretch because Congress approved it. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gaps_in_Interstate_Highways I-93 is a two-lane divided parkway, or a "super two", through Franconia Notch in New Hampshire. A four-lane Interstate Highway was once proposed here, but the concept was abandoned because of environmental concerns, in part because of vibrations that could harm the Old Man of the Mountain rock formation (which collapsed in 2003 regardless). This section of highway was for many years marked as US 3 and "To I-93", but these have now been replaced with regular I-93 signs. The Federal Highway Act of 1973 exempts this 7.6-mile (12.2 km) stretch from the Interstate Highway standards that apply elsewhere, and this highway is considered to be I-93 for all practical purposes.[13] This section of I-93 in New Hampshire is now the only remaining multi-mile section of two-lane freeway on an Interstate Highway in the United States. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_two
@@johnathin0061892 The finer point may be a compliance thing. This stretch was approved by Congress, and therefore may be the only “compliant” exception to the interstate system.
I happened to pickup a National Geographic Map of the US dated September 1956 at a national park last year they were clearing out. Verified this map shows none of the Interstate, but it shows initial construction of Topeka to Kansas City and some of the other initial plans in Kansas & Florida.
6:20 Missed that Gen Eisenhower “stole/copied” the invention of the Interstate highway system from the leader of Germany in WWII (he who shall not be named lest censored) 🤬
About the deaths per mile comparisson, did that statistic include pedestrian deaths, as they and cyclists are the main victims of car related deaths due to poor infrastructure for everyone not in a metal box... and that could explain this difference as only cars are allowed on highways
I think the biggest reasons interstates are so relatively safe is the controlled access and divided nature between oncoming traffic. If someone oncoming falls asleep at the wheel on an interstate, I have a much better shot of avoiding them than if they do the same on a smaller, two lane state road at 70mph.
It's also an incredibly silly idea to suggest that the inner States don't contribute to that's on those personal roads because if the complete dependence on other transportation that the inner States provided America didn't happen then driving on those profile Road to be substantively less crowded and therefore safer
Fellow neighbour here from the North🇨🇦. For business and leisure, I've taken several road trips throughout Canada and the United States, and I can certainly proclaim that the interstate system is superior to our own Trans-Canada highway. On most interstates, I was permitted to go at 75 mph (125 km/h). Also amazed by the amount of information provided in this video, as well as the fact that the creator incorporated both miles and kilometres to convey speed. President Dwight D. Eisenhower's and the labourers' efforts worked splendidly, and they will continue to benefit the future generations as well.
Does the Canadian government just not invest as much into your network due to how concentrated your population is relative to the US? (I could be wrong, but IIRC like 40% of the Canadian population is in Ontario?)
@@_colonial_ Yes, because a network expansion is not currently required because 90 percent of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US border. The Trans-Canada Highway connects all major Canadian cities from east to west. The only investment they'll likely need to make in the near future due to population growth is to expand it from four lanes to six or eight lanes.
Man, that 1919 trip across the country sounded like an epic adventure. I've gone coast to coast myself, from West to East and back West. I spent an entire month zig-zagging across North America. I can't imagine doing that back then. Sounds amazing.
@@rajashashankgutta4334 yep. Trains from city to city, highways within the countryside and from country to city. The problem is the one-size-fits-all approach.
@@rajashashankgutta4334 because they are inherently incompatible. Having trains means that when you reach a destination you should be able to get around your destination without the need of a car, meaning good public transit. Having highways means you should be able to get around your destination by driving. While a balance is possible, Having both as the main form of intercity travel for the masses is infeasible
@@hwong1776 well you can use public bus service on highways(for those who can't drive for long time spans and to provide cheap public transport in relatively low traffic areas). Regarding intercity travel, public bus service can be used to connect relatively low traffic countryside with each other and with neighbouring towns and cities.
AND to get as many of the dumbest, baddest drivers off of the roads as possible. You ever drive down a busy freeway right before rush hour congestion officially starts backing up? Just a small handful of bad drivers with literally thousands of other drivers per hour is all it takes!
@@schwenda3727 And that is why I say unless you're an oil baron or a greasy car salesman then you should support increased investment in public transportation.
@@Androfier my grandfather who was in the military during the McCarthy era used to call my brother and I commies for wanting rail transit. Red baiting has never really died unfortunately
@@Androfier it is less effective in the rural areas because no one will use it. rural people want to go on their own time. they want to stop when they want and go when they want without being dependent on others.
The interstates are great but I would still love a similarly large passenger rail network, preferably high-speed where possible, in addition. Trains are safer and less polluting than cars and easier to travel on than planes. It's like a happy medium.
agree, but important to remember that the biggest benefit from the intestates doesn´t come from domestic travellers but from cargo. Still would be nice to see (at least two different disconnected networks for the mainland since nothing will change that the us is a huge continental nation)
True, but you also have to remember that the US is twice the size of Europe wjth half the population, so the lack of density makes it harder. In reality people will only take a train for trips of max 5 hours, otherwise planes are faster. Even if we had the highest speed train that exists, it would still take about 16 hours to go from coast to coast - flying is just faster. Where HSR DOES makes sense is corridors - northeast, Houston-Dallas, South Florida, etc
@@anthonydpearson yepp, the best would be 2 separate systems for high speed. Since poor people would use bus or car and middle and upper classes would still use car or plane then the la-ny trip is for the very few enthusiast, for whom a regular low speed or even a steam powered train is enough to make most of us happy
Interstates serve defense purposes, too: If there are no suitable landing sites for military aircraft, for example if an invasion has disabled Air Force and civilian runways, planes can use the Interstate as a landing strip. I think there's a regulation that requires long, straight sections every hundred miles or so for this purpose.
The requirement is actually a myth according to the Federal Highway Administration. Although I’m sure much of it could be utilized as a landing strip if, God forbid, it was ever needed.
The "Eisenhower" Interstate Highway System's primary purpose initially, was to transport and move our nation's military from base to base and from coast to coast.
Another fun fact about the Interstate system is the numbering system itself. Interstates that run north-south, are odd-numbered, starting the west to east. That's why I-5 starts on the west and I-95 is on the east coast. If it ends in an even number, it runs east-west, with the number marker increasing from south to north (I-10 is the most southern, while I-90 is the most northern). For three-digit interstate highways, it typically signals that it is around some sort of city or urban area, and usually attached to another interstate. If it starts with an even digit, it means the road forms a loop, either partial or full around a city. If the first digit is odd, then it spurs directly into the city. The remainder digits show what the main interstate this loop or spur is attached to (I-495:I-95, I-310: I-10).
now THIS is what i like to see is also inverse of how they number US Routes like how US 90 is in the south but US 2 in is n the north or how US 1 is in the east but US 101 is in the west
It's crazy how i was suddenly interested in learning about the interstate's history a week ago and been watching older videos and now one of my favourite channels drops a fresh video. Thank you so much for this!
I grew up within a few hundred feet of the Interstate Highway System!! It was the sound to which I fell asleep at night, the reason a bit of soot could always be found in my windowsills, a focal point (on a map) in the part of town in which I lived, and a source of endless wonder and entertainment for me whenever my family and I drove over, near, or on it to get somewhere. I've always been quite fond of it; I've come up with a bunch of grand upgrade schemes like aqueduct-style bridges for it to travel on over a large valley near where my house was, re-routing to make the journey on it straighter and more level, instituting the use of "speed range" signs instead of sticking to speed limits... the works. However, I'd never taken the time to truly appreciate its simplicity and brilliance until watching this video. To the creator: thank you for creating this gem. I commend you for your work and am glad that somebody else finds these giant stretches of road fascinating and awe-inspiring.
They should’ve built a parallel high speed rail network in high traffic corridors (SF-LA, NY-Chicago) to relieve congestion and better spread out the load
@@patxepi NYC to Chicago has Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Erie, Cleveland, Toledo, Fort Wayne, And South Bend between them. That’s plenty of ridership potential.
@@thefareplayer2254 "Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Erie, Cleveland, Toledo, Fort Wayne, And South Bend" Hmmmm. We'll have to change the name from fly-over states to rail-through states.
California voters back in 2008 voted to create a high speed rail to connect SF to LA but Republican counties said it would cost too much ...even though CA voters voted for it to happen. To continue their argument, they organized and decided to sue at every chance they get when construction begins in a red county. This costs money from stalling the project and court/lawyer fees thereby inflating the initial costs of when the project was purposed. They then, and even now, keep pointing to the high costs of the project as proof as a waste of money and blah blah bad Dem leadership...which the Reps created themselves. I voted for this when I was 18 in 2008 hoping by now I would enjoying rides to N. California.
Glenwood Canyon in Colorado is still just as hard to maintain as it was to build. Last year it was closed due to forest fires and right now it's closed due to mudslides. Though every time I drive through there I'm amazed that not only did they build a highway there but it's two lane and there's train tracks on the other side of the canyon where Amtrak goes through.
That’s what was disappointing about this video. He made it seem all interstate building is good without taking into consideration the lifetime maintenance. Especially in lightly used areas
@@kittymedusa3618 life time maintenance is still less, since you get a theoretical passive 12% or something, permanent increase in total wealth production. This can be further improved with better material, better planning, and better techniques
@@Theanimeisforme There’s no way that the Interstate in Wyoming produces more wealth than the life time cost of even 50 years. Wyoming is massive mountains. And has no vital connections to major cities.
The system works great in most mid size cities, but its a bit messy on the east coast as well as near LA, Houston and SF. Overall, a great investment, especially at the time
That's because east of the Mississippi, towns grew up along rivers and/or coasts, and were served at first, for "road" traffic, by the primitive turnpikes of the day, which themselves had evolved out of old Indian trails. Railroads, which followed starting in the mid-19th century, had to follow courses dictated by terrain, to facilitate the locomotives of the day being able to pull a train (don't snicker) with the given power they had. It was one thing to build the early roads, which were "point to point" (that is, from one town to the next), but a continuous interstate required some planning, and right-of-way even in the 1950s was fairly damned expensive. It was easiest to put the Interstates through where there was enough open land to begin with, but into a big, established city, that was often a huge undertaking. Before Boston's "Big Dig", for example, traffic into Beantown from the North was served via I-93, which also go to and through New Hampshire, but in Boston it took an elevated freeway known as the "Central Artery". Just getting that built destroyed or divided quite a bit of established neighborhoods, leaving hard feelings which endure even to today. One trend I've seen over the years when routing a freeway through a dense urban area, especially in a downtown, is to put them in an enormous, concrete-lined trench, and over at least part of it, BUILD. That way, the downtown isn't broken up by a huge elevated freeway or even a freeway at surface level, and what would otherwise be a swath of concrete has structures on it that either are public use, or private property that pays property taxes and conducts business that generates further tax revenues. A "win-win", IMO.
You have left out the Chicagoland area. We have many interstate highways. Yet, the incessant traffic is enough to make one rip their hair out. Sometimes traveling no more than twenty miles an hour, on a four lane highway, just because of the aforementioned traffic. I think that it is time to add a second deck to these busy interstate systems, in massively congested areas. Yeah, that would cost a LOT of money. But it would save commuters A LOT of time, during high traffic times. I say, let the construction begin. Because I have estimated, that just in the last twelve months alone, I have probably spent about forty or so hours, just sitting in my car, in traffic jams, going zero miles per hour.
As an Australian, I’m jealous with the design. It’s Crazy how way back in the 50’s, the highways were designed as all dual carriageway (4 lanes). In Australia we obviously have heaps of really long highways but the only interstate/intercity highways that are dual carriageway the whole way is the Hume highway (Sydney to Melbourne) and the pacific highway (Sydney to Brisbane). And even then, the Hume only finished upgrading to 2 lanes each way the whole way in 2013. And the pacific highway was even later than that. So yeah pretty much all the regional highways here are single-lane except for those 2 and a few small ones that link places like Canberra, Bendigo, Ballarat, Geelong, Traralgon and Shepparton. And yet America did it in the 50’s.
Just generally, one should not be jealous of anything that America did in the 50s. Unless your a oil baron or military officer, it did not turn out well for cities
One thing to keep in mind is that there needs to be the population to justify the infrastructure expense. The US population in the 1950s was ~150 million, whereas the current Australian population is ~25 million, and the size of Australia is similar to the size of the lower 48 states.
As a resident of Salem oregon, I would just like to give a quick thanks to Dwight Eisenhower for all his hard work. We wouldn't be where we are today without him. Rest in peace.
As a Professional driver this subject is near & dear to my heart. Although, the top speed on I90 goes upto 75mph in South Dakota, I94 reaches a max speed of 75mph in North Dakota and 80mph in Montana.
You are correct that those are the speed limits, but the speeds reference in the video are only minimum design speeds used during engineering. The actual posted speed limits will vary. There are also examples of speed limits being lower than this design speed, mainly in the Northeastern states like NY and MA which have speed limits of 65 mph on I-90.
@@likesorange additionally, the "Effective" speed limit is what the police enforce. Where I'm from you drive 60 when its posted 55 (also the interstate is an hour away). And on the interstate 65 posted means that you can drive about 72 without fear. I'm sure this effect is taken into acount when posting speed limits. (But in low limits like 45 and lower off the interstate I drive the posted limit) Fun fact: once someone was caught doing 80+ in my school zone thats posted 20, I'm sure that was instant license pull.
Does anyone even really pay attention to speed limits that much on freeways though? In California the spirit of the law is basically stick to the speed of traffic and you’re fine, which in the fast line is routinely upwards of 80-90. But that might be everywhere. California also doesn’t have a law against cruising in the left lane so.
16:17 Does reduced densities increase the environmental impact of cities? Would like to hear more about the flaws of the highway system and comparisons to public transportation.
@@harzer99 that, plus a bigger developed ground area disturbs nature. (esp rain drainage for example, which heats up the cities and causes ppl to need their ac etc.) Another things is the many journeys could do do on foot in high density (shopping, appointment, work, etc.), but have to do in a car in the suburbs because of the longer distances and car-centric city planning (no sidewalks, huge parking lots, few pedestrian crossings)
Check out the Not Just Bikes channel. TL;DW suburban sprawl is a ponzy scheme bankrolled by the federal government that bankrupts cities to create empty hell scapes that strictly require a car to get to the other side of the road.
Besides higher environmental impact, less density also makes them less financially viable - cos of more area for the city to maintain, while it has fewer people to collect taxes from. Many of America's cities actually run on debt and/or endless federally financed expansion as a result of this.
Your comment at 15:25 reminded me of what General Mills did about 20 years ago. They had a massive production facility right smack in the middle of California in a small town called Lodi (yes the one in the CCR song) that they were closing down due to out of control union demands. So they started searching for a new location along the I-5 corridor as well as going east along the I-10 corridor in the southwest states. They almost chose a place in Oregon called Grants Pass but county officials (all business owners) forced them to stay out and so General Mills went the other way on I-10. Either way they required access to the interstate system and rail lines.
The interstate highway system was and is certainly needed. However, at the time of the conception of the system, the US ALREADY HAD a massive, developed transportation network… the railroads. Every other developing nation invests in rail infrastructure, yet the US continues to let it’s rail network crumble. In the Midwest, and along the coasts, there was an extensive railway network. The railroads crisscrossed and interconnected counties and states quite thoroughly during the 1st half of the 20th century. The construction of the highway system destroyed the rail network, with thousands of miles of track being abandoned or removed altogether. By the time the states and federal government stepped in and assumed ownership of the less profitable routes being abandoned, the rail network was already decimated. It’s a shame, really. Moving products and people by road is the most expensive way, in terms of tonnage per mile and fuel consumption per ton per mile. Had a comparable amount of planning been done with the existing rail network, we could have had a much more efficient and cost effective system of transporting agricultural and industrial commodities than what exists today.
My grandpa was born in 1932 and was a businessman in both the railroad and trucking industries and he always talked about how sad it is America gave up its incredible rail infrastructure. Rail really is the superior form of transport so long as you build your real estate to match, which we had.
Most things you see in the store still travel by rail, but the last mile is delivered by trucks. Look around big truck terminals and you'll see container cars and a diesel engine. Rail is more of a freight network then a passenger network. We have these things called big old jet airliner...dont' carry me too far away...Big ol jet airliner...cause it's here that I got to stay.
On the main railroad line between this town and the next one East, there are at least 100 trains that pass through here everyday. Most d-bags when they complain about the 'deterioration of rail' are only referring to passenger service. Americans don't care much for passenger rail outside of big-city subways. Rail freight, on the other hand, is stronger than ever.
Dead WRONG. The railroads are quite efficient at what they do best...MASS FREIGHT. There's no need for any Soviet-style "planning" with respect to railroads for that purpose, they do fine as is, as the market demands. Passenger service via rail was never a huge money maker for the railroads, save in a few markets, like the Northeast, like with the NY-Penn Central, where it actually made economic sense, the railroads more or less defaulted to private auto and later aircraft travel. One need look no further than the miserable example of Amtrak over the past fifty years to show the effect of getting the Government involved in passenger transport. It's also short-sighted to evaluate movement of private individuals, whether it be for business, commuting, or pleasure travel, as an Army logistics officer would do, in terms of, say, planning the movement of a tank regiment with all its equipment and personnel. Trains work for private citizens when their linear routing works for their needs, but there can be but relatively few rail lines, train stations, and rolling stock, so, by definition, passenger train travel isn't very flexible. Automobiles are, and it's the motorist that determines it's value, not some smug "urban planner", for his transportation needs. Indeed, a private citizen driving his ride to wherever he can afford to go, for whatever reason he deems fit, driving on the highways and roads paid for by the FUEL TAXES he pays at the pump, is the most "liberal" and "democratic" means of "public" transportation. Is it "perfect"? Probably doesn't seem that way at rush hour, but neither is being jammed in with the rest of the sardines on a subway or commuter train all that great an experience, either.
Per Wikipedia's Cannonball Run entry: As of October 2021, the overall record (NYC to LA) is 25 hours 39 minutes, with an average speed of 110 miles per hour (180 km/h), driven by Arne Toman and Doug Tabbutt along with spotter Dunadel Daryoush.
Now imagine if people actually followed the law, driving in the right lane and using the left only to pass. Probably kick that impact up a couple percentage points as we'd all get where we're going a lot faster.
Bear in mind there’s easily a few cities/states that thought it wasn’t a HORRIFYING idea at all to put a noticeable amount of on/offramps literally in the passing lane (left lane) during initial planning/construction. Oklahoma, Kansas City, Connecticut, most major cities in Ohio except Columbus & Dayton. That ignorant design choice alone just seems to PROMOTE left lane blocking, “hogging”, and “camping”; making enough of the herd of traffic to think it’s perfectly acceptable to literally fuck up traffic & even highway safety.
There increasingly needs to be a FEDERAL highway funding program simply to redesign & relocate left lane ramps to the right side. I swear many of the 1940s-early 50s turnpikes seem to have withstood the test of time far better than most late 1950s-early 70s suburban freeways… especially before any MAJOR reconfiguration and/or expansion work was needed…
In cities, the left lanes are also considered 'thru' lanes. Limiting them to passing only creates congestion. The laws are different in Metro areas for a reason.
@@gamewizardks I addressed that in another reply somewhere, but yes in high congestion city areas with many exits and on ramps close together it’s true that through traffic should use available lanes… but most such areas also typically have three or more lanes and congestion would still be greatly improved if people reserved the left for passing and cleared to a middle lane when not passing
@@schwenda3727 There are a bunch of on ramps in Detroit that have next to no merge distance, they just shoot you straight into the chaos. I can't imagine what it was like during the horrendous rush hour days of the 70s - 90s when Detroit still employed a large percentage of the metro area.
Interesting that this video is coming out at a time when the Glenwood Canyon portion of I-70 has been shut down for two weeks due to mud slides. The west still has pretty limited high infrastructure.
@@samd3497 Not buying that argument. The interstates didn't cause suppression of forest fires for a hundred years. The interstates didn't cause public ownership of forests in the western USA instead of coming up with homesteading rules appropriate to this part of the country. The interstates didn't cause welfare payments in inner cities instead of payments for clearing beetle killed forests.
@@richdobbs6595 There would have been a lot more money available for proper forest management had we not built the interstates. The interstates are one of the top contributors to climate catastrophe leading to drought and forest fires. We wouldn't have been doing so much fire suppression had development not occurred along the interstates which enabled said development.
@@samd3497 Proper forest management isn't that expensive, and ironically involves burning more just in an intentional and controlled way which reduces overall fuel. It's a relatively recent concept to ask our local Indian tribes how they used to do deliberate burns in their former homelands (often done to promote the growth of certain plants).
@@daelbows5783 And plus, people in the US are a lot more spread out. While some places can be served with rail and stuff, that can't be said with other places.
@@daelbows5783 then what about China?! They are building bullet Train routes to Lhasa,Tibet and xinxiang province which have similar population density to alaska! th-cam.com/video/kDdG7ObinG4/w-d-xo.html Btw, american east coast has enough population density, why hasn't there been a better high speed train system yet!? FYI, It is a matter of political will, not just population density.
Imagine having a government that doesn´t understand the importance of infrastructure, i think people born into a world of connecting infrastructure does not understand the importance of it, taking it for granted. The importance of people being able to move around with relatively ease is so underrated.
European here. If I had to drive on a US Interstate I would probably pass out from stress. How does anyone get anywhere when Sharon in her minivan is hogging the left lane at 50mph?
@@matthew8153 That's about as good of an answer as just getting out the 9mm in the glovebox (that everyone has because it's America) and shooting her tires.
When I first immigrated to US and drove on interstate I fell in love with it. The concept of ramps, interchange and no red lights. Not many people appreciate the power of this system
I dont get why the aspect of connectivity had to be achieved via car oriented transportation. Rail had existed for over a century in the US in the 1950s and I imagine the economic benefits mentioned in this video could have equally been reached with the same amount of investement into railroad infrastructure. Maybe a joint infrastructure project of highways and rails would have been a much better approach.
I don't think they knew any better. Remember, in that period of time, the automobile was only just made viable for the masses and was becoming the future. They didn't really foresee the problems that would arise, and the direction we now know we're going in. I think Wendover actually made a video covering this, but it could have been another similar channel. Aside from that, the only justification I can reason is that an interstate highway system would ultimately be better for military use, in case of war or other national threat. A rail system would be more easily compromised. Again, in those times, war was a very real thing and a lot of decision making would have revolved around that quite significantly.
There's also the individual vs system side of things. An individual family could reasonably own a car. They could not own a train. Sure, they could buy train tickets instead, but then how do they get around once they arrive at their destination? There could be a system that answers all those questions, maybe, but it's easier to let people sort it out themselves. My two cents.
@@justamanchimp "I don't think they knew any better." I'd say we apparently still don't given the lack of support for mass transit in the federal budget. But as usual follow the money. GM, Firestone and Standard Oil plotted to eliminate trolleys in favor of buses back before my time. Of course, the magic market ensures that greed results in the best of all possible worlds. [sarcasm off]
America actually has fairly developed cargo rail infrastructure as well (though it’s not high speed) it’s mainly our passenger rail system that’s shit.
been watching tons of videos by "not just bikes" and "city beautiful" Its absolutely insane how messed up our city and town road systems are on a fundamental level and most people have NO IDEA
I sadly live in Germany and watch many Videos about America and the US and want to immigrate. I find your Interstate highways so cool. The names alone are eargasm to me and my friends as well. I dont get how you dont appreciate it. Look how cool these recordings and captions in this video alone look. You have the coolest trucks the coolest license plates, the interstate and highway symbols. The looks, especially driving downtown or through mountains or along rivers, have cheaper gas prices but drive in the most beautiful country. It must be such a cool feeling driving on a highway across the United States of America. Its my dream to drive all the highways and interstates in the US.
Thank you for the kind words about our country, I hope you get your chance to come see us someday. I myself love living here, however it is one of my dreams to visit Europe someday, with Germany at the top of my list of places to visit. The ancient architecture, castles, cathedrals, etc that we just don't have in this country is so interesting to me. Not to mention the beer, German beer is my favorite!
Back in those days the train system was a lot more scarce than it is right now, especially if you wanted to get to more remote areas, it was very inconvenient and you had to take other means of transportation, walking, running biking, or horseback/Horse-carriage. While you may argue the same for the Interstate system in the West, there are still well planned and good enough roads like county or state highways in most Western states that allow you to get places. Even if you look at today’s train map in the West (Nebraska, Dakotas, Idaho etc) the train system isn’t as good and forces you to use different modes of transportation if you don’t want to walk for hours
@@Postedyt Railroads were the FIRST "interstate" and unified the country (sparsely populated as it was) from coast to coast in the 19th century. The federal government encouraged private RRs to put down rails in exchange for land grants provided by the government that the RRs could, in turn, sell to developers. The trains were far more comfortable than covered wagons. But cars have flexibility that trains don't have, and that's how cars took over (with some help from the fossil fuel and automobile companies). I don't believe trains are obsolete, however. I think we need a new generation of high-speed trains that can travel an average of 250 mph to allow people and jobs to spread out, rather than having everything concentrated in urban centers where housing and the cost of living are unaffordable for most people.
@@caroler59 What killed rail passengers trains was losing the mail. Passenger trains on their own were never profitable. The US is too big and too spread out for trains to be profitable outside of the northeast.
@@jannecechmanek I never heard about the mail. What killed passenger trains is the private RR owners could make more money on freight. Human passengers require much more service (food, restrooms, etc.), and this was a time when people were driving more and taking the train less, so the owners spun off the passenger service to the government, which formed Amtrak as a kind of government corporation. The owners kept the freight trains, and own the rails and have priority use of the rails. If trains couldn't be trusted with the mail, why would they be trusted with freight?? LOL. Second, the US is definitely NOT too spread out for trains. It wasn't in 1850 and it isn't now. The US built 40,000 miles of interstate freeways largely between 1960 and 1980, when the US population was much lower. High Speed Rail would have the same effect as freeways in opening up new areas for development. Having said that, it's true that the coasts - both East and West - are where the money is. That's where HSR should be developed first, where it could take millions of car trips off the freeways every year, with fewer trains running less frequently across the country. You also need to think about future needs, when we have millions more people living near the coasts. Adding cars and airports will not be feasible, and isn't even feasible now.
As great as the interstate is, it should never had let to the US giving up on the rail system. Car travel is longer and pushing more Americans to drive wears down the road. We should’ve have had a healthy balance of rail AND road. That way if you want to drive you can but if you’d like to take rail (cheaper and often shorter) you’d have that option (plus we could’ve gotten high speed rail). Now we have to drive hours on terribly maintained roads or take an expensive airplane with long security.
We never gave up on our rail system though. It just got shifted to what was working, which was freight. We still have the largest rail system in the world and most of it is extremely successful. Besides rail wouldn’t have been cheaper and certainly wouldn’t have been quicker for most of the countries travel, maintenance wouldn’t have been meaningfully improved and the general threat of terrorism would have most likely made train travel just as slow with security. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t be spending more on passenger rail. I’ve always supported efforts to improve rail connections in different parts of the country
The report says "impracticable", not "impractical." I must admit this is the first time I've ever seen that word, but I like the poetry of it. It's a polite, but dire word. "Impractical" is just polite.
Building interstate highways without at the same time improving the railway system was a huge mistake that resulted in a massive shift in the modal split that is almost impossible to reverse nowadays. Car drivers and truckers got plenty of highways for "free" while railroads struggled and went bankrupt. It was the beginning of a downhill slope of infrastructure in general.
Nonsense. The US moves about two trillion ton-km of freight on rails per year, over 9,000 tkm per capita. That's almost ten times the amount in the EU. The freight modal share for rail in the US is one of the highest in the world - only Canada, the former USSR, and Switzerland are higher (and Switzerland is an obvious special case). European countries transport a much, much higher portion of their freight by road than the US does. Which makes sense given the densities of the US and Europe. As does the proportion of passenger traffic by mode. Geography matters.
Also, I live in NYC NY and my parents are in CT. I love taking the parkways up to New England to visit with them. Especially in the full and winter time because it is just so beautiful. Those were the old roads built before the interstate system.
What about when they go right through cities though? Would be nice if they had the same attitude towards rail as well, neglecting that shows the car dependent nature of the US
going into cities is fine but I don't understand what they were thinking with those huge spaghetti bowls that waste so much space right up in downtowns. my home town of st. louis "solved" this by putting its larger spaghetti bowl across the river, and that thing is a fucking mess, but houston and kansas city are even worse because their clusterfucks completely encase downtown. who needs this many exits directly onto streets? that's why every US downtown is so gridlocked 24/7
If done somewhat right like in Baltimore or Pittsburgh... surprisingly, it's beneficial. But done wrong like in Cincinnati, you'll see why Robert Moses is a hated man.
@@blitzn00dle50 in some cases, like Los Angeles, the spaghetti of highways is actually how we get through the city quickly and they are fairly well planned out. There's no better way to go from one end of the city to the other considering how massive the area is.
For those wondering why Oregon doesn't have a major port even though we literally have a 'Portland' (where I live), its because long story short, our port died due to costs and Seattle/LA taking our business... they used to be quite important, but now we unload less cargo in an entire year than LA does in an hour.
Need to talk about the opening of this video. Building the Interstate Highway system «absolutely was» an unprecedented undertaking. Limited access highways on this scale had never been done before. It «is» an engineering marvel. A good portion of the credit for the engineering feat goes to the roads that were constructed in the Northeast before the 1956 Highway Act was passed: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, & Ohio Turnpikes, Indiana Toll Road, and the New York State Thruway. The people who built these roads came up with incredibly inventive solutions to difficult engineering challenges. These roads pointed the way to how the entire system could be built and all of them were folded into it. Why were none of them mentioned? The Eastern turnpike complex, running uninterrupted from Chicago to Philadelphia, New York, and Boston showed how 8 states could coordinate and build a network of safe, high-speed limited access highways.
My dad used to say, "The interstate is incredible. You can drive non-stop from the Atlantic to the Pacific and not see a damned thing."
Pretty sure these roads were built to efficiently get you to your destinations, not for being a destination. If your dad didn’t see anything interesting it’s because he couldn’t be bothered to take exits and actually visit places. He chose to complain because of his lack of forethought.
@@zach11241 I'd rather drive US-50 over the close by interstates of 64, 44 and 70
@@zach11241 your comment is literally what his dad wanted to say. That it's so efficient that you won't see anything. All you're doing is agreeing while repeating what he said, but in more words/slower
Edit: pretty ironic you insulted someone's foresight but didn't follow your own advice lol
@@GolfClash2718 Well yeah. If I want the scenic route I'd take US-89 over I-15 but if I'm looking to get from Vegas to Idaho in less than a day I'm going to take I-15 every time.
This. The interstates are so boring.
For comparison, Pete Kostelnick ran across America on foot with a world record time of 42 days, 6 hours, 30 minutes from San Francisco's City Hall to New York's City Hall in 2016.
Is that total or with rest
@@chrislambert9903 In total, running 3,067 miles. He slept 6 hours a night to cover more ground and faced snow storms, 35 mile per hour winds, and a major motor accident destroying his support vehicle.
Let’s think though, that was probably done on this road
Incredible! I could MAYBE do that on a bike or something after years of training but it would take me a month or 2 just to run to alabama from Georgia and I'm only 30 miles from the border lol.
No, he died in Nevada
I like how the highest ranking military officer in one of the greatest war mankind has fought and his conclusion was: "Man, infrastructure is really important"
Logistics is what wins wars, so it makes sense that he took that away from his wartime experience.
I heard from some serving soldiers that if you want big bucks when you go back to civilian life you go for a logistics related job role, as there is a lot of demand, and thus high wages for experienced people in that field once you get out.
6:20 Know where Gen Eisenhower “stole/copied” the invention of the Interstate highway system? From the leader of Germany in WWII (he who shall not be named lest censored) 🤬
There is an old saying, "Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics." Many of the best Generals in history were such because they took that to heart.
He wasn't the highest rankng alone. He shared the rank with Macarthur who was the supreme allied commander of pacific theatre and became 5 star general 2 days before Eisenhower.
@@bthemedia And those Germans stole the ideas for the Nuremberg laws that disenfranchised the Jews from the Jim Crow laws of the South.
It's funny how back in 1919, trains were considered the dominant form of transport, with roads in desperate need of improved infrastructure. Now it's the opposite.
I was referring more to the transportation of people rather than goods. While I'm sure America's freight industry has done a fantastic job of keeping their tracks in good shape, you can't deny that the infrastructure for passenger service in the U.S. is absolutely abysmal.
@@IBeforeAExceptAfterK thats nost likely because there isnt enough demand for it
@@ronitjalihal2586 It's hard to create demand for something most Americans have never tried, or whose only experience was with a system so heavily neglected that it's only being held together with chewing gum and duct tape.
@@IBeforeAExceptAfterK Its also hard for trains to compete with planes in the distances Americans often travel.
@@homiej2548 You're forgetting about daily commutes and trips between cities which are relatively close to each other. That's where rail's niche is, not traveling across the country. Trains are supposed to compete with cars, not planes.
That Eisenhower reveal was fantastic. What a legend.
ikr? I was like, "no way, no way... YES WAY HOLY SHIT"
@@janedoeYT I take it you like Ike.
The last truly great Republican.
@@vucub_caquix The absolute Chad even warned us about the military-industrial complex before he left
6:20 Yet Gen Eisenhower “stole/copied” the invention of the Interstate highway system from the leader of Germany in WWII… he who shall not be named lest censored. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsautobahn
People: You can’t put a price on a human life!!!
US Department of Transportation: $11.7 million
it's a fake/contrived number.
It is a surprisingly well thought number. High enough to not offend anyone. Low enough to be usable as a metric. And I think we can all agree that in reality most human life is worth much less than that if we consider their economic and social impact.
If I'm worth that much then why don't I get that money???
@@MCTogs Because that is only the value of your life as it stands for a safety perspective. Demanding that amount of money "since that's how much they say you're worth" only demonstrates a total lack of understanding what it even means
@@supernenechi sounds like government propaganda to me, if the department of transportation says I'm worth 11.7 million and I don't get a single penny then I might as well become a safety hazard
It's a shame we didn't take more from the Autobahn network, not going through city centers, allowing for no speed limits where practical, actually adhering to lane discipline, etc...
You would have to put a much higher investment into pretty much everything road related. I guess they thought it wasn't worth it.
For that to work you would also need to federalise driving standards. Your level of erratic driving is close to the Italiens, but with much bigger cars.
I don't know where you took that from, but the German Autobahns regularly go through city centres all over the place. Like, a lot. Also, lots of Autobahns actually do have speed limits, and the national debate on implementing an overall speed limit is getting ever closer to that being the case.
@@Semellie
He said "No speed limits where practical"
Letting highways passing trough cities is something i never understood.. such a weird concept.
Fun fact: the interstates are numbered so that even numbers are west-east running and odd run north-south. Three digit interstates are loops for a given interstate. The lower number interstates are further south and/or west (i5 runs in the west coast states whereas i95 runs east coast states).
Not always though. i99 runs through Altoona, PA, and is farther west than i81, which runs through Harrisburg. i74 runs through Southern North Carolina, and is farther south than i64, which runs through Richmond, VA.
@@poisondog88 I believe though that the majority of i74 is further north than i64, but the bit in nc is just much further south and on its own not connecting much. But there are definitely exceptions
Surprised he didn’t mention this, the interstate is literally a grid across the US. I 10 from Los Angeles to Jacksonville, I 90 from Seattle to Boston. Pretty clever
And there’s a logic to the auxiliary routes too. If it is an odd number (I-390) it leaves the main interstate but doesn’t reconnect. If it’s an even number (I-405) it loops back to the main interstate
@@poisondog88 I-99 is an exception only because it was built so much later than everything else. The original plan from the 50s had 79 and 81, and there’s no other odd numbers between those, so they chose 99. Rep. Bud Shuster, the main guy that pushed for I-99, also used to ride trolley 99 when he was a kid so he liked that number
Fun fact about the Interstates: On occasion, they were also used to experiment other things. The main one I know of the I-19, which was an experiment to see if America could convert to the Metric system. I was on it recently just to see it, and apparently, it's not too different from other Interstates, but most distance-related stuff is in meters/kilometers instead of miles. Exit numbers are based on the distance in kilometers (e.g. exit 101 is probably the last exit going north before you get to the I-10, even though the highway is only 62 miles long) and instead of mile markers, you get kilometer markers. The only thing that isn't in metric is speed limit signs, which are in miles per hour.
I live in tucson, I use i19 and i10 daily, its cool having the only km interstste in the country.
@@AtomicBoo i consider it kinda lucky and cool to have the only one in our entire country
The metric signs are completely off though. I measured them via Google Maps in the past and a simple 500 meter sign could be as much as 300 meters off, or more.
I think this exact topic is on a Half as Interesting video
I been on it too and I think also they use Km’s for the Mexicans driving on it …I’m Canadian and we use km’s too. I was surprised to see it myself lol
The man whose idea it was to not have any stoplights on these highways is probably basking in glory in the heights of Heaven.
Highways don't have stoplights though. Thats why they're called highways. They're above the arterial roads
Probably Gilmore C. Clark, who basically followed the road logic of Central Park in Manhattan.
@@srirampatnaik9164 A highway is just a large road connecting cities, so a state highway may have traffic lights
@@srirampatnaik9164 those are freeways, not highways. Freeways are limited access, highways may or may not be.
@@tito_zz9217 Oh sorry, I confused it with expressways. But the interstates are essentially expressways?
My father is a former military logistics specialist. He always told me that Ike's plan for the interstate system was to connect military bases, but also serve as emergency runways. This is really obvious on Oahu, where the interstates all terminate at military bases, and the section of H-1 near the airport is clearly engineered to accommodate landing a C-130 or C-17 cargo plane.
The runway thing is a myth. There are plenty of airports in the US to support emergency military traffic, which makes designing portions of the interstate for aircraft use unnecessary. The same cannot be said in Europe.
6:20 Yet Gen Eisenhower “stole/copied” the invention of the Interstate highway system from the leader of Germany in WWII (he who shall not be named lest censored) 🤬
@IWT what is strahnet designation?
@@EC-oe9bv I'd never questioned that idea, but with its 6 air strips, your point makes sense even for Oahu.
@@bthemedia So what, the Germans built a national highway first, and no no other country is allowed to build one? Do you realize how idiotic that sounds. This video even acknowledges that the US Interstate was inspired by the Autobahn.
Fun fact: the I-5 was built through the Central Valley instead of along California's Pacific Coast so that it was less likely to be targeted in a naval/aircraft bombardment.
I never thought of that but it makes complete sense now that you mention it 🤔
@@metrofilmer8894 Considering the times and that they were military roads, that makes perfect sense. I remember that the original DARPA net lines were constructed near the Interstates, for the same reason. That became the Internet, of course.
The other thing is that Interstates, being flat and wide, can be emergency runways if air force bases or airports are attacked.
I have driven up PCH, a lot of time I was white knuckling my steering wheel through whindy roads where one side is a 200 foot cliff up and the other side is a 200 foot clip to the ocean the ocean. I think that is a reason as well. The cliffs wouldnt be so bad but how bad in snaked got to me.
@@CaseNumber00 It's not ideal for a four lane highway. It's routinely blocked by landslides. Not ideal to begin with.
“Oregon has no major export ports.”
Shots fired PORTland!
If the interstate system didn't exist, there would be that many more ports! It is crazy to truck from Oregon to Oakland just get to a major port. Even if you get rid of the Jones Act, chances are much greater that goods would flow from Oregon and Washington to California via ship.
I mean Portland is a shithole
@@commisaryarreck3974 no one asked
@@commisaryarreck3974 make Portland weirder
@@commisaryarreck3974 is Portland a shithole? There I did ask him
“A 7-hour trip from DC to Maryland”
Me, a Marylander: Did you just say SEVEN HOURS FROM DC TO MAR- you know what, that makes perfect sense and is still quite accurate
My bro used to travel from Northern VA for work to Greenbelt where he lives which easily took 1 hour and half hours.
"...on a monday morning."
495 traffic is fucking horrible
@@stovexlvii3579 I feel like we need to take infrastructure a step further and invest into more high speed trains. This could connect the country even more. Also it would reduce traffic a significant amount .
Traffic on the parkway can be a real bitch, no foolin'.
The construction of I-70 through Glenwood Canyon deserves a video of its own. The balancing of construction with environmental protection was truly amazing.
That stretch of road is super impressive. I’d love to see a video on it
And at this current moment , we cannot keep it open due to mudslides ….
While super impressive and beautiful, the recent fires and continuing extreme costs of keeping it open make it clear we should have just gone south through Cottonwood and then back north along the river to rejoin the Colorado at Glenwood. Leave the train going through the canyon and add the biking path and parking locations for nature stops and sight seeing but upgrading to a full interstate through there was a mistake.
@@simplyepic3258 I don’t have the exact links but believe a couple of semi truck driver videos on TH-cam by Trucker John show it reasonably well.
Eisenhower gets seldom recognition for what he did for science in america...he was a visionary....father of NASA...father of interstate
He's the embodiment of pax Americana
Pity that the interstate is crumbling for how poor the maintenance in certain are is, Nasa is gettingittle funding so it can't really innovate as much and science is getting disregarded more and more
@Account NumberEight based and redpilled
@Account NumberEight And that makes the accomplishments of that era lesser somehow?
@Account NumberEight good one
I REALLY appreciate that you have moved to a model of sharing a companion video on Nebula vs. an extended version.
With the extended versions I would debate if the frustration of scanning through the video to find the extra content was worth it. I usually wouldn't even try.
With the companion video, it is clear cut and easy. I believe I have watched every one you've released. Please tell your peers they should try this as well. It's increasing the value of Nebula and my engagement with the app.
amongus
I agree with you, even though I have a nebula subscription, I usually still watch from TH-cam because it is more convenient, and it is easier searching for a companion video rather than the extended cut which can be anywhere in the video.
Completely agree, it was annoying trying to find the cut off point, especially because it was usually seemless
fact check true
This is the reason I unsubscribed from Nebula. I got so tired of watching a video to completion on TH-cam, only to find out right at the end that I could have watched a better version on Nebula, but by that point it's not worth it anymore.
This might actually make me resubscribe again.
interstates between cities - fantastic. Interstates around cities - great (ring roads) interstates through city centers and urban neighborhoods (always low income) - DOG SHIT. The biggest failure of the interstate highway system is the insistance that freeways must go right through downtowns meanwhile taking up huge percentages of the total land available in an area already pressed for land. TRANSIT not urban freeways is the answer.
Yes, this is correct, but unfortunately a goal of the system in cities was to displace Black Americans
Transit is extremely expensive
@UCglcCBgsID4MBH5PNqjvVQA he didn't plan every detail, and he stated his regrets about how it happened
@@gvi341984 yeah but 20 lane highways are free right ?
@@gvi341984 compared to highways, it is the more sustainable option. There isn’t a highway in existence that is profitable.
A good portion lumber in Oregon is shipped on trains. Oregon’s got a lot of railroad throughout. Railroad is how it should be done. Shipping less than a carload by truck is way less efficient.
Yep
Also, Oregon is largely a semiconductor economy -- lumber and other natural resources are overstated as its exports
Depends on where the lumber is headed.
And Oregon does have a port city, Portland,
@@Artuchu The port of Portland has recently not operated as an export hub due to the longshorman's union causing shipping companies to move to California or Washington instead of striking a deal. This was in 2017. Some have come back, but most businesses are not taking interested in risking their supply chains again for the time being.
Another cool thing: they have long sweeping turns so you need to pay more attention and it’s harder to doze off. Every 5-10 miles though, they have a long straight section which is there in case the military needs to set up an emergency air base. There’s thousands of potential spots to turn into a runway all around the country. Brilliant design. Also, the interstates in West Virginia have parts that don’t comply with the regulations because they were built before the regulations came out and it would take too much work and money to change it.
Shoot, that is so cool to learn.
Were the roads built with that intention or did we just adapt to the way things were after they were built?
@@sidneyblack1036 the regulations can into effect in the 60s or 70s and most roads have been built since then or been upgraded. The West Virginia interstates are harder to upgrade because it involves removing part of the mountain.
@@sidneyblack1036 Interstate 64(east of Beckley) 79 and 77(the turnpike). The terrain does not make it simple to build a traditional Interstate there at all.
That part about requiring a straight section at regular intervals for the military is actually a myth. A quick Google search will bring up sites from the Federal Highway Administration, Reuters, etc. debunking it. Which is too bad, because it sounds pretty cool.
"hey that guy in the convoy looks like Ike"
"Oh it is Ike."
We like ike.
@@michael_betts Ike for president, ike for president
I like.
Which one is he?
@@beback_ Guy on the right, I think.
I've driven about 60% of the Interstate Highway System. So many epic sections from I-70 out in Colorado and Utah (Glenwood Canyon, Vail Pass, The San Rafael Swell), to the Grapevine along I-5 in Southern California, the Virgin RIver Gorge along I-15, the Franconia Notch along I-93 in New Hampshire, Interstate H3 in Hawaii, I-90 through Snoqualmie Pass, and the list goes on. Great video. FYI, if anyone is reading this, I and my friend Jim upload a multitude of time-lapsed driving videos under our FreewayBrent and FreewayJim names. I also have some footage from Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Cheers, Wendover Productions!
The US highway system is something beautiful
It's great to see the legends in here! As a traveler myself, I've enjoyed your videos over the past decade.
@@bighorn9119 the interstate system is communist and needs to be privatized and deregulated. It's inherently anti-american. 🌈
@@robertschnobert9090 what?
@@robertschnobert9090 😀
If only Cities Skylines was around back then so that they could've built the interstates with proper lane mathematics
Underrated comment 🤣
Hugo there
It's so horky borky as is
Well and the willingness to develop and use alternatives like public transport and such. A city in CS that mainly relies on an interstate like system is almost always prone to congestion, except when you have replaced half the city with highways
@@or2kr and increased taxes to pay for that public transit....
You forgot to mention one important part of Eisenhower's life: His wife Maime was born and raise only about a mile from the Lincoln Highway. She fully understood how much of a lifeline having a trough road was to her upbringing.
@@johnperic6860 did you learn anything from this video? Those roads don’t all connect to each other like this
Boone, Iowa.
@@BorisBidjanSaberi11 The Lincoln Highway was the closest thing to a trans-con highway back then. Its wasn't great, but it was the best avialable.
Regarding the numbering of interstate highways:
(1) 'primary' roads are all single- or double-digits, with the most 'major' ones ending in 0 or 5 (like I-5, I-80, or I-95)
(2) for these 'primary' roads, odd-numbered roads run north-south and even-numbered roads run east-west
(3) also for 'primary' roads, values increase from west to east (odds) and from south to north (evens); thus, I-80 runs along the northern part of the US while I-95 runs along the east coast
(4) three-digit interstate roads are offshoots of the 'primary' roads, with their last two digits signifying the 'primary' road; e.g.: I-295 and I-495 would both be offshoots of I-95 [these cannot repeat within a single state but can be reused by others, so one can have multiple I-295 roads in different parts of the country]
There's more
Roads that end in 0 are coast to coast
Roads that end in 5 are border to border
Three digit roads with an even number first go around a city (285 in Atlanta)
Three digit roads with an odd number first spur into and out of a city
In the UK we have 3ish numbered designations of roads:
M - Motorway (Like a US interstate) i.e. M1, M6, M5
Primary A-roads (Green signs) - Usually old major routes and connections between urban centres where a motorway isn't practical i.e. A59, A30, A39
Secondary A-roads - Usually link smaller towns + narrower i.e. A3083
B-roads - Usually connect villages to larger towns and the main route through a certain area i.e B3293, B3303
The first number of the road signifies where in the country it is i.e 3 for the south-west, 6 for the north-west, 1 for east coast. The number of numbers in a road designation usually indicates the seniority, i.e the A30 is more of a major route than the A394 or the A674, whilst the A1 is senior to all those.
@@JohnnyB35 those last two points aren’t always true. 3 highways in Illinois disprove them. I-290 goes through Chicago, I-190 is just a spur to O’Hare airport, and I-355 doesn’t go into any major city and just serves as a connection between the northwest and southwest suburbs of Chicago
@@daleftuprightatsoldierfield there's exceptions to every rule.
Chicago, sitting right on the shores of a great lake, would of course provide exceptions. 190 does a pretty good job going around Chicago considered it goes all the way out to Bloomington, but it ends in Chicago because where else would it end?
To add to #4, if an offshoot begins in an even number, it circles a major city. If it begins in an off number, it connects two highways(not always 2 interstates)
Moving from the US to the Dominican Republic has really made me appreciate this. It feels like a luxury when I am on trips back to the US
Im literally in DR rn, these highways are horrible. 40 miles here is 1+ hr, in the USA is 40 min
@@kingofkings1959 yeah but you're in the DR! Land of the best beaches, rum,cigar and princess enjoy!
Why’d you move to the DR if you don’t mind me asking
Why DR and not PR? sincere question.
@@erikdale9145 of course. I’m dominican I know
Most Wendover titles: The Amazing Logistics of
Today: The Simple logistics of
*simple genius
6:20 Yet Gen Eisenhower “stole/copied” the invention of the Interstate highway system from the leader of Germany in WWII (he who shall not be named lest censored) 🤬
Breeze I suggest you read the actual history of the Autobahn... prior to “the party” it was the “Lincoln Highway” equivalent and small scale... the party made it a strategic military asset for WWII - much like DARPA made the Internet.
Breeze here is a brief primer on Autobahn history - th-cam.com/video/ZGQwXjE29fc/w-d-xo.html
@@breeze9819 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsautobahn
Fun fact: Interstate 95 is the most recently completed interstate, having been completed in 2018 with the completion of the I-95/Penn Turnpike Interchange Project in Bristol, PA.
i live within I-95 and I-495’s reach. Wow!
Portions of I-73 in SC are still being worked on today!
Fastest american road contstruction project
“Some lieutenant colonel” had me thinking, “wow, the disrespect.” Pretty good reveal there pal. We should have seen it coming.
If there is one thing I really appreciate about these videos, is the conversion from Imperial to Metric. It's such a simple thing, but because I watch a lot of content from the US not having the conversions can get confusing. So just that bit of extra effort is so appreciated! :)
I find it rather annoying. Videos about the US should be in Freedom units, videos about the rest of the world in normal units. It drives me crazy to have conversions either way, as they aren't the units used in their areas.
I find it very annoying and distracting and makes it difficult to understand. When he says the numbers all so fast they blend together and mean nothing. What he should do is pick one of them and say that, then put a graphic on the screen with the other one so people can easily focus on one.
@@woodalexander Freedom units? Miles came from Imperial measurements and Roman ones. The Metric system won't kill you. I grew up on Miles and the old system but I can convert in a blink ...it isn't that hard.
@@aespa690 exactly !
@@marklittle8805 Metric won't kill be but in 'MURICA we use Freedom units. Everywhere else uses normal units. The units should be correct to the locality being talked about.
As a Canadian, I had no idea what roads could be until I drove from Michigan to North Dakota. Seriously, infrastructure is such a gamechanger, and we take it for granted so much.
literally
yeah, Canada could be awesome if we had more than 1 highway.
@@niubi42069the thing is, traffic is horrible near cities. It’s not so much the Infrastructure, just that there’s no people. If Canada and the US built good train systems, then the highways and trains would be used equally and traffic would be better.
@@niubi42069 Not much motivation when Canadians can just cross over and use I-90 and I-94.
The closest thing is BC's coquihalla which was modeled on Autobahn, Interstate and turnpike design standards but its a single special piece of road. Coquihalla design standards follow the autobahn's strict "no left exits period" policy though.
This is one of my favorite videos you have done. People take out interstate for granted. It really wasn't all that long ago that they even existed. Late 1950's is nothing compared to others. Eisenhower was the man of his time!
IT would be long days, weeks and months to get things done quickly
I'm with you. So few can remember a time without it.
@@Redmenace96 mainly because theyre all dead
You should do a video on how the Olympic torch relay actually works. The back ups, the incidents, and the accidents.
I honestly really want a video on The Logistics of the Olympic Torch Relay now
The Internet Historian did a video on that
Mostly covering the incidents and accidents part though.
m.th-cam.com/video/YcuofODMCMU/w-d-xo.html
That would make a really cool Wendover video!
The absolute Chad that started it with a flaming arrow
Brilliant idea!
I personally love the interstate highway system and the way it connects cities. However, I also feel that has been a major roadblock for rail expansion in US which is comparatively better for the environment compared to car or an airplane. NYC-BOS is ~4 hours by car and ~1.5 hrs (+transfer from airport) by plane. Would be awesome to have a regular economically fared train that takes 2-3 hours or so.
I can tell you have never driven on I-95 in the State of Connecticut. The average speed on that section seems like only 25MPH so it has taken me like 7 hours to make the trip between NYC and BOS. Also there is the Amtrak Acela and Regional trains that take about 4 hours.
Trains are great and work excellently for city to city transport (and I think we definitely should invest in them) but if you live in even a remotely rural area then trains and other forms of public transport become infeasible. The sheer amount of rail you would have to lay to connect the rural US in a manner that's even rivals state highways would be incredibly carbon intensive and I'd imagine that in the end it would probably be no more efficient than just using the interstate.
@@mattguey-lee4845 My family and I have made that trip for years and we have never taken 7 hours, the most it has taken us, and this is with a Tesla (charging stop included) was 4.5 hours. We usually take Ct-15 to bypass some parts of I-95
@@brockcast4659 Completely agree to that. There needs to be a balance. Dense communities can be connected via trains. Having a train serve a remote location is not optimal. However, many govt. who have invested in it still try to connect them as it gives an opportunity for it to grow. Similar to 4 lane road systems extended to small rural communities when they were built. On paper it may not look optimal to build it for few hundred people. However, the expectation is for it to be the impetus for growth
@@mattguey-lee4845 I am actually from tri state area and I have used I-95 numerous times. I understand the traffic issue it has because of the busy corridor (try ct-15 it is relatively light on traffic and no trucks). The problem with Amtrak Acela is it is expensive (I have personally never traveled in it, so can not rate the experience) and regional trains are 4 hours from what I heard on paper. It does take a little longer than that. Also, another problem is greater boston area is not as well connected with rail transit as the greater new york area is. So, you end up needing a bus or a long cab ride from the south station.
I'm really glad that you covered the negative impact that the interstate system had on cities. I would really love a video on the urban renewal that is coming about from the removal of freeways. One that I know of specifically is the one in Milwaukee which paved the way for the building of the new Bucks arena and surrounding entertainment district which has had a HUGE positive impact on the local economy and has made future development projects possible. It has honestly really brought the city together and it has made a nice gathering place that has a space for pedestrians that is separate from cars, which is one of the most important parts of the urban renewal movement
The people of San Francisco successfully shut down the construction of California SR 480 back in the 80s/90s, which turned an ugly overpass that encircled the city on its beautiful coastline into one of the best city roads in the country, complete with surface rail, bike lanes, and wide sidewalks. It helps that an earthquake destroyed it when it was almost done being built, too.
If you'd like to watch more that is critical of this, check out 'not just bikes' or eco gecko's playlist about suburbia
@@warw I know "City Beutiful" has done topics close to this but never exactly this point. I'll have to check those out
the interstate is spike driving through the heart of many major american cities. clogs them all up with cars. hopefully more cities will remove their highways in the future
@@poetryflynn3712 there's towns built along the interstate
route 66 travel was slow as
faster roads were necessary regardless
I-95 had this strange discontinuity near Philadelphia. You would drive up I-95, then turn south in this sort of upside down U. You are shunted over to I-295, then cross into New Jersey on I-195 and rejoin 95 on the New Jersey turnpike.
They fixed this pretty recently --- fall 2018. I don't remember exactly how, but now I-95 connects to the Pennsylvania turnpike.
I was on I95 last week going from the bottom of Florida to the top of Virginia. The drive was about 16 hours. Hearing it takes a coast to coast trip took 2 months before Interstates existed sounds terrifying.
The “Interstate” part of the system was obviously important for the country. Putting it through the middle of cities was madness and has made US Cities the most unliveable in the OECD.
Really though would they have stayed not in the middle of cities? Where there's transportation infrastructure we've managed to build cities and towns on both sides.
@@9HighFlyer9 Nearly all other countries have built motorways around their cities. The US is usually cited as a reason to keep them out of cities.
@@gregessex1851 I'd say that it's probably not a great idea to plow through neighborhoods and lay down miles of concrete physically separating areas of the city. What's stopping development along a freeway that was built outside of the city? It happened with the rivers, the canals, railroads and highways. At that point you still end up with a freeway through the city.
@@9HighFlyer9 But then it happens semiorganically. People know it's there and can plan accordingly.
@IWT A failure to plan doesn't negate the opportunity.
Ngl the highway system really separates the areas around Chicago. It feels like completely different states/areas just going to a different neighborhood.
That’s the inherent downside of the American highway system. Effective residential segregation between neighborhoods.
Keeps me safe lol.
@@theplayerformerlyknownasmo3711 and keeps me in a more dangerous area lol
Even where i live in Arizona, the Suburbs are behind the 1-10 and some fields and right across all that is the Ghetto main urban area, which looks a bit like Los Angeles, just in the Desert.
Chicago is a corrupt shit hole.
That 12 mile run through the Rockies on I-70 is by far my favorite stretch of freeway and I've been on a lot.
The next big infrastructure project has to be the upgrade to railways and the addition of high speed rail.
It doesnt need to start big either, just start with HSR in the Acela corridor, then do Cali and Florida, and finally each coast and a trans-continental connection
Lol I just did the I 70 from Denver to gran junction today, Vail is def the most ghetto city in America 😂
So I think that there's not been a realization of the fact that high speed railways are slower and less efficient than flights at long distances especially across sparse terrain.
@@lukasnel4828 HSR is, indeed, slower than airliners at say, cross country flights, however, they are more environmental.
But nonetheless. What we need is HSR in the big metropolis areas. Northeast, Southeast, Texas triangle, West coast. Chicago hub. Way quicker, efficient, and environmental.
And then we need much better regional rail. Every small town used to have passenger train service to the nearest big city, now it's mostly just heritage lines and freight.
Look at Europe. There it is about the same conditions as what I mentioned above.
@@lukasnel4828 HSR beats out shorter trips, though. Seattle-Portland. Dallas-Houston. St Louis-Chicago-Milwaukee. Miami-Tampa. Etc.
Fun fact: The guy who decided on green for interstate signs was colorblind and thought he was selecting blue. But it turned out to be a good thing since green is more reflected than blue.
That's the definition of a fun fact, thank you haha
Dopeeee
Also seems to be entirely made up… But the story that a colorblind guy is deciding colors for a whole country is amusing as a joke at least.
That is not only false but quite the opposite. William Potts, the invetor of the 3 color traffic light, chose these 3 colors because they are easier for color blind people to see the different hues.
@@leefinthewind2311 Right? So rare to see a fun fact that's actually fun.
Ike campaigned for decades to build a national system of highways. The response from conservatives was always the same: "There is no business case for it." His proposed "System of Interstate Highways" was a nonstarter. Then he added two words to the title, and beat conservatives at their own game. Thus it became "The System of Interstate and Defense Highways". Ike was smart.
@Account NumberEight : Of course. That's where the money is, and has been for much of the past century.
@Account NumberEight : Some of it, certainly. The thing is that there is lots of money to be made providing products and services to governments at all levels honestly. One of the best ways to get into the top 0.1% income bracket is to provide a product or service to the federal government. Especially to the military-industrial complex.
And conservatives are STILL like that today...those mindless idiots want to keep our wages low because they think that having six hundred billionares controlling all the money is good for the economy.
@Account NumberEight Yes, that is where the bucks are, for the military. just reality, not criticism.
Proof that conservatives always set everything and everyone back. I don’t know why anyone likes conservatives. It was conservatives that supported slavery conservatives that wanted to succeed from the US and everything else. Even though the Conservative party used to be the democrats it flip flopped and now the Democratic Party is progressive.
It's especially impressive when you consider that the US is almost the size of Europe, *without* Alaska and Hawaii.
lmao where did you get that from? Europe is larger than the us
@@andreipopescul2439 Continental US: 3.797 square miles
Europe: 3.931 square miles
This is estimated so sources vary; my initial measure was inaccurate but *total* US with all 50 is larger than Europe.
@@burnttoast26 I think that's only the European Union, which is the majority but not the totality of the continent.
@@TheSpecialJ11 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe
That's all of Europe including Turkey.
@@burnttoast26 Um... 3.797 square miles? I kind of doubt America is that small
I live in Topeka KS. We were very lucky to be one of the first places in the country to have interstate highway. In fact were the first to have the test mile. My Dad took us out to drive on the test mile. By 1962 we drove to Washington State and down the west coast, largely on interstate highway . Eisenhower was from Kansas and the first interstate runs through his hometown of Abilene. Stop in and visit the Eisenhower library.
I got another quirk of the Interstate Highway System for you. There’s a stretch of I-93 through Franconia Notch in New Hampshire that is the only two-lane freeway section of the entire IHS. It’s only one lane north and one lane south, and the speed limit drops to 45 mph. It is in conjunction with NH Route 3, and was granted the exception by an act of Congress to preserve Franconia Notch State Park, its trailheads, campgrounds, and scenic areas.
are you sure? thats interesting, but there are definitely stretches of I-25 in Colorado/New Mexico that are one lane north one lane south
There are a number of exceptions on the Interstate system. There is a traffic light on one in Syracuse NY during the fair season. A few rural ones in Texas have intersections so farmers can cross and access them.
@@bpugsy719 There may be others, but I think the distinction the is that this stretch of I-93 is the only “compliant” stretch because Congress approved it.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gaps_in_Interstate_Highways
I-93 is a two-lane divided parkway, or a "super two", through Franconia Notch in New Hampshire. A four-lane Interstate Highway was once proposed here, but the concept was abandoned because of environmental concerns, in part because of vibrations that could harm the Old Man of the Mountain rock formation (which collapsed in 2003 regardless). This section of highway was for many years marked as US 3 and "To I-93", but these have now been replaced with regular I-93 signs. The Federal Highway Act of 1973 exempts this 7.6-mile (12.2 km) stretch from the Interstate Highway standards that apply elsewhere, and this highway is considered to be I-93 for all practical purposes.[13] This section of I-93 in New Hampshire is now the only remaining multi-mile section of two-lane freeway on an Interstate Highway in the United States.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_two
@@johnathin0061892 The finer point may be a compliance thing. This stretch was approved by Congress, and therefore may be the only “compliant” exception to the interstate system.
I happened to pickup a National Geographic Map of the US dated September 1956 at a national park last year they were clearing out. Verified this map shows none of the Interstate, but it shows initial construction of Topeka to Kansas City and some of the other initial plans in Kansas & Florida.
See i was always told it was KC to STL first, not Wichita to KC. I guess I was told wrong back then.
6:20 Missed that Gen Eisenhower “stole/copied” the invention of the Interstate highway system from the leader of Germany in WWII (he who shall not be named lest censored) 🤬
About the deaths per mile comparisson, did that statistic include pedestrian deaths, as they and cyclists are the main victims of car related deaths due to poor infrastructure for everyone not in a metal box... and that could explain this difference as only cars are allowed on highways
No man,
I think the biggest reasons interstates are so relatively safe is the controlled access and divided nature between oncoming traffic. If someone oncoming falls asleep at the wheel on an interstate, I have a much better shot of avoiding them than if they do the same on a smaller, two lane state road at 70mph.
It's also an incredibly silly idea to suggest that the inner States don't contribute to that's on those personal roads because if the complete dependence on other transportation that the inner States provided America didn't happen then driving on those profile Road to be substantively less crowded and therefore safer
well on some interstates bikes are allowed as well (when there's no good alternative route, for example I-90 crossing the Columbia river)
@@prplt without cycle lanes?!! I am already uncomfortable on a road with a speed limit of 70 km/h on a painted cycle lane...
Fellow neighbour here from the North🇨🇦. For business and leisure, I've taken several road trips throughout Canada and the United States, and I can certainly proclaim that the interstate system is superior to our own Trans-Canada highway. On most interstates, I was permitted to go at 75 mph (125 km/h). Also amazed by the amount of information provided in this video, as well as the fact that the creator incorporated both miles and kilometres to convey speed. President Dwight D. Eisenhower's and the labourers' efforts worked splendidly, and they will continue to benefit the future generations as well.
Does the Canadian government just not invest as much into your network due to how concentrated your population is relative to the US? (I could be wrong, but IIRC like 40% of the Canadian population is in Ontario?)
@@_colonial_ Yes, because a network expansion is not currently required because 90 percent of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US border. The Trans-Canada Highway connects all major Canadian cities from east to west. The only investment they'll likely need to make in the near future due to population growth is to expand it from four lanes to six or eight lanes.
Man, that 1919 trip across the country sounded like an epic adventure. I've gone coast to coast myself, from West to East and back West. I spent an entire month zig-zagging across North America.
I can't imagine doing that back then. Sounds amazing.
I appreciate the history of the first ever Cannonball run
I hate the Cannonball Run. It encourages reckless behavior on America’s roads which lead to lots of suffering, injuries, and death.
@@evboto.5597 We do not care
@@evboto.5597 lol
@@evboto.5597 get off the road then
@@evboto.5597 cry
Here to appreciate Wendover putting both imperial and metric system in his explanations in the video. Good job, keep it up.
12:11 people learning how to f****** drive would save a lot more lives
You started a war between train lovers and car lovers
Edit:Most likes I’ve gotten thanks guys
Why can't we have both trains and highways?
@@rajashashankgutta4334 yep. Trains from city to city, highways within the countryside and from country to city. The problem is the one-size-fits-all approach.
@@rajashashankgutta4334 because they are inherently incompatible. Having trains means that when you reach a destination you should be able to get around your destination without the need of a car, meaning good public transit. Having highways means you should be able to get around your destination by driving. While a balance is possible, Having both as the main form of intercity travel for the masses is infeasible
I love both
@@hwong1776 well you can use public bus service on highways(for those who can't drive for long time spans and to provide cheap public transport in relatively low traffic areas).
Regarding intercity travel, public bus service can be used to connect relatively low traffic countryside with each other and with neighbouring towns and cities.
I like the interstate system but we still need a metro and highspeed rail system that connects major urban centers.
AND to get as many of the dumbest, baddest drivers off of the roads as possible.
You ever drive down a busy freeway right before rush hour congestion officially starts backing up? Just a small handful of bad drivers with literally thousands of other drivers per hour is all it takes!
@@schwenda3727 And that is why I say unless you're an oil baron or a greasy car salesman then you should support increased investment in public transportation.
@@Androfier my grandfather who was in the military during the McCarthy era used to call my brother and I commies for wanting rail transit. Red baiting has never really died unfortunately
See the problem is .. the us is massive. A metro is just unfeisable. A rail less so but we'd need so much track I'd be impractical.
@@Androfier it is less effective in the rural areas because no one will use it. rural people want to go on their own time. they want to stop when they want and go when they want without being dependent on others.
The interstates are great but I would still love a similarly large passenger rail network, preferably high-speed where possible, in addition. Trains are safer and less polluting than cars and easier to travel on than planes. It's like a happy medium.
agree, but important to remember that the biggest benefit from the intestates doesn´t come from domestic travellers but from cargo. Still would be nice to see (at least two different disconnected networks for the mainland since nothing will change that the us is a huge continental nation)
Europe's model did both, but without running the motorways through the center of cities. Wish the US had followed this a little closer.
True, but you also have to remember that the US is twice the size of Europe wjth half the population, so the lack of density makes it harder. In reality people will only take a train for trips of max 5 hours, otherwise planes are faster. Even if we had the highest speed train that exists, it would still take about 16 hours to go from coast to coast - flying is just faster. Where HSR DOES makes sense is corridors - northeast, Houston-Dallas, South Florida, etc
@@Matt-wc2mf not too late
@@anthonydpearson yepp, the best would be 2 separate systems for high speed. Since poor people would use bus or car and middle and upper classes would still use car or plane then the la-ny trip is for the very few enthusiast, for whom a regular low speed or even a steam powered train is enough to make most of us happy
Interstates serve defense purposes, too: If there are no suitable landing sites for military aircraft, for example if an invasion has disabled Air Force and civilian runways, planes can use the Interstate as a landing strip. I think there's a regulation that requires long, straight sections every hundred miles or so for this purpose.
The requirement is actually a myth according to the Federal Highway Administration. Although I’m sure much of it could be utilized as a landing strip if, God forbid, it was ever needed.
In my personal experiences it felt like every 25 miles or so.
Good luck doing it in WA state pot holes. Planes will be shredded.
its a myth
The "Eisenhower" Interstate Highway System's primary purpose initially, was to transport and move our nation's military from base to base and from coast to coast.
Another fun fact about the Interstate system is the numbering system itself. Interstates that run north-south, are odd-numbered, starting the west to east. That's why I-5 starts on the west and I-95 is on the east coast. If it ends in an even number, it runs east-west, with the number marker increasing from south to north (I-10 is the most southern, while I-90 is the most northern).
For three-digit interstate highways, it typically signals that it is around some sort of city or urban area, and usually attached to another interstate. If it starts with an even digit, it means the road forms a loop, either partial or full around a city. If the first digit is odd, then it spurs directly into the city. The remainder digits show what the main interstate this loop or spur is attached to (I-495:I-95, I-310: I-10).
now THIS is what i like to see
is also inverse of how they number US Routes
like how US 90 is in the south but US 2 in is n the north
or how US 1 is in the east but US 101 is in the west
If there's one place to remove the interstate highways it's the city centres
Yeah but it was too good an opportunity to destroy black communities for Robert Moses to pass up
Don't let this distract you from the fact that I get bullied because my classmates think my videos are the worst. Please don't agree, dear ben
That wouldn't make sense; why build highways then? Where would they be built?
@@gvi341984 Around cities? Not right through them?
City centres are destinations, not through-fares.
@@gvi341984 around the edges of cities, with less major roads going into the centres of them
It's crazy how i was suddenly interested in learning about the interstate's history a week ago and been watching older videos and now one of my favourite channels drops a fresh video. Thank you so much for this!
I grew up within a few hundred feet of the Interstate Highway System!! It was the sound to which I fell asleep at night, the reason a bit of soot could always be found in my windowsills, a focal point (on a map) in the part of town in which I lived, and a source of endless wonder and entertainment for me whenever my family and I drove over, near, or on it to get somewhere.
I've always been quite fond of it; I've come up with a bunch of grand upgrade schemes like aqueduct-style bridges for it to travel on over a large valley near where my house was, re-routing to make the journey on it straighter and more level, instituting the use of "speed range" signs instead of sticking to speed limits... the works.
However, I'd never taken the time to truly appreciate its simplicity and brilliance until watching this video.
To the creator: thank you for creating this gem. I commend you for your work and am glad that somebody else finds these giant stretches of road fascinating and awe-inspiring.
They should’ve built a parallel high speed rail network in high traffic corridors (SF-LA, NY-Chicago) to relieve congestion and better spread out the load
NY to Chicago is far though, Detroit-Chicago and Boston-Dc would be more feasible
@@patxepi NYC to Chicago has Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Erie, Cleveland, Toledo, Fort Wayne, And South Bend between them. That’s plenty of ridership potential.
@@thefareplayer2254 Why would anyone go via Upstate NY between NYC and Cleveland? It’s so out of the way.
@@thefareplayer2254 "Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Erie, Cleveland, Toledo, Fort Wayne, And South Bend" Hmmmm. We'll have to change the name from fly-over states to rail-through states.
California voters back in 2008 voted to create a high speed rail to connect SF to LA but Republican counties said it would cost too much ...even though CA voters voted for it to happen. To continue their argument, they organized and decided to sue at every chance they get when construction begins in a red county. This costs money from stalling the project and court/lawyer fees thereby inflating the initial costs of when the project was purposed. They then, and even now, keep pointing to the high costs of the project as proof as a waste of money and blah blah bad Dem leadership...which the Reps created themselves. I voted for this when I was 18 in 2008 hoping by now I would enjoying rides to N. California.
Glenwood Canyon in Colorado is still just as hard to maintain as it was to build. Last year it was closed due to forest fires and right now it's closed due to mudslides. Though every time I drive through there I'm amazed that not only did they build a highway there but it's two lane and there's train tracks on the other side of the canyon where Amtrak goes through.
That’s what was disappointing about this video. He made it seem all interstate building is good without taking into consideration the lifetime maintenance. Especially in lightly used areas
@@kittymedusa3618 But he did, maintaining the highway returns more than the cost. Not maintaining it will cause you to lose money.
@@Theanimeisforme He talked about the cost of building it in places like Wyoming but didn’t take in account the lifetime maintenance of it.
@@kittymedusa3618 life time maintenance is still less, since you get a theoretical passive 12% or something, permanent increase in total wealth production. This can be further improved with better material, better planning, and better techniques
@@Theanimeisforme There’s no way that the Interstate in Wyoming produces more wealth than the life time cost of even 50 years. Wyoming is massive mountains. And has no vital connections to major cities.
The system works great in most mid size cities, but its a bit messy on the east coast as well as near LA, Houston and SF. Overall, a great investment, especially at the time
That's because east of the Mississippi, towns grew up along rivers and/or coasts, and were served at first, for "road" traffic, by the primitive turnpikes of the day, which themselves had evolved out of old Indian trails. Railroads, which followed starting in the mid-19th century, had to follow courses dictated by terrain, to facilitate the locomotives of the day being able to pull a train (don't snicker) with the given power they had. It was one thing to build the early roads, which were "point to point" (that is, from one town to the next), but a continuous interstate required some planning, and right-of-way even in the 1950s was fairly damned expensive. It was easiest to put the Interstates through where there was enough open land to begin with, but into a big, established city, that was often a huge undertaking. Before Boston's "Big Dig", for example, traffic into Beantown from the North was served via I-93, which also go to and through New Hampshire, but in Boston it took an elevated freeway known as the "Central Artery". Just getting that built destroyed or divided quite a bit of established neighborhoods, leaving hard feelings which endure even to today. One trend I've seen over the years when routing a freeway through a dense urban area, especially in a downtown, is to put them in an enormous, concrete-lined trench, and over at least part of it, BUILD. That way, the downtown isn't broken up by a huge elevated freeway or even a freeway at surface level, and what would otherwise be a swath of concrete has structures on it that either are public use, or private property that pays property taxes and conducts business that generates further tax revenues. A "win-win", IMO.
Don't blame the interstate system for california being a shithole.
You have left out the Chicagoland area. We have many interstate highways. Yet, the incessant traffic is enough to make one rip their hair out. Sometimes traveling no more than twenty miles an hour, on a four lane highway, just because of the aforementioned traffic. I think that it is time to add a second deck to these busy interstate systems, in massively congested areas. Yeah, that would cost a LOT of money. But it would save commuters A LOT of time, during high traffic times. I say, let the construction begin. Because I have estimated, that just in the last twelve months alone, I have probably spent about forty or so hours, just sitting in my car, in traffic jams, going zero miles per hour.
Interstate 5 isn't that bad in LA compared to the 10 and 405 freeways.
that is why their are Beltways, loops and bypass to avoid high Metro Traffic Areas
As an Australian, I’m jealous with the design. It’s Crazy how way back in the 50’s, the highways were designed as all dual carriageway (4 lanes).
In Australia we obviously have heaps of really long highways but the only interstate/intercity highways that are dual carriageway the whole way is the Hume highway (Sydney to Melbourne) and the pacific highway (Sydney to Brisbane).
And even then, the Hume only finished upgrading to 2 lanes each way the whole way in 2013. And the pacific highway was even later than that.
So yeah pretty much all the regional highways here are single-lane except for those 2 and a few small ones that link places like Canberra, Bendigo, Ballarat, Geelong, Traralgon and Shepparton.
And yet America did it in the 50’s.
Just generally, one should not be jealous of anything that America did in the 50s. Unless your a oil baron or military officer, it did not turn out well for cities
@@BearsThatCare beauty perhaps yes but in other areas its quite useful.
One thing to keep in mind is that there needs to be the population to justify the infrastructure expense. The US population in the 1950s was ~150 million, whereas the current Australian population is ~25 million, and the size of Australia is similar to the size of the lower 48 states.
A total of 13 people live in Australia. How much road do you need?
@@ua2894 Really The Hume and The Pacific are enough, they link the 3 largest cities anyway, its probably cheaper to fly now with the price of petrol
Never in my life have I ever been this blown away at a reveal 6:40
The INSANE logistics of the interstate highway system
The complex simplicity of the insanely genious interstate system
Evergreen truck: travels on interstate 5
Oregon: sweats profusely
Underrated as fuck
Don’t worry, it’s driven by a man.
As a resident of Salem oregon, I would just like to give a quick thanks to Dwight Eisenhower for all his hard work. We wouldn't be where we are today without him. Rest in peace.
One of the best Presidents, only appreciated in recent years it seems.
There you go! Let's thank the good people who made it possible.
As a Professional driver this subject is near & dear to my heart. Although, the top speed on I90 goes upto 75mph in South Dakota, I94 reaches a max speed of 75mph in North Dakota and 80mph in Montana.
You are correct that those are the speed limits, but the speeds reference in the video are only minimum design speeds used during engineering. The actual posted speed limits will vary. There are also examples of speed limits being lower than this design speed, mainly in the Northeastern states like NY and MA which have speed limits of 65 mph on I-90.
@@likesorange additionally, the "Effective" speed limit is what the police enforce. Where I'm from you drive 60 when its posted 55 (also the interstate is an hour away). And on the interstate 65 posted means that you can drive about 72 without fear.
I'm sure this effect is taken into acount when posting speed limits. (But in low limits like 45 and lower off the interstate I drive the posted limit)
Fun fact: once someone was caught doing 80+ in my school zone thats posted 20, I'm sure that was instant license pull.
There are some 80 mph zones in Utah as well
I90 thru SD is 80 MPH, and 70 in MN.
Does anyone even really pay attention to speed limits that much on freeways though? In California the spirit of the law is basically stick to the speed of traffic and you’re fine, which in the fast line is routinely upwards of 80-90. But that might be everywhere. California also doesn’t have a law against cruising in the left lane so.
This convoy passed through the tiny town I grew up in. My family had pictures of them coming through. I wish I knew where the pictures are now.
16:17 Does reduced densities increase the environmental impact of cities? Would like to hear more about the flaws of the highway system and comparisons to public transportation.
yes longer travel times and larger buildings generally have more volume/surface area and therefore less heating/ cooling requirements per inhabitant.
@@harzer99 that, plus a bigger developed ground area disturbs nature. (esp rain drainage for example, which heats up the cities and causes ppl to need their ac etc.) Another things is the many journeys could do do on foot in high density (shopping, appointment, work, etc.), but have to do in a car in the suburbs because of the longer distances and car-centric city planning (no sidewalks, huge parking lots, few pedestrian crossings)
Check out the Not Just Bikes channel. TL;DW suburban sprawl is a ponzy scheme bankrolled by the federal government that bankrupts cities to create empty hell scapes that strictly require a car to get to the other side of the road.
@@jfolz NJB based that on Strong Towns, which is also worth a look
Besides higher environmental impact, less density also makes them less financially viable - cos of more area for the city to maintain, while it has fewer people to collect taxes from. Many of America's cities actually run on debt and/or endless federally financed expansion as a result of this.
Your comment at 15:25 reminded me of what General Mills did about 20 years ago. They had a massive production facility right smack in the middle of California in a small town called Lodi (yes the one in the CCR song) that they were closing down due to out of control union demands. So they started searching for a new location along the I-5 corridor as well as going east along the I-10 corridor in the southwest states. They almost chose a place in Oregon called Grants Pass but county officials (all business owners) forced them to stay out and so General Mills went the other way on I-10. Either way they required access to the interstate system and rail lines.
This is twice as interesting
Nice afro
@@Student0Toucher thank you 😊
The interstate highway system was and is certainly needed. However, at the time of the conception of the system, the US ALREADY HAD a massive, developed transportation network… the railroads. Every other developing nation invests in rail infrastructure, yet the US continues to let it’s rail network crumble. In the Midwest, and along the coasts, there was an extensive railway network. The railroads crisscrossed and interconnected counties and states quite thoroughly during the 1st half of the 20th century. The construction of the highway system destroyed the rail network, with thousands of miles of track being abandoned or removed altogether. By the time the states and federal government stepped in and assumed ownership of the less profitable routes being abandoned, the rail network was already decimated. It’s a shame, really. Moving products and people by road is the most expensive way, in terms of tonnage per mile and fuel consumption per ton per mile. Had a comparable amount of planning been done with the existing rail network, we could have had a much more efficient and cost effective system of transporting agricultural and industrial commodities than what exists today.
My grandpa was born in 1932 and was a businessman in both the railroad and trucking industries and he always talked about how sad it is America gave up its incredible rail infrastructure. Rail really is the superior form of transport so long as you build your real estate to match, which we had.
Most things you see in the store still travel by rail, but the last mile is delivered by trucks. Look around big truck terminals and you'll see container cars and a diesel engine. Rail is more of a freight network then a passenger network. We have these things called big old jet airliner...dont' carry me too far away...Big ol jet airliner...cause it's here that I got to stay.
On the main railroad line between this town and the next one East, there are at least 100 trains that pass through here everyday. Most d-bags when they complain about the 'deterioration of rail' are only referring to passenger service. Americans don't care much for passenger rail outside of big-city subways. Rail freight, on the other hand, is stronger than ever.
Dead WRONG. The railroads are quite efficient at what they do best...MASS FREIGHT. There's no need for any Soviet-style "planning" with respect to railroads for that purpose, they do fine as is, as the market demands. Passenger service via rail was never a huge money maker for the railroads, save in a few markets, like the Northeast, like with the NY-Penn Central, where it actually made economic sense, the railroads more or less defaulted to private auto and later aircraft travel. One need look no further than the miserable example of Amtrak over the past fifty years to show the effect of getting the Government involved in passenger transport.
It's also short-sighted to evaluate movement of private individuals, whether it be for business, commuting, or pleasure travel, as an Army logistics officer would do, in terms of, say, planning the movement of a tank regiment with all its equipment and personnel. Trains work for private citizens when their linear routing works for their needs, but there can be but relatively few rail lines, train stations, and rolling stock, so, by definition, passenger train travel isn't very flexible. Automobiles are, and it's the motorist that determines it's value, not some smug "urban planner", for his transportation needs. Indeed, a private citizen driving his ride to wherever he can afford to go, for whatever reason he deems fit, driving on the highways and roads paid for by the FUEL TAXES he pays at the pump, is the most "liberal" and "democratic" means of "public" transportation. Is it "perfect"? Probably doesn't seem that way at rush hour, but neither is being jammed in with the rest of the sardines on a subway or commuter train all that great an experience, either.
@@selfdo Nice. I would've used less words.
Glenwood canyon is closed due to a massive mudslide… that stretch is almost always being worked on / fixed
If Enough commerce goes through....
they will fix it each time
It’s a shame it’s always being worked on. It’s a gorgeous drive and the highway there is really impressive.
Sounds like the 'Rest and be Thankful' in Scotland, that's always being shut due to landslips.
Per Wikipedia's Cannonball Run entry: As of October 2021, the overall record (NYC to LA) is 25 hours 39 minutes, with an average speed of 110 miles per hour (180 km/h), driven by Arne Toman and Doug Tabbutt along with spotter Dunadel Daryoush.
Now imagine if people actually followed the law, driving in the right lane and using the left only to pass. Probably kick that impact up a couple percentage points as we'd all get where we're going a lot faster.
Bear in mind there’s easily a few cities/states that thought it wasn’t a HORRIFYING idea at all to put a noticeable amount of on/offramps literally in the passing lane (left lane) during initial planning/construction. Oklahoma, Kansas City, Connecticut, most major cities in Ohio except Columbus & Dayton.
That ignorant design choice alone just seems to PROMOTE left lane blocking, “hogging”, and “camping”; making enough of the herd of traffic to think it’s perfectly acceptable to literally fuck up traffic & even highway safety.
There increasingly needs to be a FEDERAL highway funding program simply to redesign & relocate left lane ramps to the right side.
I swear many of the 1940s-early 50s turnpikes seem to have withstood the test of time far better than most late 1950s-early 70s suburban freeways… especially before any MAJOR reconfiguration and/or expansion work was needed…
In cities, the left lanes are also considered 'thru' lanes. Limiting them to passing only creates congestion. The laws are different in Metro areas for a reason.
@@gamewizardks I addressed that in another reply somewhere, but yes in high congestion city areas with many exits and on ramps close together it’s true that through traffic should use available lanes… but most such areas also typically have three or more lanes and congestion would still be greatly improved if people reserved the left for passing and cleared to a middle lane when not passing
@@schwenda3727 There are a bunch of on ramps in Detroit that have next to no merge distance, they just shoot you straight into the chaos. I can't imagine what it was like during the horrendous rush hour days of the 70s - 90s when Detroit still employed a large percentage of the metro area.
Interesting that this video is coming out at a time when the Glenwood Canyon portion of I-70 has been shut down for two weeks due to mud slides. The west still has pretty limited high infrastructure.
No coincidence. The author lives in Glenwood Springs.
The interstates kinda caused the mud slide in a way with climate change
@@samd3497 Not buying that argument. The interstates didn't cause suppression of forest fires for a hundred years. The interstates didn't cause public ownership of forests in the western USA instead of coming up with homesteading rules appropriate to this part of the country. The interstates didn't cause welfare payments in inner cities instead of payments for clearing beetle killed forests.
@@richdobbs6595 There would have been a lot more money available for proper forest management had we not built the interstates. The interstates are one of the top contributors to climate catastrophe leading to drought and forest fires. We wouldn't have been doing so much fire suppression had development not occurred along the interstates which enabled said development.
@@samd3497 Proper forest management isn't that expensive, and ironically involves burning more just in an intentional and controlled way which reduces overall fuel. It's a relatively recent concept to ask our local Indian tribes how they used to do deliberate burns in their former homelands (often done to promote the growth of certain plants).
As someone that drove 1,600 miles on the interstate the other day, I agree with the fact that the system is simply amazing!
What an irony! If America had the rail transport systems like Japan or China, you wouldn't have had to drive at all.
@@kmseyam7897 Japan has a density that is 10x higher than America. Not comparable at all.
@@kmseyam7897 Maybe I want to go on a road trip? I like a good rail network but trains cant go everywhere, especially in a large country like the US.
@@daelbows5783 And plus, people in the US are a lot more spread out. While some places can be served with rail and stuff, that can't be said with other places.
@@daelbows5783 then what about China?! They are building bullet Train routes to Lhasa,Tibet and xinxiang province which have similar population density to alaska!
th-cam.com/video/kDdG7ObinG4/w-d-xo.html
Btw, american east coast has enough population density, why hasn't there been a better high speed train system yet!? FYI, It is a matter of political will, not just population density.
Imagine having a government that doesn´t understand the importance of infrastructure, i think people born into a world of connecting infrastructure does not understand the importance of it, taking it for granted. The importance of people being able to move around with relatively ease is so underrated.
“These interstates are incredibly safe”
I4 would like to have a word with you, Sam
I-4 is safe…for birds. Most of the problems are Yankees using their hazards lights when it rains and motorcycles weaving in and out of lanes.
European here. If I had to drive on a US Interstate I would probably pass out from stress. How does anyone get anywhere when Sharon in her minivan is hogging the left lane at 50mph?
@@bartholomewdan
By getting in the right lane, passing, getting in front of her, and tapping your brakes.
@@matthew8153 That's about as good of an answer as just getting out the 9mm in the glovebox (that everyone has because it's America) and shooting her tires.
@@bartholomewdan
How dare you assume I use a 9mm. I use a .44 Special.
When I first immigrated to US and drove on interstate I fell in love with it. The concept of ramps, interchange and no red lights.
Not many people appreciate the power of this system
All countries have highways. Besides, Germany does highways right. America's highways are falling apart and poorly maintained.
@@Arkiasis Hope that made you feel better.
I dont get why the aspect of connectivity had to be achieved via car oriented transportation. Rail had existed for over a century in the US in the 1950s and I imagine the economic benefits mentioned in this video could have equally been reached with the same amount of investement into railroad infrastructure. Maybe a joint infrastructure project of highways and rails would have been a much better approach.
I don't think they knew any better. Remember, in that period of time, the automobile was only just made viable for the masses and was becoming the future. They didn't really foresee the problems that would arise, and the direction we now know we're going in. I think Wendover actually made a video covering this, but it could have been another similar channel.
Aside from that, the only justification I can reason is that an interstate highway system would ultimately be better for military use, in case of war or other national threat. A rail system would be more easily compromised. Again, in those times, war was a very real thing and a lot of decision making would have revolved around that quite significantly.
There's also the individual vs system side of things. An individual family could reasonably own a car. They could not own a train. Sure, they could buy train tickets instead, but then how do they get around once they arrive at their destination? There could be a system that answers all those questions, maybe, but it's easier to let people sort it out themselves. My two cents.
@@justamanchimp "I don't think they knew any better."
I'd say we apparently still don't given the lack of support for mass transit in the federal budget.
But as usual follow the money. GM, Firestone and Standard Oil plotted to eliminate trolleys in favor of buses back before my time.
Of course, the magic market ensures that greed results in the best of all possible worlds. [sarcasm off]
America actually has fairly developed cargo rail infrastructure as well (though it’s not high speed) it’s mainly our passenger rail system that’s shit.
@@Trafulgoth That's a great point, the whole "American Dream" thing comes to mind, with the "Boomers" and what not
I find the interstate highway system truly fascinating
The car dependent suburban "hellscape" some cities turned into was a big mistake in the system design
This
Not a mistake, it was done on purpose.
Still a stupid disicion though lol.
been watching tons of videos by "not just bikes" and "city beautiful"
Its absolutely insane how messed up our city and town road systems are on a fundamental level and most people have NO IDEA
Its because cities grow over time and this wasnt designed for modern day
@@nehankaranch2149 well in europe cities also grow
Eastbound and down: Eisenhower's influence on the foundation of trucking culture.
Passenger train lovers: "I hate you......but I respect the hell out of you"
No we don't.
I sadly live in Germany and watch many Videos about America and the US and want to immigrate. I find your Interstate highways so cool. The names alone are eargasm to me and my friends as well. I dont get how you dont appreciate it. Look how cool these recordings and captions in this video alone look. You have the coolest trucks the coolest license plates, the interstate and highway symbols. The looks, especially driving downtown or through mountains or along rivers, have cheaper gas prices but drive in the most beautiful country. It must be such a cool feeling driving on a highway across the United States of America. Its my dream to drive all the highways and interstates in the US.
Thank you for the kind words about our country, I hope you get your chance to come see us someday. I myself love living here, however it is one of my dreams to visit Europe someday, with Germany at the top of my list of places to visit. The ancient architecture, castles, cathedrals, etc that we just don't have in this country is so interesting to me. Not to mention the beer, German beer is my favorite!
ftr "Impracticable" does not mean the same thing as "impractical" it means the same thing as "impossible"
It means basically "impossible to put into practice"
I like how the trains were comfortable and convenient before it even started, and now everyone has to own a car to get anywhere.
Back in those days the train system was a lot more scarce than it is right now, especially if you wanted to get to more remote areas, it was very inconvenient and you had to take other means of transportation, walking, running biking, or horseback/Horse-carriage. While you may argue the same for the Interstate system in the West, there are still well planned and good enough roads like county or state highways in most Western states that allow you to get places. Even if you look at today’s train map in the West (Nebraska, Dakotas, Idaho etc) the train system isn’t as good and forces you to use different modes of transportation if you don’t want to walk for hours
@@Postedyt Railroads were the FIRST "interstate" and unified the country (sparsely populated as it was) from coast to coast in the 19th century. The federal government encouraged private RRs to put down rails in exchange for land grants provided by the government that the RRs could, in turn, sell to developers. The trains were far more comfortable than covered wagons. But cars have flexibility that trains don't have, and that's how cars took over (with some help from the fossil fuel and automobile companies). I don't believe trains are obsolete, however. I think we need a new generation of high-speed trains that can travel an average of 250 mph to allow people and jobs to spread out, rather than having everything concentrated in urban centers where housing and the cost of living are unaffordable for most people.
@@caroler59 What killed rail passengers trains was losing the mail. Passenger trains on their own were never profitable. The US is too big and too spread out for trains to be profitable outside of the northeast.
@@jannecechmanek I never heard about the mail. What killed passenger trains is the private RR owners could make more money on freight. Human passengers require much more service (food, restrooms, etc.), and this was a time when people were driving more and taking the train less, so the owners spun off the passenger service to the government, which formed Amtrak as a kind of government corporation. The owners kept the freight trains, and own the rails and have priority use of the rails. If trains couldn't be trusted with the mail, why would they be trusted with freight?? LOL. Second, the US is definitely NOT too spread out for trains. It wasn't in 1850 and it isn't now. The US built 40,000 miles of interstate freeways largely between 1960 and 1980, when the US population was much lower. High Speed Rail would have the same effect as freeways in opening up new areas for development. Having said that, it's true that the coasts - both East and West - are where the money is. That's where HSR should be developed first, where it could take millions of car trips off the freeways every year, with fewer trains running less frequently across the country. You also need to think about future needs, when we have millions more people living near the coasts. Adding cars and airports will not be feasible, and isn't even feasible now.
@@caroler59 The year after mail by rail was canceled Santa Fe alone lost 35 million dollars in business.
Never really appreciated how incredible the interstate system is until I became a trucker. I can't imagine not having it
it would be over weeks to get things shipped
@@fgjr96waybut faster via rail
As great as the interstate is, it should never had let to the US giving up on the rail system. Car travel is longer and pushing more Americans to drive wears down the road. We should’ve have had a healthy balance of rail AND road. That way if you want to drive you can but if you’d like to take rail (cheaper and often shorter) you’d have that option (plus we could’ve gotten high speed rail). Now we have to drive hours on terribly maintained roads or take an expensive airplane with long security.
We never gave up on our rail system though. It just got shifted to what was working, which was freight. We still have the largest rail system in the world and most of it is extremely successful. Besides rail wouldn’t have been cheaper and certainly wouldn’t have been quicker for most of the countries travel, maintenance wouldn’t have been meaningfully improved and the general threat of terrorism would have most likely made train travel just as slow with security. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t be spending more on passenger rail. I’ve always supported efforts to improve rail connections in different parts of the country
I agree still could have used the rail, Business along rail line are abandoned dumps and tracks ripped up, we are a throw away society.
The report says "impracticable", not "impractical." I must admit this is the first time I've ever seen that word, but I like the poetry of it. It's a polite, but dire word. "Impractical" is just polite.
Plus the meaning is different, impracticable is something that you can't do, something impossible. While impractical is just something inefficient.
@@jackyex What I like about the word is the hopelessness of it. It describes something so undoable that you can't even prepare to attempt it.
It was used a lot in Civil War correspondence (thanks Shelby Foote).
Building interstate highways without at the same time improving the railway system was a huge mistake that resulted in a massive shift in the modal split that is almost impossible to reverse nowadays. Car drivers and truckers got plenty of highways for "free" while railroads struggled and went bankrupt. It was the beginning of a downhill slope of infrastructure in general.
Nonsense. The US moves about two trillion ton-km of freight on rails per year, over 9,000 tkm per capita. That's almost ten times the amount in the EU. The freight modal share for rail in the US is one of the highest in the world - only Canada, the former USSR, and Switzerland are higher (and Switzerland is an obvious special case). European countries transport a much, much higher portion of their freight by road than the US does.
Which makes sense given the densities of the US and Europe. As does the proportion of passenger traffic by mode. Geography matters.
Also, I live in NYC NY and my parents are in CT. I love taking the parkways up to New England to visit with them. Especially in the full and winter time because it is just so beautiful. Those were the old roads built before the interstate system.
Eisenhower had a plan and a vision, and implemented it. He's massively responsible for the success that America has seen to this day.
What about when they go right through cities though? Would be nice if they had the same attitude towards rail as well, neglecting that shows the car dependent nature of the US
going into cities is fine but I don't understand what they were thinking with those huge spaghetti bowls that waste so much space right up in downtowns. my home town of st. louis "solved" this by putting its larger spaghetti bowl across the river, and that thing is a fucking mess, but houston and kansas city are even worse because their clusterfucks completely encase downtown. who needs this many exits directly onto streets? that's why every US downtown is so gridlocked 24/7
Well after the onset of mask hysteria America’s car culture is now without a doubt a saving grace for one’s sanity.
If done somewhat right like in Baltimore or Pittsburgh... surprisingly, it's beneficial. But done wrong like in Cincinnati, you'll see why Robert Moses is a hated man.
@@blitzn00dle50 in some cases, like Los Angeles, the spaghetti of highways is actually how we get through the city quickly and they are fairly well planned out. There's no better way to go from one end of the city to the other considering how massive the area is.
So the first Cannonball Run took 62 days... wow, progress has been made
For those wondering why Oregon doesn't have a major port even though we literally have a 'Portland' (where I live), its because long story short, our port died due to costs and Seattle/LA taking our business... they used to be quite important, but now we unload less cargo in an entire year than LA does in an hour.
I did wonder that.
Imagine if you guys were the Gateway of the West for major shipping i-305 and i-505 would be really needed in Oregon
@@fgjr96way That would be awesome
Need to talk about the opening of this video. Building the Interstate Highway system «absolutely was» an unprecedented undertaking. Limited access highways on this scale had never been done before. It «is» an engineering marvel. A good portion of the credit for the engineering feat goes to the roads that were constructed in the Northeast before the 1956 Highway Act was passed: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, & Ohio Turnpikes, Indiana Toll Road, and the New York State Thruway. The people who built these roads came up with incredibly inventive solutions to difficult engineering challenges. These roads pointed the way to how the entire system could be built and all of them were folded into it. Why were none of them mentioned? The Eastern turnpike complex, running uninterrupted from Chicago to Philadelphia, New York, and Boston showed how 8 states could coordinate and build a network of safe, high-speed limited access highways.