The United States Federal Highway Acts 1954 & 1956 PBAF /URBDP 560 Joey Timmons Lisa Utter Evan Ward Winter 2010

Dwight D. Eisenhower Influential supporter of creating an advanced interstate highway system 1919 U.S. Army’s first transcontinental convoy from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco During WWII, General Eisenhower recognized Germany’s military benefits from use of the Autobahn Important to “protect the vital interest of every citizen in a safe and adequate highway system” (1954 state of the union address) 1919 Convoy German Autobahn

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954 “This is one effective forward step” $175 million in federal funds towards interstate highway system Replaced the matching funds formula with a new (Federal-State) formula Half of federal funds were dispersed based upon population and the other half based upon a formula involving considerations of roadway distance, land area, and population Main controversy involved distribution of federal funds, as less-populated states felt that they were not receiving enough federal funding

The 1956 National Defense Highway Federal-Aid Highway Act signed into law on June 29, 1956 with an overwhelming majority Authorized construction of an interstate highway system of 41,000 miles Planned to link 90% of cities with >50,000 population Called "freeways" because they broke with the tradition of toll roads

Federal-Aid Highway Act And Highway Revenue Act Authorized expenditures of $24.8 Billion for highway construction 90% federal government share, used to split 50/50 with the states Encouraged large highway building instead of other road/transit projects Created the Highway Trust Fund to receive tax revenue from fuel and tire excise taxes

Key Actors And Interests Championed by President Eisenhower Governors’ opposition abated by 1956 Strong support for extensive highway system from many important industries - car manufacturers & dealers, oil, construction, trucking, real estate and homebuilders Growing number of car owners and suburbanites

Reasons for the act Need to Evacuate Large Cities Old System was unsafe for motorists and bad for business Improve travel time between city centers

Consequences Instead of inter-city travel, encouraged intra- city movement Beltways became most heavily-used roads Increased trend of decentralization and automobile use Eliminated advantage of Central Business Districts

Impacts on Cities Decentralization Funding problems Concentration of disadvantaged Sectors Manufacturing Service Retail Public Transportation

Effects on Seattle General impacts Decentralization started immediately and continues Specific to Seattle Transportation Sector Geography

Current Issues Maintenance costs Alaskan Way Viaduct 520 Bridge Economic Downturn

Lessons Learned Dedicated sources provide focus and build their own constituencies Different times will bring concerns you have not considered – Greenhouse gas Changing the physical form will change lives Thus far, we have not been able to build enough roads to meet capacity