To improve safety, we need to fix our roads and highways
By by J. Robinson Mead, Too Much Information
Unlike most Massachusetts high school students, I didn't celebrate my 16th birthday by getting my learner's permit. In fact, I didn't take a single driving lesson until just before leaving for college freshman year. Don't get me wrong. I've always enjoyed riding in cars, and I now have learned to love driving too. Whether driving around a parking lot in an '88 Dodge K-car or careening down the Pike in a college-owned van, I love the open road.

I'm fascinated by the notion that each road in America is somehow connected to the rest-that less than a mile from my driveway, there is an on-ramp that can eventually take me anywhere from Fresno to Florida. I think the single most underappreciated thing that the federal government has ever done is to give federal, state and local government agencies the responsibility of constructing roads and highways. If not for that decision, automobile manufacturers would have had to construct roads for their vehicles, just as 19th-century railroad corporations had to set their own tracks.

Both the U.S. and the interstate highway systems provide far-reaching networks of roads, serving nearly all major cities, but the two systems are well out of date. In many areas, interstates have replaced U.S. highway routes, but even in areas where it remains in its original 1926 configuration, the U.S. highway system is anachronistic. The roads are narrow and stop in many small towns along their routes.

The interstate system was designed and planned nearly 60 years ago and is now showing its age. Roads are filled to and well beyond capacity. The recent repeal of the national 55 mile-per-hour speed limit seems pointless in areas where traffic is at a standstill. Signs advertising 65- or 75-mph limits are at times almost humorous as traffic crawls by drivers.

Interstate bypasses of many major cities have been built up to the point of almost total congestion. Such corridors have been constructed so rapidly and to such an extent that widening the roads there would require the government to acquire citizens' private property via eminent domain laws. Moreover, in many East Coast cities-most notably Boston, Hartford and the Baltimore/Washington, D.C. area-due to local opposition, the interstate system was never constructed as designed.

The government must make a concerted effort to improve the national highway system. Projects like the infamous "Big Dig"-a $14 billion project to upgrade the central artery in Boston and add a third harbor tunnel-and Phoenix's construction of beltway loops have shown that highway improvement has enough public support to counteract the high costs and criticisms. But these spot improvements are just that-spot improvements. They do not reflect any long-range planning or larger direction beyond improving one road at a time. No single agency has the authority to designate interstate status-the Federal Highway Administration largely controls the process but has recently been overridden by Congress.

Larger-scale highway planning has worked in the past. Numerous highways through and near the Appalachian Mountains were planned by the Appalachian Redevelopment Commission (ARC), a government agency founded in 1965. The ARC has designated 3,025 miles in 23 corridors as high-priority for construction. The system is now 85 percent complete, with many portions built as interstate routes and lacking the billion-dollar budget inflations that one might expect. The broad planning of the system, rather than road-by-road consideration of improvements, has allowed for greater control over resources.

At a time when rumblings of war and sluggish economic trends dominate headlines, the importance of highway improvement seems a low priority. However, the interstate system's roots hint at the importance of America's highways. The interstate highway system's full official name is the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, named for its visionary, who originally saw the plan as a system of defense routes. Eisenhower, while campaigning for president, saw the inadequacy of the nation's road system and initially suggested the system as a method of mobilizing troops and moving resources in case the nation had to defend its homeland during war. Now, under fear of terrorist attack, it might be prudent to reexamine the nation's road system. If a city needs to be evacuated, could the existing roads handle the volume of cars? If the National Guard or the army has to be called to a city for support, wouldn't it be nice if they could actually make it there instead of being stuck in traffic? While these scenarios are admittedly long shots, they are worth considering.

Like it or not, cars are here to stay. Roads are likely to be the backbone of American transit for generations to come. But by reducing highway congestion and cutting the average commuting time by say, 20 percent, a marked decrease in consumer gas consumption would follow, resulting in both economic and environmental benefits, which, though small, would be tangible.

A national highway improvement plan would not need to add another 42,787 miles (the total mileage of the interstate system) of roads, but by expanding some existing roads, rerouting traffic where necessary by renumbering roads-a temporary swap of the I-95 and I-495 designations in Delaware improved travel times by over 15 minutes-and building a few new miles of road, countless hours of headaches could be avoided.

Issue 19, Submitted 2003-03-06 09:57:28