Talk:Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956

Untitled

I think there is a discrepancy in here. It says the Convoy left for Gettysburg, but arrived in San Francisco. I am not sure which is correct.

NPOV(?)

"One of the often forgotten aspects of the highway interstate act was that it rerouted people from inner cities which caused the economic situation for minorities living in the cities to decline." There's probably a better way to get this point across without a point of view. (e.g. inner cities were not only populated by minorities, etc).

What???!!!

I can't believe how short this article is... This is the largest public work act in history and it hardly gets two paragraphs!!!! There should be a picture of IKE signing the bill. There should be info on how IKE had experience crossing the U.S. just after WW I then was influenced by the German Autobahns, there should be a section on the effect of the new roads, the legacy, the Cold War driving fears of logistics nightmares and much more... Someone get the lead out!!! I dont know enough to edit it myself but I pray that someone out there can help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.217.173 (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect fact: Twenty years. Why?

"construction of 41,000 miles of Interstate Highways over a 20-year period".
Whose nonsense is this? I can assure you that it took far longer than 20 years to complete the original 41,000 miles of the Interstate Highway system.
Let's be real: 1956 plus 20 years equals 1976.
I can assure you that these completions were far later than 1976, and in fact they were in the 1980s, mostly in the mid-80s, with some later, and that this is just a sampling. Interstate 95 in New Jersey is not complete as of mid-2010 !
Interstate 20, 65, and 459 in Alabama,
Interstate 40 in Arizona,
Interstate 70 in Colorado,
Interstste 10 and 95 in Florida,
Interstste 75 and 85 in Georgia,
Interstate 64 in West Virginia,
There are many more, especially when it came to all of the bypasses, loops, and spurs that were planned among the original 41,000 miles. 98.81.21.201 (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

Why is it that there is no mention of any criticism of the Federal Aid Highway Act in this article. Many self-owned businesses were forced to close down because the interstate redirected all their business. Not to mention the fact it went overbudget. - It's for the Lutz (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC) That is why the Uniform Act was made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.246.231 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I still remember plenty of people who had to sell their businesses (like motels, gas stations, diners, etc.) and it (the Uniform Act) didn't do jack for them. - It's for the Lutz (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

History section is, uh, weak.

According to the DOT, the FAHA had a much different history than what we give. See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/interstatemyths.htm#question1, where Ike's role is not disputed but not given as the source of the bill either. See also Lee Mertz's article: "Origins of the Interstate" (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/origin.htm). Kdammers (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

National Interstate and Defense Highways Act

I'm in the process of organizing the navigation box for federal transportation acts here. If this act is popularly known as "National Interstate and Defense Highways Act" wouldn't WP:COMMONNAME apply here? – The Grid (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

What about public transit?

I've come to understand that this legislation marked a turning point for the nation's transportation priorities with roads and highways replacing public transit as the chief recipient of public monies. Comparing the evolution of transit and roadways between Europe, Japan, and the United States in this era and beyond reveals a philosophical distinction between public works projects that exists still today. We got lots of cars on roads and highways, they have lots of subways, trains, and buses, and far less personal vehicles. The political, economic, social, and environmental implications are far reaching from pollution and climate change to traffic to decentralized and disconnected cities ad more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.1.137.41 (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 → Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 – The official statute, FHWA, and National Archives all use the hyphenated version. This would also be consistent with the 1944–1974 acts that have articles. Some modern media sources, such as the Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, and Chicago Tribune also use the hyphenated version consistently, while others like the NY Times seem to flip flop between the two options. SounderBruce 23:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Law has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject United States has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject National Archives has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject United States History has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support I was questioning this in the past when editing the transportation-related legislation. – The Grid (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Nom: Being consistant with other articles is a good thing. One wuld think this not controversial. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time to change

“Eisenhower role has been exaggerated” POV. Ike was the reason this went into effect. The braincild wasn’t some guy named Fallon. It was Ike’s plan. Remove this assertion 2601:58B:900:72D0:849F:4A7A:EFFB:5A7D (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The statement is sourced....so... – The Grid (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean so? Statement is “sourced” incorrectly. Either put accurate information in there or none at all. It’s POV. Sooooo 2601:58B:900:72D0:E045:2B38:BE1B:D8E0 (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)