Learning From Past U.S. Infrastructure Investments

In November 2021, following extensive negotiations between Democrats and Republicans, President Joe Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, commonly referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal. This landmark legislation committed more than $100 billion from the federal government to enhance roads and bridges across the United States. Additional funds were allocated for improving public transit and rail systems, expanding electric vehicle infrastructure, and ensuring access to high-speed internet and clean drinking water. The deal also emphasized building infrastructure that is resilient to climate change and extreme weather events. Nine months later, in August 2022, U.S. Congress passed another infrastructure investment law: the CHIPS and Science Act. This law provided $52.7 billion to expand domestic production of semiconductors aimed at decreasing reliance on East Asian countries. 

Taken together, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal and the CHIPS and Science Act have the potential to shape American infrastructure for decades to come. These initiatives underscore the United States’ commitment to maintaining its economic leadership and international competitiveness through substantial and strategic infrastructure development. In the context of historic U.S. infrastructure investments, these two bills represent the largest federal infrastructure investment in nearly seventy years. The last time the U.S. Congress passed a bipartisan infrastructure bill of this magnitude was President Dwight Eisenhower’s Federal-Aid Highway Act in 1956, which led to the creation of the U.S. interstate highway system.

Considering the time that has passed since the last significant infrastructure investment and the scope of the two bipartisan bills—a combined total of more than $150 billion—it is essential not to repeat past mistakes and to make the most of this opportunity. Reflecting on the lessons learned from the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act can be a valuable first step in ensuring the success of these infrastructure legislations.

The 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act

While the federal government had been discussing the necessity of an interstate highway system in the 1930s, it was nearly twenty years later during Eisenhower’s administration that the Federal-Aid Highway Act was passed. During his deployment to Germany in World War II, Eisenhower recognized the benefits and necessity of a highway network capable of moving troops quickly across the country in times of war. The creation of the interstate highway system, therefore, not only accommodated the growing travel needs of Americans but also served national security interests. Also referred to as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act, the bill authorized the construction of 41,000 miles of highway. The federal government provided $25 billion (worth around $280 billion in 2024) from 1957 to 1969 to finance 90 percent of the costs, with the remaining share left to the states.

National Security

Notably, many pieces of infrastructure legislation in the United States serve a dual purpose. The National Interstate and Defense Highways Act enhanced national security by speeding the transportation and transfer of U.S. troops in times of war or other emergencies. The most recent infrastructure legislation shifts the focus from physical infrastructure for military use to a broader definition of national security.

The CHIPS and Science Act offered $39 billion in subsidies for companies investing in domestic semiconductor production with the goal of reducing reliance on East Asian semiconductors and achieve strategic autonomy and economic resilience for a technology that has the potential to transform the U.S. economy. An additional $2 billion is to be invested in prototype chips for the military. In a similar way, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes funds to make U.S. infrastructure resilient to cyberattacks.

The Lasting Uneven Impact

The Federal-Aid Highway Act continues to benefit Americans today. The interstate highway system connects major cities and significantly reduces commuting times for millions of travelers. Enhanced safety standards on these roads have led to a dramatic decrease in traffic accidents, making travel safer for everyone. Furthermore, families residing in the suburbs now enjoy the convenience of quick commutes to urban workplaces, transforming the landscape of American life.

Unfortunately, many drawbacks of this legislation have had a similarly lasting impact on communities across the United States. The new highways often followed existing railroad routes, bypassing many small towns. As a result, those towns experienced a decline in visitors and business opportunities compared to earlier days, leading to structural problems that persist today, such as a lack of high-speed internet connectivity.

In urban areas, the construction of interstates displaced hundreds of thousands of people, sparking protest movements nationwide. The new roads cut through established neighborhoods, destroying parks, businesses, and homes while introducing pollution and noise. Affected communities not only faced economic hardships but often suffered from chronic diseases associated with exposure to higher levels of pollution and other toxic chemicals. The neighborhoods most affected were often low-income areas predominantly inhabited by Black residents, reinforcing racial segregation within cities.

Policymakers at the time paid insufficient attention to the negative effects, both direct, such as cutting through existing neighborhoods, and indirect, like bypassing small towns. The recent infrastructure investment bill is a promising first step, as it specifically allocates funds for clean water and access to high-speed internet in previously neglected areas. However, lawmakers should remain mindful of the lessons learned from the Federal-Aid Highway Act and consider both the direct and indirect effects that infrastructure investments create.

Opportunity Costs

The National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 fundamentally reshaped how Americans travel. It not only made commuting easier but also established the car as the predominant mode of transportation. While the $25 billion investment primarily benefited automobile companies, it led to the neglect of railroads and public transport infrastructure within cities, resulting in significant gaps in the U.S. transportation network. Additionally, the increased reliance on automobiles has contributed to higher greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating climate change.

The lack of investment in railroad networks is particularly evident when comparing the United States to other countries, especially in Asia. Many train journeys in the U.S. can be daunting, such as traveling from California to New York or from Chicago to Boston. Even trips between the best-connected cities on the East Coast—Boston, New York City, and Washington, D.C.—take considerably longer than in other countries. For instance, the fast Amtrak train from New York City to Washington, D.C., covering roughly 225 miles, takes about three hours. In contrast, traveling from Tokyo to Kyoto, a distance of 319 miles, takes only two hours and twenty minutes. Despite the U.S. trip being nearly one hundred miles shorter, passengers still face a forty minute–longer commute. While the current infrastructure deal allocates significant funds to improve reliability, speed, and coverage, it might not be sufficient to fundamentally transform the railroad network in the United States.

Need for Bipartisanship

The 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act built 41,000 miles of interstate highways and fundamentally shaped transportation in the United States. The construction process was not completed within one year or even one administration. Instead, bipartisan support over multiple administrations was needed to build these highways. Today, there is greater polarization in Washington and across U.S. society. Transforming U.S. infrastructure once again will require long-term bipartisan support to create a digital, green, and connected United States. The fact that both infrastructure laws were passed on a bipartisan basis was a promising first step. In the years to come, support on both sides of the aisle will be needed to guarantee the success of the federal infrastructure investment.

Conclusion

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the CHIPS and Science Act offer a unique opportunity to transform U.S. infrastructure for the first time in nearly seventy years. Reflecting on the lessons learned from the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act, several critical factors emerge as vital for their success. The national security aspects of infrastructure investments, as well as their long-lasting consequences, need to be thoroughly understood. Given the unequal impacts on different communities, it is crucial to be mindful of long-term effects and any adverse consequences. Considering opportunity costs ensures that infrastructure projects are evaluated with a holistic perspective. Lastly, the need for sustained bipartisanship is essential. By learning from the lessons of the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act, policymakers can avoid past mistakes and maximize the potential of this legislation, shaping the future of the United States for decades to come.