> …the whole point of the interstate highway system is to connect the capitals and major commerce centers of all the states.

Yes, that's right. The last mile through functioning urban cores wasn't necessary to that project and it wasn't even part of the original idea. It got added on as the project unfolded, because the gov guaranteed funding and every city wanted to get in on it:

> [Eisenhower] went on to say that the matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes; that he never anticipated that the program would turn out this way… [He] was certainly not aware of any concept of using the program to build up an extensive intra-city route network as part of the program he sponsored.

As for this:

> Could you imagine if it just dipped into Olneyville and everyone wanting to get downtown or through the east side had to finish through backroads? Then multiply that by every commerce center in every state in the country.

Of course I can imagine it. It would be great. The only possible way to think that outcome wouldn't be better is to believe that the efficient movement of people in automobiles though urban cores is the most important thing about a city, which is in my view basically absurd. In fact, you have to think it's important enough that it's literally worth tearing down the city that already exists, because moving people through the city is even more important than having a city at all!

It's important to remember that this is basically what people really thought when the highways were built. People thought cities were filthy, dirty, and inhumane, and that it would be an unalloyed good to tear them down so that people could move to the open spaces and fresh air of the suburbs.

At least they were consistent. They weren't afraid to literally say that. I think their values were wrong, but at least they had a logic to them.

Most of the arguments for highways today don't really demonstrate the courage of any such convictions. They're just arguments for the status quo, because people are used to cities with highways and can't imagine anything else.

The interstate system was designed to mimic the German Autobahn except for one important thing. The Autobahn doesn't rip through city centers. There are well designed ring roads to disperse traffic into cities. Just take a look at a map of any German city and see how the highways all go around the cities.

Edit: there are actually two other important differences, one being the construction quality of the roadbed which is basically garbage in the US. The other is the avoidance of long straightaways. Even in flat open country, there are curves engineered into the Autobahn which helps keep drivers alert.