travelgourmet

As I said we'd usually pay about $12 to $14 for the 5 of us along the highway.

That is still over $100.

So it was interesting that the motels actually became nicer and cheaper!

Well, it is much cheaper to build buildings today than it was back then. And there are economies of scale in running a larger property.

NeoPatrick

Not just that, travelgourmet, but of course you're right in terms of the economics of "chains" -- or larger properties. In those days if you were driving the major highways to Florida, you HAD to get a motel before 5 or 6 in the evening or you would spend the night in the car -- there just weren't very many motels. It's called supply and demand.

But I'm not sure why you're focusing on this aspect. It was just a passing comment of the "old days" -- sorry if it starts a major economic discussion here -- I thought this was just a fun topic.

And for what's it worth, I know we had friends who thought we were rich because we could afford to go to Florida every year for two weeks total (in the summer, no less). Yes. In 1957 travel was EXPENSIVE compared to today. And don't even begin to compare the cost of flying, for example! That was for the super rich!

travelgourmet

But I'm not sure why you're focusing on this aspect.

Because it matters to the question. Any contention that travel was "better" in the past should address questions of access. It may be that the OP doesn't care that travel has become more accessible (some, no doubt, even view that as a negative), but to argue that interstates have "ruined" travel does ignore the fact that travel has increased since their introduction and become more widely available.

vincenzo32951

Not sure what year it was, but my first big road trip (in my own car) was driving from Washington, DC, to Florida before I-95 was finished in parts of the Carolinas. It was not quaint. It was a PITA.

Sojourntraveller

NeoPatrick, you seem to be about the only person who understood the point of the post. Thanks for responding.

It's not about acess to travel or the urban myth of being able to land airplanes on the Interstate. It's about the difference to the EXPERIENCE of going on a vacation that the Interstates have made.

Perhaps it is an age thing with those too young to remember pre-Interstate being unable to 'get it'.

NeoPatrick

Thanks, yes Sojourntraveller. What a FUN topic. I didn't think the goal was to turn it into a major economics discussion or "contention" that travel was better or worse. But this is Fodors, so of course that happens.

Vincenzo, I too remember the days when the interstates (I-75 in our case) was not finished all the way and the traffic at the unfinished parts would back up for an hour or two. Yes, that was a PIA! And to be perfectly honest, I suppose part of the joy of traveling the back roads in those pre-interstate days was kind of "because we didn't know any better". I'm not sure how I could hold up to taking all that time today to get from point A to point B without interstates! One thing is clear, though. There's no way you could duplicate that kind of travel adventure today -- part of the adventure was that there was no other way to do it, not a choice to "go the back roads".

wtm003

Neo, I loved reading your memory of travel with your family - especially your dad putting 5 of you in a room. We had six in my family and we also shared the same hotel room along with our dog. My dad would run out and pick up pizza for dinner and we would picnic at rest stops along I-70 in Kansas. The indoor pool was a bonus.

The car did not have air conditioning and my brothers and sister and I would sit unbuckled in the back of the station wagon and play board games.

Every trip we'd ask my dad to stop at the "World's Largest Prairie Dog" exhibit but he ignored us and my mom would say "next time."

I'm sure they were thankful they could get to our destination via the interstate system as quickly as possible.

Rich

We took a trip from Central Texas to San Diego prior to the interstates in 1952 ( I remember watching Eisenhower being nominated on a TV somewhere in Arizona ) TV's were rare then

The things that stand out about that trip were:

Kitchenettes in the motels . . Mother would fix the next days dinners and snacks . Some of them even had swimming pools that my brother and I would just in and stay until dark.

Motel rooms that were shaped like TeePees

No air conditioning in the car . . drove a lot at night when in the desert.

Gasoline in California was over $ .25 which drove Dad nuts.

Canvas water bag hung on the front bumper

Filling stations that were also amusement parks . . Zoos and memento shops

Driving thru the middle of towns instead of around them.

Seemingly endless hours of driving . . took us 10 days to get there and 10 back . . leaving only a week to visit relatives.

I remember Dad telling us that is trip to SF to disembark for the Pacific war took two weeks in 1942

We took a almost identical trip a few years ago to LA using the Interstates to get between points quickly, but got off on the side roads ( Rt. 66 where it still exists ) to break the monotony. We even saw the TeePee motel in Holbrook, Arizona

The ability to use the Interstates for the long distances, but get off to see some of the scenery was nice. I would not want to go back to travel conditions of 1952 again!

travelgourmet

It's not about acess to travel

Not to you maybe.

Perhaps it is an age thing with those too young to remember pre-Interstate being unable to 'get it'.

I think most of us 'get it' just fine. Were it about age and people of yesteryear actually preferred to drive long distances at slow speeds in inferior cars, spending more time and money in doing so, then we wouldn't have built the interstates and we wouldn't have seen the dramatic explosion in travel we have. Now, you may have preferred the way it used to be, but that particular nostalgia doesn't seem widespread.

It's about the difference to the EXPERIENCE of going on a vacation that the Interstates have made.

or "contention" that travel was better or worse.

Then the use of the word "ruin" was decidedly unfortunate. The OP clearly was stating that travel was better in the past. The OP was stating an opinion, just as others have and they should have expected people to disagree.

My response is best summed up as 1) only for those that enjoy driving at slow speeds, and 2) assuming that one had the means and the time to avail themselves of that slower, more expensive type of travel.

NeoPatrick

Great post, travelgourmet. It's always good when someone tries to take all the simple fun out of a post which was meant just to be that. Do you even know the definition of "nostalgia"?

Bitter

In my state, you can still take non-interstates, at slower speeds, often stopping for a 2 stoplight town (and some larger), and stay in some inconsistent off-brand motel (though even smaller towns seem to be getting their share of business hotels).

Interstates just give us another option. Sometimes a trip is about the drive, and sometimes it is about the destination.

And I'm not sure what the OP means by a "typical 2 week family vacation." 2 week vacations certainly aren't typical for me or my colleagues.

Bitter

I do remember some of the roadside attractions, which were usually somewhat fraudulent attempts to get you to stop. Would the world's largest prairie dog or ball of twine really hold my attention today? I don't think so, except perhaps ironically. I would like to think our collective sophistication has increased.

obxgirl

I thought the OP's opinion on the topic was crystal clear but that he/she was asking a question to provoke a discussion and not just reminisce about the good old days. Noted and corrected.

...the world's largest prairie dog

That thing was still there in 2006 when we did a road trip from MO to CO. Along with the five legged cow and rattlesnake village. As the trip unfolded, I thanked the Sweet Baby J that there were interstates to speed us through western Kansas and eastern Colorado.

travelgourmet

Do you even know the definition of "nostalgia"?

I believe it is a synonym for "waste of time".

It's always good when someone tries to take all the simple fun out of a post which was meant just to be that.

I think people need to re-read the post if they think it was a simply about fun and not meant as an explicit and negative comparison. If the OP didn't want discussion, then she shouldn't have posted in the first place.

NeoPatrick

What part of the obviously light hearted "that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it" that the post ended with was too difficult for you? Obviously the poster was open to contrasting opinions in a tone that matched the tone of the original post. What I'm saying is that the post was clearly not about "let's discuss the economic advantages of chain motels over independents and how they have changed travel needs as we know it while we discuss the economic structure of the US population in the 1950s as it relates to the amount of leisure time available today". More appropriate would have been "geez, it took forever to get anywhere. Thank God for the interstates!" That sort of thing.

But whatever. Your definition of nostalgia speaks volumes, but makes me wonder why on earth you'd ever respond to a thread like this.

travelgourmet

What part of the obviously light hearted "that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it" that the post ended with was too difficult for you?

I think the issue is that I read the entire post. If that was a light-hearted post, then the OP really needs to work on their writing.

What I'm saying is that the post was clearly not about "let's discuss the economic advantages of chain motels over independents and how they have changed travel needs as we know it while we discuss the economic structure of the US population in the 1950s as it relates to the amount of leisure time available today".

Why not?

And, for the record, you brought up the money aspect. Frankly, I think your problem is primarily over the fact that I pointed out that the prices you quoted were actually really high, which kind of pokes a hole in the mythology you and the OP are peddling.

The OP wants to talk about the good things, but ignore the downsides - one of the big ones being cost. Frankly, I think I should get credit for ignoring the ethical questions about tying up animals at gas stations to serve as some sort of stupid sideshow.

NeoPatrick

Of course, you're right as always. I was mistaken. Clearly the purpose of the original post was to start a serious discussion about inflation and the changing economic influences in the US.

How silly of me to think that any post on Fodors could just be a fun "trip" down nostalgia lane -- which as you said is a waste of time.

Now you can go back sit under your thundercloud. Sorry we attempted to disturb your gloom for a minute.

WhereAreWe

From the OP: "Please note, the point of the post is not whether Interstates have a valid use or not. The point raised or question asked, is how have they impacted leisure travel. I thought I had made that clear but if not, let me try again.

Has the Interstate changed the typical 2 week family vacation undertaken by car in a good way or a bad way? "

Sounds like an open invitation to debate the effect of the interstate system on family vacations. If people want to wax nostalgic about the good old days, that's fine. But that is clearly not all the OP wanted to hear based on his/her emphasis on restating the question.

As to the original question, no. Sometimes travel is about the journey and sometimes it is about the destination. I've yet to have a vacation ruined by an interstate.

Now, have the interstates had a negative impact on certain towns/attractions/areas? Absolutely. Have they had a positive impact on certain towns/attractions/areas? Absolutely. As someone above said, it is about choices now, and I would prefer to have the choice to go slow or fast depending on the vacation experience I desire.

IMDonehere

Nostalgia is selective memory. I remember long drives with the crappiest places to eat, inns that made the Bates Motel seem welcoming, dangerous roads like the Taconic in NYS, and local speed traps.

There are picturesque routes as well but you could not travel as far due to the number of lanes or going slow as you pass through towns.

As noted above it allowed for choices.

Dukey1

How could having a superhighway "affect a vacation in a bad way?"

We are going to have some quality of scenery viewed panel here now?