Virginia Tech prof looking at Interstate hiway displacement & destruction

[HighwayStar]

The problem is not that anyone wants to ignore the displacement impacts of building the interstate system, but that such impacts are almost universally overstated.
To what extent displacement in the form of "slum clearance" etc is a positive or negative could be reasonably debated. There are certainly some people who got the short end of the stick during such relocations in terms of not getting as much for their property as they perhaps should have. On the other hand, since many did not even own the property they lived in, relocation could hardly be considered more than a moderate inconvenience. Nevertheless, most of the literature on the subject attempts to make a mountain out of a mole hill, portraying the simple construction of roadways as some serious wrong, which is neither a balanced nor realistic view.
To be realistic about it, some citizens were forced to make certain sacrifices for the public good, in an era shortly following WWII and Korea which collectively had some 1.3 million American casualties, each of which also represented a sacrifice for the public good. Put in this context, it seems less dramatic to be asked to move to a different part of town.
In any case, even granting what negative impacts dislocation had, such impacts were one time while the services of the freeways have been perpetual in nature. In any truly comprehensive assessment of the freeway network these dislocations are only a minor part of the story, and those who attempt to elevate them to more than that have ulterior motives for doing so that have nothing to do with writing good history.

[sparker]

Looks like a part of bigger - and more meaningful - work:
https://resources.newamericanhistory.org/for-students-mapping-inequality

There is so much wrong with that link from a factual standpoint I don't even know where to start

(And I won't start, just because this forum isn't the appropriate place to pick it apart)

Because discussion it brings is too intelligent to be here?
HOLC maps are, at the very least, an interesting and pretty factual aspect of urban history. The narrative of those maps is also pretty interesting but makes me wonder if the mortgage crisis was in part due to the total drop of that narrative, and where is the line between realistic risk assessment and other options.

No, because it's ostensibly very political. Wasn't talking about the maps.

Discussion about political events of 50+years ago is called history.
Obviously, there are positive and negative consequences of pretty much any political decision of the past. It is fairly natural that people who love roads tend to focus on positive aspects of road construction and pretty much brush off the negatives. It may be equally natural for others to focus on negative aspects. A thorough examination is necessarily focused on relatively small part of the big subject. 

I hope noone denies that, for example, "slum clearance" was a big topic back then (paging @Alps for opinion!). None of us was on receiving end of that clearance to have a first hand opinion of how it worked. It was definitely a tough thing to deal with, I assume
  Is there a need to understand and document those events? I would say yes, for example so  that experience is available for next round of urban re-design which may be needed at some point.  People tend to get triggered by the negative narrative of this study, and that is understandable. Would you be OK with the study of improved mobility brought by construction of interstate system ignoring problems of those displaced by construction? If yes - you must be OK with the other perspective as well, as it is an equally narrow minded approach.

Slum clearance (a more modern variation of which is referred to as "gentrification") was merely another "tool in the box" to make the city centers of the 1950's and early '60's more palatable as places to go and spend money -- particularly to those who had already relocated their residences to the suburbs.  If deploying an inner Interstate trunk or loop was part of that process, it was like killing two birds with one stone and getting the Feds to cough up 90% of the cost of doing so.  The particular form of racism and "classism" pervading the atmosphere back then engaged in blanket assumptions regarding both the social behavior and financial capabilities of both minorities residing in or near the city core as well as those, including a large number of white folks, who simply lacked the financial wherewithal (as well as credit) to make the outward move.  In short, the distillation of those assumptions was that the remaining residents couldn't provide the needed monetary influx to sustain viable downtown commerce, and that the best course to maximize that "cash flow" was to provide a pristine and largely homogenized working/shopping/dining/entertaining area, which meant creating separation between those city residents and the commuters shuffling between the 'burbs and downtown. 

Although not a part of the Interstate system, the CA Division of Highways had, at the request of a number of L.A. public figures, added a N-S routing through downtown L.A. extending from the Santa Monica (I-10) freeway at or near the Harbor (at the time, US 6/SSR 11) freeway to the Pasadena (Arroyo Seco) Freeway near I-5.  So as not to take any more property than necessary, much of it would have been an elevated "stacked" facility (such as the original Cypress Street viaduct on CA 17 and later I-880 that collapsed during the 1989 Loma Prieta quake) sitting above Main Street.  Besides providing relief for the Pasadena/Harbor corridor, this corridor -- originally LRN 222 and, post-'64, the first iteration of CA 241 -- was clearly intended to provide a delineation between the "desirable" western part of downtown between Main St. and the Harbor Freeway and the "skid row" section east of there -- an effective 60-foot-high structure walling off that part of downtown that was to undergo gentrification.  Needless to say it never happened -- a few artists' renditions were proffered in the Times and on display at City Hall (where I saw them as a kid), but negative response, principally from the Asian communities spread out along the division line, spelled doom for the concept by the mid-'70's. 

[Rothman]

The problem is not that anyone wants to ignore the displacement impacts of building the interstate system, but that such impacts are almost universally overstated.
To what extent displacement in the form of "slum clearance" etc is a positive or negative could be reasonably debated. There are certainly some people who got the short end of the stick during such relocations in terms of not getting as much for their property as they perhaps should have. On the other hand, since many did not even own the property they lived in, relocation could hardly be considered more than a moderate inconvenience. Nevertheless, most of the literature on the subject attempts to make a mountain out of a mole hill, portraying the simple construction of roadways as some serious wrong, which is neither a balanced nor realistic view.
To be realistic about it, some citizens were forced to make certain sacrifices for the public good, in an era shortly following WWII and Korea which collectively had some 1.3 million American casualties, each of which also represented a sacrifice for the public good. Put in this context, it seems less dramatic to be asked to move to a different part of town.
In any case, even granting what negative impacts dislocation had, such impacts were one time while the services of the freeways have been perpetual in nature. In any truly comprehensive assessment of the freeway network these dislocations are only a minor part of the story, and those who attempt to elevate them to more than that have ulterior motives for doing so that have nothing to do with writing good history.

This post is tone deaf, if only for the complete ignorance of long-term renters in cities.  Saying being evicted is only a "moderate inconvenience" for renters and not for owners is as calloused and inexperienced as they come.

[HighwayStar]

This post is tone deaf, if only for the complete ignorance of long-term renters in cities.  Saying being evicted is only a "moderate inconvenience" for renters and not for owners is as calloused and inexperienced as they come.

Eh, not really. Spent a fair chunk of time as a renter in major cities. Yes it is inconvenient to move, but I did it at least a half dozen times, sometimes over considerable distances, so while you might disagree with my assessment saying it is not informed by experience is simply wrong.
And no matter how you dice it, renters do not have the considerable funds tied up in real estate that owners do, and bear a relatively small financial risk in comparison.

[Rothman]

This post is tone deaf, if only for the complete ignorance of long-term renters in cities.  Saying being evicted is only a "moderate inconvenience" for renters and not for owners is as calloused and inexperienced as they come.

Eh, not really. Spent a fair chunk of time as a renter in major cities. Yes it is inconvenient to move, but I did it at least a half dozen times, sometimes over considerable distances, so while you might disagree with my assessment saying it is not informed by experience is simply wrong.
And no matter how you dice it, renters do not have the considerable funds tied up in real estate that owners do, and bear a relatively small financial risk in comparison.

We're talking low-income renters, though, with families.  Forcibly moving and uprooting a low-income family is not a moderate inconvenience and totally different from an untethered kid in the city.  So yes, you are speaking from inexperience.

[HighwayStar]

We're talking low-income renters, though, with families.  Forcibly moving and uprooting a low-income family is not a moderate inconvenience and totally different from an untethered kid in the city.  So yes, you are speaking from inexperience.

Since you have no idea what my income was or how many kids I had that is presumptuous to say the least. And while it adds some inconvenience to move more people, acting like it is the apocalypse is foolish to say the least.

[VTGoose]

We're talking low-income renters, though, with families.  Forcibly moving and uprooting a low-income family is not a moderate inconvenience and totally different from an untethered kid in the city.  So yes, you are speaking from inexperience.

Since you have no idea what my income was or how many kids I had that is presumptuous to say the least. And while it adds some inconvenience to move more people, acting like it is the apocalypse is foolish to say the least.

There is a world of difference between packing up one family booted from a rental to move across town or across the state and uprooting an entire community, be they homeowners or renters. For many it was an apocalypse to be forcibly removed from a family home in a neighborhood with friends and relationships and businesses close at hand and moved elsewhere, either the "projects" or a low-rent neighborhood because the state paid pennies on the dollar to property owners. "Urban renewal" was about as blatant racism as you could get in the '50s and '60s, to remove African-Americans from the midst. The Roanoke Times a number of years ago did a great investigative piece about what happened when I-581 and the Roanoke Civic Center were built and the damage that was done to a thriving community, albeit one composed of African-Americans. Not everyone who lived in that area were "low-income renters" but many had good jobs with the Norfolk & Western and the other businesses and industries in the region. While not as nice as some of the homes in other parts of the city, they were kept up. There were thriving businesses, owned by people who lived in the neighborhood, that catered to that community. It was all bulldozed and torn asunder in the name of "progress" and a tight-knit community was scattered across the city and valley.

Yes, the interstate highway system does have some good features. But it was wrongly used to clear out "undesirables" in many areas, something that is only somewhat recognized today. The process is still going on, too, with the location of industries and infrastructure. In Virginia, there was a recent flap over the unwanted Mountain Valley Pipeline and the location of a pump station adjacent to an African-American neighborhood. The implication was that "poor people" didn't matter when the station could have just as easily been sited close to an upper-class neighborhood.

So far, "those who don't study history are condemned to repeat it" is holding true 50-60-70 years later.

Bruce in Blacksburg

[Rothman]

We're talking low-income renters, though, with families.  Forcibly moving and uprooting a low-income family is not a moderate inconvenience and totally different from an untethered kid in the city.  So yes, you are speaking from inexperience.

Since you have no idea what my income was or how many kids I had that is presumptuous to say the least. And while it adds some inconvenience to move more people, acting like it is the apocalypse is foolish to say the least.

Ok.  How many kids did you have with you at the time of your moves as a renter in cities?  Because I was a renter with a wife and kids -- heck, not only moving within cities but across states for a while.  Especially when the kids got into elementary school and we settled in one spot and school district, being forced to move would have been a major inconvenience and stress with little relation to my land ownership status.

[HighwayStar]

Ok.  How many kids did you have with you at the time of your moves as a renter in cities?  Because I was a renter with a wife and kids -- heck, not only moving within cities but across states for a while.  Especially when the kids got into elementary school and we settled in one spot and school district, being forced to move would have been a major inconvenience and stress with little relation to my land ownership status.

You might want to consider that military families move every 1-2 years in many cases and the kids end up in half a dozen or more school districts by the time they graduate. But however bad you thought moving was, imagine adding to that the fact that you have 200-300k tied up in the house that you need to try and get out of it and you will see why renters simply cannot claim the inconvenience of property owners.

[Rothman]

Ok.  How many kids did you have with you at the time of your moves as a renter in cities?  Because I was a renter with a wife and kids -- heck, not only moving within cities but across states for a while.  Especially when the kids got into elementary school and we settled in one spot and school district, being forced to move would have been a major inconvenience and stress with little relation to my land ownership status.

You might want to consider that military families move every 1-2 years in many cases and the kids end up in half a dozen or more school districts by the time they graduate. But however bad you thought moving was, imagine adding to that the fact that you have 200-300k tied up in the house that you need to try and get out of it and you will see why renters simply cannot claim the inconvenience of property owners.

Nice dodge of the question.

And, equating being in the military with the cases of eminent domain in the past (e.g., Robert Caro's description of people getting the notice shortly before the bulldozers arrived), is simply inappropriate.

You're still forcibly moving families one way or the other.

[hbelkins]

Seeing the turn this discussion has taken reminds me of a couple of things and situations, one of which Rothman will have some indirect experience with.

But first off, ANY relocation -- whether forced or not -- is a MAJOR inconvenience. I moved four times in the span of about two years and it was a huge pain each time.

Now to the two examples I mentioned. In my hometown, a road project got underway to build a new highway as a short bypass of downtown and a flood-prone railroad underpass. The project claimed some unoccupied properties, a few of which were in significant disrepair.  The engineers came to regard that as somewhat of an inadvertent urban renewal project because it eliminated some blighted structures.

Now, here's the one with which Rothman will have some familiarity, given his Floyd County, Ky. roots. Two general corridors are under study for the widening and extension of the Mountain Parkway from Salyersville to Prestonsburg. One route would be a new-terrain alignment along a ridgetop to the north of existing KY 114. The other route would basically be a widening of KY 114 from two to four lanes, with a few curves straightened out. The new-terrain alignment would cost more overall, with the bulk of that coming from construction. The widening would be less costly to build, but ROW acquisition would cost much more because there are a number of residences along the route. And there is also the consideration that it is thought there is not enough existing housing in Floyd County to accommodate the number of people who would be displaced by that.

[Rothman]

Seeing the turn this discussion has taken reminds me of a couple of things and situations, one of which Rothman will have some indirect experience with.

But first off, ANY relocation -- whether forced or not -- is a MAJOR inconvenience. I moved four times in the span of about two years and it was a huge pain each time.

Now to the two examples I mentioned. In my hometown, a road project got underway to build a new highway as a short bypass of downtown and a flood-prone railroad underpass. The project claimed some unoccupied properties, a few of which were in significant disrepair.  The engineers came to regard that as somewhat of an inadvertent urban renewal project because it eliminated some blighted structures.

Now, here's the one with which Rothman will have some familiarity, given his Floyd County, Ky. roots. Two general corridors are under study for the widening and extension of the Mountain Parkway from Salyersville to Prestonsburg. One route would be a new-terrain alignment along a ridgetop to the north of existing KY 114. The other route would basically be a widening of KY 114 from two to four lanes, with a few curves straightened out. The new-terrain alignment would cost more overall, with the bulk of that coming from construction. The widening would be less costly to build, but ROW acquisition would cost much more because there are a number of residences along the route. And there is also the consideration that it is thought there is not enough existing housing in Floyd County to accommodate the number of people who would be displaced by that.

By some coincidence, my grandparents' home in Bypro -- sold after they passed nearly two decades ago -- just went into foreclosure.  So, if anyone wants to move deeper into the mountains than that stretch...

[HighwayStar]

Ok.  How many kids did you have with you at the time of your moves as a renter in cities?  Because I was a renter with a wife and kids -- heck, not only moving within cities but across states for a while.  Especially when the kids got into elementary school and we settled in one spot and school district, being forced to move would have been a major inconvenience and stress with little relation to my land ownership status.

You might want to consider that military families move every 1-2 years in many cases and the kids end up in half a dozen or more school districts by the time they graduate. But however bad you thought moving was, imagine adding to that the fact that you have 200-300k tied up in the house that you need to try and get out of it and you will see why renters simply cannot claim the inconvenience of property owners.

Nice dodge of the question.

And, equating being in the military with the cases of eminent domain in the past (e.g., Robert Caro's description of people getting the notice shortly before the bulldozers arrived), is simply inappropriate.

You're still forcibly moving families one way or the other.

Sorry, but my family is not the business of random strangers on the internet. Forcibly moving families to build roadways for national defense and the public good is simply not something I find concerning. You may feel differently, but in the scope of all things its frankly trivial, and probably a wash given that areas with canceled freeways have usually not fared well in the past 50 years anyway, likely in part due to poor access to transportation.

[Rothman]

Ok.  How many kids did you have with you at the time of your moves as a renter in cities?  Because I was a renter with a wife and kids -- heck, not only moving within cities but across states for a while.  Especially when the kids got into elementary school and we settled in one spot and school district, being forced to move would have been a major inconvenience and stress with little relation to my land ownership status.

You might want to consider that military families move every 1-2 years in many cases and the kids end up in half a dozen or more school districts by the time they graduate. But however bad you thought moving was, imagine adding to that the fact that you have 200-300k tied up in the house that you need to try and get out of it and you will see why renters simply cannot claim the inconvenience of property owners.

Nice dodge of the question.

And, equating being in the military with the cases of eminent domain in the past (e.g., Robert Caro's description of people getting the notice shortly before the bulldozers arrived), is simply inappropriate.

You're still forcibly moving families one way or the other.

Sorry, but my family is not the business of random strangers on the internet. Forcibly moving families to build roadways for national defense and the public good is simply not something I find concerning. You may feel differently, but in the scope of all things its frankly trivial, and probably a wash given that areas with canceled freeways have usually not fared well in the past 50 years anyway, likely in part due to poor access to transportation.

More like I called your bluff.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am thankful that it's in the minority.  Given the relocations of the past and the backlash (NYC, Boston...heck, even Duluth, MN), it's still little wonder that they are a major consideration of transportation projects today and they will continue to be.

[Duke87]

So... I think the common reaction here is misunderstanding the purpose of the study in question.

Yes, there are plenty of benefits to interstate construction. No one is claiming there are not - but any research into them is outside the scope of this study.

The scope of the study is strictly to come up with a way of quantifying the downsides. It is not intended to draw any conclusion about whether interstates, overall, are good or bad. It is intended only to provide a piece of the puzzle necessary to make that determination.

[HighwayStar]

Ok.  How many kids did you have with you at the time of your moves as a renter in cities?  Because I was a renter with a wife and kids -- heck, not only moving within cities but across states for a while.  Especially when the kids got into elementary school and we settled in one spot and school district, being forced to move would have been a major inconvenience and stress with little relation to my land ownership status.

You might want to consider that military families move every 1-2 years in many cases and the kids end up in half a dozen or more school districts by the time they graduate. But however bad you thought moving was, imagine adding to that the fact that you have 200-300k tied up in the house that you need to try and get out of it and you will see why renters simply cannot claim the inconvenience of property owners.

Nice dodge of the question.

And, equating being in the military with the cases of eminent domain in the past (e.g., Robert Caro's description of people getting the notice shortly before the bulldozers arrived), is simply inappropriate.

You're still forcibly moving families one way or the other.

Sorry, but my family is not the business of random strangers on the internet. Forcibly moving families to build roadways for national defense and the public good is simply not something I find concerning. You may feel differently, but in the scope of all things its frankly trivial, and probably a wash given that areas with canceled freeways have usually not fared well in the past 50 years anyway, likely in part due to poor access to transportation.

More like I called your bluff.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am thankful that it's in the minority.  Given the relocations of the past and the backlash (NYC, Boston...heck, even Duluth, MN), it's still little wonder that they are a major consideration of transportation projects today and they will continue to be.

No, more like you asked for information that was not yours to ask for. 
Beyond that, I will re-iterate that I have moved in the cities, and sometimes between them at least a half dozen times. Its not nearly as dramatic as you make it sound. You pack up your things, and go wherever it is you are going. Compared to the sacrifices asked of may others of that generation it is an extremely minor issue. Not only that, but it was typically a one time request, which is not that significant.
As to the ongoing focus on these issues and freeway riots, lets just say that civil disorder, and the complaints emanating from either the media, or the ivory towers of academia (neither of which has any real clue how people live in the real world) hardly represent the best opinion or consideration of the manner. The US needs to be building more freeways, including many that were canceled for the wrong reasons years ago.

[HighwayStar]

So... I think the common reaction here is misunderstanding the purpose of the study in question.

Yes, there are plenty of benefits to interstate construction. No one is claiming there are not - but any research into them is outside the scope of this study.

The scope of the study is strictly to come up with a way of quantifying the downsides. It is not intended to draw any conclusion about whether interstates, overall, are good or bad. It is intended only to provide a piece of the puzzle necessary to make that determination.

It is intended to add to an already excessive quantity of "grievance scholarship" which is used by various vested interests to argue against any interstate construction. Leaving the benefits of freeways, which dwarf any downsides they could hope to find, out of the study is simply a way of misrepresenting the issue by way of omission. There is never any serious intent on the part of these studies to "provide a piece of the puzzle" as they produce only the same piece over and over again while leaving the other 999 out of the picture.

[Rothman]

Ok.  How many kids did you have with you at the time of your moves as a renter in cities?  Because I was a renter with a wife and kids -- heck, not only moving within cities but across states for a while.  Especially when the kids got into elementary school and we settled in one spot and school district, being forced to move would have been a major inconvenience and stress with little relation to my land ownership status.

You might want to consider that military families move every 1-2 years in many cases and the kids end up in half a dozen or more school districts by the time they graduate. But however bad you thought moving was, imagine adding to that the fact that you have 200-300k tied up in the house that you need to try and get out of it and you will see why renters simply cannot claim the inconvenience of property owners.

Nice dodge of the question.

And, equating being in the military with the cases of eminent domain in the past (e.g., Robert Caro's description of people getting the notice shortly before the bulldozers arrived), is simply inappropriate.

You're still forcibly moving families one way or the other.

Sorry, but my family is not the business of random strangers on the internet. Forcibly moving families to build roadways for national defense and the public good is simply not something I find concerning. You may feel differently, but in the scope of all things its frankly trivial, and probably a wash given that areas with canceled freeways have usually not fared well in the past 50 years anyway, likely in part due to poor access to transportation.

More like I called your bluff.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am thankful that it's in the minority.  Given the relocations of the past and the backlash (NYC, Boston...heck, even Duluth, MN), it's still little wonder that they are a major consideration of transportation projects today and they will continue to be.

No, more like you asked for information that was not yours to ask for. 
Beyond that, I will re-iterate that I have moved in the cities, and sometimes between them at least a half dozen times. Its not nearly as dramatic as you make it sound. You pack up your things, and go wherever it is you are going. Compared to the sacrifices asked of may others of that generation it is an extremely minor issue. Not only that, but it was typically a one time request, which is not that significant.
As to the ongoing focus on these issues and freeway riots, lets just say that civil disorder, and the complaints emanating from either the media, or the ivory towers of academia (neither of which has any real clue how people live in the real world) hardly represent the best opinion or consideration of the manner. The US needs to be building more freeways, including many that were canceled for the wrong reasons years ago.

Nah.  Given how our discussion went, you were being disingenuous.

You're still not differentiating between voluntary moves and expulsion due to eminent domain.  Or between a single person not settled in yet and a family settled into a community, school district and stable employment (however underpaid). 

You can keep trying to minimize the impacts of relocations, but the majority has and will continue to treat them more seriously (I mean, your position is for a very intrusive big government beyond what any current contenders for power desire).  If anything, this will be because we've had transportation officials whose families were relocated unfairly due to urban transportation projects (e.g., Fred Salvucci in MA in particular) and the experiences cause much more social repulsion than you describe.

[HighwayStar]

Ok.  How many kids did you have with you at the time of your moves as a renter in cities?  Because I was a renter with a wife and kids -- heck, not only moving within cities but across states for a while.  Especially when the kids got into elementary school and we settled in one spot and school district, being forced to move would have been a major inconvenience and stress with little relation to my land ownership status.

You might want to consider that military families move every 1-2 years in many cases and the kids end up in half a dozen or more school districts by the time they graduate. But however bad you thought moving was, imagine adding to that the fact that you have 200-300k tied up in the house that you need to try and get out of it and you will see why renters simply cannot claim the inconvenience of property owners.

Nice dodge of the question.

And, equating being in the military with the cases of eminent domain in the past (e.g., Robert Caro's description of people getting the notice shortly before the bulldozers arrived), is simply inappropriate.

You're still forcibly moving families one way or the other.

Sorry, but my family is not the business of random strangers on the internet. Forcibly moving families to build roadways for national defense and the public good is simply not something I find concerning. You may feel differently, but in the scope of all things its frankly trivial, and probably a wash given that areas with canceled freeways have usually not fared well in the past 50 years anyway, likely in part due to poor access to transportation.

More like I called your bluff.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am thankful that it's in the minority.  Given the relocations of the past and the backlash (NYC, Boston...heck, even Duluth, MN), it's still little wonder that they are a major consideration of transportation projects today and they will continue to be.

No, more like you asked for information that was not yours to ask for. 
Beyond that, I will re-iterate that I have moved in the cities, and sometimes between them at least a half dozen times. Its not nearly as dramatic as you make it sound. You pack up your things, and go wherever it is you are going. Compared to the sacrifices asked of may others of that generation it is an extremely minor issue. Not only that, but it was typically a one time request, which is not that significant.
As to the ongoing focus on these issues and freeway riots, lets just say that civil disorder, and the complaints emanating from either the media, or the ivory towers of academia (neither of which has any real clue how people live in the real world) hardly represent the best opinion or consideration of the manner. The US needs to be building more freeways, including many that were canceled for the wrong reasons years ago.

Nah.  Given how our discussion went, you were being disingenuous.

You're still not differentiating between voluntary moves and expulsion due to eminent domain.  Or between a single person not settled in yet and a family settled into a community, school district and stable employment (however underpaid). 

You can keep trying to minimize the impacts of relocations, but the majority has and will continue to treat them more seriously (I mean, your position is for a very intrusive big government beyond what any current contenders for power desire).  If anything, this will be because we've had transportation officials whose families were relocated unfairly due to urban transportation projects (e.g., Fred Salvucci in MA in particular) and the experiences cause much more social repulsion than you describe.

Believe whatever you wish, but some information is not yours for the asking.

[kalvado]

You can keep trying to minimize the impacts of relocations, but the majority has and will continue to treat them more seriously (I mean, your position is for a very intrusive big government beyond what any current contenders for power desire).  If anything, this will be because we've had transportation officials whose families were relocated unfairly due to urban transportation projects (e.g., Fred Salvucci in MA in particular) and the experiences cause much more social repulsion than you describe.

And a long term problem here is that aversion to new road construction, even if it is totally understandable, results in long-term effects. Growth of city centers means more traffic to/from downtown has to be squeezed into same corridors which were reserved when population was few times less. New corridors within cities (and between cities, although this is lightly different subject) will disrupt someone, as totally undeveloped areas are few and far in between. 

I don't know how to resolve this in a long run, short of cheap and massive tunneling and air traffic. One may dream, right? 

[jeffandnicole]

...I will re-iterate that I have moved in the cities, and sometimes between them at least a half dozen times. Its not nearly as dramatic as you make it sound. You pack up your things, and go wherever it is you are going. Compared to the sacrifices asked of may others of that generation it is an extremely minor issue. Not only that, but it was typically a one time request, which is not that significant.

If most people shared your view, Eminent Domain would be one of the first options to be used, not the last.

And while I agree you don't have to put your info out there, that doesn't mean we have to believe you've been forced to move multiple times either.  If you have, clearly you really don't mind...or you have plenty of money and great credit, and can easily and continuously plop down thousands for closing costs or first/last month's rents, along with all your buddies with trucks to move your stuff numerous times when forced to move.  Not everyone is as fortunate.

We all know keyboard warriors when we see one.

[HighwayStar]

...I will re-iterate that I have moved in the cities, and sometimes between them at least a half dozen times. Its not nearly as dramatic as you make it sound. You pack up your things, and go wherever it is you are going. Compared to the sacrifices asked of may others of that generation it is an extremely minor issue. Not only that, but it was typically a one time request, which is not that significant.

If most people shared your view, Eminent Domain would be one of the first options to be used, not the last.

And while I agree you don't have to put your info out there, that doesn't mean we have to believe you've been forced to move multiple times either.  If you have, clearly you really don't mind...or you have plenty of money and great credit, and can easily and continuously plop down thousands for closing costs or first/last month's rents, along with all your buddies with trucks to move your stuff numerous times when forced to move.  Not everyone is as fortunate.

We all know keyboard warriors when we see one.

My point was I had to move and there was no point crying over spilled milk. And I will say I never "plopped" thousands for moving costs etc. Nor did I have "plenty of money" or any credit to speak of. I never had any friend with a truck, and in fact several of the moves were with nothing more than a suitcase and clothes on my back. My most elaborate moving truck was Toyota Corolla that allowed a few carefully selected pieces of smallish used furniture to be carted home.

We all know keyboard warriors when we see one.

No you clearly don't. Some people just don't complain that much and take the hand they are dealt.

Oh, I'd rather have ham in my sandwich than cheese
But complaining wouldn't do any good

I don't have any delusions about convincing those who feel dislocation was a major issue otherwise, but neither will I be convinced that my moving was somehow blessed with non-existent moving trucks and gold plated credit. In any case I feel this has drifted too far from roads, and I would rather leave the thread in readable condition for whatever road-fan comes along after the fact.

[paulthemapguy]

We all know keyboard warriors when we see one.

Except for you, because you have no self-awareness.

[Rothman]

...I will re-iterate that I have moved in the cities, and sometimes between them at least a half dozen times. Its not nearly as dramatic as you make it sound. You pack up your things, and go wherever it is you are going. Compared to the sacrifices asked of may others of that generation it is an extremely minor issue. Not only that, but it was typically a one time request, which is not that significant.

If most people shared your view, Eminent Domain would be one of the first options to be used, not the last.

And while I agree you don't have to put your info out there, that doesn't mean we have to believe you've been forced to move multiple times either.  If you have, clearly you really don't mind...or you have plenty of money and great credit, and can easily and continuously plop down thousands for closing costs or first/last month's rents, along with all your buddies with trucks to move your stuff numerous times when forced to move.  Not everyone is as fortunate.

We all know keyboard warriors when we see one.

My point was I had to move and there was no point crying over spilled milk. And I will say I never "plopped" thousands for moving costs etc. Nor did I have "plenty of money" or any credit to speak of. I never had any friend with a truck, and in fact several of the moves were with nothing more than a suitcase and clothes on my back. My most elaborate moving truck was Toyota Corolla that allowed a few carefully selected pieces of smallish used furniture to be carted home.

We all know keyboard warriors when we see one.

No you clearly don't. Some people just don't complain that much and take the hand they are dealt.

Oh, I'd rather have ham in my sandwich than cheese
But complaining wouldn't do any good

I don't have any delusions about convincing those who feel dislocation was a major issue otherwise, but neither will I be convinced that my moving was somehow blessed with non-existent moving trucks and gold plated credit. In any case I feel this has drifted too far from roads, and I would rather leave the thread in readable condition for whatever road-fan comes along after the fact.

Right, it was just you moving around rather than an established family.  Dear heavens, that shouldn't have been so hard to admit.

You can keep patting yourself on the back about having a stiff upper lip as you moved around.  But it still doesn't sound like you were handed a notice that you absolutely had to (e.g., eviction or other mandate).  And, you are still inappropriately comparing your own experience as a single person with few belongings to long-term renting families in the city.

Your lack of empathy, combined with your argument style on here, leads me to have a lot of speculation about how you ended up where you have.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

...I will re-iterate that I have moved in the cities, and sometimes between them at least a half dozen times. Its not nearly as dramatic as you make it sound. You pack up your things, and go wherever it is you are going. Compared to the sacrifices asked of may others of that generation it is an extremely minor issue. Not only that, but it was typically a one time request, which is not that significant.

If most people shared your view, Eminent Domain would be one of the first options to be used, not the last.

And while I agree you don't have to put your info out there, that doesn't mean we have to believe you've been forced to move multiple times either.  If you have, clearly you really don't mind...or you have plenty of money and great credit, and can easily and continuously plop down thousands for closing costs or first/last month's rents, along with all your buddies with trucks to move your stuff numerous times when forced to move.  Not everyone is as fortunate.

We all know keyboard warriors when we see one.

My point was I had to move and there was no point crying over spilled milk. And I will say I never "plopped" thousands for moving costs etc. Nor did I have "plenty of money" or any credit to speak of. I never had any friend with a truck, and in fact several of the moves were with nothing more than a suitcase and clothes on my back. My most elaborate moving truck was Toyota Corolla that allowed a few carefully selected pieces of smallish used furniture to be carted home.

We all know keyboard warriors when we see one.

No you clearly don't. Some people just don't complain that much and take the hand they are dealt.

Oh, I'd rather have ham in my sandwich than cheese
But complaining wouldn't do any good

I don't have any delusions about convincing those who feel dislocation was a major issue otherwise, but neither will I be convinced that my moving was somehow blessed with non-existent moving trucks and gold plated credit. In any case I feel this has drifted too far from roads, and I would rather leave the thread in readable condition for whatever road-fan comes along after the fact.

Dallas Cowboy fan in Philadelphia, I see.