Virginia Tech prof looking at Interstate hiway displacement & destruction

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

A Virginia Tech history professor has received a grant to study the "displacement and environmental destruction" caused by the construction of the Interstate highway system. "LaDale Winling, an associate professor of history at Virginia Tech, is determined to change that. And to help him achieve that goal, the National Endowment for Humanities has provided him with a prestigious grant to kickstart a new project, "Connecting the Interstates."  "Connecting the Interstates"  will illuminate the damaging effects of the highway system through an interactive map, Winling said. The tool can help community leaders, public officials, journalists, and historians along with the general public understand the system's impact on a deeper level." See https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2020/12/destruction-and-displacement--history-professor-earns-grant-to-e.html for details.

Bruce in Blacksburg

Back in my heyday of working on Roadfan.com, when I was tracking down the maps of the routing of I-670, between I-71 and I-270/Port Columbus Airport, I kept coming across several studies (probably intertwined with one another) that ODOT, City of Columbus, and (likely) Ohio State, put together concerning the neighborhoods that were affected by the proposal routes for I-670.
One of the books looked at communication and citizen feedback as they tried to route I-670 with the least amount of harm to these neighborhoods. Included in "least amount of harm" was keeping housing stock, keeping parks/greenspace, and keeping and creating access points so the citizens wouldn't feel "trapped" in their own enclaves, while also feeling like they were still part of Columbus.
The other book was a study of what would have happen if I-670 was built over any of the proposed routes (and which exits and ramps were included/excluded). I don't recall coming across any books or reports following up on the neighborhoods along I-670 after it was completed in the early 90s.
I-670 east was constructed between 1985-1991, so I believe these reports were written between 1978-1985 (and I imagine can be found via any online library source)

[ErmineNotyours]

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.

Usually areas with canceled freeways were areas that were politically strong enough to stop them, were usually economically strong too and mostly still are.  I'm thinking of Seattle's Montlake neighborhood which stopped the Thompson Expressway.  The neighborhood is filled with impressive looking houses.

[HighwayStar]

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.

Usually areas with canceled freeways were areas that were politically strong enough to stop them, were usually economically strong too and mostly still are.  I'm thinking of Seattle's Montlake neighborhood which stopped the Thompson Expressway.  The neighborhood is filled with impressive looking houses.

You have identified a subclass of canceled freeways, those that were canceled by means of political pressure and usually represent wealthy NIMBY neighborhoods. But those are only a subclass, many areas with canceled freeways are worse off than they were when they were canceled. Baltimore and DC are two of the best examples.

[kphoger]

Although currently it may not be "PC" to do so, temporal context is an integral part of any examination of programs over a half-century old

At least someone is thinking with their brain!

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.

If they're being forced to move either way, then isn't the comparison appropriate?  However, since the end of the draft, parents choose to enlist, which is a big difference.

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.

Compared to what?  Compared to a hypothetical scenario in which no improvements were made at all?  Or one in which the improvements were made as needed but there was no nationwide umbrella system of freeways?  For something can only have a "negative result" if things are worse than they would have been without it.

Example:  Compare a section of highway being reconstructed to freeway standards all at once, to that same section of highway being reconstructed to freeway standards in pieces over the course of thirty years.  Citing the downsides of the former without considering the latter would be negligent or even misleading.

[HighwayStar]

If they're being forced to move either way, then isn't the comparison appropriate?  However, since the end of the draft, parents choose to enlist, which is a big difference.

My point in making that comparison is that there IS an entire subclass of Americans that move their families regularly so they can serve us, and to ask any American to move once for the good of society as a whole should not be an unreasonable request.

[vdeane]

For something can only have a "negative result" if things are worse than they would have been without it.

That doesn't follow.  Things tend not to be uniformly good or bad.  If they were, people would have a lot fewer arguments about everything.  Take electric cars.  They're cleaner, require less maintenance, get better acceleration, and you can top off the battery in your garage instead of going to a gas station.  They also take a long time to recharge (and "fast" charging, which is still very slow compared to refueling a gas car, too often is bad for the battery), and the range (which is often if not usually shorter regardless) is affected by many things, including the weather and the age of the battery (which is VERY expensive to replace), making it harder to roadgeek in them.  Are they better?  Are they worse?  That depends on what's most important to you.

[kphoger]

If they're being forced to move either way, then isn't the comparison appropriate?  However, since the end of the draft, parents choose to enlist, which is a big difference.

My point in making that comparison is that there IS an entire subclass of Americans that move their families regularly so they can serve us, and to ask any American to move once for the good of society as a whole should not be an unreasonable request.

I'd say the benefits are not equivalent.  Serving in the military has the opportunity to benefit the protection and welfare all of America, plus other countries.  Building a freeway through a particular neighborhood... ummm... allows people to get somewhere faster.

[HighwayStar]

If they're being forced to move either way, then isn't the comparison appropriate?  However, since the end of the draft, parents choose to enlist, which is a big difference.

My point in making that comparison is that there IS an entire subclass of Americans that move their families regularly so they can serve us, and to ask any American to move once for the good of society as a whole should not be an unreasonable request.

I'd say the benefits are not equivalent.  Serving in the military has the opportunity to benefit the protection and welfare all of America, plus other countries.  Building a freeway through a particular neighborhood... ummm... allows people to get somewhere faster.

The freeways were built as defense highways to serve the purposes you describe, they have immense economic, industrial, tactical, and strategic significance.

[kphoger]

The freeways were built as defense highways to serve the purposes you describe ...

Yes, that was the rationale.  I don't know, however, that they actually contribute to the defense of our nation a whole heck of a lot, compared to if they hadn't been constructed.  Maybe...

... they have immense economic, industrial, tactical, and strategic significance.

Yes.  But they would probably have the same significance if they had been constructed on a piecemeal basis without the red and blue shields.  Which gets me back to what I was saying earlier:  a hypothetical world in which none of the Interstates became freeways is a ridiculous proposition.  Most of the system–at least in the eastern half of the nation–would probably be freeways or else traffic-clogged by now anyway, even without the highway act.

[hotdogPi]

Yes.  But they would probably have the same significance if they had been constructed on a piecemeal basis without the red and blue shields.  Which gets me back to what I was saying earlier:  a hypothetical world in which none of the Interstates became freeways is a ridiculous proposition.  Most of the system–at least in the eastern half of the nation–would probably be freeways or else traffic-clogged by now anyway, even without the highway act.

There would be a lot less coordination between states. If I wanted to get from my location to Richmond VA, I could do it. If I wanted to go from there to Atlanta, there would probably be a Durham-Greensboro-Charlotte freeway and a Spartanburg-Greenville-Anderson freeway, but the rest would be surface roads.

[kalvado]

If they're being forced to move either way, then isn't the comparison appropriate?  However, since the end of the draft, parents choose to enlist, which is a big difference.

My point in making that comparison is that there IS an entire subclass of Americans that move their families regularly so they can serve us, and to ask any American to move once for the good of society as a whole should not be an unreasonable request.

I'd say the benefits are not equivalent.  Serving in the military has the opportunity to benefit the protection and welfare all of America, plus other countries.  Building a freeway through a particular neighborhood... ummm... allows people to get somewhere faster.

Last time I checked, there was no draft in US for a while, so whoever is in the military basically chosen that lifestyle for themselves.
You may also argue that waking up someone at night is not a big deal, as there are people working graveyard shift, or have professionally crazy schedule (such as transportation workers - bus drivers, plane crews, who has to work 5AM-6AM departures). Again, a personal choice. 

[kphoger]

I have a fundamental problem with anyone claiming that it's not inconvenient for somebody else to move.

It's the same way I felt when people suggested after Hurricane Katrina that New Orleans residents had brought on their own plight by "choosing" to live in that city–as if where you live is nothing more than the particular pieces of framing and drywall that happen to cover your belongings, and not something intricately tied to multiple aspects of your life, the nexus of your social support network, the site of many of your memories, etc, etc...

[HighwayStar]

If they're being forced to move either way, then isn't the comparison appropriate?  However, since the end of the draft, parents choose to enlist, which is a big difference.

My point in making that comparison is that there IS an entire subclass of Americans that move their families regularly so they can serve us, and to ask any American to move once for the good of society as a whole should not be an unreasonable request.

I'd say the benefits are not equivalent.  Serving in the military has the opportunity to benefit the protection and welfare all of America, plus other countries.  Building a freeway through a particular neighborhood... ummm... allows people to get somewhere faster.

Last time I checked, there was no draft in US for a while, so whoever is in the military basically chosen that lifestyle for themselves.
You may also argue that waking up someone at night is not a big deal, as there are people working graveyard shift, or have professionally crazy schedule (such as transportation workers - bus drivers, plane crews, who has to work 5AM-6AM departures). Again, a personal choice.

I don't care that they "chose" that lifestyle, they are still making a sacrifice for the rest of us. In fact, because it is voluntary it makes the point all the more relevant, if some people are willing to stand up and be counted like that then no one else has an excuse.

[HighwayStar]

I have a fundamental problem with anyone claiming that it's not inconvenient for somebody else to move.

It's the same way I felt when people suggested after Hurricane Katrina that New Orleans residents had brought on their own plight by "choosing" to live in that city–as if where you live is nothing more than the particular pieces of framing and drywall that happen to cover your belongings, and not something intricately tied to multiple aspects of your life, the nexus of your social support network, the site of many of your memories, etc, etc...

Choosing to live below sea level is unwise, as is choosing to live in a floodplain, etc. There is no way around that.

[kphoger]

I don't care that they "chose" that lifestyle, they are still making a sacrifice for the rest of us. In fact, because it is voluntary it makes the point all the more relevant, if some people are willing to stand up and be counted like that then no one else has an excuse.

The whole reason it was mentioned is that servicemen made the choice to up and move their families.  The victims of freeway-induced relocation did not.

[sparker]

The deployment of I-105/Century Freeway across south-central metro L.A. had the effect of opening a lot of DOT eyes to the actual cost -- direct and effectual -- of urban freeway construction.  Although few of the properties affected fell into the category of eliciting NIMBY or opposition by parties with political and/or monetary influence (and much of that was commercial rather than residential in nature), the overall cost of the project ballooned from the 1968 projections (this was one of the urban facilities authorized in the '68 Interstate additions) from an originally estimated $1.25B to $4.65B (that in '68 dollars adjusted from its early '90's $11B actual cost) when finally completed in 1993.  Simply put, South Central residents pushed back and litigated a groundbreaking settlement package that included not only enhanced property compensation as well as provision for covering relocation expenses but also facility design, particularly the reduction from 8-10 lanes to 6-8 in order to place the LR "Green Line" down the freeway's median (with enough stations along the way to substantially serve the affected communities).   Displaced homeowners were compensated at a level that let them, if they wished, to purchase more modern facilities in the general vicinity (many resettled in north Inglewood, Ladera Heights, or Culver City, particularly the west Baldwin Hills neighborhoods) or relocate within South Central and pocketing the difference if that proved more economical.   Renters received at least a year's rental for upgraded apartment facilities (again, new complexes in those same areas cited above saw the greatest influx of those displaced by I-105).  Also adding to the cost -- and this the result of commercial interests' objections to the particular route/facility design -- was a reroute in the Hawthorne/Lennox area to avoid impinging on the flight paths in and out of Northrop/Hawthorne Airport; the original freeway was on a berm parallel to and a block from that airport's primary runway, used primarily for executive jets attached to the myriad aerospace interests in the area (Northrop/Grumman, Raytheon/Hughes, etc.) -- but the reroute required a large northward "arc" through neighborhoods with similar demographics to South Central, so the enhanced compensation/relocation process extended there as well.   Curiously, there was some backlash to the freeway realignment from, of all sources, a few strip club owners in Lennox whose properties were taken by the I-105/Hawthorne Blvd. interchange. 

The upshot was that by the time the costs were beginning to pile up in the mid-80's the realization that this sort of activity was at the forefront of the "new normal" for urban construction; as I-105 was effectively the last of the urban L.A. freeways to be built (and airport access to and from the east was a longstanding regional goal), Caltrans and MTA sucked it up and finished the job -- but that process rendered any other plans for similar facilities (such as the parallel CA 90/Slauson freeway to the north) effectively DOA.  It could additionally be stated that the I-710 extension to Pasadena was affected by the I-105 experience -- although that addition would have been of the non-chargeable variety, so federal funds would have been limited to a much lower level in any case.  Bottom line -- it's now widely considered that urban freeways are simply too costly regardless of any perceived benefit, so the prospects for such are dismal indeed as a now-longstanding effect of collective neighborhood action based on a social justice goal -- but not necessarily to stop the freeway's development but to take into consideration a greater measure of the various costs of displacement and provide compensation accordingly.  Adding to that are the effects of urban inflation on property values across the board.  And regardless of the fact that this was a L.A. situation -- and property values in SoCal have been bordering on the ludicrous for some time now -- this is still a transportable model that can be applied to urban settings elsewhere -- i.e., this is what you'll be encountering if you attempt to build a new freeway facility in a densely developed area, so you'll need both almost infinitely deep pockets and almost infinite patience.  With that as an obstacle, it's no wonder that unless agencies are both tone-deaf and willfully ignorant of their environment, urban freeway development has been virtually absent since the '90's.

[HighwayStar]

With respect to I-105, I do think sparker is unfortunately correct. I don't foresee getting the new urban freeways that are badly needed in much of the country unless it is done under the original defense purpose with congressional authority used to override the NIMBYs and special interest groups.