AARoads Forum

I find this interesting history in the world of roads.

I would like to know what state's have the most current or historically controversial interstate.

For Arkansas, there is the one I refer to a lot, and that is I-630 (Wilbur D. Mills Freeway).

The 630 is seen as an economic and cultural division of the city of Little Rock. I have seen the difference between the north and south sides of the east to west freeway.

http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=6587 (+/- accuracy)
I also found the Environmental Impact Study (https://books.google.com/books?id=PL01AQAAMAAJ&pg=SA1-PA8&lpg=SA1-PA8&dq=I-630+economic+impact&source=bl&ots=a5RF7-THbE&sig=GbhM2sT3uCK0oPkn_KJ8rpt4IW0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi00eDZza3aAhVl6IMKHWF7AiQQ6AEIVTAH#v=onepage&q&f=false) (Draft)

NY?

I-95, Cross Bronx, the One Mile of which Caro wrote.

I-895, most likely being boulevarded

I-81 viaduct, stupid tunnel advocates wasting money on what should be a replacement of some sort.

I-278, the Gowanus.  Also see Caro.

Probably others, but it's lunch time and I am out. :D

In VA? Probably I-81, or the widening thereof.

The City of Richmond reeeeeeally didn't want I-295 (or VA 288), either.

For Massachusetts, the title of historically most controversial would be divided by the original I-95 alignments south and north of Boston (Southwest and Northeast Expressways) and the I-695 Inner Belt that would have looped through Boston, Somerville, and Cambridge.

The Southwest Expressway was never constructed.  A portion of the Northeast Expressway between the Mystic Tobin Bridge and MA 60 in Revere was built, and is currently part of US 1.  The embankment for the continuation of I-95/Northeast Expressway north of MA 60 was built across the Rumney Marsh parallel to MA 107 between MA 60 and the Saugus/Lynn line, but was never opened to traffic.  This embankment, which was made of sand, imploded several years later and was eventually removed to provide sand to replenish Revere Beach, which had been shrinking due to erosion.

What is now the double decker section of I-93 in Boston and Somerville was originally supposed to be part of I-695.  Two of the ramps that were supposed to be to/from the continuation of I-695 into Cambridge were repurposed to carry the Leverett Connector roadways, while the other two were never used and are dead stubs.

Not aware of any inherent controversies with Vermont Interstates.  Several non-Interstate routes, sure....but nothing that comes to mind for the Interstates themselves.

To add to Virginia, there's also I-66 (arguably larger controversy than I-81, especially regarding initial construction), and the cancelled I-595.  And if you go back far enough, whether I-64 should have gone through Lynchburg or not...

For Kentucky, probably I-64, as the last completed portion of the road went through horse farm country.

If we're talking currently, I-75 as it pertains to the Brent Spence Bridge and how to build a companion span, given the irrational opposition to tolling that some in northern Kentucky are expressing.

If we were to base this on the thoughts and concerns of this group in regards to New Jersey, I-95 would win in a landslide.  And maybe in the 1970's and 80's it would win some sort of controversial award if you talked with residents of the state. 

However for most NJ residents, 95 isn't much of an issue whatsoever anymore, and it hasn't been for 30 years. Most people today aren't even aware of the history of it, and simply know it as part of the NJ Turnpike.   The more controversial interstates would probably be those that badly need work on them and have significant fast-moving truck traffic, which would land I-78, I-80 and I-287 at or near the top of the list.

Indiana's infamous I-69 is sure up there.

I-43 in Wisconsin was built with protests of farmers as it cut through prime farmland.

California:

I-710 in South Pasadena
the former I-480 in San Francisco, now demolished
the proposed I-80 extension (Western Freeway) of the 1960s, which would have continued west (along the Panhandle park) from the 1991-2005 terminus of the Central Freeway to the unbuilt original I-280 alignment paralleling 19th Avenue in Golden Gate Park. IIRC this was the primary focus of the San Francisco freeway revolts, more than any other corridor
I-105
the unbuilt I-80 realignment along the railroad tracks in North Sacramento/Arden, parallel to today's Business 80/Route 51

Quote from: TheStranger on April 09, 2018, 01:30:38 PM
California:

I-710 in South Pasadena
the former I-480 in San Francisco, now demolished
the proposed I-80 extension (Western Freeway) of the 1960s, which would have continued west (along the Panhandle park) from the 1991-2005 terminus of the Central Freeway to the unbuilt original I-280 alignment paralleling 19th Avenue in Golden Gate Park. IIRC this was the primary focus of the San Francisco freeway revolts, more than any other corridor
I-105
the unbuilt I-80 realignment along the railroad tracks in North Sacramento/Arden, parallel to today's Business 80/Route 51

And............to roadgeeks only............I-238!

I think for Arkansas, it's probably either I-49 or I-30. Although I-40 is the longest in the state, I haven't seen a whole lot of talking about it here.

I-49 because it's still under construction, and I-30 because of that huge 10 lanes in downtown Little Rock thing, and the fact that it needs to get paved again very badly.

Although since you're from Arkansas as well, I agree that I-630 is pretty controversial as well for those reasons.

Quote from: roadman on April 09, 2018, 12:49:07 PM

^^I would think that the original Central Artery (initially part of I-95, then later part of I-93) and its Big Dig/O'Neill Tunnel successor (I-93) would be the most controversial Interstates in the Bay State that were actually built.

For PA (at least southeastern PA); it would have to be the Blue Route portion of I-476 (https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-476-pa/).  Such took a US District Court action (mainly dismissing all lawsuits brought by the road's opponents) for the highway to become reality.

Quote from: TBKS1 on April 09, 2018, 01:53:25 PM
I think for Arkansas, it's probably either I-49 or I-30. Although I-40 is the longest in the state, I haven't seen a whole lot of talking about it here.

I-49 because it's still under construction, and I-30 because of that huge 10 lanes in downtown Little Rock thing, and the fact that it needs to get paved again very badly.

Although since you're from Arkansas as well, I agree that I-630 is pretty controversial as well for those reasons.

I would also agree with I-30 (30 Crossing). The cultural impact of ArDOT's 'highway high' is also interesting. I get that we need newer transportation within Little Rock, but the historic ties in the 60's and the families that have been around for that long and even longer aren't (seemingly) being considered.

I-49 in Fort Smith is getting old to look at... I'd be 30 by the time it's complete if ArDOT doesn't get to it. I don't understand exactly why they aren't continuing with the southern half of the project, instead of waiting for a bridge to be built and then all that would be needed is a bridge to bring the two halves together.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2018, 12:55:44 PM
If we were to base this on the thoughts and concerns of this group in regards to New Jersey, I-95 would win in a landslide.  And maybe in the 1970's and 80's it would win some sort of controversial award if you talked with residents of the state. 

However for most NJ residents, 95 isn't much of an issue whatsoever anymore, and it hasn't been for 30 years. Most people today aren't even aware of the history of it, and simply know it as part of the NJ Turnpike.   The more controversial interstates would probably be those that badly need work on them and have significant fast-moving truck traffic, which would land I-78, I-80 and I-287 at or near the top of the list.

I'd vote for I-295, specifically the Al-Jo Curve (the area around the I-295/I-76/NJ 42 interchange). The ongoing construction to fix it is making things worse in the short term as far as traffic and accidents are concerned.

For Idaho I have two. First would have to be I-184. I'm sure being built later on (~1980-1990) and cutting through Boise city limits (being by far the most urban freeway in Idaho) had some controversy around it.

Second would be I-90. Not all of it probably, but Wallace (https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2949) comes to mind. Not sure which of the two had more controversy, probably I-184 because Boise is a much larger city (though I-90 being a major route across the US means it was much more well known to non-locals).

I-84, I-86, and I-15 are all mostly (or entirely) rural and when they aren't, they kind of skirt the edge of the city (like I-84 with Boise) and are logical regional routes that simply need to exist in some way.

I wasn't around when they were being built though, so maybe someone else is more knowledgeable.

For Georgia, I think it might be Interstate 75.

My reasoning for choosing this is because there was some major opposition to constructing the segment of I-75 between Kennesaw and the north side of Cartersville. There is a reason that Interstate 75 makes those very awkward sharp directional curves near Acworth, GA. IIRC, Interstate 75's original routing plans called for it to go diagonally northwest, and mostly straight, across Allatoona Lake. Due to the way it crossed the lake and the land around it, there was massive environemental opposition to this routing. It took a long time for a decision to be made of what to actually do, because the opposition was so intense. This is why, if I recall correctly, this section of I-75 in the northwestern corner of the Atlanta Metro Area was the last segment to be completed on the entire interstate, which was in the late 1970's (in its original routing - not counting the extension in Florida south of Tampa that happened later on due to southwest Florida growth). All this is why Interstate 75 goes due west through the Atlanta suburb of Acworth. It is possible that this may be the largest controversy in the building of interstates in Georgia that has happened. It definitely had some significant effects on lots of things, including a drastic change in routing, an extremely delayed completion time for this section of I-75, and more.

Even without talking about this specific controversy, I-75 may already be quite controversial, because it is at least 6 lanes throughout almost the entire state, it has a large abundance of billboards and development along it, and there is always more work (resurfacings, widenings, other things) that needs to be done on it.

Some other Georgians would have to confirm if the state's most controversial interstate is in fact I-75.

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 09, 2018, 12:47:27 PM
In VA? Probably I-81, or the widening thereof.

The City of Richmond reeeeeeally didn't want I-295 (or VA 288), either.

I might have gone with the portion of I-66 inside the Beltway as an historical matter, given how Arlington held it up and forced the Coleman Decision, and I guess now the media want to make the HO/T operations into a big controversy. Arlington fought like heck against that road.

I suppose the other 64 miles were less controversial, though.

In Utah, 2 of the 5 interstates have had some level of controversy associated with them: I-70 and I-215.

The southeastern quadrant of I-215 was challenged by citizens and environmental groups, resulting in a long legal battle that delayed the completion of the route from the mid 1970s to 1989. In the end, the proposed alignment was moved to the south, and a proposed cloverleaf interchange at Highland Dr was changed to a diamond with an extra flyover ramp. In addition, the portion west of I-15 was also criticized for being placed too close to other major arterials like Redwood Rd, and it is only 2.5 miles west of mainline I-15, somewhat reducing its effectiveness as a bypass route.

I-70 was also controversial, given that originally it was supposed to follow the US 6 corridor northwest from Green River through Price to I-15 at Spanish Fork (providing a direct Interstate connection between Denver and Salt Lake City). The federal government, however, decided that I-70 would be more useful as a Denver-LA highway, routing it southwest from Green River through Richfield to Cove Fort (where it runs today). The state attempted a compromise where I-70 would run slightly further north in order to serve more cities in Emery County, but that was blocked as well, resulting in the final routing.

In Oregon the never-built Mount Hood Freeway likely takes the cake for most controversial freeway.  The latest big brouhaha was replacing the Interstate bridges on I-5 crossing the Columbia River. 

Rick

Minnesota: I-94 on St. Paul's west side. It was routed directly through a thriving black neighborhood, pretty much resulting in its complete destruction. The city of St. Paul gave a public apology for this action a couple years ago and numerous monuments and an annual festival commemorate the neighborhood that was lost.

One could argue that it was the section of 35E in St. Paul that was held up for years resulting in the infamous 45 MPH section, but that doesn't have the increasingly dark legacy attached.

For Louisiana I was going to say I-49 for the current fights over the downtown paths it should take in both Lafayette and Shreveport. But I-10 probably has more. I'm sure the swamp section between Lafayette and Baton Rouge took years of environmental studies and hurdles to create. The ongoing talks of taking away the Claiborne Elevated section in New Orleans. I'd wager there was probably controversy over the swamp section west of New Orleans aka the Bonnet Carret spillway. And the current fights over what to do with the traffic snarls at the MS river bridge and I-10/I-110 split in Baton Rouge.


iPhone

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 09, 2018, 12:47:27 PM
In VA? Probably I-81, or the widening thereof.

The City of Richmond reeeeeeally didn't want I-295 (or VA 288), either.

My choice would be I-73, but of interstates that actually exist, yes. 

Quote from: froggie on April 09, 2018, 12:51:50 PM
To add to Virginia, there's also I-66 (arguably larger controversy than I-81, especially regarding initial construction)

Really just the part inside the Beltway and especially through Arlington County. The intense controversy over the initial construction was rekindled when VDOT proposed adding some auxiliary lanes (that took an act of Congress, to override the agreement limiting the highway to four lanes within Arlington County), and then again when the freeway became HO/T with the part of the tolls to pay for more widening.

In Hawaii, Interstate H-3 was intensely controversial, including claims of a "hewa" (curse) on the freeway since it passed through an allegedly sacred valley. That too required an act of Congress, to override a court decision blocking construction of a different H-3 segment. The Interstate plans were set into motion during the Vietnam War after the military groused about the difficulty of moving troops around the island (including my father, who was sent to Vietnam twice), but the war was over for about a quarter-century before H-3 was finally completed.

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 09, 2018, 05:32:02 PM
I might have gone with the portion of I-66 inside the Beltway as an historical matter, given how Arlington held it up and forced the Coleman Decision, and I guess now the media want to make the HO/T operations into a big controversy. Arlington fought like heck against that road.

I-66 between I-495 and Rosslyn, 9.6 miles, by far the most controversial Interstate segment in Virginia.

The original eight-lane I-66 proposal inside the Beltway was blocked due to citizen opposition and a decision by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. I-66 was downscaled to four lanes (2 each way), with HOV-4 rush hour restrictions (meaning that a vehicle must have at least 4 persons onboard to legally use the highway) in the peak direction (years later reduced to HOV-3, and then to HOV-2), and with no large trucks allowed at any time.

Construction spanned from 1977 to 1982. The Vienna (K) Route (Orange Line) Metrorail extension from the Ballston Station to the Vienna Station was opened in 1986.  The Metro line was planned to occupy the median of I-66 west of Glebe Road in Arlington.

Quote from: nexus73 on April 09, 2018, 07:16:51 PM
In Oregon the never-built Mount Hood Freeway likely takes the cake for most controversial freeway.  The latest big brouhaha was replacing the Interstate bridges on I-5 crossing the Columbia River. 

Rick

For the cancelleds, definitely I-80N along the Mount Hood.
I-505 in Northwest Portland probably qualifies.
I-205's Yellowbook alignments.

For what got built: I-205 along 95th Ave. There was some serious effort to get it cancelled.
And, of course, the Columbia River Crossing replacing the Interstate Bridge.

Quote from: Big John on April 09, 2018, 01:13:41 PM
I-43 in Wisconsin was built with protests of farmers as it cut through prime farmland.

That certainly seems lost in the more recent ones - I-41, I-894 (maybe)

In Oklahoma, I don't know of any real opposition to the Interstates. Some turnpikes have drawn a fair bit of opposition, but none of them were Interstates.

I've spent pretty much my entire shift tonight trying to think of one for NC, and not counting the roadgeek opposition to I-87 I really can't think of one.

The closest I can think of was the battle (if you can even call it one) between the US-70 corridor and the US-117 corridor for the final section of I-40 in the 70's and 80's but looking back on it I don't think there was much controversy in that either. The Wilmington section just wanted it more than the New Bern-Morehead City section did-and they had the political muscle in Jim Hunt to get it done. Most of the old timers that lived here during that time frame that I have talked to really didn't want a cross country Interstate coming to the Crystal Coast. Back then they were concerned that it would alter the out in the country living that they had enjoyed their whole lives.

Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 09, 2018, 05:19:21 PM
Some other Georgians would have to confirm if the state's most controversial interstate is in fact I-75.

Limiting the discussion to Interstates that were actually built (otherwise I-485 would probably be the winner), I-75 is probably the best candidate, both for the reasons you mentioned and for the routing of the Downtown Connector through Atlanta, which resulted in the loss of several minority neighborhoods. In the present day, there are proposals being bandied about to "stitch" together the street grid in the northern part of downtown in the vicinity of exits 249A/B by capping the freeway.

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on April 09, 2018, 01:09:09 PM
Indiana's infamous I-69 is sure up there.

It isn't designated as an interstate yet, but the Louisville East End Bridge would be up there also

I-35 north of Ames, in Iowa, earned some lawsuits prior to construction for the section that angles SW-NE.  Ostensibly, the farmers were PO'd as farm fields to accommodate an Interstate not running mostly N-S or E-W are annoying to farm with all the resultant triangular shaped pieces.  As I recall, the 'real' reason had to do with communities that would have been along the Interstate (and wanted to be along it) if the diagonal bit was much further north, or if the diagonal bit was instead an E-W concurrency with I-90.

I'll probably say I-82, for two reasons: It's now completely north of I-84, and has more of a north-south angle than an east-west one, thus more deserving of an odd number.

Quote from: slorydn1 on April 10, 2018, 05:30:27 AM
I've spent pretty much my entire shift tonight trying to think of one for NC, and not counting the roadgeek opposition to I-87 I really can't think of one.

Heh.  NC is ultra-pro-development and ultra-pro-growth.  Growth-control advocacy groups are/were behind nearly every freeway controversy in the U.S., and NC doesn't have any such groups of significance.

Quote from: slorydn1 on April 10, 2018, 05:30:27 AM
I've spent pretty much my entire shift tonight trying to think of one for NC, and not counting the roadgeek opposition to I-87 I really can't think of one.

I'd nominate the I-26 expansion in Asheville and the amount of reconstruction that's going to be required at the US 19/US 23/I-240 interchange.

As far as NIMBYs and BANANAs, WV really did not have that relative to the interstates, that was reserved for the still uncompleted Corridor H. 

The main issue in WV, historically, was we built our interstates (and corridors) roughly in reverse order of importance, mostly due to issues relating to keeping tolls on the Turnpike and the routing of I-64. 

I-64 had two controversial issues.  As it ended up being built, it zigs and zags through the Charleston area, crossing the same river four times, plus and on-off ramp that is also a bridge over the river, thus ending up on the same side of said river it started on.  This was mostly for two reasons, crossing in South Charleston to provide direct access to what was then a Union Carbide research center (since mostly broken up and a state owned white elephant) ; and then through the center of town, which was mostly "slum clearance".  Most towns of Charleston's size were simply bypassed. 

The other was the route of 64 between Charleston and Lewisburg.  Whether to follow US 60, which was the shortest route or to, as it ended up, multi-plex with I-77 (the turnpike) and push all the 64 traffic onto a toll road. 

Quote from: Rothman on April 09, 2018, 12:38:14 PM
NY?

I-95, Cross Bronx, the One Mile of which Caro wrote.

I-895, most likely being boulevarded

I-81 viaduct, stupid tunnel advocates wasting money on what should be a replacement of some sort.

I-278, the Gowanus.  Also see Caro.

Probably others, but it's lunch time and I am out. :D

I-787. The hipsters at All Over Albany want it removed south of I-90. Don't know how seriously NYSDOT is considering that one given that the entire thing has upwards of 40,000 vehicles/day.

Quote from: slorydn1 on April 10, 2018, 05:30:27 AM
I've spent pretty much my entire shift tonight trying to think of one for NC, and not counting the roadgeek opposition to I-87 I really can't think of one.

That so-called opposition, like I-99 in PA and now NY, has more to do with the route number selection not the planning & construction of the highway corridor itself.

Quote from: Henry on April 10, 2018, 09:50:24 AMI'll probably say I-82, for two reasons: It's now completely north of I-84, and has more of a north-south angle than an east-west one, thus more deserving of an odd number.

Prior to 1980, I-84 was I-80N.

The OP is asking for the most controversial Interstate in terms of planning and/or building not so much as the route number.  That said, unless there's some local info. out there that says otherwise; I-82 doesn't meet what the OP's looking for.

Quote from: Jardine on April 10, 2018, 09:46:13 AM
I-35 north of Ames, in Iowa, earned some lawsuits prior to construction for the section that angles SW-NE.  Ostensibly, the farmers were PO'd as farm fields to accommodate an Interstate not running mostly N-S or E-W are annoying to farm with all the resultant triangular shaped pieces.  As I recall, the 'real' reason had to do with communities that would have been along the Interstate (and wanted to be along it) if the diagonal bit was much further north, or if the diagonal bit was instead an E-W concurrency with I-90.

I was going to say the same thing about farmers being against diagonal interstates, but in the context of I-380 between Cedar Rapids and Waterloo (and, slightly off-topic, IA 330 NE of Des Moines). I actually wasn't aware of the opposition to the diagonal section of I-35.

Quote from: hbelkins on April 10, 2018, 10:16:24 AM

Quote from: slorydn1 on April 10, 2018, 05:30:27 AM
I've spent pretty much my entire shift tonight trying to think of one for NC, and not counting the roadgeek opposition to I-87 I really can't think of one.

I'd nominate the I-26 expansion in Asheville and the amount of reconstruction that's going to be required at the US 19/US 23/I-240 interchange.

I can't find it now, but I remember reading about sizable protests to the Beaucatcher cut on I-240 in Asheville.

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 10, 2018, 03:22:26 PM

Quote from: slorydn1 on April 10, 2018, 05:30:27 AM
I've spent pretty much my entire shift tonight trying to think of one for NC, and not counting the roadgeek opposition to I-87 I really can't think of one.

That so-called opposition, like I-99 in PA and now NY, has more to do with the route number selection not the planning & construction of the highway corridor itself.

You might want to take a good look at the I-87 thread. There are vocal posters who do not think US-64/US-17 should become an interstate at ALL. The numbering issue is just the tip of the iceberg.

Quote from: LM117 on April 10, 2018, 05:39:17 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 10, 2018, 03:22:26 PM

Quote from: slorydn1 on April 10, 2018, 05:30:27 AM
I've spent pretty much my entire shift tonight trying to think of one for NC, and not counting the roadgeek opposition to I-87 I really can't think of one.

That so-called opposition, like I-99 in PA and now NY, has more to do with the route number selection not the planning & construction of the highway corridor itself.

You might want to take a good look at the I-87 thread. There are vocal posters who do not think US-64/US-17 should become an interstate at ALL. The numbering issue is just the tip of the iceberg.

Eh, from experience, 95-58 is painful. A 70 MPH Interstate to bypass it would be nice.

Quote from: cl94 on April 10, 2018, 05:45:56 PM

Quote from: LM117 on April 10, 2018, 05:39:17 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 10, 2018, 03:22:26 PM

Quote from: slorydn1 on April 10, 2018, 05:30:27 AM
I've spent pretty much my entire shift tonight trying to think of one for NC, and not counting the roadgeek opposition to I-87 I really can't think of one.

That so-called opposition, like I-99 in PA and now NY, has more to do with the route number selection not the planning & construction of the highway corridor itself.

You might want to take a good look at the I-87 thread. There are vocal posters who do not think US-64/US-17 should become an interstate at ALL. The numbering issue is just the tip of the iceberg.

Eh, from experience, 95-58 is painful. A 70 MPH Interstate to bypass it would be nice.

With me personally, the biggest issue is the numbering. It being an interstate corridor itself is a good idea in my opinion, but I strongly think that it should rather have been numbered I-46.

But the point, of course, is that not everybody is okay with the interstate highway itself either, as some people don't want it to be an interstate at all, as was noted.

Quote from: cl94 on April 10, 2018, 01:05:01 PM
I-787. The hipsters at All Over Albany want it removed south of I-90. Don't know how seriously NYSDOT is considering that one given that the entire thing has upwards of 40,000 vehicles/day.

I'd go with I-81.  There are regularly articles and opinion pieces in the news on both sides of the issue.  I don't see the same with I-787; plus the fact that it was just rehabbed means it isn't at the forefront of the public's mind outside of the activist communities, unlike I-81.  There is no serious consideration towards removing  I-787 within the next 20-25 years.  After that, who knows.

(personal opinion)

Quote from: cl94 on April 10, 2018, 05:45:56 PM

Quote from: LM117 on April 10, 2018, 05:39:17 PM
You might want to take a good look at the I-87 thread. There are vocal posters who do not think US-64/US-17 should become an interstate at ALL. The numbering issue is just the tip of the iceberg.

Eh, from experience, 95-58 is painful. A 70 MPH Interstate to bypass it would be nice.

It's not so much opposition to the idea of having an interstate bypass of the existing routes, rather than an interstate connecting Raleigh and Norfolk should do just that in the most efficient manner possible, rather than meander through every town in northeastern NC.

The Creek Turnpike in Oklahoma was controversial when the section between Memorial and the Arkansas River was being planned and built. Whether the Creek Turnpike is an Interstate or not is in question. From https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-044.html:

The SAFETEA-LU of 2005 added the Creek Turnpike as a future segment of the Interstate Highway System. However, no numerical designation was assigned. The language is found in Section 1908(a)(1), INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ROUTE SEGMENTS ON INTERSTATE SYSTEM AND NHS:

CREEK TURNPIKE, OKLAHOMA.-The Secretary shall designate as part of the Interstate System (as defined in section 101 of title 23, United States Code) in accordance with section 103(c)(4) of such title the portion of the Creek Turnpike connecting Interstate Route 44 east and west of Tulsa, Oklahoma.

As such, the Creek Turnpike is signed with Joplin and Oklahoma City for long-distance travelers along I-44 headed through Tulsa. It was given the designation of SH 364 by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation on March 10, 2014. The same minutes included the numbering of SH 351 for the previously unnumbered portions of the Muskogee Turnpike from Tulsa southeast to I-40 near Webbers Falls.

Quote from: Jardine on April 10, 2018, 09:46:13 AM
I-35 north of Ames, in Iowa, earned some lawsuits prior to construction for the section that angles SW-NE.  Ostensibly, the farmers were PO'd as farm fields to accommodate an Interstate not running mostly N-S or E-W are annoying to farm with all the resultant triangular shaped pieces.  As I recall, the 'real' reason had to do with communities that would have been along the Interstate (and wanted to be along it) if the diagonal bit was much further north, or if the diagonal bit was instead an E-W concurrency with I-90.

The original plan for I-35 was for it to angle SW from Albert Lea to the Iowa border along US 69 before turning back southward, which is also reflected in some of the late 1950s Minnesota state maps. Mason City was the one who largely pushed for I-35 to be routed along US 65 instead in northern Iowa.

Quote from: hbelkins on April 10, 2018, 10:16:24 AM

Quote from: slorydn1 on April 10, 2018, 05:30:27 AM
I've spent pretty much my entire shift tonight trying to think of one for NC, and not counting the roadgeek opposition to I-87 I really can't think of one.

I'd nominate the I-26 expansion in Asheville and the amount of reconstruction that's going to be required at the US 19/US 23/I-240 interchange.

That, along with the required construction to bring US 19/23/25/70 up to interstate standards since that section is technically "Future I-26" and has been that way for a very long time now.

Quote from: cl94 on April 10, 2018, 05:45:56 PM

Quote from: LM117 on April 10, 2018, 05:39:17 PM
You might want to take a good look at the I-87 thread. There are vocal posters who do not think US-64/US-17 should become an interstate at ALL. The numbering issue is just the tip of the iceberg.

Eh, from experience, 95-58 is painful. A 70 MPH Interstate to bypass it would be nice.

Not when it would be 20 to 25 miles longer.  And I-95 has 70 mph.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 10, 2018, 09:12:59 PM

Quote from: Jardine on April 10, 2018, 09:46:13 AM
I-35 north of Ames, in Iowa, earned some lawsuits prior to construction for the section that angles SW-NE.  Ostensibly, the farmers were PO'd as farm fields to accommodate an Interstate not running mostly N-S or E-W are annoying to farm with all the resultant triangular shaped pieces.  As I recall, the 'real' reason had to do with communities that would have been along the Interstate (and wanted to be along it) if the diagonal bit was much further north, or if the diagonal bit was instead an E-W concurrency with I-90.

The original plan for I-35 was for it to angle SW from Albert Lea to the Iowa border along US 69 before turning back southward, which is also reflected in some of the late 1950s Minnesota state maps. Mason City was the one who largely pushed for I-35 to be routed along US 65 instead in northern Iowa.

There were actually two prior plans for I-35 south of Albert Lea before the approved decision to go straight south and angle in Iowa.  The original 1957 plan (which lasted at least until 1960) had the concurrency with I-90 that Jardine noted...it would have turned south from I-90 about a mile west of MN 13.  The early 1960s plan removed the I-90 concurrency, having I-35 continuing south across Albert Lea Lake, but then turned it westward past US 65/Exit 8 and passing through the Twin Lakes before following the US 69 corridor (west of 69 proper) into Iowa.

Washington:

I-90 between Seattle and Bellevue. Wasn't finished until 1993 after decades of environmental litigation, design changes, a botched bridge repair (that resulted in the sinking of the 1940 floating span), and other construction hiccups.

I-5 is a close second, given that it involved leveling a bit of the city (including part of the Chinatown area...totally not influenced by that, nope).

Quote from: hbelkins on April 10, 2018, 10:16:24 AM

Quote from: slorydn1 on April 10, 2018, 05:30:27 AM
I've spent pretty much my entire shift tonight trying to think of one for NC, and not counting the roadgeek opposition to I-87 I really can't think of one.

I'd nominate the I-26 expansion in Asheville and the amount of reconstruction that's going to be required at the US 19/US 23/I-240 interchange.

Yes, yes, yes. I don't know how I forgot about this, as much as I go up there every year. NCDOT has been wanting to fix this for over a decade and the locals fight it tooth and nail. They seem to like their congestion just the way it is, thank you very much.

TX:

I'm not sure on just one.

* I-35, for its amount of traffic and reconstruction.
* I-45, for its opposition during construction.
* I-69, for the split into 3 southern ends, long time to be done, and no direct connection yet through some of its other planned states
* I-345, for its perceived barrier between downtown Dallas and its nearest eastern neighbors, and the resultant desire of some to have it torn down, despite its logical connection to any future northward extension of I-45.

Quote from: slorydn1 on April 11, 2018, 03:55:22 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on April 10, 2018, 10:16:24 AM

Quote from: slorydn1 on April 10, 2018, 05:30:27 AM
I've spent pretty much my entire shift tonight trying to think of one for NC, and not counting the roadgeek opposition to I-87 I really can't think of one.

I'd nominate the I-26 expansion in Asheville and the amount of reconstruction that's going to be required at the US 19/US 23/I-240 interchange.

Yes, yes, yes. I don't know how I forgot about this, as much as I go up there every year. NCDOT has been wanting to fix this for over a decade and the locals fight it tooth and nail. They seem to like their congestion just the way it is, thank you very much.

...then they complain that NCDOT ignores them in favor of other areas of the state. Go figure.

In IL, it would be I-355. I remember that there was a lot of opposition to its proposed routing through the wetlands, and the Sierra Club tried to alter the section that runs from Glen Ellyn to Lombard.

Closer to town, there were the I-494 Crosstown Expressway and the I-694 Stony Island Avenue/LSD upgrades, neither of which were built due to fierce opposition. Although I'm glad the latter was never built, I do wish the former had been, because it would've provided a western bypass of the Loop.

For Virginia, I would agree with I-66 inside the beltway (definitely controversial) but I'm voting I-95 through Richmond (though it wasn't an interstate when first opened), specifically through Jackson Ward

I thought I would add I-57 on here due to the recent politics and news surrounding it. It would be awesome to have a direct link to Chicago from NLR... All in due time, I suppose.

Among roadgeeks, that's gotta be I-41 for Wisconsin.

But among the 'normies' out there ( :-D ), I'd say the various improvements and attempted improvements to I-94 in Milwaukee probably make it the most controversial interstate.  To the point that the courts ordered WisDOT to pay money for transit to offset socioeconomic shortcomings of their Zoo Interchange study.
The Marquette Interchange project made for a lot of hand-wringing out there.
We have the Stadium Interchange project that was shelved. (Grrr...)
I lived there during the Mitchell Interchange reconstruction; that one was a little smoother.
The eight lane expansion to Illinois has seen its fair share of heat.  Now it's wrapped up in that whole Foxconn handout so there's a lot more opinions flying around than before.

Historically, in the ultimate F-U to mass transit, some of the East-West Freeway appropriated former rail transit right of way when it was constructed.  It also sliced through a cemetery in the one place where it deviated from said rail line.
Not quite a controversy, but it's noteworthy that construction of I-94's bridge over the St. Croix River was a bit of an engineering snafu back in the day.

Further afield, we've got cancelled expansion plans between Madison and The Dells.

I think that beats any current or former drama with I-43.  (I'm glad Wisconsin screwed up its initial attempt to build this interstate straight north from Port Washington along the WI 57 corridor.  So much more utility in having it swing by Sheboygan & Manitowoc.)

Quote from: cabiness42 on April 10, 2018, 09:36:49 AM

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on April 09, 2018, 01:09:09 PM
Indiana's infamous I-69 is sure up there.

It isn't designated as an interstate yet, but the Louisville East End Bridge would be up there also

And a corollary to that: the 8664 movement that wanted to remove the waterfront section of I-64 and route east-west traffic along the East End Bridge and via the north half of 265 overall.

Quote from: plain on April 11, 2018, 10:34:50 AM
For Virginia, I would agree with I-66 inside the beltway (definitely controversial) but I'm voting I-95 through Richmond (though it wasn't an interstate when first opened), specifically through Jackson Ward

I didn't live in Virginia then, but the history I've seen about the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike is that none of it was controversial.

For IL, the I-90/I-94 cave in Chicago wasn't controversial?

Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2018, 08:05:56 PM
For IL, the I-90/I-94 cave in Chicago wasn't controversial?

You mean the I-494 Crosstown Expressway?

I favored it at the time, a much-needed middle belt that would have provided an alternate and relief to the I-90/I-94 overlap.  But after all the tens of thousands of residential relocations already with Chicago expressways, another 5 to 7,000 residential relocations would have been very difficult for the city to accommodate.

Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on April 11, 2018, 10:50:17 AM
I thought I would add I-57 on here due to the recent politics and news surrounding it. It would be awesome to have a direct link to Chicago from NLR... All in due time, I suppose.

Has there been any late breaking news regarding I-57?

To keep going on the thread, for Unconstructed Interstates in IL...

The IL 53/120 project (which would potentially be I-355 or I-594), and I'll throw FAP 420 on there, too

I-39 South of Bloomington/Normal to Salem

The Illiana

For a Constructed one in IL:

I-64's final Routing across Southern IL & IN was controversial...and work was done in both states on the "other"  Routing (mainly, the Freeway around Vincennes, IN, but there are sections of US 50 in IL where its clear upgrade work started, then stopped)

Quote from: ilpt4u on April 11, 2018, 10:13:36 PM

Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on April 11, 2018, 10:50:17 AM
I thought I would add I-57 on here due to the recent politics and news surrounding it. It would be awesome to have a direct link to Chicago from NLR... All in due time, I suppose.

Has there been any late breaking news regarding I-57?

I just drafted an email to send tomorrow to ArDOT. We'll see!

Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2018, 09:15:07 PM

Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2018, 08:05:56 PM
For IL, the I-90/I-94 cave in Chicago wasn't controversial?

You mean the I-494 Crosstown Expressway?

I favored it at the time, a much-needed middle belt that would have provided an alternate and relief to the I-90/I-94 overlap.  But after all the tens of thousands of residential relocations already with Chicago expressways, another 5 to 7,000 residential relocations would have been very difficult for the city to accommodate.

I was just thinking of the stretch of I-90/I-94 with all those ramps and the like.  I would have thought the building of the expressways closer to The Loop would have been more controversial at some point than I-355.

I am coming from having grown up in MA with the backlash over the Mass Pike Extension, so I just wonder if there was anything similar in Chicago's evolution.

Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2018, 11:47:40 PM

Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2018, 09:15:07 PM
You mean the I-494 Crosstown Expressway?
I favored it at the time, a much-needed middle belt that would have provided an alternate and relief to the I-90/I-94 overlap.  But after all the tens of thousands of residential relocations already with Chicago expressways, another 5 to 7,000 residential relocations would have been very difficult for the city to accommodate.

I was just thinking of the stretch of I-90/I-94 with all those ramps and the like.  I would have thought the building of the expressways closer to The Loop would have been more controversial at some point than I-355.
I am coming from having grown up in MA with the backlash over the Mass Pike Extension, so I just wonder if there was anything similar in Chicago's evolution.

I have read about the considerable controversy over the Mass Pike Extension from Route 128 into the downtown.

The Daley Machine (Richard J. Daley, mayor 1955-1976) made sure that the city expressways were built with a minumum of controversy.  The only big controversy was over the one that wasn't built, I-494 Crosstown.

Quote from: slorydn1 on April 10, 2018, 05:30:27 AM
I've spent pretty much my entire shift tonight trying to think of one for NC, and not counting the roadgeek opposition to I-87 I really can't think of one.

Pretty sure half the interstates in Charlotte qualify, in some form or another. Construction of interstates in urban areas require taking land...and it often tore through neighborhoods inhabited primarily by non-white people.

For example: I-277 passes through the historic Second Ward, once the majority-black neighborhood of Brooklyn (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article66934337.html), and left to rot under the guise of urban renewal. Hundreds of residents (https://www.thenation.com/article/black-charlotte-is-frustrated-and-thats-by-design/) were displaced to less than ideal conditions on the city's west side.

Quote from: Bruce on April 12, 2018, 03:28:12 AM

Quote from: slorydn1 on April 10, 2018, 05:30:27 AM
I've spent pretty much my entire shift tonight trying to think of one for NC, and not counting the roadgeek opposition to I-87 I really can't think of one.

Pretty sure half the interstates in Charlotte qualify, in some form or another. Construction of interstates in urban areas require taking land...and it often tore through neighborhoods inhabited primarily by non-white people.

For example: I-277 passes through the historic Second Ward, once the majority-black neighborhood of Brooklyn (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article66934337.html), and left to rot under the guise of urban renewal. Hundreds of residents (https://www.thenation.com/article/black-charlotte-is-frustrated-and-thats-by-design/) were displaced to less than ideal conditions on the city's west side.

It truly is terrible when a state has to displace residents of a city just to build an Interstate. Anyone know if a state would provide some sort of accommodations?

Quote from: sparker on April 09, 2018, 01:52:03 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on April 09, 2018, 01:30:38 PM
California:

I-710 in South Pasadena
the former I-480 in San Francisco, now demolished
the proposed I-80 extension (Western Freeway) of the 1960s, which would have continued west (along the Panhandle park) from the 1991-2005 terminus of the Central Freeway to the unbuilt original I-280 alignment paralleling 19th Avenue in Golden Gate Park. IIRC this was the primary focus of the San Francisco freeway revolts, more than any other corridor
I-105
the unbuilt I-80 realignment along the railroad tracks in North Sacramento/Arden, parallel to today's Business 80/Route 51

And............to roadgeeks only............I-238!

And the longest running controversy is the Southern Crossing from I-238 to I-380 because it was supposed to alleviate traffic from the Bay Bridge and redirect Traffic From San Leandro to South San Francisco/San Bruno area

Any un-built Interstate.

I's 82/84, 284, 484, and 491

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2018, 01:03:32 PM
Any un-built Interstate.

I's 82/84, 284, 484, and 491

Add I-291 to the list.  Took 40 years to get the part completed that was actually built, and then you have the environmentalists who killed the northwest portion and the NIMBY's who killed the Rocky-Hill New Britain portion. 

Nevada doesn't have too many candidates, but some Las Vegas politicians didn't care at all for the allegedly "unneccessary and overbuilt" I-580 link between South Reno and Washoe Valley.  They thought the money should be spent, where else, in Las Vegas.

https://lasvegassun.com/news/2012/aug/08/nevadas-most-expensive-highway-helps-politicians-s/ (https://lasvegassun.com/news/2012/aug/08/nevadas-most-expensive-highway-helps-politicians-s/)

QuoteIt will carry an estimated 25,000 vehicles a day – less than a tenth the number of vehicles who survive the Spaghetti Bowl in Las Vegas each day.

And the cost? More than a half-billion-with-a-b dollars.

...

But to critics, the project was a boondoggle – our own "bridge to nowhere,"  as Clark County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani called it when she was in the Assembly.

...

Some Southern Nevadans say the highway was built so Northern Nevadans could strut.

"I think it's widely acknowledged as primarily a flex pose in the mirror, designed to celebrate the political might of a couple of Washoe County legislators,"  said Las Vegas City Councilman Bob Beers, who was also a legislator as this project was approved. (The late state Sen. Bill Raggio, R-Reno, and late Gov. Kenny Guinn were both honored at the groundbreaking.)

The bypassed stretch of US 395 through Pleasant Valley was awful.  I'm not a build freeways everywhere type but thank goodness this freeway was built.  Giunchigliani is a candidate for governor in the Democratic primary this year, and I haven't forgotten the comments.

Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on April 12, 2018, 11:45:36 AM

Quote from: Bruce on April 12, 2018, 03:28:12 AM

Quote from: slorydn1 on April 10, 2018, 05:30:27 AM
I've spent pretty much my entire shift tonight trying to think of one for NC, and not counting the roadgeek opposition to I-87 I really can't think of one.

Pretty sure half the interstates in Charlotte qualify, in some form or another. Construction of interstates in urban areas require taking land...and it often tore through neighborhoods inhabited primarily by non-white people.

For example: I-277 passes through the historic Second Ward, once the majority-black neighborhood of Brooklyn (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article66934337.html), and left to rot under the guise of urban renewal. Hundreds of residents (https://www.thenation.com/article/black-charlotte-is-frustrated-and-thats-by-design/) were displaced to less than ideal conditions on the city's west side.

It truly is terrible when a state has to displace residents of a city just to build an Interstate. Anyone know if a state would provide some sort of accommodations?

Yes. States buy property that is taken under eminent domain, then they also pay relocation expenses. They also assist with relocation options for renters.

Quote from: hbelkinsYes. States buy property that is taken under eminent domain, then they also pay relocation expenses. They also assist with relocation options for renters.

Mainly because it was forced upon them by the courts.  There was a time, back when much of the Interstate system was being built, where states did not do this.

Quote from: froggie on April 14, 2018, 06:45:06 PM

Quote from: hbelkinsYes. States buy property that is taken under eminent domain, then they also pay relocation expenses. They also assist with relocation options for renters.

Mainly because it was forced upon them by the courts.  There was a time, back when much of the Interstate system was being built, where states did not do this.

Not my understanding.  Paying relocation expenses and assisting with relocation options long predated the Interstate system.

Delaware only has three, so it's likely not as controversial as some others listed, but I-295 was subject to NIMBY and problems agreeing on the route between DE, NJ, and PA.

Quote from: Beltway on April 14, 2018, 07:59:08 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 14, 2018, 06:45:06 PM

Quote from: hbelkinsYes. States buy property that is taken under eminent domain, then they also pay relocation expenses. They also assist with relocation options for renters.

Mainly because it was forced upon them by the courts.  There was a time, back when much of the Interstate system was being built, where states did not do this.

Not my understanding.  Paying relocation expenses and assisting with relocation options long predated the Interstate system.

May not have been the case everywhere.

The Mass Pike Extension was a classic case of abuse of eminent domain.  MA purchased properties for a $1 and kicked residents out.

Also, the Cross-Bronx, where it is claimed the evictors were just a short distance ahead of the bulldozers.

Quote from: froggie on April 15, 2018, 08:31:37 AM

Quote from: Beltway on April 14, 2018, 07:59:08 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 14, 2018, 06:45:06 PM

Quote from: hbelkinsYes. States buy property that is taken under eminent domain, then they also pay relocation expenses. They also assist with relocation options for renters.

Mainly because it was forced upon them by the courts.  There was a time, back when much of the Interstate system was being built, where states did not do this.

Not my understanding.  Paying relocation expenses and assisting with relocation options long predated the Interstate system.

May not have been the case everywhere.

Nothing in the world is necessarily universal.  Robert Caro's book about Moses makes a lot of anti-road claims that have been disputed since then, particularly about the Cross-Bronx Expressway.

Quote from: Beltway on April 15, 2018, 02:58:12 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 15, 2018, 08:31:37 AM

Quote from: Beltway on April 14, 2018, 07:59:08 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 14, 2018, 06:45:06 PM

Quote from: hbelkinsYes. States buy property that is taken under eminent domain, then they also pay relocation expenses. They also assist with relocation options for renters.

Mainly because it was forced upon them by the courts.  There was a time, back when much of the Interstate system was being built, where states did not do this.

Not my understanding.  Paying relocation expenses and assisting with relocation options long predated the Interstate system.

May not have been the case everywhere.

Nothing in the world is necessarily universal.  Robert Caro's book about Moses makes a lot of anti-road claims that have been disputed since then, particularly about the Cross-Bronx Expressway.

[citation needed]

Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 03:57:23 PM

Quote from: Beltway on April 15, 2018, 02:58:12 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 15, 2018, 08:31:37 AM

Quote from: Beltway on April 14, 2018, 07:59:08 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 14, 2018, 06:45:06 PM

Quote from: hbelkinsYes. States buy property that is taken under eminent domain, then they also pay relocation expenses. They also assist with relocation options for renters.

Mainly because it was forced upon them by the courts.  There was a time, back when much of the Interstate system was being built, where states did not do this.

Not my understanding.  Paying relocation expenses and assisting with relocation options long predated the Interstate system.

May not have been the case everywhere.

Nothing in the world is necessarily universal.  Robert Caro's book about Moses makes a lot of anti-road claims that have been disputed since then, particularly about the Cross-Bronx Expressway.

[citation needed]

What kind of citation?  The book has come under a lot of criticism in various roads forums I have participated in over the last 20 years.

The Wikipedia entry for the Power Broker includes this --

Response from Moses
Moses and his supporters considered the book to be overwhelmingly biased against him, to the point that Moses put out a 23-page typed statement challenging some of its assertions (he claimed he never used the anti-Italian slurs the book attributes to him about Fiorello La Guardia, for instance) and what his supporters saw as a record of unprecedented accomplishment.

Modern re-assessment
In later years, some further criticisms have been made of the book. In the 21st century, as many have decried the inability of American public institutions to construct and maintain infrastructure projects, a more positive view of Moses's career has emerged, in explicit reaction to his portrayal in The Power Broker. This re-evaluation has included museum exhibits and a 2007 book (Robert Moses and the Modern City) described as having a "revisionist theme running throughout".
....

I have this 210-page book that has a collection of articles that casts Robert Moses in a much more favorable light than Caro's book --
_Robert Moses, Single-Minded Genius_, edited by Joann P. Krieg, Long Island Studies Institute, 1989.

Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 11:51:10 AM
The Mass Pike Extension was a classic case of abuse of eminent domain.  MA purchased properties for a $1 and kicked residents out.

I saw this claim in an anti-roads book years ago, and it didn't make sense.  The Massachusetts Turnpike Boston Extension was built in the early Interstate era, 1961-1965.  Given that such claims were not made about other Interstates and freeways in the state, it appears to me that some of the opponents to what was a controversial project made up these accusations.

While the current controversy in Pennsylvania is I-95's effect in disconnecting Philadelphia with the Delaware River waterfront, I think the most controversial highway was I-476 (Blue Route) around Philly's western suburbs.  The result is a chronically congested four lane section through a very progressive area (Swarthmore).  Ironically, the pollution there is probably higher with all the slow moving traffic than if there were six lanes the entire length of the Blue Route.

Quote from: MASTERNC on April 15, 2018, 09:22:07 PM
While the current controversy in Pennsylvania is I-95's effect in disconnecting Philadelphia with the Delaware River waterfront, I think the most controversial highway was I-476 (Blue Route) around Philly's western suburbs.  The result is a chronically congested four lane section through a very progressive area (Swarthmore).  Ironically, the pollution there is probably higher with all the slow moving traffic than if there were six lanes the entire length of the Blue Route.

But still enormously better than having no I-476 and having PA-320 and PA-252 still having to handle all that north-south traffic in the western suburbs.

Quote from: Beltway on April 15, 2018, 08:34:40 PM

Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 11:51:10 AM
The Mass Pike Extension was a classic case of abuse of eminent domain.  MA purchased properties for a $1 and kicked residents out.

I saw this claim in an anti-roads book years ago, and it didn't make sense.  The Massachusetts Turnpike Boston Extension was built in the early Interstate era, 1961-1965.  Given that such claims were not made about other Interstates and freeways in the state, it appears to me that some of the opponents to what was a controversial project made up these accusations.

My source is Fred Salvucci himself, former Secretary of Transportation of Massachusetts, whose grandmother was evicted to make way for the Extension.  Residents were given $1 at time of eviction; some did receive half of their appraised value later on, though.

Quote from: Beltway on April 15, 2018, 08:27:00 PM

Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 03:57:23 PM

Quote from: Beltway on April 15, 2018, 02:58:12 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 15, 2018, 08:31:37 AM

Quote from: Beltway on April 14, 2018, 07:59:08 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 14, 2018, 06:45:06 PM

Quote from: hbelkinsYes. States buy property that is taken under eminent domain, then they also pay relocation expenses. They also assist with relocation options for renters.

Mainly because it was forced upon them by the courts.  There was a time, back when much of the Interstate system was being built, where states did not do this.

Not my understanding.  Paying relocation expenses and assisting with relocation options long predated the Interstate system.

May not have been the case everywhere.

Nothing in the world is necessarily universal.  Robert Caro's book about Moses makes a lot of anti-road claims that have been disputed since then, particularly about the Cross-Bronx Expressway.

[citation needed]

What kind of citation?  The book has come under a lot of criticism in various roads forums I have participated in over the last 20 years.

The Wikipedia entry for the Power Broker includes this --

Response from Moses
Moses and his supporters considered the book to be overwhelmingly biased against him, to the point that Moses put out a 23-page typed statement challenging some of its assertions (he claimed he never used the anti-Italian slurs the book attributes to him about Fiorello La Guardia, for instance) and what his supporters saw as a record of unprecedented accomplishment.

Modern re-assessment
In later years, some further criticisms have been made of the book. In the 21st century, as many have decried the inability of American public institutions to construct and maintain infrastructure projects, a more positive view of Moses's career has emerged, in explicit reaction to his portrayal in The Power Broker. This re-evaluation has included museum exhibits and a 2007 book (Robert Moses and the Modern City) described as having a "revisionist theme running throughout".
....

I have this 210-page book that has a collection of articles that casts Robert Moses in a much more favorable light than Caro's book --
_Robert Moses, Single-Minded Genius_, edited by Joann P. Krieg, Long Island Studies Institute, 1989.

Where is the assertion that Caro's description of the eminent domain process in the case of the Cross Bronx was inaccurate?  That's a far cry from arguing against the idea that he used Italian slurs against the Mayor of New York. :D

Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 10:02:03 PM

Quote from: Beltway on April 15, 2018, 08:34:40 PM

Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 11:51:10 AM
The Mass Pike Extension was a classic case of abuse of eminent domain.  MA purchased properties for a $1 and kicked residents out.

I saw this claim in an anti-roads book years ago, and it didn't make sense.  The Massachusetts Turnpike Boston Extension was built in the early Interstate era, 1961-1965.  Given that such claims were not made about other Interstates and freeways in the state, it appears to me that some of the opponents to what was a controversial project made up these accusations.

My source is Fred Salvucci himself, former Secretary of Transportation of Massachusetts, whose grandmother was evicted to make way for the Extension.  Residents were given $1 at time of eviction; some did receive half of their appraised value later on, though.

That doesn't compute.  Someone in his position would have made sure that a family member got an equitable settlement.  Again, why only this project?  Baalloooohhhney.

Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 10:03:34 PM

Quote from: Beltway on April 15, 2018, 08:27:00 PM
I have this 210-page book that has a collection of articles that casts Robert Moses in a much more favorable light than Caro's book --
_Robert Moses, Single-Minded Genius_, edited by Joann P. Krieg, Long Island Studies Institute, 1989.

Where is the assertion that Caro's description of the eminent domain process in the case of the Cross Bronx was inaccurate?  That's a far cry from arguing against the idea that he used Italian slurs against the Mayor of New York. :D

Read the book.  There are 21 articles that provide a much different 'history' than Caro's.

Quote from: Beltway on April 15, 2018, 10:09:37 PM

Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 10:03:34 PM

Quote from: Beltway on April 15, 2018, 08:27:00 PM
I have this 210-page book that has a collection of articles that casts Robert Moses in a much more favorable light than Caro's book --
_Robert Moses, Single-Minded Genius_, edited by Joann P. Krieg, Long Island Studies Institute, 1989.

Where is the assertion that Caro's description of the eminent domain process in the case of the Cross Bronx was inaccurate?  That's a far cry from arguing against the idea that he used Italian slurs against the Mayor of New York. :D

Read the book.  There are 21 articles that provide a much different 'history' than Caro's.

Uh-huh... :D  A paperback book that is essentially out of print?  I suppose I'll check it out, but one wonders why this book has essentially gone the way of the dodo if its arguments were accepted.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=robert+moses+single+minded+genius

Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 10:28:54 PM

Quote from: Beltway on April 15, 2018, 10:09:37 PM

Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 10:03:34 PM

Quote from: Beltway on April 15, 2018, 08:27:00 PM
I have this 210-page book that has a collection of articles that casts Robert Moses in a much more favorable light than Caro's book --
_Robert Moses, Single-Minded Genius_, edited by Joann P. Krieg, Long Island Studies Institute, 1989.

Where is the assertion that Caro's description of the eminent domain process in the case of the Cross Bronx was inaccurate?  That's a far cry from arguing against the idea that he used Italian slurs against the Mayor of New York. :D

Read the book.  There are 21 articles that provide a much different 'history' than Caro's.

Uh-huh... :D  A paperback book that is essentially out of print? 
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=robert+moses+single+minded+genius

You can buy a copy for $49.99.  I have ordered many books about many topics thru Amazon that are out of print, and that sure as heck doesn't invalidate the history.  That just happens to be the one I got when it was in print.

Another positive book was already cited upthread.  There are bound to be others.

Connecticut was barely touched on. For controversy, I'd say I-84 which was supposed to run east towards Providence, RI. The Hop River in Tolland County killed off one section in Connecticut. The only portions built were today's I-384 from East Hartford to Bolton and bit of an expressway US Route 6 outside of Willimantic. Rhode Island's Scituate Reservoir killed off their portion of I-84.

Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 10:28:54 PM

Quote from: Beltway on April 15, 2018, 10:09:37 PM

Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 10:03:34 PM

Quote from: Beltway on April 15, 2018, 08:27:00 PM
I have this 210-page book that has a collection of articles that casts Robert Moses in a much more favorable light than Caro's book --
_Robert Moses, Single-Minded Genius_, edited by Joann P. Krieg, Long Island Studies Institute, 1989.

Where is the assertion that Caro's description of the eminent domain process in the case of the Cross Bronx was inaccurate?  That's a far cry from arguing against the idea that he used Italian slurs against the Mayor of New York. :D

Read the book.  There are 21 articles that provide a much different 'history' than Caro's.

Uh-huh... :D  A paperback book that is essentially out of print?  I suppose I'll check it out, but one wonders why this book has essentially gone the way of the dodo if its arguments were accepted.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=robert+moses+single+minded+genius

Books go out of print all the time.  It doesn't mean they're bad, it means they're no longer selling well.

This one is in lots of college libraries, if you don't feel like shelling out $50 for something you'll probably only read once.

Quote from: MASTERNC on April 15, 2018, 09:22:07 PM
While the current controversy in Pennsylvania is I-95's effect in disconnecting Philadelphia with the Delaware River waterfront, I think the most controversial highway was I-476 (Blue Route) around Philly's western suburbs.  The result is a chronically congested four lane section through a very progressive area (Swarthmore).  Ironically, the pollution there is probably higher with all the slow moving traffic than if there were six lanes the entire length of the Blue Route.

The Blue Route portion of I-476 was already mentioned back on Page 1, Reply #12 in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22589.0). 
I believe that road still holds the title for the most controversial highway in PA that was ever built.

The scaled down portion between PA 3 and MacDade Blvd. that you described was one of the (misguided IMHO) conditions that allowed the road to be built.  Although there room to widen the highway (to six lanes) from the inner shoulders.

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 16, 2018, 02:11:24 PM

Quote from: MASTERNC on April 15, 2018, 09:22:07 PM
While the current controversy in Pennsylvania is I-95's effect in disconnecting Philadelphia with the Delaware River waterfront, I think the most controversial highway was I-476 (Blue Route) around Philly's western suburbs.  The result is a chronically congested four lane section through a very progressive area (Swarthmore).  Ironically, the pollution there is probably higher with all the slow moving traffic than if there were six lanes the entire length of the Blue Route.

The Blue Route portion of I-476 was already mentioned back on Page 1, Reply #12 in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22589.0). 
I believe that road still holds the title for the most controversial highway in PA that was ever built.

Probably so, but not far behind is eastern section of I-676 Vine Street Expressway, and I-95 thru Center City is not far behind that.

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 16, 2018, 02:11:24 PM
The scaled down portion between PA 3 and MacDade Blvd. that you described was one of the (misguided IMHO) conditions that allowed the road to be built.  Although there room to widen the highway (to six lanes) from the inner shoulders.

Probably would have been impossible with that, unfortunately..

Quote from: kkt on April 16, 2018, 02:01:04 AM

Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 10:28:54 PM

Quote from: Beltway on April 15, 2018, 10:09:37 PM

Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 10:03:34 PM

Quote from: Beltway on April 15, 2018, 08:27:00 PM
I have this 210-page book that has a collection of articles that casts Robert Moses in a much more favorable light than Caro's book --
_Robert Moses, Single-Minded Genius_, edited by Joann P. Krieg, Long Island Studies Institute, 1989.

Where is the assertion that Caro's description of the eminent domain process in the case of the Cross Bronx was inaccurate?  That's a far cry from arguing against the idea that he used Italian slurs against the Mayor of New York. :D

Read the book.  There are 21 articles that provide a much different 'history' than Caro's.

Uh-huh... :D  A paperback book that is essentially out of print?  I suppose I'll check it out, but one wonders why this book has essentially gone the way of the dodo if its arguments were accepted.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=robert+moses+single+minded+genius

Books go out of print all the time.  It doesn't mean they're bad, it means they're no longer selling well.

This one is in lots of college libraries, if you don't feel like shelling out $50 for something you'll probably only read once.

Caro's account is FAR from the only one saying that Moses was a power-hungry elitist. He is easily one of the most controversial individuals in modern American history. Active engineers and planners in the Northeast generally view his accomplishments as examples of what not to do.

I will also note that my grandmother grew up a few blocks from that section of the Cross Bronx. The Caro version is pretty much what she remembers.

Quote from: cl94 on April 16, 2018, 02:21:52 PM
Caro's account is FAR from the only one saying that Moses was a power-hungry elitist. He is easily one of the most controversial individuals in modern American history. Active engineers and planners in the Northeast generally view his accomplishments as examples of what not to do.

He was responsible for the creation of 38 city and state parks in NYC, LI and north of the city, that exist today.

Quote from: cl94 on April 16, 2018, 02:21:52 PM
I will also note that my grandmother grew up a few blocks from that section of the Cross Bronx. The Caro version is pretty much what she remembers.

Here is one of the online critical reviews --

The book is a great blueprint on how to get things done. Unfortunately NYC's infrastructure has declined over the past 50 years and it's doubtful anyone in power has learned from Moses or has his spatial skills. Since the Moses days the government replaced many of the builders, engineers, and transportation professionals with lawyers and public administrators. This disrespect of infrastructure spread elsewhere and may partially explain why our national infrastructure spending has plummeted 60% since the Eisenhower years and 30% over the past several years. As for the author it appears he was initially on a mission to be negative of Moses, but it appears Moses grew on him somewhat. Five stars.

One star for the chapter titled "One Mile" - the stretch of the Cross Bronx traversing East Tremont. The book paints a neighborhood of victims, but makes many mistakes and exclusions of the history and design of this stretch of highway:
1. The chapter painted a picture of everyone was blindsided in the 1950's when the XBronx was built- this isn't true. There is no mention that the plan for the highway predated Moses- it was by the Regional Plan Association, back in the 1920's and formalized in the 1930's. Most of the building stock in East Tremont is of masonry steel buildings and built around this time. The developers knew the score. They knew a highway would eventually come and they decided to build anyways- it was a business decision. They were reimbursed when their buildings were condemned. The tenants were the ones who were angry when displaced, though many of them may have known that it was going to eventually happen, yet decided to move in anyways.
2. The author tried to paint East Tremont as a neighborhood that goes back many, many generations. There are some buildings with stone foundations, but once again it appears the bulk of the building stock was built around the time the RPA first came up with the idea for the highway. Pictures of Yankee Stadium (to the south, closer to Manhattan) show the stadium was surrounded by open fields in 1923 and the Grand Concourse in the background of these photos was a building-less road. Most of the Bronx had just converted over from farms and rural lands at the time the RPA initially planned for the Cross Bronx.
3. The book doesn't mention the highway crosses over a ridge in this area. East Tremont (to the north) and Crotona Park (to the south) sit on the ridge that runs north-south. The tenants led the fight to have the highway rerouted south to the northern edge of Crotona Park. The ridge is higher and wider in Crotona Park and the Bronx River to the east is a 6 to 8% descent from the park. Moses' intent was to minimize the highway descent from the ridge to the river crossing to 3%. The descent from East Tremont to the river is about 4%, which allowed Moses to achieve the 3% with help of cuts and some elevated roadway. The book doesn't mention anything of the terrain nor the reason for choosing the less steep East Tremont path but reports by Columbia and MIT do.
4. The chapter provides a map of the route Moses built and a proposed route designed by a hired gun engineer the East Tremont tenants hired. The engineer's background was work on FDR's Westchester parkway system which is known for being dangerous. It's loaded up with dangerous "S" curves. His proposed plan, to reroute the highway to the northern edge of Crotona Park, also had a dangerous "S" curve (reverse curve). "S" curves are no longer allowed for interstate design and are outlawed in many municipalities' land use laws. None of the Moses critics nor the author picked up on this major flaw, but the Columbia report did.
5. The map also shows the proposed route by the hired gun was to travel right through an existing transit station. The transit station would had to be rebuilt. Once again the critics and the author didn't pick up on this major flaw, although it was the author who provided the map.
6. The MIT and/or Columbia report mentioned there was a study that analyzed the East Tremont Association's hired gun's plan. The study concluded his plan would require as many displaced people as what was eventually built. The book doesn't mention anything about this study.
7. The takeaway from this chapter is that the highway divides East Tremont. It does not. The map provided by the author appears to show only one cross street (Southern Boulevard) was to remain. In reality all of the cross streets remain. And none of them were elevated. Most of this stretch of highway is in a 30 foot deep cut. You don't see much of East Tremont from the highway and very little of East Tremont sees the highway. The cut is only about 90 to 100 feet across, thus you always see pedestrians walking along the cross streets 30 feet above.
8. The author failed to mentioned many of the buildings removed for construction were eventually replaced. The highway has many buildings lining it that were built after the completion of the highway.
9. In 1976 President Jimmy Carter (prior to his presidency) visited Charlotte Street, a few blocks south of East Tremont, and described it as the "worst" neighborhood in America. The neighborhood went downhill quickly from blight that crept up from the South Bronx. It is doubtful the people of East Tremont would have stayed put. The author painted a different picture.
10. The Columbia study mentioned the Cross Bronx has extremely high truck traffic (25% of the traffic). The trucks provide goods to Long Island, Queens, and Brooklyn, but the book doesn't mention this and doesn't mention what the alternative would be to transport goods.

Also one star for not giving the history of the West Side prior to the West Side Highway. When Moses finished the highway (he didn't the start the highway), it replaced many commercial rail lines and warehouses that blocked Manhattan from the river. The rail lines ran the full length of the west side of Manhattan and the rails brought goods into the city. Even overseas goods came in by these West Side rails. The city implemented heavy levies on goods coming in by ship, thus businessmen had goods unloaded on the NJ side of the Hudson, the goods were transported up the Hudson to Albany by rail where they crossed the Hudson and then they came down the east side of the Hudson to the West side of Manhattan. The RPA plan (once again predated Moses) was to replace the rails with a highway. Thus the RPA planned to replace the trains with trucks (via the Lincoln Tunnel). The author didn't explain any of this and didn't explain how goods would be brought into the city otherwise.

Three stars for blaming Moses for today's city's congestion.The city was already clogged with vehicles by the time Moses arrived, which the author did explained. But the book blames the continuing congestion on Moses, for not designing his expressways to allow for mass transit. The author was inconsistent in that he cherry picked the RPA's role. He didn't explained that Moses' expressways were actually the RPA's plan but then the author cited the RPA's much later recommendation for expressway and bridge design to allow for mass transit. RPA's recommendation came after Moses broke ground. Moses' later expressways, out on Staten Island, appear to be adequate to allow for mass transit construction- the author didn't reveal this. Allowing for above ground mass transit requires more land to condemn thus more money and it would have reduced the number of highways that he could have built, but once again it appears Moses did make the effort out on Staten Island. The author also never explained that the existing mass transit was built (about 115 years ago) in very developed, congested areas without the benefit of prior planning allowing for mass transit. Most of these lines in Manhattan and Brooklyn were built in congestion as heavy as today's if not more so.

The author made a big error and a big omission regarding the reason Moses developed parkways solely for cars. Many reviewers believed the author painted Moses as a racist for the reason. But Moses had limited funds and he did the most with these funds. Designing the parkways for cars saved him a lot of money and allowed him to have money to spend on other projects. Roadways for heavy buses cost much more- the pavements have to be much thicker and the roadbeds have to be much deeper, plus the maintenance is much, much higher. Per a government study, a single truck or single bus with typical 18,000 lbs. axle loads causes as much damage to the roads and bridges as 9,600 cars. The author failed to explain the enormous costs for roads and bridges designed for buses and trucks.

The book omitted the RPA's role in the misguided Lower Manhattan and Mid-town Manhattan Expressways plans. The author explained how the idea for the expressways was misguided, which he is completely correct, but he failed to explain it was not Moses' idea, but the RPA's. The RPA prepared a map/plan in 1929 that clearly depicts 4 expressways crossing the width of Manhattan: the Lower Manhattan and Mid-town Expressways, one around 125th Street and the current Trans-Manhattan Expressway. How is it so many Moses' critics can not read a map or plan? Btw, it was lame of the RPA to let Moses take the full blame for their misguided idea.

And lastly he painted a picture of Moses being the reason why mass transit declined. The problem with this theory is that Moses has been out of power for 50 years. The theory doesn't explain why nothing has been done with mass transit since. The city has done virtually nothing to connect the outer boroughs with each other. Most of the subways in the outer boroughs are nothing but spokes that lead into Manhattan. Back in the era of private transit companies, the main demand was for transport into Manhattan, yet transit companies still connected the spokes with a cobweb of trolley lines. For various reasons the trolley lines and many of the elevated train lines connecting the spokes were removed. The lethargic government hasn't made any real effort to reconnect these spokes, even though the demand for travel between the outer boroughs has increased. Thus the highways Moses built are clogged all week and weekend long with local traffic. These boroughs need both expanded highways and subways connecting each other, but the city does nothing and the elitist Moses' critics living in Manhattan couldn't care less.

NYC had the best mass transit system in the world 70 to 110 years ago when it was developed and operated by private industry- the author didn't explain this. The Moses' critic types of the day wanted city control of these subways which they got around 1940. Since then the subways have fallen into mediocrity. The suburban rail lines have a similar history- once again nothing has been done in decades to the system since the government takeover of around 1970. Now that Moses is gone our roadways, bridges, and tunnels have also fallen to 50 years of government neglect. Our tunnels and bridges are routinely backed up for 30 minutes during rush hour, the airports are rated as the worst in the nation, the city highway system is consistently clogged, it is vastly undersized, Penn Station and the bus terminals are dumps, and the subway system is poorly maintained, dirty, noisy, poorly lit, and convoluted. The subway system is extremely confusing for out-of-towners. Private industry and Moses had real transportation professionals running everything. Now we have lawyers and public administrators. Very little ever gets done. Things that do get done cost far more and take far longer to complete than they should. And many mistakes are made with planning and design. As a group they have horrible spatial skills and construction knowledge. They have deflected the blame for today's decrepit transportation system to Moses and they have insulated themselves by brainwashing us that it's Moses' fault.

So, Moses used all of his power to build according to lousy RPA plans?  Sorry, but most of these criticisms still land at Moses' feet.  Plans are just plans until someone actually follow through with them, and that was Moses.

And, by the way, Caro mostly praises Moses' zeal for parks, although he does mention that the placement of the parks did reek of classism.

For Colorado, it's got to be I-70 and in particular the replacing of the old I-70 Viaduct north of downtown.

The last of the major NIMBY roadblocks have been squashed by the courts, AFAIK, and prelim work is being started for rebuilding and widening I-70 through that area and going below-ground level instead of building a new viaduct to replace the existing one.

Now even though the NIMBYs hardly have a leg to stand on anymore, they are still pushing a Ditch The Ditch campaign that is even showing up on Billboards in Western Colorado -- 250 MILES AWAY!!!

http://www.ditchtheditch.com/

Interesting that even though the billboards are new, looking at the site there hasn't been much stuff added in the last 8-9 months.

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 07:05:25 PM
So, Moses used all of his power to build according to lousy RPA plans?  Sorry, but most of these criticisms still land at Moses' feet.  Plans are just plans until someone actually follow through with them, and that was Moses.

No, it didn't say that.  It said that the Cross Bronx Expressway alignment long-predated Moses' tenure, and that there were clear engineering reasons why the "One Mile" wasn't relocated, which are clear to me having worked in the design of freeways.  Most of the segments were funded thru the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act, so there was also state and federal involvement in finalizing the design and getting it built, after all it is I-95.

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 07:05:25 PM
And, by the way, Caro mostly praises Moses' zeal for parks, although he does mention that the placement of the parks did reek of classism.

My book lists 18 parks in Brooklyn and Queens and while I am not super-knowledgeable about NYC, most of them don't appear to be in special areas.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 10, 2018, 09:12:59 PM

Quote from: Jardine on April 10, 2018, 09:46:13 AM
I-35 north of Ames, in Iowa, earned some lawsuits prior to construction for the section that angles SW-NE.  Ostensibly, the farmers were PO'd as farm fields to accommodate an Interstate not running mostly N-S or E-W are annoying to farm with all the resultant triangular shaped pieces.  As I recall, the 'real' reason had to do with communities that would have been along the Interstate (and wanted to be along it) if the diagonal bit was much further north, or if the diagonal bit was instead an E-W concurrency with I-90.

The original plan for I-35 was for it to angle SW from Albert Lea to the Iowa border along US 69 before turning back southward, which is also reflected in some of the late 1950s Minnesota state maps. Mason City was the one who largely pushed for I-35 to be routed along US 65 instead in northern Iowa.

Except that it doesn't come within 5 miles of US 65 in Iowa. I would love to see a plan that had I-35 go to the edge of Mason City, if only because I live here.

No one mentioned my old state of Nebraska yet, so I feel l obligated to mention when the North Freeway, which was briefly I-580, was built, it pretty much ruined the neighborhood.

Quote from: Beltway on April 16, 2018, 08:45:11 PM

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 07:05:25 PM
So, Moses used all of his power to build according to lousy RPA plans?  Sorry, but most of these criticisms still land at Moses' feet.  Plans are just plans until someone actually follow through with them, and that was Moses.

No, it didn't say that.  It said that the Cross Bronx Expressway alignment long-predated Moses' tenure, and that there were clear engineering reasons why the "One Mile" wasn't relocated, which are clear to me having worked in the design of freeways.  Most of the segments were funded thru the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act, so there was also state and federal involvement in finalizing the design and getting it built, after all it is I-95.

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 07:05:25 PM
And, by the way, Caro mostly praises Moses' zeal for parks, although he does mention that the placement of the parks did reek of classism.

My book lists 18 parks in Brooklyn and Queens and while I am not super-knowledgeable about NYC, most of them don't appear to be in special areas.

Yep, original plans predated Moses, but again, just because the plans existed doesn't mean Moses had to construct them and he certainly presented his own proposals in the late '40s.  He was in power in NYC; his influence over the project is simply undebatable.

Is "your book" the paperback you referred me to?  You should actually read The Power Broker.  Caro's sources are quite extensive and thorough, especially when it comes to the number of parks Moses established and where he did.  And, as a native New Yorker, his knowledge of the City is voluminous. :D

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 09:35:47 PM
Yep, original plans predated Moses, but again, just because the plans existed doesn't mean Moses had to construct them and he certainly presented his own proposals in the late '40s.  He was in power in NYC; his influence over the project is simply undebatable.

He didn't have to, but the construction of the Cross Bronx Expressway as a segment of I-95 had strong impetuses also at the state and federal level.

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 09:35:47 PM
Is "your book" the paperback you referred me to?  You should actually read The Power Broker.  Caro's sources are quite extensive and thorough, especially when it comes to the number of parks Moses established and where he did.   

Not "my book", the one I cited upthread.  Yes, I do have a copy of the Power Broker (a 'paperback' FYI) and have for about 20 years.  The critical review is an example of many arguments I have seen in the past, there are a whole host of problems in the book.

Quote from: Beltway on April 16, 2018, 09:58:25 PM

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 09:35:47 PM
Yep, original plans predated Moses, but again, just because the plans existed doesn't mean Moses had to construct them and he certainly presented his own proposals in the late '40s.  He was in power in NYC; his influence over the project is simply undebatable.

He didn't have to, but the construction of the Cross Bronx Expressway as a segment of I-95 had strong impetuses also at the state and federal level.

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 09:35:47 PM
Is "your book" the paperback you referred me to?  You should actually read The Power Broker.  Caro's sources are quite extensive and thorough, especially when it comes to the number of parks Moses established and where he did.   

Not "my book", the one I cited upthread.  Yes, I do have a copy of the Power Broker (a 'paperback' FYI) and have for about 20 years.  The critical review is an example of many arguments I have seen in the past, there are a whole host of problems in the book.

Godspeed with your continued tilting at those windmills. :D

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 10:43:02 PM

Quote from: Beltway on April 16, 2018, 09:58:25 PM

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 09:35:47 PM
Yep, original plans predated Moses, but again, just because the plans existed doesn't mean Moses had to construct them and he certainly presented his own proposals in the late '40s.  He was in power in NYC; his influence over the project is simply undebatable.

He didn't have to, but the construction of the Cross Bronx Expressway as a segment of I-95 had strong impetuses also at the state and federal level.

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 09:35:47 PM
Is "your book" the paperback you referred me to?  You should actually read The Power Broker.  Caro's sources are quite extensive and thorough, especially when it comes to the number of parks Moses established and where he did.   

Not "my book", the one I cited upthread.  Yes, I do have a copy of the Power Broker (a 'paperback' FYI) and have for about 20 years.  The critical review is an example of many arguments I have seen in the past, there are a whole host of problems in the book.

Godspeed with your continued tilting at those windmills. :D

Why don't you try addressing the points in that review, rather than trolling?

Quote from: Beltway on April 16, 2018, 10:53:35 PM

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 10:43:02 PM

Quote from: Beltway on April 16, 2018, 09:58:25 PM

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 09:35:47 PM
Yep, original plans predated Moses, but again, just because the plans existed doesn't mean Moses had to construct them and he certainly presented his own proposals in the late '40s.  He was in power in NYC; his influence over the project is simply undebatable.

He didn't have to, but the construction of the Cross Bronx Expressway as a segment of I-95 had strong impetuses also at the state and federal level.

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 09:35:47 PM
Is "your book" the paperback you referred me to?  You should actually read The Power Broker.  Caro's sources are quite extensive and thorough, especially when it comes to the number of parks Moses established and where he did.   

Not "my book", the one I cited upthread.  Yes, I do have a copy of the Power Broker (a 'paperback' FYI) and have for about 20 years.  The critical review is an example of many arguments I have seen in the past, there are a whole host of problems in the book.

Godspeed with your continued tilting at those windmills. :D

Why don't you try addressing the points in that review, rather than trolling?

I did.

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 10:56:18 PM

Quote from: Beltway on April 16, 2018, 10:53:35 PM

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 10:43:02 PM

Quote from: Beltway on April 16, 2018, 09:58:25 PM

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 09:35:47 PM
Yep, original plans predated Moses, but again, just because the plans existed doesn't mean Moses had to construct them and he certainly presented his own proposals in the late '40s.  He was in power in NYC; his influence over the project is simply undebatable.

He didn't have to, but the construction of the Cross Bronx Expressway as a segment of I-95 had strong impetuses also at the state and federal level.

Quote from: Rothman on April 16, 2018, 09:35:47 PM
Is "your book" the paperback you referred me to?  You should actually read The Power Broker.  Caro's sources are quite extensive and thorough, especially when it comes to the number of parks Moses established and where he did.   

Not "my book", the one I cited upthread.  Yes, I do have a copy of the Power Broker (a 'paperback' FYI) and have for about 20 years.  The critical review is an example of many arguments I have seen in the past, there are a whole host of problems in the book.

Godspeed with your continued tilting at those windmills. :D

Why don't you try addressing the points in that review, rather than trolling?

I did.

You handwaved it.

Quote from: kkt on April 16, 2018, 02:01:04 AM

Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 10:28:54 PM
Uh-huh... :D  A paperback book that is essentially out of print?  I suppose I'll check it out, but one wonders why this book has essentially gone the way of the dodo if its arguments were accepted.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=robert+moses+single+minded+genius

Books go out of print all the time.  It doesn't mean they're bad, it means they're no longer selling well.
This one is in lots of college libraries, if you don't feel like shelling out $50 for something you'll probably only read once.

I checked the Tulsa County library catalog and there are several books about Robert Moses: "Robert Moses and the Modern City", "The Battle for Gotham", "The Power Broker", "Wrestling With Moses" and a few others that are in part about him. I just put a hold on "The Power Broker" which will be delivered to my local branch within a few days.

In Washington, I would say that the toll lanes on Interstate 405 are most controversial. The Seattle area has terrible traffic problems, and there are now two dedicated toll lanes on I-405 and only three general traffic lanes. During rush hour, tolls cap out at $10.00 per vehicle.

Other than that, I think that interstate 705 in Tacoma has some opponents, but that it isn't terribly controversial.

Quote from: maxk on April 18, 2018, 07:09:58 PM
In Washington, I would say that the toll lanes on Interstate 405 are most controversial. The Seattle area has terrible traffic problems, and there are now two dedicated toll lanes on I-405 and only three general traffic lanes. During rush hour, tolls cap out at $10.00 per vehicle.

Other than that, I think that interstate 705 in Tacoma has some opponents, but that it isn't terribly controversial.

Not even close. The construction of I-5 during the 1960s brought out actual protests and helped spur the successful anti-freeway movement that cancelled the Bay Freeway and Thompson Expressway (among other projects). The backlash from the I-405 toll lanes is contained within a small group of anti-toll wackos and doesn't come close to representing a significant portion of I-405 commuters.