A Virginia Tech history professor has received a grant to study the "displacement and environmental destruction" caused by the construction of the Interstate highway system. "LaDale Winling, an associate professor of history at Virginia Tech, is determined to change that. And to help him achieve that goal, the National Endowment for Humanities has provided him with a prestigious grant to kickstart a new project, "Connecting the Interstates." "Connecting the Interstates" will illuminate the damaging effects of the highway system through an interactive map, Winling said. The tool can help community leaders, public officials, journalists, and historians along with the general public understand the system's impact on a deeper level." See https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2020/12/destruction-and-displacement--history-professor-earns-grant-to-e.html for details.
Bruce in Blacksburg
Quote from: VTGoose on January 06, 2021, 07:48:14 PM
A Virginia Tech history professor has received a grant to study the "displacement and environmental destruction" caused by the construction of the Interstate highway system. "LaDale Winling, an associate professor of history at Virginia Tech, is determined to change that. And to help him achieve that goal, the National Endowment for Humanities has provided him with a prestigious grant to kickstart a new project, "Connecting the Interstates." "Connecting the Interstates" will illuminate the damaging effects of the highway system through an interactive map, Winling said. The tool can help community leaders, public officials, journalists, and historians along with the general public understand the system's impact on a deeper level." See https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2020/12/destruction-and-displacement--history-professor-earns-grant-to-e.html for details.
Bruce in Blacksburg
It certainly sounds like the parties involved have already reached a conclusion (
Interstate=bad) and are essentially on a "mining" expedition to root out supporting evidence. It'll be interesting to see if in the process they actually develop a statistically relevant model or simply present a "laundry list" of the various things the system's development encompassed that actually produced victims (such as planners' penchant for deploying urban sections through the least monetarily valuable properties -- almost invariably impoverished and/or minority) to save money and avoid tweaking the rich and powerful. And virtually every one of the 47K miles of the system has some environmental impact, as does all development, public or private sectors. If it's merely a composite of issues that have already been discussed, often at length, then this work might simply be a form of screed. If it reveals something we don't already know, then it may actually be of interest.
Ugh...frankly it sounds nauseating. I am imagining the usual Ivory Tower academic with a predetermined notion of what they want to find out to either cherry pick or simply fabricate whatever evidence is needed to reach that conclusion. :banghead:
Barf. Puke. Vomit.
Why do we continue to subsidize these overeducated idiots?
I actually know a prof at Va Tech (long childhood friend) that is a professor there in civil engineering. Based on his "leanings", I was opening this and hoping it wasn't him. It's something dumb he would do.
At least he's qualified to discuss it, unlike this professor.
Looks like a part of bigger - and more meaningful - work:
https://resources.newamericanhistory.org/for-students-mapping-inequality
Yawn...
Quote from: Konza on January 07, 2021, 03:22:57 AM
Barf. Puke. Vomit.
Why do we continue to subsidize these overeducated idiots?
I agree. Genuine scholarship of use to the public is one thing, but this is just a glorified grievance study pushing an agenda. :angry:
Waste of time/money just to come to their inevitable and obvious pre-conceived conclusion. I would argue that planners have long already taken what was learned from early Interstate era and have been applying it more productively in recent decades. Said topic has been researched to death already and it's negatives along with it's positives are well known:
I find it a bit amusing that some commenters have effectively put their ostrich-head-in-the-sand regarding the negative impacts of Interstate construction when those impacts are well documented. The underlying question, which I can see this study assisting with (if done right, as sparker may have a point), is whether the positive benefits to travel, safety, and the economy, outweigh the negative drawbacks of displacement and environmental damage that have occurred over the years.
Of course, if the politicians and engineers of the '50s and '60s hadn't been so cheap and wonton in their bulldozing, this would be a far different question to answer. I am firmly of the belief that today's negative viewpoint of freeways (especially in urban areas) would be far less negative if the fair-market-value, relocation-assistance, and environmental-mitigation programs of today had existed when the Interstates first began construction.
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2021, 12:26:15 PM
I find it a bit amusing that some commenters have effectively put their ostrich-head-in-the-sand regarding the negative impacts of Interstate construction when those impacts are well documented. The underlying question, which I can see this study assisting with (if done right, as sparker may have a point), is whether the positive benefits to travel, safety, and the economy, outweigh the negative drawbacks of displacement and environmental damage that have occurred over the years.
Of course, if the politicians and engineers of the '50s and '60s hadn't been so cheap and wonton in their bulldozing, this would be a far different question to answer. I am firmly of the belief that today's negative viewpoint of freeways (especially in urban areas) would be far less negative if the fair-market-value, relocation-assistance, and environmental-mitigation programs of today had existed when the Interstates first began construction.
It is an equally interesting question, if those highways would be affordable
Quoteif the fair-market-value, relocation-assistance, and environmental-mitigation programs of today had existed when the Interstates first began construction.
While the history cannot be undone, understanding different aspects of the past is certainly a part of getting the broader view of the world and future planning
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2021, 12:26:15 PM
I find it a bit amusing that some commenters have effectively put their ostrich-head-in-the-sand regarding the negative impacts of Interstate construction when those impacts are well documented. The underlying question, which I can see this study assisting with (if done right, as sparker may have a point), is whether the positive benefits to travel, safety, and the economy, outweigh the negative drawbacks of displacement and environmental damage that have occurred over the years.
Of course, if the politicians and engineers of the '50s and '60s hadn't been so cheap and wonton in their bulldozing, this would be a far different question to answer. I am firmly of the belief that today's negative viewpoint of freeways (especially in urban areas) would be far less negative if the fair-market-value, relocation-assistance, and environmental-mitigation programs of today had existed when the Interstates first began construction.
I don't think its fair to say that we are putting our heads in the sand, its more that we have been through this many times over and are tired of hearing the same old arguments.
Did the freeways displace people? Of course they did, but the harsh reality is that most of the displacement was moving people out of slums where many were not even property owners to start with. Sure there has been plenty of romanticism of the inner city before the freeway, but the actual evidence indicates that whoever could leave the cities for the suburbs did, so to think that uprooting a few involuntarily was enough to even enter into the impact calculation is dubious. I lived in a part of DC for a while that was "saved" from the freeways and I have a hard time believing that the area was better off for it.
My hometown has the same issue, people displaced, and a great deal of romanticism about the days before that. But an objective look at the facts shows that people were living in squalid conditions that were almost invariably worse than where they ended up.
In any case, trying to put a dollar value on the freeways is not something that is ever going to work, as a key function was always their value as defense highways, which is essentially impossible to put a dollar value on from an economic analysis standpoint.
Quote from: VTGoose on January 06, 2021, 07:48:14 PM
..."Connecting the Interstates" will illuminate the damaging effects of the highway system through an interactive map, Winling said. The tool can help community leaders, public officials, journalists, and historians along with the general public understand the system's impact on a deeper level." See https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2020/12/destruction-and-displacement--history-professor-earns-grant-to-e.html for details.
So this is just going to be a paper that just footnotes the scores of other papers that have already researched the same thing?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 07, 2021, 02:01:16 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 06, 2021, 07:48:14 PM
..."Connecting the Interstates" will illuminate the damaging effects of the highway system through an interactive map, Winling said. The tool can help community leaders, public officials, journalists, and historians along with the general public understand the system's impact on a deeper level." See https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2020/12/destruction-and-displacement--history-professor-earns-grant-to-e.html for details.
So this is just going to be a paper that just footnotes the scores of other papers that have already researched the same thing?
I have a link up in the thread, gentlemen we're talking about is one of the authors.
https://resources.newamericanhistory.org/for-students-mapping-inequality - scroll down to "view map" button. My impression is that they're expanding the platform to include more data. THere may be some bias in data presentation, but having data in one place to begin with is useful regardless.
I wouldn't have an issue with this if they were actually being fair about it instead of wasting egregious amounts of money to come to a predetermined conclusion
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on January 07, 2021, 06:44:27 PM
I wouldn't have an issue with this if they were actually being fair about it instead of wasting egregious amounts of money to come to a predetermined conclusion
Exactly. Any realistic study would take into consideration the reasons for construction as they related to defense and national security, and I will bet that neither is addressed at all in this "study"
Quote from: kalvado on January 07, 2021, 12:35:17 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2021, 12:26:15 PM
I find it a bit amusing that some commenters have effectively put their ostrich-head-in-the-sand regarding the negative impacts of Interstate construction when those impacts are well documented. The underlying question, which I can see this study assisting with (if done right, as sparker may have a point), is whether the positive benefits to travel, safety, and the economy, outweigh the negative drawbacks of displacement and environmental damage that have occurred over the years.
Of course, if the politicians and engineers of the '50s and '60s hadn't been so cheap and wonton in their bulldozing, this would be a far different question to answer. I am firmly of the belief that today's negative viewpoint of freeways (especially in urban areas) would be far less negative if the fair-market-value, relocation-assistance, and environmental-mitigation programs of today had existed when the Interstates first began construction.
It is an equally interesting question, if those highways would be affordable
Quoteif the fair-market-value, relocation-assistance, and environmental-mitigation programs of today had existed when the Interstates first began construction.
While the history cannot be undone, understanding different aspects of the past is certainly a part of getting the broader view of the world and future planning
Although currently it may not be "PC" to do so,
temporal context is an integral part of any examination of programs over a half-century old (and the Interstate System is, in 2021, eligible for full Medicare!). The nation was under the thrall of the "red scare"; the prospect of constructing a system that would allow an efficient diaspora from a nuked region was part of the calculus of selling the system (although with current dollars the projected $41B cost seems ridiculously paltry). Originally conceived of as a "farm to market network on steroids", the growing political power of expanding metro regions in the '50's necessitated bringing their leaders and representatives on board; the myriad belts, inner loops, and spurs elucidated in the famous/infamous "Yellow Book" were the direct results of this influence shift. The lure of a then-unprecedented 90% federal fund match was too tempting for some city governments to pass up; inner freeways would provide access points to central city businesses for both employment and retail purposes; inner loops could be used to "hyper-define" the "desirable" areas while providing real and psychic barriers to portions of the populace not seen as contributing much to the city's commerce & revenue stream -- particularly when a sizeable number of those deemed to be "desirable" in that regard were hightailing it to the suburbs. Of course, that overall concept was both elitist and, often covertly, racist -- but when taken in context of, say, 1956, those same city leaders, as well as a significant share of the constituents who elected/selected them, were people who had come of age during the Great Depression -- and had that historical incentive to attempt to forestall or ward off any interruption of the postwar boom (albeit interspersed with roller-coaster recessions before and during the Korean conflict); keeping the central city businesses afloat was deemed vital to that continuum; using the upcoming Interstate system to enhance that concept, regardless of whether or not it disrupted or even harmed portions of the residents, was simply considered to be part of that effort. Of course, in the ensuing years the residents of many of those metro areas, particularly concentrated in the Northeast as well as densely packed cities such as San Francisco, reacted to potential displacement by pressing for suspension of the planned city freeway corridors; that activity was successful in a number of venues -- although some metro regions, such as Los Angeles, were able to substantially deploy their urban Interstate mileage prior to the main thrust of the protest movement.
Part of the city leaders' calculus was that major retailers and/or employers would maintain their central city facilities because the new city-bound Interstate corridors would funnel traffic to them; but one thing that was not initially anticipated was that the counties and/or incorporated suburbs would provide financial incentives for those same firms to either relocate or establish branches out in the 'burbs -- particularly those near planned bypasses or beltways -- which would obviate the outlying residents' need to access the city center for either or both employment or commerce. As those outer jurisdictions' coffers were fuller due to a lesser service-provision load (albeit largely equalized years down the line), the "tug-of-war" usually tipped to the suburban areas, with land/housing developers calling many of the shots. This resulted in deterioration of the central cities and major declines in overall population (cf. Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, etc.). While the deployment of those urban Interstate corridors that avoided cancellation was certainly
contributory to that phenomenon, it was only secondarily
causal; the atmosphere that purposed "white flight" was pervasive prior to the systems' construction starting in 1957.
Quote from: kalvado on January 07, 2021, 09:42:46 AM
Looks like a part of bigger - and more meaningful - work:
https://resources.newamericanhistory.org/for-students-mapping-inequality
There is so much wrong with that link from a factual standpoint I don't even know where to start
(And I won't start, just because this forum isn't the appropriate place to pick it apart)
Quote from: SectorZ on January 08, 2021, 08:36:29 AM
Quote from: kalvado on January 07, 2021, 09:42:46 AM
Looks like a part of bigger - and more meaningful - work:
https://resources.newamericanhistory.org/for-students-mapping-inequality
There is so much wrong with that link from a factual standpoint I don't even know where to start
(And I won't start, just because this forum isn't the appropriate place to pick it apart)
Because discussion it brings is too intelligent to be here?
HOLC maps are, at the very least, an interesting and pretty factual aspect of urban history. The narrative of those maps is also pretty interesting but makes me wonder if the mortgage crisis was in part due to the total drop of that narrative, and where is the line between realistic risk assessment and other options.
Quote from: sparker on January 08, 2021, 06:36:43 AM
Although currently it may not be "PC" to do so, temporal context is an integral part of any examination of programs over a half-century old (and the Interstate System is, in 2021, eligible for full Medicare!). The nation was under the thrall of the "red scare"; the prospect of constructing a system that would allow an efficient diaspora from a nuked region was part of the calculus of selling the system (although with current dollars the projected $41B cost seems ridiculously paltry). Originally conceived of as a "farm to market network on steroids", the growing political power of expanding metro regions in the '50's necessitated bringing their leaders and representatives on board; the myriad belts, inner loops, and spurs elucidated in the famous/infamous "Yellow Book" were the direct results of this influence shift. The lure of a then-unprecedented 90% federal fund match was too tempting for some city governments to pass up; inner freeways would provide access points to central city businesses for both employment and retail purposes; inner loops could be used to "hyper-define" the "desirable" areas while providing real and psychic barriers to portions of the populace not seen as contributing much to the city's commerce & revenue stream -- particularly when a sizeable number of those deemed to be "desirable" in that regard were hightailing it to the suburbs. Of course, that overall concept was both elitist and, often covertly, racist -- but when taken in context of, say, 1956, those same city leaders, as well as a significant share of the constituents who elected/selected them, were people who had come of age during the Great Depression -- and had that historical incentive to attempt to forestall or ward off any interruption of the postwar boom (albeit interspersed with roller-coaster recessions before and during the Korean conflict); keeping the central city businesses afloat was deemed vital to that continuum; using the upcoming Interstate system to enhance that concept, regardless of whether or not it disrupted or even harmed portions of the residents, was simply considered to be part of that effort. Of course, in the ensuing years the residents of many of those metro areas, particularly concentrated in the Northeast as well as densely packed cities such as San Francisco, reacted to potential displacement by pressing for suspension of the planned city freeway corridors; that activity was successful in a number of venues -- although some metro regions, such as Los Angeles, were able to substantially deploy their urban Interstate mileage prior to the main thrust of the protest movement.
Part of the city leaders' calculus was that major retailers and/or employers would maintain their central city facilities because the new city-bound Interstate corridors would funnel traffic to them; but one thing that was not initially anticipated was that the counties and/or incorporated suburbs would provide financial incentives for those same firms to either relocate or establish branches out in the 'burbs -- particularly those near planned bypasses or beltways -- which would obviate the outlying residents' need to access the city center for either or both employment or commerce. As those outer jurisdictions' coffers were fuller due to a lesser service-provision load (albeit largely equalized years down the line), the "tug-of-war" usually tipped to the suburban areas, with land/housing developers calling many of the shots. This resulted in deterioration of the central cities and major declines in overall population (cf. Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, etc.). While the deployment of those urban Interstate corridors that avoided cancellation was certainly contributory to that phenomenon, it was only secondarily causal; the atmosphere that purposed "white flight" was pervasive prior to the systems' construction starting in 1957.
You touch on a number of key points here.
I will agree that freeways were/are physical barriers in many places, which is always assumed to be a bad thing, but in practice many people who actually live there are happy to have that separation from whatever is on the other side. More importantly, the idea that everyone on "the wrong side of the freeway" would somehow be made better off without that barrier is often implied but is nevertheless irrational.
Second, with respect to the flight to the suburbs, you are correct in noting that the phenomena predates the interstate system. In a generally prosperous era, following so much tumult, it is not hard to understand why people wished to escape larger urban centers for the less polluted and more spacious suburbs.
Third, to venture into more speculative territory here, I suspect there was a dual function of many policies that encouraged suburban living beyond simply responding to popular demand. Particularly from 1945 until the mid to late sixties the advantages of having the American people "spread out" into the suburbs resulting a much lower population density were probably apparent to the many government officials who had witnessed the effects of bombing in WWII and in particular the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Suburbanization was a brilliant defensive strategy during the first half of the Cold War planned or not, and I would be shocked if this had not crossed the mind of Eisenhower et al.
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2021, 12:26:15 PM
I find it a bit amusing that some commenters have effectively put their ostrich-head-in-the-sand regarding the negative impacts of Interstate construction vaccines when those impacts are well documented. The underlying question, which I can see this study assisting with (if done right, as sparker may have a point), is whether the positive benefits to travel, safety, and the economy public and individual health, outweigh the negative drawbacks of displacement and environmental damage health consequences and side effects that have occurred over the years.
Engage in a discussion over what's been changed and added above, and the world thinks you're a kook. I guess it all just depends on what's being re-examined.
(Yes, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but concern over possible long-term side effects of a certain new vaccine that's been rushed to market is the primary reason I don't plan to take that shot.)
But on a less pot-stirring note, I just wonder how many here have ever driven the routes that various interstates, freeways, and other modern construction have replaced to evaluate just how much those new routes have improved things. The case in point that I always fall back to is the routing of KY 15 from Winchester (the gateway to central Kentucky) and Whitesburg (deep in the mountains). The entire current route of the Mountain Parkway and KY 15, with the exception of about 10 miles in Breathitt County and 10-15 miles in Perry, Knott, and Letcher counties, is on an entirely new alignment. I have never driven the full length of the old route in one sitting -- I did drive from Winchester to Whitesburg on the new route a few times when I lived in Winchester -- but I have driven it all in various segments. Right now, a trip from Winchester to Whitesburg can be expected to take about 2 hours and 15 minutes or so (and that will improve once the construction near Hazard is done that will eliminate a couple of traffic lights). It's a good route; much of it four lanes and the rest an improved at-grade "super 2" with no steep hills. The old route is two lanes, narrow, very crooked, goes through downtowns, and has at least one mountain with nasty switchbacks. I think it's reasonable to say that a through trip on that route would take four hours.
Was that route worth it? Absolutely.
And how about Corridor H? How long would it take to drive from Weston to Wardensville (since the route won't be finished to Strasburg for years) if you had to use CR 151, the old routing of US 219, WV 93, WV 42, and WV 55? Enough of H is finished now to the point where GPS routings now show it as a preferred routing from Kentucky to DC.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 08, 2021, 02:56:25 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2021, 12:26:15 PM
I find it a bit amusing that some commenters have effectively put their ostrich-head-in-the-sand regarding the negative impacts of Interstate construction vaccines when those impacts are well documented. The underlying question, which I can see this study assisting with (if done right, as sparker may have a point), is whether the positive benefits to travel, safety, and the economy public and individual health, outweigh the negative drawbacks of displacement and environmental damage health consequences and side effects that have occurred over the years.
Engage in a discussion over what's been changed and added above, and the world thinks you're a kook. I guess it all just depends on what's being re-examined.
(Yes, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but concern over possible long-term side effects of a certain new vaccine that's been rushed to market is the primary reason I don't plan to take that shot.)
There are bright sides and dark sides of pretty much anything in our lives. Vaccines, as well as highways, as well as marriage,
elections outcome, as well as lots of similar thing, may help a certain number (and may be a lot of) of people, but may hurt some. It may be unclear in advance if someone would be on a net benefit or net loss side, and for some (a lot of people) things may turn out to be problematic in a long run. But once things are done, they are difficult, if at all possible, to undo. What's new here?
Quote from: kalvado on January 07, 2021, 02:14:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 07, 2021, 02:01:16 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 06, 2021, 07:48:14 PM
..."Connecting the Interstates" will illuminate the damaging effects of the highway system through an interactive map, Winling said. The tool can help community leaders, public officials, journalists, and historians along with the general public understand the system's impact on a deeper level." See https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2020/12/destruction-and-displacement--history-professor-earns-grant-to-e.html for details.
So this is just going to be a paper that just footnotes the scores of other papers that have already researched the same thing?
I have a link up in the thread, gentlemen we're talking about is one of the authors.
https://resources.newamericanhistory.org/for-students-mapping-inequality - scroll down to "view map" button. My impression is that they're expanding the platform to include more data. THere may be some bias in data presentation, but having data in one place to begin with is useful regardless.
For shits and giggles, I did look at this link. Found an area near me: Brooklawn, NJ: https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=12/39.924/-75.187&city=camden-nj&area=B14
And then in favorable influences...this is the first time I've seen Camden mentioned positively!
3 Favorable Influences
Good transportation on two important highways and only five miles from Camden.
(I'm guessing the 2 important highways are US 130 and I-76).
I also caught this in one of the Camden sections:
https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=16/39.866/-75.085&city=camden-nj&area=C12
3 Favorable Influences
Black Horse Pike which is the main highway to seashore resorts, runs through this area.
Was true up until the 1960's. No one is taking the Black Horse Pike in Camden to get to the shore. Further down, the AC Expressway and NJ 55 are the primary routes to the shore; the Black Horse Pike would be a distant 3rd today.
Quote from: kalvado on January 08, 2021, 09:27:40 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 08, 2021, 08:36:29 AM
Quote from: kalvado on January 07, 2021, 09:42:46 AM
Looks like a part of bigger - and more meaningful - work:
https://resources.newamericanhistory.org/for-students-mapping-inequality
There is so much wrong with that link from a factual standpoint I don't even know where to start
(And I won't start, just because this forum isn't the appropriate place to pick it apart)
Because discussion it brings is too intelligent to be here?
HOLC maps are, at the very least, an interesting and pretty factual aspect of urban history. The narrative of those maps is also pretty interesting but makes me wonder if the mortgage crisis was in part due to the total drop of that narrative, and where is the line between realistic risk assessment and other options.
No, because it's ostensibly very political. Wasn't talking about the maps.
Quote from: SectorZ on January 08, 2021, 04:37:44 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 08, 2021, 09:27:40 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 08, 2021, 08:36:29 AM
Quote from: kalvado on January 07, 2021, 09:42:46 AM
Looks like a part of bigger - and more meaningful - work:
https://resources.newamericanhistory.org/for-students-mapping-inequality
There is so much wrong with that link from a factual standpoint I don't even know where to start
(And I won't start, just because this forum isn't the appropriate place to pick it apart)
Because discussion it brings is too intelligent to be here?
HOLC maps are, at the very least, an interesting and pretty factual aspect of urban history. The narrative of those maps is also pretty interesting but makes me wonder if the mortgage crisis was in part due to the total drop of that narrative, and where is the line between realistic risk assessment and other options.
No, because it's ostensibly very political. Wasn't talking about the maps.
Discussion about political events of 50+years ago is called history.
Obviously, there are positive and negative consequences of pretty much any political decision of the past. It is fairly natural that people who love roads tend to focus on positive aspects of road construction and pretty much brush off the negatives. It may be equally natural for others to focus on negative aspects. A thorough examination is necessarily focused on relatively small part of the big subject.
I hope noone denies that, for example, "slum clearance" was a big topic back then (paging @Alps for opinion!). None of us was on receiving end of that clearance to have a first hand opinion of how it worked. It was definitely a tough thing to deal with, I assume
Is there a need to understand and document those events? I would say yes, for example so that experience is available for next round of urban re-design which may be needed at some point. People tend to get triggered by the negative narrative of this study, and that is understandable. Would you be OK with the study of improved mobility brought by construction of interstate system ignoring problems of those displaced by construction? If yes - you must be OK with the other perspective as well, as it is an equally narrow minded approach.
The problem is not that anyone wants to ignore the displacement impacts of building the interstate system, but that such impacts are almost universally overstated.
To what extent displacement in the form of "slum clearance" etc is a positive or negative could be reasonably debated. There are certainly some people who got the short end of the stick during such relocations in terms of not getting as much for their property as they perhaps should have. On the other hand, since many did not even own the property they lived in, relocation could hardly be considered more than a moderate inconvenience. Nevertheless, most of the literature on the subject attempts to make a mountain out of a mole hill, portraying the simple construction of roadways as some serious wrong, which is neither a balanced nor realistic view.
To be realistic about it, some citizens were forced to make certain sacrifices for the public good, in an era shortly following WWII and Korea which collectively had some 1.3 million American casualties, each of which also represented a sacrifice for the public good. Put in this context, it seems less dramatic to be asked to move to a different part of town.
In any case, even granting what negative impacts dislocation had, such impacts were one time while the services of the freeways have been perpetual in nature. In any truly comprehensive assessment of the freeway network these dislocations are only a minor part of the story, and those who attempt to elevate them to more than that have ulterior motives for doing so that have nothing to do with writing good history.
Quote from: kalvado on January 08, 2021, 05:03:39 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 08, 2021, 04:37:44 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 08, 2021, 09:27:40 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 08, 2021, 08:36:29 AM
Quote from: kalvado on January 07, 2021, 09:42:46 AM
Looks like a part of bigger - and more meaningful - work:
https://resources.newamericanhistory.org/for-students-mapping-inequality
There is so much wrong with that link from a factual standpoint I don't even know where to start
(And I won't start, just because this forum isn't the appropriate place to pick it apart)
Because discussion it brings is too intelligent to be here?
HOLC maps are, at the very least, an interesting and pretty factual aspect of urban history. The narrative of those maps is also pretty interesting but makes me wonder if the mortgage crisis was in part due to the total drop of that narrative, and where is the line between realistic risk assessment and other options.
No, because it's ostensibly very political. Wasn't talking about the maps.
Discussion about political events of 50+years ago is called history.
Obviously, there are positive and negative consequences of pretty much any political decision of the past. It is fairly natural that people who love roads tend to focus on positive aspects of road construction and pretty much brush off the negatives. It may be equally natural for others to focus on negative aspects. A thorough examination is necessarily focused on relatively small part of the big subject.
I hope noone denies that, for example, "slum clearance" was a big topic back then (paging @Alps for opinion!). None of us was on receiving end of that clearance to have a first hand opinion of how it worked. It was definitely a tough thing to deal with, I assume
Is there a need to understand and document those events? I would say yes, for example so that experience is available for next round of urban re-design which may be needed at some point. People tend to get triggered by the negative narrative of this study, and that is understandable. Would you be OK with the study of improved mobility brought by construction of interstate system ignoring problems of those displaced by construction? If yes - you must be OK with the other perspective as well, as it is an equally narrow minded approach.
Slum clearance (a more modern variation of which is referred to as "gentrification") was merely another "tool in the box" to make the city centers of the 1950's and early '60's more palatable as places to go and spend money -- particularly to those who had already relocated their residences to the suburbs. If deploying an inner Interstate trunk or loop was part of that process, it was like killing two birds with one stone and getting the Feds to cough up 90% of the cost of doing so. The particular form of racism and "classism" pervading the atmosphere back then engaged in blanket assumptions regarding both the social behavior and financial capabilities of both minorities residing in or near the city core as well as those, including a large number of white folks, who simply lacked the financial wherewithal (as well as credit) to make the outward move. In short, the distillation of those assumptions was that the remaining residents couldn't provide the needed monetary influx to sustain viable downtown commerce, and that the best course to maximize that "cash flow" was to provide a pristine and largely homogenized working/shopping/dining/entertaining area, which meant creating separation between those city residents and the commuters shuffling between the 'burbs and downtown.
Although not a part of the Interstate system, the CA Division of Highways had, at the request of a number of L.A. public figures, added a N-S routing through downtown L.A. extending from the Santa Monica (I-10) freeway at or near the Harbor (at the time, US 6/SSR 11) freeway to the Pasadena (Arroyo Seco) Freeway near I-5. So as not to take any more property than necessary, much of it would have been an elevated "stacked" facility (such as the original Cypress Street viaduct on CA 17 and later I-880 that collapsed during the 1989 Loma Prieta quake) sitting above Main Street. Besides providing relief for the Pasadena/Harbor corridor, this corridor -- originally LRN 222 and, post-'64, the first iteration of CA 241 -- was clearly intended to provide a delineation between the "desirable" western part of downtown between Main St. and the Harbor Freeway and the "skid row" section east of there -- an effective 60-foot-high structure walling off that part of downtown that was to undergo gentrification. Needless to say it never happened -- a few artists' renditions were proffered in the
Times and on display at City Hall (where I saw them as a kid), but negative response, principally from the Asian communities spread out along the division line, spelled doom for the concept by the mid-'70's.
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 08, 2021, 05:36:03 PM
The problem is not that anyone wants to ignore the displacement impacts of building the interstate system, but that such impacts are almost universally overstated.
To what extent displacement in the form of "slum clearance" etc is a positive or negative could be reasonably debated. There are certainly some people who got the short end of the stick during such relocations in terms of not getting as much for their property as they perhaps should have. On the other hand, since many did not even own the property they lived in, relocation could hardly be considered more than a moderate inconvenience. Nevertheless, most of the literature on the subject attempts to make a mountain out of a mole hill, portraying the simple construction of roadways as some serious wrong, which is neither a balanced nor realistic view.
To be realistic about it, some citizens were forced to make certain sacrifices for the public good, in an era shortly following WWII and Korea which collectively had some 1.3 million American casualties, each of which also represented a sacrifice for the public good. Put in this context, it seems less dramatic to be asked to move to a different part of town.
In any case, even granting what negative impacts dislocation had, such impacts were one time while the services of the freeways have been perpetual in nature. In any truly comprehensive assessment of the freeway network these dislocations are only a minor part of the story, and those who attempt to elevate them to more than that have ulterior motives for doing so that have nothing to do with writing good history.
This post is tone deaf, if only for the complete ignorance of long-term renters in cities. Saying being evicted is only a "moderate inconvenience" for renters and not for owners is as calloused and inexperienced as they come.
Quote from: Rothman on January 08, 2021, 08:01:51 PM
This post is tone deaf, if only for the complete ignorance of long-term renters in cities. Saying being evicted is only a "moderate inconvenience" for renters and not for owners is as calloused and inexperienced as they come.
Eh, not really. Spent a fair chunk of time as a renter in major cities. Yes it is inconvenient to move, but I did it at least a half dozen times, sometimes over considerable distances, so while you might disagree with my assessment saying it is not informed by experience is simply wrong.
And no matter how you dice it, renters do not have the considerable funds tied up in real estate that owners do, and bear a relatively small financial risk in comparison.
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 09, 2021, 01:09:35 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 08, 2021, 08:01:51 PM
This post is tone deaf, if only for the complete ignorance of long-term renters in cities. Saying being evicted is only a "moderate inconvenience" for renters and not for owners is as calloused and inexperienced as they come.
Eh, not really. Spent a fair chunk of time as a renter in major cities. Yes it is inconvenient to move, but I did it at least a half dozen times, sometimes over considerable distances, so while you might disagree with my assessment saying it is not informed by experience is simply wrong.
And no matter how you dice it, renters do not have the considerable funds tied up in real estate that owners do, and bear a relatively small financial risk in comparison.
We're talking low-income renters, though, with families. Forcibly moving and uprooting a low-income family is not a moderate inconvenience and totally different from an untethered kid in the city. So yes, you are speaking from inexperience.
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 01:27:27 AM
We're talking low-income renters, though, with families. Forcibly moving and uprooting a low-income family is not a moderate inconvenience and totally different from an untethered kid in the city. So yes, you are speaking from inexperience.
Since you have no idea what my income was or how many kids I had that is presumptuous to say the least. And while it adds some inconvenience to move more people, acting like it is the apocalypse is foolish to say the least.
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 09, 2021, 01:55:47 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 01:27:27 AM
We're talking low-income renters, though, with families. Forcibly moving and uprooting a low-income family is not a moderate inconvenience and totally different from an untethered kid in the city. So yes, you are speaking from inexperience.
Since you have no idea what my income was or how many kids I had that is presumptuous to say the least. And while it adds some inconvenience to move more people, acting like it is the apocalypse is foolish to say the least.
There is a world of difference between packing up one family booted from a rental to move across town or across the state and uprooting an entire community, be they homeowners or renters. For many it was an apocalypse to be forcibly removed from a family home in a neighborhood with friends and relationships and businesses close at hand and moved elsewhere, either the "projects" or a low-rent neighborhood because the state paid pennies on the dollar to property owners. "Urban renewal" was about as blatant racism as you could get in the '50s and '60s, to remove African-Americans from the midst. The Roanoke Times a number of years ago did a great investigative piece about what happened when I-581 and the Roanoke Civic Center were built and the damage that was done to a thriving community, albeit one composed of African-Americans. Not everyone who lived in that area were "low-income renters" but many had good jobs with the Norfolk & Western and the other businesses and industries in the region. While not as nice as some of the homes in other parts of the city, they were kept up. There were thriving businesses, owned by people who lived in the neighborhood, that catered to that community. It was all bulldozed and torn asunder in the name of "progress" and a tight-knit community was scattered across the city and valley.
Yes, the interstate highway system does have some good features. But it was wrongly used to clear out "undesirables" in many areas, something that is only somewhat recognized today. The process is still going on, too, with the location of industries and infrastructure. In Virginia, there was a recent flap over the unwanted Mountain Valley Pipeline and the location of a pump station adjacent to an African-American neighborhood. The implication was that "poor people" didn't matter when the station could have just as easily been sited close to an upper-class neighborhood.
So far, "those who don't study history are condemned to repeat it" is holding true 50-60-70 years later.
Bruce in Blacksburg
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 09, 2021, 01:55:47 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 01:27:27 AM
We're talking low-income renters, though, with families. Forcibly moving and uprooting a low-income family is not a moderate inconvenience and totally different from an untethered kid in the city. So yes, you are speaking from inexperience.
Since you have no idea what my income was or how many kids I had that is presumptuous to say the least. And while it adds some inconvenience to move more people, acting like it is the apocalypse is foolish to say the least.
Ok. How many kids did you have with you at the time of your moves as a renter in cities? Because I was a renter with a wife and kids -- heck, not only moving within cities but across states for a while. Especially when the kids got into elementary school and we settled in one spot and school district, being forced to move would have been a major inconvenience and stress with little relation to my land ownership status.
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 10:12:25 AM
Ok. How many kids did you have with you at the time of your moves as a renter in cities? Because I was a renter with a wife and kids -- heck, not only moving within cities but across states for a while. Especially when the kids got into elementary school and we settled in one spot and school district, being forced to move would have been a major inconvenience and stress with little relation to my land ownership status.
You might want to consider that military families move every 1-2 years in many cases and the kids end up in half a dozen or more school districts by the time they graduate. But however bad you thought moving was, imagine adding to that the fact that you have 200-300k tied up in the house that you need to try and get out of it and you will see why renters simply cannot claim the inconvenience of property owners.
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 09, 2021, 12:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 10:12:25 AM
Ok. How many kids did you have with you at the time of your moves as a renter in cities? Because I was a renter with a wife and kids -- heck, not only moving within cities but across states for a while. Especially when the kids got into elementary school and we settled in one spot and school district, being forced to move would have been a major inconvenience and stress with little relation to my land ownership status.
You might want to consider that military families move every 1-2 years in many cases and the kids end up in half a dozen or more school districts by the time they graduate. But however bad you thought moving was, imagine adding to that the fact that you have 200-300k tied up in the house that you need to try and get out of it and you will see why renters simply cannot claim the inconvenience of property owners.
Nice dodge of the question.
And, equating being in the military with the cases of eminent domain in the past (e.g., Robert Caro's description of people getting the notice shortly before the bulldozers arrived), is simply inappropriate.
You're still forcibly moving families one way or the other.
Seeing the turn this discussion has taken reminds me of a couple of things and situations, one of which Rothman will have some indirect experience with.
But first off, ANY relocation -- whether forced or not -- is a MAJOR inconvenience. I moved four times in the span of about two years and it was a huge pain each time.
Now to the two examples I mentioned. In my hometown, a road project got underway to build a new highway as a short bypass of downtown and a flood-prone railroad underpass. The project claimed some unoccupied properties, a few of which were in significant disrepair. The engineers came to regard that as somewhat of an inadvertent urban renewal project because it eliminated some blighted structures.
Now, here's the one with which Rothman will have some familiarity, given his Floyd County, Ky. roots. Two general corridors are under study for the widening and extension of the Mountain Parkway from Salyersville to Prestonsburg. One route would be a new-terrain alignment along a ridgetop to the north of existing KY 114. The other route would basically be a widening of KY 114 from two to four lanes, with a few curves straightened out. The new-terrain alignment would cost more overall, with the bulk of that coming from construction. The widening would be less costly to build, but ROW acquisition would cost much more because there are a number of residences along the route. And there is also the consideration that it is thought there is not enough existing housing in Floyd County to accommodate the number of people who would be displaced by that.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 09, 2021, 08:35:35 PM
Seeing the turn this discussion has taken reminds me of a couple of things and situations, one of which Rothman will have some indirect experience with.
But first off, ANY relocation -- whether forced or not -- is a MAJOR inconvenience. I moved four times in the span of about two years and it was a huge pain each time.
Now to the two examples I mentioned. In my hometown, a road project got underway to build a new highway as a short bypass of downtown and a flood-prone railroad underpass. The project claimed some unoccupied properties, a few of which were in significant disrepair. The engineers came to regard that as somewhat of an inadvertent urban renewal project because it eliminated some blighted structures.
Now, here's the one with which Rothman will have some familiarity, given his Floyd County, Ky. roots. Two general corridors are under study for the widening and extension of the Mountain Parkway from Salyersville to Prestonsburg. One route would be a new-terrain alignment along a ridgetop to the north of existing KY 114. The other route would basically be a widening of KY 114 from two to four lanes, with a few curves straightened out. The new-terrain alignment would cost more overall, with the bulk of that coming from construction. The widening would be less costly to build, but ROW acquisition would cost much more because there are a number of residences along the route. And there is also the consideration that it is thought there is not enough existing housing in Floyd County to accommodate the number of people who would be displaced by that.
By some coincidence, my grandparents' home in Bypro -- sold after they passed nearly two decades ago -- just went into foreclosure. So, if anyone wants to move deeper into the mountains than that stretch... :/
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 02:04:01 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 09, 2021, 12:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 10:12:25 AM
Ok. How many kids did you have with you at the time of your moves as a renter in cities? Because I was a renter with a wife and kids -- heck, not only moving within cities but across states for a while. Especially when the kids got into elementary school and we settled in one spot and school district, being forced to move would have been a major inconvenience and stress with little relation to my land ownership status.
You might want to consider that military families move every 1-2 years in many cases and the kids end up in half a dozen or more school districts by the time they graduate. But however bad you thought moving was, imagine adding to that the fact that you have 200-300k tied up in the house that you need to try and get out of it and you will see why renters simply cannot claim the inconvenience of property owners.
Nice dodge of the question.
And, equating being in the military with the cases of eminent domain in the past (e.g., Robert Caro's description of people getting the notice shortly before the bulldozers arrived), is simply inappropriate.
You're still forcibly moving families one way or the other.
Sorry, but my family is not the business of random strangers on the internet. Forcibly moving families to build roadways for national defense and the public good is simply not something I find concerning. You may feel differently, but in the scope of all things its frankly trivial, and probably a wash given that areas with canceled freeways have usually not fared well in the past 50 years anyway, likely in part due to poor access to transportation.
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 09, 2021, 10:05:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 02:04:01 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 09, 2021, 12:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 10:12:25 AM
Ok. How many kids did you have with you at the time of your moves as a renter in cities? Because I was a renter with a wife and kids -- heck, not only moving within cities but across states for a while. Especially when the kids got into elementary school and we settled in one spot and school district, being forced to move would have been a major inconvenience and stress with little relation to my land ownership status.
You might want to consider that military families move every 1-2 years in many cases and the kids end up in half a dozen or more school districts by the time they graduate. But however bad you thought moving was, imagine adding to that the fact that you have 200-300k tied up in the house that you need to try and get out of it and you will see why renters simply cannot claim the inconvenience of property owners.
Nice dodge of the question.
And, equating being in the military with the cases of eminent domain in the past (e.g., Robert Caro's description of people getting the notice shortly before the bulldozers arrived), is simply inappropriate.
You're still forcibly moving families one way or the other.
Sorry, but my family is not the business of random strangers on the internet. Forcibly moving families to build roadways for national defense and the public good is simply not something I find concerning. You may feel differently, but in the scope of all things its frankly trivial, and probably a wash given that areas with canceled freeways have usually not fared well in the past 50 years anyway, likely in part due to poor access to transportation.
More like I called your bluff.
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am thankful that it's in the minority. Given the relocations of the past and the backlash (NYC, Boston...heck, even Duluth, MN), it's still little wonder that they are a major consideration of transportation projects today and they will continue to be.
So... I think the common reaction here is misunderstanding the purpose of the study in question.
Yes, there are plenty of benefits to interstate construction. No one is claiming there are not - but any research into them is outside the scope of this study.
The scope of the study is strictly to come up with a way of quantifying the downsides. It is not intended to draw any conclusion about whether interstates, overall, are good or bad. It is intended only to provide a piece of the puzzle necessary to make that determination.
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 10:27:53 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 09, 2021, 10:05:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 02:04:01 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 09, 2021, 12:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 10:12:25 AM
Ok. How many kids did you have with you at the time of your moves as a renter in cities? Because I was a renter with a wife and kids -- heck, not only moving within cities but across states for a while. Especially when the kids got into elementary school and we settled in one spot and school district, being forced to move would have been a major inconvenience and stress with little relation to my land ownership status.
You might want to consider that military families move every 1-2 years in many cases and the kids end up in half a dozen or more school districts by the time they graduate. But however bad you thought moving was, imagine adding to that the fact that you have 200-300k tied up in the house that you need to try and get out of it and you will see why renters simply cannot claim the inconvenience of property owners.
Nice dodge of the question.
And, equating being in the military with the cases of eminent domain in the past (e.g., Robert Caro's description of people getting the notice shortly before the bulldozers arrived), is simply inappropriate.
You're still forcibly moving families one way or the other.
Sorry, but my family is not the business of random strangers on the internet. Forcibly moving families to build roadways for national defense and the public good is simply not something I find concerning. You may feel differently, but in the scope of all things its frankly trivial, and probably a wash given that areas with canceled freeways have usually not fared well in the past 50 years anyway, likely in part due to poor access to transportation.
More like I called your bluff.
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am thankful that it's in the minority. Given the relocations of the past and the backlash (NYC, Boston...heck, even Duluth, MN), it's still little wonder that they are a major consideration of transportation projects today and they will continue to be.
No, more like you asked for information that was not yours to ask for. :-D
Beyond that, I will re-iterate that I have moved in the cities, and sometimes between them
at least a half dozen times. Its not nearly as dramatic as you make it sound. You pack up your things, and go wherever it is you are going. Compared to the sacrifices asked of may others of that generation it is an extremely minor issue. Not only that, but it was typically a one time request, which is not that significant.
As to the ongoing focus on these issues and freeway riots, lets just say that civil disorder, and the complaints emanating from either the media, or the ivory towers of academia (neither of which has any real clue how people live in the real world) hardly represent the best opinion or consideration of the manner. The US needs to be building more freeways, including many that were canceled for the wrong reasons years ago.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 10, 2021, 12:12:36 AM
So... I think the common reaction here is misunderstanding the purpose of the study in question.
Yes, there are plenty of benefits to interstate construction. No one is claiming there are not - but any research into them is outside the scope of this study.
The scope of the study is strictly to come up with a way of quantifying the downsides. It is not intended to draw any conclusion about whether interstates, overall, are good or bad. It is intended only to provide a piece of the puzzle necessary to make that determination.
It is intended to add to an already excessive quantity of "grievance scholarship" which is used by various vested interests to argue against any interstate construction. Leaving the benefits of freeways, which dwarf any downsides they could hope to find, out of the study is simply a way of misrepresenting the issue by way of omission. There is never any serious intent on the part of these studies to "provide a piece of the puzzle" as they produce only the same piece over and over again while leaving the other 999 out of the picture.
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 10, 2021, 01:25:42 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 10:27:53 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 09, 2021, 10:05:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 02:04:01 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 09, 2021, 12:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 10:12:25 AM
Ok. How many kids did you have with you at the time of your moves as a renter in cities? Because I was a renter with a wife and kids -- heck, not only moving within cities but across states for a while. Especially when the kids got into elementary school and we settled in one spot and school district, being forced to move would have been a major inconvenience and stress with little relation to my land ownership status.
You might want to consider that military families move every 1-2 years in many cases and the kids end up in half a dozen or more school districts by the time they graduate. But however bad you thought moving was, imagine adding to that the fact that you have 200-300k tied up in the house that you need to try and get out of it and you will see why renters simply cannot claim the inconvenience of property owners.
Nice dodge of the question.
And, equating being in the military with the cases of eminent domain in the past (e.g., Robert Caro's description of people getting the notice shortly before the bulldozers arrived), is simply inappropriate.
You're still forcibly moving families one way or the other.
Sorry, but my family is not the business of random strangers on the internet. Forcibly moving families to build roadways for national defense and the public good is simply not something I find concerning. You may feel differently, but in the scope of all things its frankly trivial, and probably a wash given that areas with canceled freeways have usually not fared well in the past 50 years anyway, likely in part due to poor access to transportation.
More like I called your bluff.
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am thankful that it's in the minority. Given the relocations of the past and the backlash (NYC, Boston...heck, even Duluth, MN), it's still little wonder that they are a major consideration of transportation projects today and they will continue to be.
No, more like you asked for information that was not yours to ask for. :-D
Beyond that, I will re-iterate that I have moved in the cities, and sometimes between them at least a half dozen times. Its not nearly as dramatic as you make it sound. You pack up your things, and go wherever it is you are going. Compared to the sacrifices asked of may others of that generation it is an extremely minor issue. Not only that, but it was typically a one time request, which is not that significant.
As to the ongoing focus on these issues and freeway riots, lets just say that civil disorder, and the complaints emanating from either the media, or the ivory towers of academia (neither of which has any real clue how people live in the real world) hardly represent the best opinion or consideration of the manner. The US needs to be building more freeways, including many that were canceled for the wrong reasons years ago.
Nah. Given how our discussion went, you were being disingenuous.
You're still not differentiating between voluntary moves and expulsion due to eminent domain. Or between a single person not settled in yet and a family settled into a community, school district and stable employment (however underpaid).
You can keep trying to minimize the impacts of relocations, but the majority has and will continue to treat them more seriously (I mean, your position is for a very intrusive big government beyond what any current contenders for power desire). If anything, this will be because we've had transportation officials whose families were relocated unfairly due to urban transportation projects (e.g., Fred Salvucci in MA in particular) and the experiences cause much more social repulsion than you describe.
Quote from: Rothman on January 10, 2021, 09:53:44 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 10, 2021, 01:25:42 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 10:27:53 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 09, 2021, 10:05:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 02:04:01 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 09, 2021, 12:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 10:12:25 AM
Ok. How many kids did you have with you at the time of your moves as a renter in cities? Because I was a renter with a wife and kids -- heck, not only moving within cities but across states for a while. Especially when the kids got into elementary school and we settled in one spot and school district, being forced to move would have been a major inconvenience and stress with little relation to my land ownership status.
You might want to consider that military families move every 1-2 years in many cases and the kids end up in half a dozen or more school districts by the time they graduate. But however bad you thought moving was, imagine adding to that the fact that you have 200-300k tied up in the house that you need to try and get out of it and you will see why renters simply cannot claim the inconvenience of property owners.
Nice dodge of the question.
And, equating being in the military with the cases of eminent domain in the past (e.g., Robert Caro's description of people getting the notice shortly before the bulldozers arrived), is simply inappropriate.
You're still forcibly moving families one way or the other.
Sorry, but my family is not the business of random strangers on the internet. Forcibly moving families to build roadways for national defense and the public good is simply not something I find concerning. You may feel differently, but in the scope of all things its frankly trivial, and probably a wash given that areas with canceled freeways have usually not fared well in the past 50 years anyway, likely in part due to poor access to transportation.
More like I called your bluff.
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am thankful that it's in the minority. Given the relocations of the past and the backlash (NYC, Boston...heck, even Duluth, MN), it's still little wonder that they are a major consideration of transportation projects today and they will continue to be.
No, more like you asked for information that was not yours to ask for. :-D
Beyond that, I will re-iterate that I have moved in the cities, and sometimes between them at least a half dozen times. Its not nearly as dramatic as you make it sound. You pack up your things, and go wherever it is you are going. Compared to the sacrifices asked of may others of that generation it is an extremely minor issue. Not only that, but it was typically a one time request, which is not that significant.
As to the ongoing focus on these issues and freeway riots, lets just say that civil disorder, and the complaints emanating from either the media, or the ivory towers of academia (neither of which has any real clue how people live in the real world) hardly represent the best opinion or consideration of the manner. The US needs to be building more freeways, including many that were canceled for the wrong reasons years ago.
Nah. Given how our discussion went, you were being disingenuous.
You're still not differentiating between voluntary moves and expulsion due to eminent domain. Or between a single person not settled in yet and a family settled into a community, school district and stable employment (however underpaid).
You can keep trying to minimize the impacts of relocations, but the majority has and will continue to treat them more seriously (I mean, your position is for a very intrusive big government beyond what any current contenders for power desire). If anything, this will be because we've had transportation officials whose families were relocated unfairly due to urban transportation projects (e.g., Fred Salvucci in MA in particular) and the experiences cause much more social repulsion than you describe.
Believe whatever you wish, but some information is not yours for the asking.
Quote from: Rothman on January 10, 2021, 09:53:44 AM
You can keep trying to minimize the impacts of relocations, but the majority has and will continue to treat them more seriously (I mean, your position is for a very intrusive big government beyond what any current contenders for power desire). If anything, this will be because we've had transportation officials whose families were relocated unfairly due to urban transportation projects (e.g., Fred Salvucci in MA in particular) and the experiences cause much more social repulsion than you describe.
And a long term problem here is that aversion to new road construction, even if it is totally understandable, results in long-term effects. Growth of city centers means more traffic to/from downtown has to be squeezed into same corridors which were reserved when population was few times less. New corridors within cities (and between cities, although this is lightly different subject) will disrupt someone, as totally undeveloped areas are few and far in between.
I don't know how to resolve this in a long run, short of cheap and massive tunneling and air traffic. One may dream, right?
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 10, 2021, 01:25:42 AM
...I will re-iterate that I have moved in the cities, and sometimes between them at least a half dozen times. Its not nearly as dramatic as you make it sound. You pack up your things, and go wherever it is you are going. Compared to the sacrifices asked of may others of that generation it is an extremely minor issue. Not only that, but it was typically a one time request, which is not that significant.
If most people shared your view, Eminent Domain would be one of the first options to be used, not the last.
And while I agree you don't have to put your info out there, that doesn't mean we have to believe you've been forced to move multiple times either. If you have, clearly you really don't mind...or you have plenty of money and great credit, and can easily and continuously plop down thousands for closing costs or first/last month's rents, along with all your buddies with trucks to move your stuff numerous times when forced to move. Not everyone is as fortunate.
We all know keyboard warriors when we see one.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2021, 02:15:35 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 10, 2021, 01:25:42 AM
...I will re-iterate that I have moved in the cities, and sometimes between them at least a half dozen times. Its not nearly as dramatic as you make it sound. You pack up your things, and go wherever it is you are going. Compared to the sacrifices asked of may others of that generation it is an extremely minor issue. Not only that, but it was typically a one time request, which is not that significant.
If most people shared your view, Eminent Domain would be one of the first options to be used, not the last.
And while I agree you don't have to put your info out there, that doesn't mean we have to believe you've been forced to move multiple times either. If you have, clearly you really don't mind...or you have plenty of money and great credit, and can easily and continuously plop down thousands for closing costs or first/last month's rents, along with all your buddies with trucks to move your stuff numerous times when forced to move. Not everyone is as fortunate.
We all know keyboard warriors when we see one.
My point was I had to move and there was no point crying over spilled milk. And I will say I never "plopped" thousands for moving costs etc. Nor did I have "plenty of money" or any credit to speak of. I never had any friend with a truck, and in fact several of the moves were with nothing more than a suitcase and clothes on my back. My most elaborate moving truck was Toyota Corolla that allowed a few carefully selected pieces of smallish used furniture to be carted home.
We all know keyboard warriors when we see one.No you clearly don't. Some people just don't complain that much and take the hand they are dealt.
Oh, I'd rather have ham in my sandwich than cheese
But complaining wouldn't do any goodI don't have any delusions about convincing those who feel dislocation was a major issue otherwise, but neither will I be convinced that my moving was somehow blessed with non-existent moving trucks and gold plated credit. In any case I feel this has drifted too far from roads, and I would rather leave the thread in readable condition for whatever road-fan comes along after the fact.
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 11, 2021, 10:23:26 PM
We all know keyboard warriors when we see one.
Except for you, because you have no self-awareness.
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 11, 2021, 10:23:26 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2021, 02:15:35 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 10, 2021, 01:25:42 AM
...I will re-iterate that I have moved in the cities, and sometimes between them at least a half dozen times. Its not nearly as dramatic as you make it sound. You pack up your things, and go wherever it is you are going. Compared to the sacrifices asked of may others of that generation it is an extremely minor issue. Not only that, but it was typically a one time request, which is not that significant.
If most people shared your view, Eminent Domain would be one of the first options to be used, not the last.
And while I agree you don't have to put your info out there, that doesn't mean we have to believe you've been forced to move multiple times either. If you have, clearly you really don't mind...or you have plenty of money and great credit, and can easily and continuously plop down thousands for closing costs or first/last month's rents, along with all your buddies with trucks to move your stuff numerous times when forced to move. Not everyone is as fortunate.
We all know keyboard warriors when we see one.
My point was I had to move and there was no point crying over spilled milk. And I will say I never "plopped" thousands for moving costs etc. Nor did I have "plenty of money" or any credit to speak of. I never had any friend with a truck, and in fact several of the moves were with nothing more than a suitcase and clothes on my back. My most elaborate moving truck was Toyota Corolla that allowed a few carefully selected pieces of smallish used furniture to be carted home.
We all know keyboard warriors when we see one.
No you clearly don't. Some people just don't complain that much and take the hand they are dealt.
Oh, I'd rather have ham in my sandwich than cheese
But complaining wouldn't do any good
I don't have any delusions about convincing those who feel dislocation was a major issue otherwise, but neither will I be convinced that my moving was somehow blessed with non-existent moving trucks and gold plated credit. In any case I feel this has drifted too far from roads, and I would rather leave the thread in readable condition for whatever road-fan comes along after the fact.
Right, it was just you moving around rather than an established family. Dear heavens, that shouldn't have been so hard to admit.
You can keep patting yourself on the back about having a stiff upper lip as you moved around. But it still doesn't sound like you were handed a notice that you absolutely had to (e.g., eviction or other mandate). And, you are still inappropriately comparing your own experience as a single person with few belongings to long-term renting families in the city.
Your lack of empathy, combined with your argument style on here, leads me to have a lot of speculation about how you ended up where you have.
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 11, 2021, 10:23:26 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2021, 02:15:35 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 10, 2021, 01:25:42 AM
...I will re-iterate that I have moved in the cities, and sometimes between them at least a half dozen times. Its not nearly as dramatic as you make it sound. You pack up your things, and go wherever it is you are going. Compared to the sacrifices asked of may others of that generation it is an extremely minor issue. Not only that, but it was typically a one time request, which is not that significant.
If most people shared your view, Eminent Domain would be one of the first options to be used, not the last.
And while I agree you don't have to put your info out there, that doesn't mean we have to believe you've been forced to move multiple times either. If you have, clearly you really don't mind...or you have plenty of money and great credit, and can easily and continuously plop down thousands for closing costs or first/last month's rents, along with all your buddies with trucks to move your stuff numerous times when forced to move. Not everyone is as fortunate.
We all know keyboard warriors when we see one.
My point was I had to move and there was no point crying over spilled milk. And I will say I never "plopped" thousands for moving costs etc. Nor did I have "plenty of money" or any credit to speak of. I never had any friend with a truck, and in fact several of the moves were with nothing more than a suitcase and clothes on my back. My most elaborate moving truck was Toyota Corolla that allowed a few carefully selected pieces of smallish used furniture to be carted home.
We all know keyboard warriors when we see one.
No you clearly don't. Some people just don't complain that much and take the hand they are dealt.
Oh, I'd rather have ham in my sandwich than cheese
But complaining wouldn't do any good
I don't have any delusions about convincing those who feel dislocation was a major issue otherwise, but neither will I be convinced that my moving was somehow blessed with non-existent moving trucks and gold plated credit. In any case I feel this has drifted too far from roads, and I would rather leave the thread in readable condition for whatever road-fan comes along after the fact.
Dallas Cowboy fan in Philadelphia, I see.
Quote from: VTGoose on January 06, 2021, 07:48:14 PM
A Virginia Tech history professor has received a grant to study the "displacement and environmental destruction" caused by the construction of the Interstate highway system. "LaDale Winling, an associate professor of history at Virginia Tech, is determined to change that. And to help him achieve that goal, the National Endowment for Humanities has provided him with a prestigious grant to kickstart a new project, "Connecting the Interstates." "Connecting the Interstates" will illuminate the damaging effects of the highway system through an interactive map, Winling said. The tool can help community leaders, public officials, journalists, and historians along with the general public understand the system's impact on a deeper level." See https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2020/12/destruction-and-displacement--history-professor-earns-grant-to-e.html for details.
Bruce in Blacksburg
Back in my heyday of working on Roadfan.com, when I was tracking down the maps of the routing of I-670, between I-71 and I-270/Port Columbus Airport, I kept coming across several studies (probably intertwined with one another) that ODOT, City of Columbus, and (likely) Ohio State, put together concerning the neighborhoods that were affected by the proposal routes for I-670.
One of the books looked at communication and citizen feedback as they tried to route I-670 with the least amount of harm to these neighborhoods. Included in "least amount of harm" was keeping housing stock, keeping parks/greenspace, and keeping and creating access points so the citizens wouldn't feel "trapped" in their own enclaves, while also feeling like they were still part of Columbus.
The other book was a study of what would have happen if I-670 was built over any of the proposed routes (and which exits and ramps were included/excluded). I don't recall coming across any books or reports following up on the neighborhoods along I-670 after it was completed in the early 90s.
I-670 east was constructed between 1985-1991, so I believe these reports were written between 1978-1985 (and I imagine can be found via any online library source)
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 09, 2021, 10:05:57 PM
Sorry, but my family is not the business of random strangers on the internet. Forcibly moving families to build roadways for national defense and the public good is simply not something I find concerning. You may feel differently, but in the scope of all things its frankly trivial, and probably a wash given that areas with canceled freeways have usually not fared well in the past 50 years anyway, likely in part due to poor access to transportation.
Usually areas with canceled freeways were areas that were politically strong enough to stop them, were usually economically strong too and mostly still are. I'm thinking of Seattle's Montlake neighborhood which stopped the Thompson Expressway. The neighborhood is filled with impressive looking houses.
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on January 12, 2021, 09:20:12 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 09, 2021, 10:05:57 PM
Sorry, but my family is not the business of random strangers on the internet. Forcibly moving families to build roadways for national defense and the public good is simply not something I find concerning. You may feel differently, but in the scope of all things its frankly trivial, and probably a wash given that areas with canceled freeways have usually not fared well in the past 50 years anyway, likely in part due to poor access to transportation.
Usually areas with canceled freeways were areas that were politically strong enough to stop them, were usually economically strong too and mostly still are. I'm thinking of Seattle's Montlake neighborhood which stopped the Thompson Expressway. The neighborhood is filled with impressive looking houses.
You have identified a subclass of canceled freeways, those that were canceled by means of political pressure and usually represent wealthy NIMBY neighborhoods. But those are only a subclass, many areas with canceled freeways are worse off than they were when they were canceled. Baltimore and DC are two of the best examples.
Quote from: sparker on January 08, 2021, 06:36:43 AM
Although currently it may not be "PC" to do so, temporal context is an integral part of any examination of programs over a half-century old
At least
someone is thinking with their brain!
Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2021, 02:04:01 PM
And, equating being in the military with the cases of eminent domain in the past (e.g., Robert Caro's description of people getting the notice shortly before the bulldozers arrived), is simply inappropriate.
You're still forcibly moving families one way or the other.
If they're being forced to move either way, then isn't the comparison appropriate? However, since the end of the draft, parents
choose to enlist, which is a big difference.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 10, 2021, 12:12:36 AM
So... I think the common reaction here is misunderstanding the purpose of the study in question.
Yes, there are plenty of benefits to interstate construction. No one is claiming there are not - but any research into them is outside the scope of this study.
The scope of the study is strictly to come up with a way of quantifying the downsides. It is not intended to draw any conclusion about whether interstates, overall, are good or bad. It is intended only to provide a piece of the puzzle necessary to make that determination.
Compared to what? Compared to a hypothetical scenario in which no improvements were made at all? Or one in which the improvements were made as needed but there was no nationwide umbrella system of freeways? For something can only have a "negative result" if things are worse than they would have been without it.
Example: Compare a section of highway being reconstructed to freeway standards all at once, to that same section of highway being reconstructed to freeway standards in pieces over the course of thirty years. Citing the downsides of the former without considering the latter would be negligent or even misleading.
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2021, 12:23:09 PM
If they're being forced to move either way, then isn't the comparison appropriate? However, since the end of the draft, parents choose to enlist, which is a big difference.
My point in making that comparison is that there IS an entire subclass of Americans that move their families regularly so they can serve us, and to ask any American to move once for the good of society as a whole should not be an unreasonable request.
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2021, 12:23:09 PM
For something can only have a "negative result" if things are worse than they would have been without it.
That doesn't follow. Things tend not to be uniformly good or bad. If they were, people would have a lot fewer arguments about everything. Take electric cars. They're cleaner, require less maintenance, get better acceleration, and you can top off the battery in your garage instead of going to a gas station. They also take a long time to recharge (and "fast" charging, which is still very slow compared to refueling a gas car, too often is bad for the battery), and the range (which is often if not usually shorter regardless) is affected by many things, including the weather and the age of the battery (which is VERY expensive to replace), making it harder to roadgeek in them. Are they better? Are they worse? That depends on what's most important to you.
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 14, 2021, 12:56:14 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2021, 12:23:09 PM
If they're being forced to move either way, then isn't the comparison appropriate? However, since the end of the draft, parents choose to enlist, which is a big difference.
My point in making that comparison is that there IS an entire subclass of Americans that move their families regularly so they can serve us, and to ask any American to move once for the good of society as a whole should not be an unreasonable request.
I'd say the benefits are not equivalent. Serving in the military has the opportunity to benefit the protection and welfare all of America, plus other countries. Building a freeway through a particular neighborhood... ummm... allows people to get somewhere faster.
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2021, 01:08:30 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 14, 2021, 12:56:14 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2021, 12:23:09 PM
If they're being forced to move either way, then isn't the comparison appropriate? However, since the end of the draft, parents choose to enlist, which is a big difference.
My point in making that comparison is that there IS an entire subclass of Americans that move their families regularly so they can serve us, and to ask any American to move once for the good of society as a whole should not be an unreasonable request.
I'd say the benefits are not equivalent. Serving in the military has the opportunity to benefit the protection and welfare all of America, plus other countries. Building a freeway through a particular neighborhood... ummm... allows people to get somewhere faster.
The freeways were built as defense highways to serve the purposes you describe, they have immense economic, industrial, tactical, and strategic significance.
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 14, 2021, 01:19:01 PM
The freeways were built as defense highways to serve the purposes you describe ...
Yes, that was the rationale. I don't know, however, that they actually contribute to the defense of our nation a whole heck of a lot, compared to if they hadn't been constructed. Maybe...
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 14, 2021, 01:19:01 PM
... they have immense economic, industrial, tactical, and strategic significance.
Yes. But they would probably have the same significance if they had been constructed on a piecemeal basis without the red and blue shields. Which gets me back to what I was saying earlier: a hypothetical world in which none of the Interstates became freeways is a ridiculous proposition. Most of the system–at least in the eastern half of the nation–would probably be freeways or else traffic-clogged by now anyway, even without the highway act.
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2021, 01:32:05 PM
Yes. But they would probably have the same significance if they had been constructed on a piecemeal basis without the red and blue shields. Which gets me back to what I was saying earlier: a hypothetical world in which none of the Interstates became freeways is a ridiculous proposition. Most of the system–at least in the eastern half of the nation–would probably be freeways or else traffic-clogged by now anyway, even without the highway act.
There would be a lot less coordination between states. If I wanted to get from my location to Richmond VA, I could do it. If I wanted to go from there to Atlanta, there would probably be a Durham-Greensboro-Charlotte freeway and a Spartanburg-Greenville-Anderson freeway, but the rest would be surface roads.
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2021, 01:08:30 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 14, 2021, 12:56:14 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2021, 12:23:09 PM
If they're being forced to move either way, then isn't the comparison appropriate? However, since the end of the draft, parents choose to enlist, which is a big difference.
My point in making that comparison is that there IS an entire subclass of Americans that move their families regularly so they can serve us, and to ask any American to move once for the good of society as a whole should not be an unreasonable request.
I'd say the benefits are not equivalent. Serving in the military has the opportunity to benefit the protection and welfare all of America, plus other countries. Building a freeway through a particular neighborhood... ummm... allows people to get somewhere faster.
Last time I checked, there was no draft in US for a while, so whoever is in the military basically chosen that lifestyle for themselves.
You may also argue that waking up someone at night is not a big deal, as there are people working graveyard shift, or have professionally crazy schedule (such as transportation workers - bus drivers, plane crews, who has to work 5AM-6AM departures). Again, a personal choice.
I have a fundamental problem with anyone claiming that it's not inconvenient for somebody else to move.
It's the same way I felt when people suggested after Hurricane Katrina that New Orleans residents had brought on their own plight by "choosing" to live in that city–as if where you live is nothing more than the particular pieces of framing and drywall that happen to cover your belongings, and not something intricately tied to multiple aspects of your life, the nexus of your social support network, the site of many of your memories, etc, etc...
Quote from: kalvado on January 14, 2021, 01:56:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2021, 01:08:30 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 14, 2021, 12:56:14 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2021, 12:23:09 PM
If they're being forced to move either way, then isn't the comparison appropriate? However, since the end of the draft, parents choose to enlist, which is a big difference.
My point in making that comparison is that there IS an entire subclass of Americans that move their families regularly so they can serve us, and to ask any American to move once for the good of society as a whole should not be an unreasonable request.
I'd say the benefits are not equivalent. Serving in the military has the opportunity to benefit the protection and welfare all of America, plus other countries. Building a freeway through a particular neighborhood... ummm... allows people to get somewhere faster.
Last time I checked, there was no draft in US for a while, so whoever is in the military basically chosen that lifestyle for themselves.
You may also argue that waking up someone at night is not a big deal, as there are people working graveyard shift, or have professionally crazy schedule (such as transportation workers - bus drivers, plane crews, who has to work 5AM-6AM departures). Again, a personal choice.
I don't care that they "chose" that lifestyle, they are still making a sacrifice for the rest of us. In fact, because it is voluntary it makes the point all the more relevant, if some people are willing to stand up and be counted like that then no one else has an excuse.
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2021, 02:12:40 PM
I have a fundamental problem with anyone claiming that it's not inconvenient for somebody else to move.
It's the same way I felt when people suggested after Hurricane Katrina that New Orleans residents had brought on their own plight by "choosing" to live in that city–as if where you live is nothing more than the particular pieces of framing and drywall that happen to cover your belongings, and not something intricately tied to multiple aspects of your life, the nexus of your social support network, the site of many of your memories, etc, etc...
Choosing to live below sea level is unwise, as is choosing to live in a floodplain, etc. There is no way around that.
Quote from: HighwayStar on January 14, 2021, 03:16:00 PM
I don't care that they "chose" that lifestyle, they are still making a sacrifice for the rest of us. In fact, because it is voluntary it makes the point all the more relevant, if some people are willing to stand up and be counted like that then no one else has an excuse.
The whole reason it was mentioned is that servicemen made the choice to up and move their families. The victims of freeway-induced relocation did not.
The deployment of I-105/Century Freeway across south-central metro L.A. had the effect of opening a lot of DOT eyes to the actual cost -- direct and effectual -- of urban freeway construction. Although few of the properties affected fell into the category of eliciting NIMBY or opposition by parties with political and/or monetary influence (and much of that was commercial rather than residential in nature), the overall cost of the project ballooned from the 1968 projections (this was one of the urban facilities authorized in the '68 Interstate additions) from an originally estimated $1.25B to $4.65B (that in '68 dollars adjusted from its early '90's $11B actual cost) when finally completed in 1993. Simply put, South Central residents pushed back and litigated a groundbreaking settlement package that included not only enhanced property compensation as well as provision for covering relocation expenses but also facility design, particularly the reduction from 8-10 lanes to 6-8 in order to place the LR "Green Line" down the freeway's median (with enough stations along the way to substantially serve the affected communities). Displaced homeowners were compensated at a level that let them, if they wished, to purchase more modern facilities in the general vicinity (many resettled in north Inglewood, Ladera Heights, or Culver City, particularly the west Baldwin Hills neighborhoods) or relocate within South Central and pocketing the difference if that proved more economical. Renters received at least a year's rental for upgraded apartment facilities (again, new complexes in those same areas cited above saw the greatest influx of those displaced by I-105). Also adding to the cost -- and this the result of commercial interests' objections to the particular route/facility design -- was a reroute in the Hawthorne/Lennox area to avoid impinging on the flight paths in and out of Northrop/Hawthorne Airport; the original freeway was on a berm parallel to and a block from that airport's primary runway, used primarily for executive jets attached to the myriad aerospace interests in the area (Northrop/Grumman, Raytheon/Hughes, etc.) -- but the reroute required a large northward "arc" through neighborhoods with similar demographics to South Central, so the enhanced compensation/relocation process extended there as well. Curiously, there was some backlash to the freeway realignment from, of all sources, a few strip club owners in Lennox whose properties were taken by the I-105/Hawthorne Blvd. interchange.
The upshot was that by the time the costs were beginning to pile up in the mid-80's the realization that this sort of activity was at the forefront of the "new normal" for urban construction; as I-105 was effectively the last of the urban L.A. freeways to be built (and airport access to and from the east was a longstanding regional goal), Caltrans and MTA sucked it up and finished the job -- but that process rendered any other plans for similar facilities (such as the parallel CA 90/Slauson freeway to the north) effectively DOA. It could additionally be stated that the I-710 extension to Pasadena was affected by the I-105 experience -- although that addition would have been of the non-chargeable variety, so federal funds would have been limited to a much lower level in any case. Bottom line -- it's now widely considered that urban freeways are simply too costly regardless of any perceived benefit, so the prospects for such are dismal indeed as a now-longstanding effect of collective neighborhood action based on a social justice goal -- but not necessarily to stop the freeway's development but to take into consideration a greater measure of the various costs of displacement and provide compensation accordingly. Adding to that are the effects of urban inflation on property values across the board. And regardless of the fact that this was a L.A. situation -- and property values in SoCal have been bordering on the ludicrous for some time now -- this is still a transportable model that can be applied to urban settings elsewhere -- i.e., this is what you'll be encountering if you attempt to build a new freeway facility in a densely developed area, so you'll need both almost infinitely deep pockets and almost infinite patience. With that as an obstacle, it's no wonder that unless agencies are both tone-deaf and willfully ignorant of their environment, urban freeway development has been virtually absent since the '90's.
With respect to I-105, I do think sparker is unfortunately correct. I don't foresee getting the new urban freeways that are badly needed in much of the country unless it is done under the original defense purpose with congressional authority used to override the NIMBYs and special interest groups.