🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 14 Apr 1994 18:24:59 GMT, hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) said:

> The three movements converged, with politicians manouevering to get
> their urban highways made part of the Interstate system so that the
> feds would pick up 90% of the costs, and pay to get rid of the slums.
> By the mid-1960s, the Interstate Highway program was being used to rip
> the heart out of central cities, taking with them a lot of neat old
> bars and restaurants as well as inexpensive, if rundown, housing.

I think you're making a goal out of a side-effect. I certainly doubt that
ripping the heart of out cities was the goal of federally funded highways;
rather, I would believe that the stated goal would have been the growth of
commerce in those areas.

It is true that emminent domain was easier to apply to people with less
political clout, but highways were (back then) often seen as good things that
would help improve an area (just as the coming of a streetcar line would
improve an area back in the 1910s).

There may have been political agendas in the manner of construction; this is
highlighted in the book LA Freeway from University of California Press. For
example, the Harbor Fwy is submerged as it passes through South Central Los
Angeles. There is also the strong boundary affect of a freeway; look what
happened to the small Elysian Park area just N of Rte 5 that is affectively
isolated. Look at the distinction created between the West SFValley and the
East SFValley, as created by the dividing line of the 405. Look at how the
downtown freeway loop (Rte 110, Rte 101, Rte 10) has hemmed in the downtown
area. These are significant social factors that were probably unanticipated at
the time of construction.

Note that rail lines, especially busy ones, often had a similar affect much
earlier. The distinction of "the other side of the tracks" to indicate someone
of lower status is an example of this.

Daniel

--
[W]: The Aerospace Corp. M1/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 310/336-8228
[Email]:faigin@aero.org, faigin@acm.org         [Vmail]:310/336-5454 Box#68228
Seen on the net: "I always thought that 'Intel Inside' was a warning required
by Truth in Advertising laws..."