Freeway Removal. Freeway Lids

[Josh]

They were doing so to advantage and promote development of middle class and affluent suburbs on the periphery. Without freeways, affluent far-flung suburbs would not have been viable. Commuting out to far-flung affluent suburbs 10-20 miles from the city center isn't going to work if all you have are 2-lane country roads and surface streets.

Melbourne, Australia had no such thing as white flight, given the entire country was white with a handful of Asians when I grew up there. There were not freeways either.

Yet we lived 20 miles from the city centre and my dad drove to work on surface streets, since taking public transportation took quite a bit longer. So did many other people. Overall, employment in Australia was far more concentrated in the city centre in the 1980s than it would have been in an equivalent American city.

Look at any large American city. And with a few exceptions like NYC, the affluent neighborhoods are mostly not in the center, they are on the periphery. Much of American freeway building wasn't about interstate commerce across the country. It was about suburbanization and opening up land development on the periphery of American cities.

When looking at a place like Columbus, Ohio, the most expensive places are right by the downtown, like Upper Arlington. A few miles out you find more bastions like Dublin. Places on the "periphery" like Newark are not exactly what I would call "affluent".

That is how most American urban areas became sprawling and car-centric compared to European cities that are more compact and dense. Was racism a factor? Sure. But it was far from the only force at play.

Could you explain to us how Australia also became sprawling without freeways?

[Ken]

Could you explain to us how Australia also became sprawling without freeways?

Probably the same way it happened in the US. A combination of highway lobbies, construction lobbies, banking lobbies, etc. that saw immense profits to be made by developing the rural periphery around towns and cities with low-density subdivisions and sprawl. Along with weak or nonexistent land-use laws.

[Ernie]

Much of American freeway building wasn't about interstate commerce across the country. It was about suburbanization and opening up land development on the periphery of American cities.

If you look at the amount of expense in rural areas versus urban areas, I think it is safe to say that at least 50% was focused on interstate commerce and travel. Maybe even 70 or 80%.

[ohio jones]

I have no doubt that freeways were often built through minority neighborhoods in urban centers.

What I'd like to know is whether they were also often built in non-minority neighborhoods AND whether the planners deliberately avoided middle class and upper-class neighborhoods.

When possible routes were being considered for the I-69 extension south of Indianapolis, the planners at INDOT received a polite but firm letter from Senator Lugar suggesting that it would be a Very Bad Idea to choose the route close to his family farm and its valuable walnut trees. They didn't.

In a similar time frame, they built an interstate within sight of my dad's farmette, which has been in the family for just as long and also has some walnut trees. He didn't protest, knowing that it wouldn't have done any good.

[Ken]

Much of American freeway building wasn't about interstate commerce across the country. It was about suburbanization and opening up land development on the periphery of American cities.

If you look at the amount of expense in rural areas versus urban areas, I think it is safe to say that at least 50% was focused on interstate commerce and travel. Maybe even 70 or 80%.

It depends on how you measure. By distance, sure. But freeway construction in dense urban areas is exponentially more expensive on a per-mile basis compared laying down asphalt in a rural desert someplace. The amount of federal highway dollars that went towards supporting suburbanization as opposed to interstate commerce was immense.

And in recent decades the bulk of highway dollars has been spent on freeway expansion rather than new rural freeways. In other words, widening existing urban and suburban highways to accommodate more commuter traffic.

This is the Katy Freeway in the suburbs east of Houston (AKA Interstate 10). The state has spent tens of billions widening it with federal dollars as well. All those lanes (I think 24 at last count) aren't there to support interstate commerce between Houston and Los Angeles. They are there to support commuters from the sprawling suburbs east of Houston like Katy.

[Ernie]

Much of American freeway building wasn't about interstate commerce across the country. It was about suburbanization and opening up land development on the periphery of American cities.

If you look at the amount of expense in rural areas versus urban areas, I think it is safe to say that at least 50% was focused on interstate commerce and travel. Maybe even 70 or 80%.

It depends on how you measure. By distance, sure. But freeway construction in dense urban areas is exponentially more expensive on a per-mile basis compared laying down asphalt in some desert someplace. The amount of federal highway dollars that went towards supporting suburbanization as opposed to interstate commerce was immense.

That is why I used the word "expense."

It looks like the original budget was 57% for rural and 43% for urban. I haven't been able to find percentages for the final cost.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/target.cfm

[Josh]

Could you explain to us how Australia also became sprawling without freeways?

Probably the same way it happened in the US. A combination of highway lobbies, construction lobbies, banking lobbies, etc. that saw immense profits to be made by developing the rural periphery around towns and cities with low-density subdivisions and sprawl. Along with weak or nonexistent land-use laws.

Let’s repeat some information you may have missed.

Melbourne, Australia had no such thing as white flight, given the entire country was white with a handful of Asians when I grew up there. There were not freeways either.

Yet we lived 20 miles from the city centre and my dad drove to work on surface streets, since taking public transportation took quite a bit longer. So did many other people. Overall, employment in Australia was far more concentrated in the city centre in the 1980s than it would have been in an equivalent American city.

Without freeways, affluent far-flung suburbs would not have been viable. Commuting out to far-flung affluent suburbs 10-20 miles from the city center isn't going to work if all you have are 2-lane country roads and surface streets.

I just explained how far-flung suburbs were indeed viable without freeways. As far as “affluent” goes, well, we weren’t rich growing up but weren’t poor either; my childhood home nowadays is worth north of a million dollars.

[Ken]

If you look at the amount of expense in rural areas versus urban areas, I think it is safe to say that at least 50% was focused on interstate commerce and travel. Maybe even 70 or 80%.

It depends on how you measure. By distance, sure. But freeway construction in dense urban areas is exponentially more expensive on a per-mile basis compared laying down asphalt in some desert someplace. The amount of federal highway dollars that went towards supporting suburbanization as opposed to interstate commerce was immense.

That is why I used the word "expense."

It looks like the original budget was 57% for rural and 43% for urban. I haven't been able to find percentages for the final cost.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/target.cfm

There is no "final cost". It is still ongoing. But Federal dollars have shrank as a percentage of highway spending and at present are only about 30% of the total today. I would guess that in the past decade, the vast majority of freeway dollars have gone to suburban and urban freeway expansion and not new freeways for interstate commerce. It is hard to find any actual numbers. But that is certainly the case out here in the Northwest. All the big highway projects are urban/suburban projects around greater Seattle, Portland and Spokane.

[Josh]

There is no "final cost". It is still ongoing. But Federal dollars have shrank as a percentage of highway spending and at present are only about 30% of the total today. I would guess that in the past decade, the vast majority of freeway dollars have gone to suburban and urban freeway expansion and not new freeways for interstate commerce. It is hard to find any actual numbers. But that is certainly the case out here in the Northwest. All the big highway projects are urban/suburban projects around greater Seattle, Portland and Spokane.

Well, the Interstate system is mostly built out, except for some cancelled projects in cities (such as in D.C., which now has horrifying traffic congestion instead because most of the freeway network wasn't built, yet the traffic demand materialised anyway).

We should also remember that one of the goals of the Interstate system was to facilitate the movement of military assets and mobilise in the event of an invasion. It continues to have that purpose today, and was inspired by a certain Lt. Col. Eisenhower who was part of a convoy of 81 military vehicles which took 62 days to get from DC to San Francisco, spending much of it in mud, muck, and mire, impassable roads, and repairing breakdowns.