How America Built Its Highways to Serve the Wealthy and White

[madokie]

"Infrastructure does not serve its public equally."

In this age of divided government, we look to the 1950s as a golden age of bipartisan unity. President Barack Obama, a Democrat, often invokes the landmark passage of the 1956 Federal Aid Highway Act to remind the nation that Republicans and Democrats can unite under a shared sense of common purpose. Introduced by President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, the Federal Aid Highway Act, originally titled the National Interstate and Defense Highway Act, won unanimous support from Democrats and Republicans alike, uniting the two parties in a shared commitment to building a national highway infrastructure. This was big government at its biggest, the single largest federal expenditure in American history before the advent of the Great Society.

Yet although Congress unified around the construction of a national highway system, the American people did not. Contemporary nostalgia for bipartisan support around the Interstate Highway Act ignores the deep fissures that it inflicted on the American city after World War II: literally, by cleaving the urban built environment into isolated parcels of race and class, and figuratively, by sparking civic wars over the freeway’s threat to specific neighborhoods and communities. This book explores the conflicted legacy of that megaproject: even as the interstate highway program unified a nation around a 42,800-mile highway network, it divided the American people, as it divided their cities, fueling new social tensions that flared during the tumultuous 1960s.

Talk of a “freeway revolt” permeates the annals of American urban history. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, a generation of scholars and journalists introduced this term to describe the groundswell of grassroots opposition to urban highway construction. Their account saluted the urban women and men who stood up to state bulldozers, forging new civic strategies to rally against the highway-building juggernaut and to defeat the powerful interests it represented. It recounted these episodic victories with flair and conviction, doused with righteous invocations of “power to the people.” In the afterglow of the sixties, a narrative of the freeway revolt emerged: a grass- roots uprising of civic-minded people, often neighbors, banding together to defeat the technocrats, the oil companies, the car manufacturers, and ultimately the state itself, saving the city from the onslaught of automobiles, expressways, gas stations, parking lots, and other civic detriments. This story has entered the lore of the sixties, a mythic “shout in the street” that proclaimed the death of the modernist city and its master plans.

By and large, however, the dominant narrative of the freeway revolt is a racialized story, describing the victories of white middle-class or affluent communities that mustered the resources and connections to force concessions from the state. If we look closely at where the freeway revolt found its greatest success—Cambridge, Massachusetts; Lower Manhattan; the French Quarter in New Orleans; Georgetown in Washington D.C.; Beverly Hills, California; Princeton, New Jersey; Fells Point in Baltimore—we discover what this movement was really about and whose interests it served. As bourgeois counterparts to the inner-city uprising, the disparate victories of the freeway revolt illustrate how racial and class privilege structure the metropolitan built environment, demonstrating the skewed geography of power in the postwar American city.

http://www.alternet.org/books/how-america-built-its-highways-serve-wealthy-and-white?paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark

[Thinkingabout]

1. Actually the interstate system was a Eisenhower project to build roads in the US to transport

military equipment, etc because the roads did not serve moving the equipment and troops very fast. Eisenhower had experienced very slow movement of convoys and knew there had to be better roads in order to get the equipment and troops.

[madokie]

2. Yes that was some of the argument in support of

I kinda remember some of the debates back then concerning this. At the time we were up to our eyeballs and ears in the cold war with Russia and moving military equipment was a good sound argument to use to get the interstate law passed. It wasn't presented as only for that purpose though, again best I remember

[Art_from_Ark]

3. Eisenhower got his ideas from the German autobahns

which, ironically, were one of Hitler's first priorities when he became Chancellor.

[madokie]

5. Yes, that he did

Now, because the majority of us, of the voting bloc, elected a black man as our President we have a bunch of republiCONs not allowing any progress to go forward. I think their belief is that they think by what they're doing they can tarnish the idea of anyone except a rich white dude can be a successful American President. I'm here to work to prove them wrong every chance I get to go into a voting booth.

I sure hope the American people shun this crew of anti American jackasses

[AgingAmerican]

4. FAIL

nt