3 ms·

Linking to a ngrams graph that shows "environmentalism" graphed against "civil rights" as evidence that environmentalism is just a fig leaf for segregation is b

Linking to a ngrams graph that shows "environmentalism" graphed against "civil rights" as evidence that environmentalism is just a fig leaf for segregation is beyond flimsy. Surely this must be the arch example of correlation ≠ causation.

Lammy 6y ago
Of course there's so much more to it, but there isn't really a single source I can link you that makes this argument. One example I can easily show is the history of planned freeways in the Bay Area that were canceled due to environmental concerns. Take a look at what areas the canceled freeways would have connected, then take a look at the demographics of those areas. Notice in particular how no freeway (or rail!) connection to the Golden Gate was ever allowed, since that would have connected Marin to the Bay Area megalopolis. https://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/sanfran.html https://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/sanfran.html http://www.radicalcartography.net/index.html?bayarea http://www.radicalcartography.net/index.html?bayarea
- derrick_jensen 6y ago
  Robert Moses was criticized for doing similar things in New York City (making overpasses too low so buses couldn't go through, etc). Have you read The Power Broker by Robert Caro?
  - Lammy 6y ago
    Yep, I have. I'm not saying freeways would be all roses, but I generally believe that connecting people can only be an overall good thing. It's absolutely true that viaduct structures, for example, are visible separations between low-lying neighborhoods, but they weren't intended to stay low-lying neighborhoods. The original planning documents for e.g. the Embarcadero Freeway talk about the proposed developments that would complement it. I also think the common framing as freeways "cutting a path through neighborhoods" is exactly the wrong way to look at it. San Francisco's, for example, were based on this 1935 traffic study. The whole point was to get already-existing traffic up off the streets and keep neighborhoods livable: https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5409261018/in/album-72157622139053795/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5409261018/in/album-... There's (unfortunately) a real-world example I can point to showing this still holds up in the 21st Century. The northernmost part of the Central Freeway carried more than 50% crosstown (non-neighborhood) traffic in San Francisco but was torn down in the very early 2000s and replaced with the horrible Octavia Blvd that keeps killing cyclists and has made neighborhood traffic worse in every way, even necessitating crosswalk closures. Here's the full study on before and after the "Freeway Removal" (now there's a dogwhistle for ya!) https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/Final%20Report%20Executive%20Summary.pdf https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/Final%20Re... "In the absence of meaningful improvements to travel improvements, the reduction in automobile capacity has not been accompanied by noticeable mode shift. Instead, the neighborhood has been challenged to effectively deal with high peak‐period traffic levels and resulting congestion"
- tropdrop 6y ago
  The canceling of those planned freeways for environmental concerns is not problematic in itself - the failure to deliver the planned rail alternative is. [1] 1 - https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5057/5423961825_2d5af7cef4_o.jpg https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5057/5423961825_2d5af7cef4_o.... (Proposed rail lines for BART, 1961)
  - Lammy 6y ago
    Freeways vs rail is a false dichotomy. The best transit systems are multi-modal for different needs, and those things do serve different needs. What we're really talking about is establishing rights of way. Once you have those it's usually no harder (politically) to build one type of artery alongside the other, like how BART's Concord and Dublin lines were built in the medians of the existing CA-24 and I-580, respectively.

Lammy 6y ago

Of course there's so much more to it, but there isn't really a single source I can link you that makes this argument. One example I can easily show is the history of planned freeways in the Bay Area that were canceled due to environmental concerns. Take a look at what areas the canceled freeways would have connected, then take a look at the demographics of those areas. Notice in particular how no freeway (or rail!) connection to the Golden Gate was ever allowed, since that would have connected Marin to the Bay Area megalopolis. https://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/sanfran.html https://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/sanfran.html http://www.radicalcartography.net/index.html?bayarea http://www.radicalcartography.net/index.html?bayarea

derrick_jensen 6y ago
Robert Moses was criticized for doing similar things in New York City (making overpasses too low so buses couldn't go through, etc). Have you read The Power Broker by Robert Caro?
- Lammy 6y ago
  Yep, I have. I'm not saying freeways would be all roses, but I generally believe that connecting people can only be an overall good thing. It's absolutely true that viaduct structures, for example, are visible separations between low-lying neighborhoods, but they weren't intended to stay low-lying neighborhoods. The original planning documents for e.g. the Embarcadero Freeway talk about the proposed developments that would complement it. I also think the common framing as freeways "cutting a path through neighborhoods" is exactly the wrong way to look at it. San Francisco's, for example, were based on this 1935 traffic study. The whole point was to get already-existing traffic up off the streets and keep neighborhoods livable: https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5409261018/in/album-72157622139053795/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5409261018/in/album-... There's (unfortunately) a real-world example I can point to showing this still holds up in the 21st Century. The northernmost part of the Central Freeway carried more than 50% crosstown (non-neighborhood) traffic in San Francisco but was torn down in the very early 2000s and replaced with the horrible Octavia Blvd that keeps killing cyclists and has made neighborhood traffic worse in every way, even necessitating crosswalk closures. Here's the full study on before and after the "Freeway Removal" (now there's a dogwhistle for ya!) https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/Final%20Report%20Executive%20Summary.pdf https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/Final%20Re... "In the absence of meaningful improvements to travel improvements, the reduction in automobile capacity has not been accompanied by noticeable mode shift. Instead, the neighborhood has been challenged to effectively deal with high peak‐period traffic levels and resulting congestion"
tropdrop 6y ago
The canceling of those planned freeways for environmental concerns is not problematic in itself - the failure to deliver the planned rail alternative is. [1] 1 - https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5057/5423961825_2d5af7cef4_o.jpg https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5057/5423961825_2d5af7cef4_o.... (Proposed rail lines for BART, 1961)
- Lammy 6y ago
  Freeways vs rail is a false dichotomy. The best transit systems are multi-modal for different needs, and those things do serve different needs. What we're really talking about is establishing rights of way. Once you have those it's usually no harder (politically) to build one type of artery alongside the other, like how BART's Concord and Dublin lines were built in the medians of the existing CA-24 and I-580, respectively.