Chapter Three: Strategies (Continued)

While making aesthetic enhancements to highways which combat their utilitarian monotony creates a more positive experience for motorists and the city alike, simply making overpasses look nicer or planting trees and shrubs along embankments are oftentimes superficial solutions and do little to address the real issues behind the urban freeway, such as the way it divides neighborhoods, leaves a scar through a city, and makes for a lower quality of life for those living near it. Impact mitigation projects are geared towards screening the freeway and its attendant noise, vibration and pollution from surrounding neighborhoods, and include techniques such as sound barriers or building freeways below grade.

One of the greatest consequences of the freeway on the urban environment is traffic-related noise; the average freeway, with noises emanating from the engines, exhaust pipes, tires, aerodynamic resistance, horns, radios and the like, produces a level of noise that can be extremely undesirable for communities adjacent to the freeway. In an effort to reduce traffic-generated noise, state departments of transportation have deployed sound walls designed to reflect and absorb noise. Sound walls started appearing in California in the late 1960s, and in the early 1970s the federal government adopted regulations requiring that attempts be made to curtail excessive noise when highways are built or expanded. Today, the Federal Highway Administration directs that state departments of transportation must attempt to create a “substantial” reduction in sound level when the noise generated by a new or expanded road is expected to produce noise reaching 67 decibels measured from a point near the freeway (Langdon 1997: 26-35). As a result, the sound wall is a common sight along the urban freeway, especially where freeways pass through residential areas.

When a sound wall is constructed, freeway designers usually aim for a reduction in noise of between eight and ten decibels (Langdon 1997: 26-35). Because the decibel scale is logarithmic, a reduction of ten decibels amounts to a fifty percent reduction in actual perceived loudness. Generally, sound barriers are effective in this regard, but there are some complications. For example, walls work best at blocking high-frequency sounds, such as the whine of the tire meeting the pavement. However, the longer wavelengths of lower frequencies, such as the rumble of heavy trucks, are not as easily absorbed and might in fact become more noticeable after a sound wall is put in place. “After a noise barrier has been installed, some people complain that they now hear every truck that goes by,” says Robert E. Armstrong, a highway noise specialist for the Federal Highway Administration (Langdon 26-35: 1997).

Sound barriers also can produce what is called “bounce effect.” this usually occurs when barriers are located on both sides of a freeway. Noise is reflected back and forth between the two barriers, which actually amplifies the freeway noise and produces the opposite of the desired effect on the surrounding community. Caltrans combats this phenomenon by instituting a width-to-height ratio of at least 10:1 for parallel sound walls along a freeway. That means that a pair of parallel sound walls 10 feet high must be at least 100 feet apart in order to prevent bounce effect (Caltrans 1999). This might be a problem where insufficient right-of-way exists to properly space the barriers.

Another drawback to sound walls is their cost. Noise barriers cost an average of one million dollars per linear mile to construct, and elaborate ones can cost considerably more (Langdon 1997: 26-35). One particularly decorative mile-long brick sound wall being constructed along I-94 in St. Clair Shores, Michigan, is costing $3.9 million to build (Cardenas 1999).

The aesthetic of the sound barrier is also an issue. The walls have to be a certain height to work; in California, for example, sound barriers can be no lower than 1.8 meters (just slightly less than 5 feet), can be as high as 4.3 meters (about 14 feet), and must be high enough to screen the exhaust stack of trucks from view (Caltrans 1999). In the northeast they can rise to be even higher – oftentimes 16 to 20 feet, and in Virginia one sound wall rises almost 40 feet above the road. Typically, the average sound wall is about 12 feet high (Langdon 1997: 26-35). Many people find these tall walls to be massive, cumbersome and unsightly. Oftentimes, people who live in houses backing up to a freeway are forced to trade a lower noise level for a monolithic gray wall towering over their back yard. Motorists, as well, are forced to view these ugly structures as they pass by. Philip Langdon reports:

above: landscaping and aesthetic treatments to a sound wall along a freeway in Phoenix, Arizona. (photo by author)

Ironically, impact mitigation devices such as sound walls themselves generally require some sort of secondary aesthetic mitigation in order to improve their overall appearance. Traffic engineers have employed a variety of techniques aimed at improving the visual quality of sound barrier walls. The sound wall of today, for example, is more likely to be constructed with rough or aggregate surfaces, as opposed to smooth concrete, to enhance their appearance and deter graffiti. Greenery is also used to soften the appearance of the walls; Caltrans notes that “the use of plants in conjunction with noise barriers can help to combat graffiti and enhance public acceptance of the noise barrier” Caltrans 1999). Along a portion of I-476 running through the western suburbs of Philadelphia, a sound wall has been built with pockets that allow vines, shrubs and ground cover to take root (Langdon 1997: 26-35).

Many state departments of transportation have also turned to the community for input in the wall’s design. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, for example, allows residents most affected by the construction of proposed sound walls to choose the color and the texture of the side of the wall that will be visible to their yards. Special molds can be used to form cast-in-place concrete into shapes such as trees or municipal logos. Sometimes, however, this technique gets out of hand. Different neighborhoods along I-66 through Fairfax County, Virginia, picked so many different kinds of sound barriers and aesthetic treatments that the freeway, in the words of one landscape architect, “looks like a showroom of barrier technology” and lacks a visually coherent experience for the motorist (Langdon 1997: 26-35).

Aesthetic improvements to sound walls are also limited by budgetary constraints, especially when the base cost of the sound barrier is taken into account. Caltrans concedes that “some moderate additional cost to enhance the noise barrier’s aesthetic quality is usually warranted,” but warns that “elaborate or costly individualized designs which significantly increase the cost of the noise barrier should be avoided” (Caltrans 1999). This oftentimes means that sound walls are built with a bare minimum of aesthetic treatment.

Highway noise can also be mitigated through creative landscaping techniques. An attractive alternative to sound walls is to create a natural barrier by building landscaped earthen berms seven to eight feet high. These berms are as acoustically effective as a ten-foot-high sound wall – a supplementary sound wall of only a few feet in height can be built atop it if need be – and are much less visually obtrusive (Langdon 1997: 26-35). Caltrans agrees, noting that “a landscaped earth berm or a combination wall and berm tend to minimize the apparent noise barrier height and are probably the most aesthetically acceptable alternative,” but concede that “these alternatives are not suitable for many sites due to limited space” (Caltrans 1999). An earthen berm, however, will require a rather wide lateral space in order to be stable, while a much thinner sound wall can be placed in locations where there is only a small amount of space between the freeway and the adjoining neighborhood. Landscaping can also be used to reduce highway noise, but only in rare cases. While a thick band of trees and shrubs between the highway and the adjacent community is an aesthetically preferable alternative to a sound wall, it has to be heavily planted and be at least one hundred feet wide to achieve a perceptible reduction in noise. Furthermore, it would take newly-planted vegetation several years for it to grow to the point that it would produce any effect (Langdon 1997: 26-35).

Ultimately, the solution to freeway noise might not come from sound-absorbent structures along the edges of the freeway but from the construction of the freeway itself. Researchers at the Institute of Safe, Quiet and Durable Highways at Purdue University have determined that most highway noise is produced by the interface between the tires and the roadway. The researchers are looking porous roadway surfaces as well as the redesign of tire treads as ways to reduce road noise (Dye 1999: C-6).

Another way to reduce freeway noise is to “suppress” a freeway, or build it below grade. This is beneficial in terms of noise reduction because it “traps” the sound of traffic, creating less noise for the surrounding community and eliminating the need for sound walls. It also lessens the impact on the surrounding community by giving the freeway a lower and less disruptive profile relative to the rest of the urban fabric. Below-grade construction is, however, also much more expensive than at- or above- grade construction, mainly due to the large amounts earth and rock that must be moved (Halprin 1966: 66; Langdon 1997: 26-35). For this reason, getting cost-minded highway engineers to agree to “bury” a freeway below the cityscape, especially an existing one, can be a difficult task.

Much of the new Central Expressway in Dallas has been built below grade, precisely for the reasons cited above. However, TXDoT’s original plans for the reconstruction of the antiquated and congested freeway called for the construction of a second deck above the existing freeway. Residents of adjoining neighborhoods would have no part of that scheme and demanded that TXDoT come up with a more appealing solution. At first TXDoT refused to change its plans, even after the City of Dallas sided with the residents. It took intervention from then-governor Mark White to force TXDoT to cooperate with local residents and design a freeway whose structure was more sensitive to its urban surroundings (McKeown 1998 62-63).

The elevated section of US 59 which runs through the Montrose area of Houston is slated to be torn down and rebuilt during the early 2000s; TXDoT originally wanted to simply replace the elevated deck being demolished with one that was a couple of mainlanes and an HOV lane wider. Residents of the area, however, lobbied hard for TXDoT to “sink” the currently elevated freeway below street level so as to reduce noise and eliminate an unsightly concrete barrier which has divided an historic neighborhood. TXDoT relented, and the $87 million, three-and-a-half year project started in the summer of 1999 (Houston Chronicle, 1999). Although TXDoT Houston district spokesman Victor Tsai says that, aside from a separate contract for landscaping, the reconstruction will not incorporate the same level of aesthetic detail as the Central Expressway project in Dallas (Tsai 1999), the neighborhoods around the freeway should see a definite improvement as the ugly, noisy deck is torn down. [update: the first phase of the US 59 project did indeed include aesthetic enhancements, including the construction of four arched bridges over the freeway. Pictures are coming.]

A similar discussion is taking place regarding planned improvements of I-35 through Austin. The Texas Department of Transportation would like to increase the capacity and safety of the aging and congested I-35 corridor though the center of town by adding lanes as well an elevated “collector-distributor” lane featur-ng massive offramps that lead directly to and from 15th, 12th, 8th and 9th streets. The Downtown Austin Alliance, on the other hand, has proposed a less intrusive alternative which seeks to recreate a visual and psychological link between downtown and east Austin. Both proposals depress the freeway’s mainlanes through downtown. The DAA’s alternative to TXDoT’s proposal, however, eliminates the elevated collector-distributor lane, connects as many streets across the freeway as possible, and provides landscaping along the highway which softens the edge of the freeway and screens it from its surroundings (Kruse and Hall 13-16). Whereas TXDoT’s concern seems to be with the efficient flow of traffic in to, out of and through downtown Austin, the DAA’s initiative is more concerned with the freeway’s effects on the surrounding community and with reconnecting downtown Austin with neighborhoods to the east.

One additional plus of below-grade freeways is that their noise, pollution and visual unpleasantness can be even further diminished by simply covering them completely. “Cut-and-cover tunnels” can be thought of as little more than extremely wide bridge structures built over a depressed freeway. This allows a freeway to be completely hidden from view as it courses underneath a neighborhood. Furthermore, the area on top of the covering structure can be utilized as urban space such as parkland. These “highway lids” are discussed in detail in the next section.

Finally, it must be noted that freeway-generated pollution not only comes in the form of noise but also in the form of air pollution and light pollution. While the design of a freeway in and of itself may not have a great effect on reducing air pollutants from automobiles – this is by and large a problem that is best resolved through the design of cleaner-burning engines and emission control devices on the automobile itself – the glare of headlights and diffusion of streetlighting which create light pollution can be mitigated by careful design of the freeway and its individual elements. Tall freeway lighting towers, for example, can be replaced with smaller fixtures designed and equipped to shine light downward, rather than upward into the night sky, and reduce light leakage. Vegetation, berms and sound walls can also screen headlight glare from surrounding communities.

Freeway Integration

Projects which seek to integrate the freeway right of way with other uses fall into a third category. Since the freeway is a public right of way, this technique usually means the conversion of land either above or underneath a freeway into a public space of its own through the use of “highway lids” and “cut and cover tunnels” described above or through the merger of highways and architecture. Freeway Park which straddles Interstate 5 in downtown Seattle is an excellent example; it allows the freeway to “give something back” to the city it bisects and better integrates the freeway into its urban surroundings by providing for multiple uses of a right of way that would otherwise be exclusively the domain of automobiles. Margaret T. Hance park in Phoenix, which straddles I-10 as it runs through downtown, is another example. Still another example is a series of parks built over I-35 in Duluth, Minnesota, which besides being public spaces of their own also help to protect a historic district from the impact of the freeway and serve to reconnect the city’s downtown with the waterfront (FHWA 1997: 69). This project is discussed in detail later.

Portland, Oregon is currently considering an ambitious attempt to cover 26 blocks of I-405 which runs through downtown. The “Bridge the Divide and Cap I-405” project seeks to reconnect neighborhoods severed by the depressed freeway’s construction in 1965 as well as create new civic spaces and provide new opportunities for over-freeway development (ASLA/LAF 1998: 2-7). [update: a .pdf of the I-405 project Strategy Team Final Report can be downloaded here.]

Finally, there is the infamous “Big Dig” project in Boston, which seeks to rebuild the elevated Central Artery which snakes through the heart of downtown Boston with a new eight-mile-long freeway built below street level and covered by parkland. This project, begun in 1991 and not expected to be completed until 2004, is known as much for its cost (currently $9 billion) as for its goal to reunify downtown by tearing down a divisive freeway and providing civic space in its stead (Kruse and Hall 1996: 16)

Cut-and-cover tunnels are not the only way to integrate a freeway into the urban environment; the innovative use of topography and technology can also blend the freeway into its surroundings. A section of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway in the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood of New York City, which is cited by the 1968 Freeway in the City publication as an outstanding example of a highway integrated into the urban fabric, does exactly that. This section of freeway is cantilevered into a hill separating Brooklyn Heights from the wharves along the East River waterfront. The resulting four-tiered structure incorporates a local road at the bottom, southbound lanes above, northbound lanes even higher and a promenade overlooking the waterfront at the top of the hill. This solution only required an extra fifty feet of right-of-way than the existing street underneath and displaced no buildings. The Brooklyn Heights Promenade “traps” the noise from the freeway from reaching the neighborhood above and has become known for its wonderful vistas of the Manhattan skyline (FHWA 1968: 103-110).

There also exists the idea of integrating the freeway into the urban fabric by physically marrying the freeway structure with architecture. This idea, in fact, is nothing new. As early as 1910, Edgar Chambliss conceived “Roadtown,” a multilayered linear structure featuring a promenade on the roof, housing in the middle, and rail lines in the basement. In 1929, Le Corbusier produced a scheme for an undulating structure in Algiers which featured a highway on the roof and homes and businesses underneath (Halprin 1966: 124). In the late 60s, architect Paul Rudolph envisioned “megastructures” which featured multiple levels of housing, office and retail space built over underground freeways coursing their way through New York City (Patton 1986: 96). Interestingly enough, no less an architectural figure than Frank Lloyd Wright once wrote, “I foresee that roads will soon be architecture too...great architecture” (Gillespie 1989: 175).

Several such structures which integrate the freeway into the architecture have actually been built; one of the better known examples of this “traffic architecture” is Lucio Costa and Oscar Neimeyer’s Highway Platform in the Brazilian capital of Brasília. Located at the intersection of the curved Exio Rodoviário and the straight Exio Monumental that define Brasilia’s bow-and-arrow-shaped design, the four level structure serves as Brasilia’s bus station.

However, the direct marriage of freeway and building is rarely practical or even possible. The great amount noise and vibration generated by traffic would be carried through the building if both the architecture and the freeway were part of the same structure, and it is difficult for traffic moving at high speed to in any way service the building through which it passes. Then there is the fact that, while most freeways are public, most buildings are private. Although such fanciful amalgams of expressway and edifice might readily appear on the drafting boards of architects, they are too impractical and too expensive to actually be built.

above: An office complex built over a freeway in Atlanta, Georgia. (photo by author)

In many cases, the integration of freeway and architecture is simply achieved through the construction of buildings over the freeway roadbed. The lid over I-5 in downtown Seattle, for example, is home not only to Freeway Park but also to the Washington State Convention and Trade Center; traffic passes directly underneath it as it travels through downtown Seattle. The author, during a recent roadtrip, came across another example in Atlanta, Georgia: an office complex built directly atop a section of State Highway 400 north of downtown. The Freeway in The City praises Franklin Delano Roosevelt Drive which runs along the east edge of Manhattan as an example of freeway/architecture integration. As the FDR makes its way along the East River, it runs underneath various structures, such as a block of apartment buildings and the United Nations headquarters, in what amounts to a tunnel with the side towards the river open. In this way, the freeway is “woven” into the built fabric of the city, rather than being a divisive element that separates the city from the waterfront (FHWA 1968: 95-102).

Freeway Removal

A fourth application aimed at limiting the freeway’s impact on the urban environment is to simply eliminate the freeway altogether. The Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco is perhaps the best example of this technique. Built in the late 50s, the Embarcadero was a double-deckered freeway that divided downtown San Francisco from the waterfront and due to community opposition was never fully completed. The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake damaged the structure and provided the city incentive “to demolish the double decker, whose superstructure shunted pedestrians through a dark, sooty gauntlet between downtown and the San Francisco Bay” (Landscape Architecture writer William Thompson, as quoted in Kruse and Hall 1996: 7) and construct a large boulevard featuring a light rail line and a pedestrian promenade in its place. The idea behind tearing down the freeway was to reconnect the downtown with the waterfront (Kruse and Hall 1996: 8). Jill Kruse writes:

Another example of freeway removal concerns the West Side Highway in New York City. This elevated, limited-access roadway was first constructed in the 1930s and ran along Manhattan’s Hudson River waterfront from the Battery to 72nd Street. In the early 1970s, a portion of this freeway collapsed. This led to the closure of the entire aging roadway between the Battery and 59th Street in 1974, and a few years later the entire unsightly structure was demolished (FHWA 1997: 131-132).

During the 1970 and early 1980s, plans were made to replace the West Side Highway with the Westway, a controversial billion-dollar interstate which would make its way along the west side of Manhattan. However, those plans were scrapped in the face of mounting political opposition in 1985, and money that would have been used to build the freeway was diverted towards improvements to state route 9A, a street following the route of the old West Side Highway that was originally intended to be temporary. Once the improvements are completed, Route 9A will be a 5.1 mile long, six- to eight-lane “urban boulevard” complete with trees, bicycle paths and ornately-designed street lamps (FHWA 1997: 131-141; Patton 1986: 107-109).

Portland, Oregon is the location of a third example of freeway removal. Harbor Drive, a six-lane freeway running along the Willamette River, was demolished in 1974 and replaced by a 37-acre waterfront park. The park, which has been given the title “Portland’s Backyard,” has become a venue for a variety of activities and events (Kruse 1998: 7; ASLA/LAF 1998: 10).

Finally, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, city leaders plan to use $20 million in federal funds to tear down a freeway that runs through downtown. New housing, shops and restaurants are being planned to be built in its place. “The urban superhighway should be relegated to the scrap heap of history,” says Milwaukee mayor John O. Norquist (Kaul 1999).

Although conventional wisdom might dictate that freeway removal projects would only increase traffic congestion and commute times, as traffic once carried by a freeway is forced onto other streets and as people who were once used to speeding down a freeway are relegated to crawling along surface streets, research suggests that this is not necessarily the case. In the case of the removal of the Embarcadero, the gridlock and chaos that Bay-Area traffic engineers predicted never materialized, as people who once used the Embarcadero to move around town simply found new ways to get from one place to another. In the case of the West Side Highway, a 1976 NYDOT study compared traffic counts taken before the elevated expressway’s closure to counts taken afterward. The findings showed that 53% of the trips once taken along the highway disappeared, and of those trips, 93% did not reappear elsewhere. People simply found other ways to get around town (Kruse 1998: 7).

In many cases, the relocation of a freeway below grade and the construction of a “lid” atop it can have the same affect. For this reason, the Central Artery project in Boston can be thought of as a “virtual freeway removal” project. Even though the freeway is still there, it is no longer a defining element upon the urban landscape of downtown Boston.

Issues and Conflicts

The previous chapters have noted that the attempt to aesthetically enhance the urban freeway or better integrate it into its urban surroundings oftentimes creates conflicts. For example, the conflict between beauty and safety, such as the potential hazard of trees and other landscaping along the highway, or the conflict between the amount of enhancements needed for a certain section versus the budget available for them. What follows are some more general conflicts and issues that any comprehensive attempt to beautify or otherwise enhance the urban freeway must take into consideration.

One issue concerns the conflict between the car and the community: what is good for the neighborhood is not always enjoyable for the driver, and vice versa. Many of the nation’s urban freeways are built at or above grade, and drivers and passengers alike are afforded sweeping vistas of the cities through which they drive; “like an artificial landscape plotted over the historic city (the freeway) introduces a form and platform for seeing the city in a new way” (Webb 1999). However, the residents living close to these elevated freeway structures must endure the noise, pollution and unsightliness generated by them. An alternative to the elevated freeway is the sunken freeway or the covered freeway. This reduces the amount of freeway-generated impact on the surrounding com-munity, but makes for a less enjoyable trip by those actually using the freeway. The author, for example, is disappointed when he is funneled into a tunnel underneath the city center, as in Phoenix or El Paso, because he is robbed of a passing view what he feels is the most historic, most dynamic and most important part of the city: downtown. While this is oftentimes a purely theoretical concept – it is likely that most people would agree that, when what is good for the driver comes in conflict with what is good for the community, the needs of the community will prevail – the mitigation of the freeway at the expense of the driver actually does have some negative effects. Chiefly among this is the fact that below-grade freeways and cut-and-cover tunnels which shield the city from the motorist’s view also provide no points of reference for the motorist. Landmarks become less readily apparent and geographic orientation becomes more difficult, and this is especially of concern for people travelling through an unfamiliar city. The aforementioned I-10 west of Phoenix, similarly, although carefully decorated and landscaped, is below grade and offers no view of the surrounding city. Indeed, it is next to impossible for the motorist to tell that he is passing through the city at all.


above: this Phoenix freeway is built below grade and is carefully landscaped, but it is difficult for the motorist to tell that he or she is passing through a city at all. (photo by author)	above: I-35 through Austin, Texas is aligned with the topography in such that it provides a panoramic view of the city as it descends into downtown. Not only does this provide a pleasing view for the motorist, but it also helps the motorist to orient him or herself in relation to the city. (photo by author)

One solution to this conflict is through the skillful horizontal and vertical alignment of the freeway through the urban area. For example, a highway designer might use natural features such as ridges, hills or a bridge over a river to provide motorists with a panoramic view of the city, thereby orienting them and making the trip an enjoyable experience, before shunting them into a below-grade freeway or cut-and-cover tunnel through a residential area. Other countries have employed some other creative solutions to this dilemma. In the Netherlands, for example, some sound walls are constructed with stripes of glass or translucent plastic at certain intervals so that motorists can briefly “see through” to the town on the other side of the wall (Langdon 1997: 26-35).

Maintenance is another issue. A new freeway, with its clean, freshly poured cream-colored concrete, newly-planted vegetation and glistening guardrails and sign gantries, is usually very pleasant to experience. But as a freeway grows old, it becomes less attractive. The concrete becomes cracked, weathered and gray. Columns become stained by rust from the steel beams they support. Graffiti begins to show up along retaining walls, roadside vegetation withers away and the roadbed itself becomes grimy with dirt, oil and tire tread. When maintenance does come, usually it is in the form of patching of the roadbed, which usually makes the freeway look even worse. Rare is the highway department with the funds or the inclination to waterblast the grime from retaining walls, sandblast the rust stains from support columns, or prune and replant roadside vegetation. Freeway maintenance that does not directly relate to the flow of traffic is simply not seen as a priority among state DOTs; as a popular saying among people in the highway profession goes, “there are no ribbon cuttings for maintenance” (Langdon 1997: 26-35). This, then, becomes a major problem in terms of aesthetic enhancements to the freeway: any attempt to make the freeway more visually appealing is wasted if it is not maintained.

above: A column covered with unsightly rust stains from the steel beam it supports. (photo by author)

What can be done? Aside from the obvious solution of getting highway departments to rethink their position on funding for maintenance, another potential solution is to design enhancements so that they are durable and as maintenance-free as possible. The aforementioned US 183 project in Austin, for example, employs specially-designed drip edges and weep holes which prevent rainwater or oil from draining down the side of the freeway structure and staining it (Van Landuyt 1999).

Perhaps the most important issue relating to the beautification of the urban freeway that has not yet been explored is equity. The question of equity, in fact, has gone hand in hand with the urban freeway since the inception of the Interstate system. As was noted previously, one of the biggest criticisms of the urban freeway is that its negative effects disproportionately affected low-income and minority residents. When the interstates were built through urban areas, in fact, they often were routed through low-income neighborhoods where right-of-way acquisitions would be least costly. Also, poor and minority families have been displaced to make room for urban freeways that would primarily benefit middle-class white suburban commuters.

Many of the same equity issues appear as freeways are rebuilt and as enhancements are incorporated into the design. Are freeways running through more affluent areas more likely to receive aesthetic improvements and mitigation measures than those running through poorer areas? One Phoenix resident, in a letter to the Arizona Republic, wonders why the same design standards applied to Loop 101 as it passes through the affluent neighborhood of Arrowhead Ranch are not being extended to highway construction along his working-class neighborhood. The freeway which runs below grade through Arrowhead Ranch will be at or above grade through his neighborhoods, his neighborhood has not been guaranteed sound walls, and the landscape packages proposed along his stretch of freeway have been scrapped to save money. “Nobody can convince me that we live in a classless society as long as I drive Loop 101 every day and behold the vast difference between the appearance of the freeway in the Arrowhead Ranch region compared with other neighborhoods the route passes through,” The writer says. “How about spreading some of the transportation infrastructure funding around, instead of dumping the lion’s share in the affluent neighborhoods?” (Smith 1998).

Would the Central Expressway in Dallas have received the same level of aesthetic and mitigation treatment had it not been located near the affluent neighborhoods of University Park and Highland Park? Would the Southwest Freeway in Houston not have been reconstructed below grade had it not run through the upper-class neighborhoods of Montrose and the Museum District? When these projects are compared to the recently-reconstructed Eastex Freeway north of downtown Houston which runs through the poorer, minority neighborhoods of Fifth Ward and Kashmere Gardens but which lacks virtually any aesthetic treatments whatsoever, the question arises.