The Cost of Roadway Expansion

The road fights in Baltimore hinged on numerous factors. The social points of this fight involved the communities that could be destroyed. The historic points involved that landmarks that could be destroyed. Though, one of the most important points was the cost of the road. This aspect involved the city funds that would be depleted.

The Federal government initially proposed to front the bill for 90% of the cost of roadway expansion in 1956. Therefore, the City of Baltimore was only responsible for roughly 10% of the road expansion. These estimates gathered strong initial support for the roadway expansion in Baltimore. As a result, support for the roadway became synonymous with support for progress in Baltimore.

SCAR took a different stance on the cost of the road. Instead of looking at the relatively small cost of the road, they looked at alternatives. They believed that the overall funding could be used to effectively expand public transportation.

The Structure of the Road

(SCAR: Transportation Department Publications, UB Archives)

The structure of the road was one of the most important sticking points for SCAR proponents. The various road plans had very different impacts on both the residential and commercial areas of Southeast Baltimore. SCAR constantly attacked road plans that placed had a large impact on residential areas. This was a method of attacked that was voiced at design plan meetings.

The Urban Design Concepts group of Louis Sauer and Associates took a vested interest in reducing the number of displaced families. Each plan shows the detailed impact on residential properties. As a result, each plan held some contention based on the families that were going to be displaced. In addition, each plan held new worries for other residents of Southeast Baltimore. Citizens were constantly left wondering if their home would be in the path of the road. Housing united the citizens of Southeast Baltimore against the road.

Counterarguments

A large portion of the SCAR debate was geared toward counterarguments. SCAR took a clear stance against the road. In general, the Interstate Commission for Baltimore City formed the opposition also known as the counterarguments. The Interstate Commission formulated the logistics of the road plan including the relocation arrangements. The citizens of Southeast Baltimore fought these plans.

SCAR countered the City’s options during town hall meetings. The bulk of these meetings dealt with questions on the placement of the road. Residents constantly asked questions on the pathway and size of the road. These questions were more about housing than roadway viability. In reality residents were asking two sided questions. Will the road impact my home? Will I be forced to relocate? The city answered many of these questions in a series of relocation brochures. The brochure pictured above describes the value of homes and the process of home acquisition.

Road opponents analyzed these documents in order to diversify their argument against the road. Residents saw problems with relocation as cause for the roadway project to be abandoned. They reasoned that a poor relocation program meant less roadway interference on households. SCAR used this counterargument to direct the scope of the City’s actions and shift the debate in their favor.