> "minorities are more likely to live in areas where new highways would normally be built"
These were being built for the first time. There was no “where they were normally built” because they were first built in the areas mentioned in the 1950’s, normal hadn’t been defined yet. They targeted the poorer neighborhoods because those also tended to be the less powerful to stop it.
There is no such thing as “brand new highways you can put wherever”.
Many highways expanded from major roads. The new segments (built where no major roads existed) had to connect existing major roads.
There were very clearly areas where roads were going to be built and where they were never going to be built.
The city also has to buyout existing homeowners, and hence a part of the decision is going to be “where will buyouts cost us the least”? Hence the lowest cost housing, again often owned by minorities.
“Many highways expanded from major roads. The new segments (built where no major roads existed) had to connect existing major roads.”
This is an opinion that is not factually accurate to what happened. Entire neighborhoods were plowed under for highways that then created impediments to local neighborhood connections. Highways literally destroyed communities.
Look at the before and after pictures of Oakland in this article:
Take a look at 980 in the middle that destroyed two blocks width of homes straight through the middle of the city, miles long. That disconnected communities on either side of it. The same thing happened with 580, which isn’t shown in these overhead photos.
You're not going to tear down homes in the Oakland Hills to build a freeway not because it's full rich white people, but because it's nowhere close to the existing freeways.
These were being built for the first time. There was no “where they were normally built” because they were first built in the areas mentioned in the 1950’s, normal hadn’t been defined yet. They targeted the poorer neighborhoods because those also tended to be the less powerful to stop it.