Traffic is a nuisance

A nuisance is anything that disturbs a 'right to quiet enjoyment'. By this definition, most busy roads are nuisances. But as they precede development in most places, that new development is seen as having 'come to the nuisance'. Regardless of the exponential increase in traffic and noise that happened after someone build a house next to it.  Part of this is the 'boil the frog' nature of traffic--the annual increase is so marginal that it's hard to claim damages. But for major projects like freeways, where capacity (and hence noise) increase rapidly, nuisance is clearly an issue. Which is why we get soundwalls, which is why freeways are expensive. 

But why didn't earlier freeway projects suffer the same accusations of nuisance? For earlier freeway projects, the explanation is bleaker: racism. Planners deliberately directed urban freeways through black neighborhoods. Huge numbers of buildings were demolished. Most central city residents are renters, and renters move often, and the cohort effect of new renters incrementally erases any standing to sue.

*Done as a form a slum clearance. Were they slums? Absolutely. But they were also slums that were gentrifying, being improved by the sweat equity of a marginalized people. Anytime someone is dispossessed, ask: 'Was the land cheap, or were the people powerless'?