Made it about halfway through the audiobook.
At the beginning this book had a compelling narrative voice and succinct pacing, with a good density of information that was neither a dribble nor a flood, all relevant to the stated theses. If the book had kept these qualities throughout, it would've been an easy three stars.
However starting with chapter two the narrative voice began meandering all over the place and the pacing went with it. The contents of any given chapter slosh between topical info dumps, memoir of the author's adventures and bland political musings, and way too much detailed biography about the researchers and activists behind individual discoveries and events that are themselves already given too much page space. Another reviewer compared this change of pace to a padded-out homework assignment, and I fully agree with that description as the overwhelming vibe of this book.
Here's an example of how wordy this book is, from near where I stopped. While describing their experience watching some butterflies - itself a vignette that did not meaningfully add to the thrust of its containing chapter - the author writes this sentence: "There was something of the flaneuse about her, the window-shopper drifting between storefronts."
Does anyone reading a book about road ecology really need an anthropomorphic visual analogy for the erratic flight patterns of butterflies? Maybe on its own this sentence isn't a big deal but the entire book is packed with pointless digressions like this, and it really hurts both the pacing and focus. How many people picked this book up hoping for freshman-level creative writing practice?
For that matter, how many people picked this book up hoping to learn which cougars were the biggest tabloid celebrities in California and which of their researchers had what tattoos? What about random quoted passages from random fiction authors? Maybe I'm just the wrong audience but I really, truly don't care about any of this stuff. I came here to learn about road ecology. None of this fluff is road ecology. You could cut this book to 1/3 the size by removing all these different strains of fluff and it would be much better, which makes me wonder what the editor was doing. Maybe the book could have used the story of the lost editor as filler material instead.
Speaking of editing, bad puns like "Snow Chi Minh highway" (so painfully ignorant in that quintessential U.S.-centric way) are repeated over and over without critique. Awkward alliteration is fatally forced onto almost all the pages perused by my earnest ears. (If you loved that sentence you'll love this book.)
The table of contents should have been entirely redone before publication. Typically a nonfiction book about science or policy (both true of this book) will use this section to advertise the primary topics it covers. Here we get titles like "Hotel California" and "In cold blood", which say exactly nothing about what topics are covered in those chapters.
Clearly I didn't like the writing style or overall editing choices, but what about the core of the book - the central ideas of ecological problems posed by roads, and solutions we might enact against those problems?
The scope of the book was much more limited than I hoped. Again, I only made it through the first half, but in that portion the only ecological problems handled with any depth were roadkill, blocked migration routes, and sensory disturbance of wildlife (primarily through sound). These are important topics, but they're far from constituting a full half of the ecological problems posed by roads...and I'd argue that roadkill, which receives the most attention by far, is by far the smallest of the big issues.
On a smaller scale I didn't see any discussion of bioremediation loss, loss of groundwater reserves, creation of heat islands, or most other local ecologically destructive outcomes inherent to road construction.
On a larger scale, there's nothing here (at least in the first half) about the massive quantity of plastics shed into the environment from the friction of tires on roads. This is truly one of the greatest ecological threats posed by roads, as microplastics and nanoplastics have infiltrated every organism and environment ever checked for them (yes including humans and mountaintops). We don't yet know all the ways plastic accumulation affects bodies that have no evolutionary defense against it, but early biochemical analysis gives us some good ideas, and all of them are terrifying. Yet this book seems to have nothing to say on this topic...which strikes me like writing a modern history of smoking without saying a word about vapes: Bizarrely archaic and outdated from the moment it was published.
There's also nothing about the loss of climate sinks inherent to road construction, which is a significant component of climate change (another of the biggest ecological threats posed by roads). Nor did I notice anything beyond a passing sentence or two about the ecological damage done by oil drilling, refining, transport, processing, and other associated activities that are all inherently bound up in the same economic framework that catalyzes - and in turn is further catalyzed by - the dominance of roads. These issues are extraordinarily closely intertwined with road ecology, and ignoring them shows me that at best, the author hasn't thought about any meaningful systemic solutions to these problems, and at worst, he hasn't even thought of the relevant problems.
Socially and economically there was nothing about the history or tactics of fully functional and ecologically safer public transport systems being systematically dismantled and replaced with roads for the explicit sake of capitalist growth and profit. In fact I can't recall capitalism being mentioned a single time in this book, which is honestly silly for a book that claims to analyze the ecologically destructive effects of road systems in the modern world and posit solutions to them.
Instead, the author seems trapped in a standard liberal paradigm of tweaking what already exists, mostly by installing lots of wildlife corridors across roads. This is not acceptable. Capitalism is the obvious driver at the heart of the layered modern destructions posed by roads. There's no time or energy to waste on the musings of people who still compliment Obama and criticize Bush and Trump like they don't all serve functionally identical roles in the capitalist logic of modern road expansion. It's like picking the drunkest person in the stadium to be the referee. Do you really trust what they have to say about the game?
Along these same lines, early on the author briefly mentions imperialism and colonialism as catalyzing forces in road development, then quickly drops them forever and moves onto the aforementioned Red Scare U.S.-speak about "Snow Chi Minh highways" without a hint of ironic awareness. This book will teach you nothing about the structural causes of road ecology or any other systematically organized pattern of environmental destruction. Nor will it teach you how to meaningfully address what it has not taught you to recognize.
As already mentioned, this book's solutions seem to be things like "more road crossings". A more competent and comprehensive analysis of the sociopolitical, economic, and historical factors behind road expansion would have led directly to much better solutions - like removing dangerous intracity roads and replacing them with updated versions of the public transit systems that already existed there before capitalists replaced them with roads. There are many other good solutions and they all rely on breaking out of the capitalist logic that got us here in the first place - which in turn relies on understanding and acknowledging that actual history, and not burying it under a shrug and an appeal to ignorance. It's not a mystery that capitalism got us here, or how. It should be the job of books like this one to ensure it doesn't become a mystery, and to suggest creative ways out of our problems by thinking outside the logic of the system that caused them. It's possible the author reaches some of these points by the end, but the book's other flaws were too strong for my optimism to get me that far.
This book gets two stars instead of one because there was some genuinely good scientific information hidden between all the fluff, bad writing, bizarre topical priorities, and politically incoherent analysis. My recommendation is to check out the book or ebook instead of the audiobook, so you can visually skim it. My alternative recommendation is to completely skip it and wait for a stronger book on the topic, one that doesn't hide from the biggest issues at play.