At a White House gathering last week, both Barack Obama and Joe Biden warned America’s governors not to squander stimulus funds on ill-conceived infrastructure projects. “Six months from now,” Biden said, “if the verdict on this effort is that we’ve wasted the money, we built things that were unnecessary, or we’ve done things that are legal but make no sense, then, folks, don’t look for any help from the federal government for a long while.”
Nowhere is this warning more pertinent than in building new roads. The stimulus bill allocates nearly $30 billion in highway funds to the states and requires that they put the money to use quickly. That’s a good thing when it is being spent on smart construction, but it raises the danger that some bad projects will be rushed through, simply because the plans are ready to go (in some cases after being controversially fast-tracked by the Bush administration.) Misguided road building can encourage sprawl, make communities less livable, and devastate the local environment. We looked at shovel-ready new highway projects across the country that are either getting stimulus money or could potentially get some and found seven that, in Biden’s words, “make no sense.”
7. I-295 Loop — Fayetteville, NC
In November, North Carolina decided to allocate $275 million to an 8-mile stretch of the I-295 freeway that will eventually belt around Fayetteville, the state’s sixth-largest city. In the state’s preliminary stimulus funding list, the road would get another $63 million for a construction start within the next few months.
But this segment of highway, which runs from I-95 to the army base at Fort Bragg crosses through rural land and is a recipe for the worst kind of sprawl. Meanwhile, the city center, deprived of military traffic that currently constitutes its lifeblood, would suffer.
The state already has ample evidence that this road is unnecessary: An existing 7-mile section of I-295, to the east of the extension current in planning, has attracted few drivers, carrying only 10,000 cars a day, compared to the 100,000 carried by Raleigh’s unfinished outer loop or the 120,000 carried by Charlotte’s. Other state roads would be a much better investment for the limited funds.
So why do it? Former state Transportation Secretary Lyndo Tippett and State majority leader Tony Rand are both from Fayetteville and they had unlimited discretion in prioritizing which roads to fund. Importantly, the state has no cost-benefit analysis to determine which roads would make the best investments.
6. I-69 Extension — Indiana
Indiana is in the process of planning the construction of this extension of I-69, which would run from Indianapolis to Evansville, via Bloomington. The I-69 corridor is eventually planned to extend from Canada to Mexico as a “NAFTA” corridor to expand trade.
The new highway - at 142 miles long - would cost an estimated $3.5 billion to build (up from $1.8 billion in 2000). Its effect on the sections south of Bloomington, where it would be built on “new terrain,” would be devastating to the rural life there, with 400 families affected by the route’s construction and 2,800 acres of farmland paved over. More than 1,000 acres of forests would be cut down, including a portion of the Patoka National Wildlife Refuge.
People in Indiana wonder why the road needs to be built. After all, today, roads between Indianapolis and Evansville are rarely crowded. Meanwhile, though the state claims that the new road would reduce travel time between the two cities by 27 minutes, an independent analysis suggests it would only save commuters 10 to 14 minutes.
A better alternative, suggested by community members affected by the project’s construction, would improve existing roads in southwestern Indiana and route I-69 via Terre Haute, instead of Bloomington. Such a path would only be 13 miles longer and cost half as much. That’s because it wouldn’t require constructing a new right-of-way, which means not taking nearly as much private land nor destroying as many environmentally sensitive areas.
5. Widening I-93 — Southern New Hampshire
Southeastern New Hampshire has become a place of residence for commuters working in Boston, many of whom appreciate the state’s scenic beauty and easy drive into Massachusetts. So many people have been making the move, though, that more and more scenic beauty has been consumed by sprawl and the drive’s no longer so easy.
The main access route, I-93, is a mess at rush hour. New Hampshire DOT’s solution: widening the highway from four lanes today to eight along a 20-mile stretch between Salem and Manchester, at a cost of $750 million. The project - now in the implementation phase - has dragged on for decades because the state never fully studied its environmental consequences - which include the loss of some of the state’s remaining wetlands.
More importantly, though, the state didn’t consider what has become common knowledge among transportation experts: building more roads simply encourages more road usage. Nor was a major new transit service considered as an alternative to the project. A parallel existing rail line, which has been disused for years, would offer the area’s commuters a direct shot to downtown Boston. The state has thus far ignored this congestion-relieving option.
In New Hampshire, the highway’s construction would likely mean more suburban home building, more environmental destruction, and increasing pollution. How about trying a new train service instead?
4. I-66 — Kentucky
U.S. Representative Harold Rogers has been relentlessly pursuing the $10 billion extension of Interstate 66 through his state, earmarking more than $90 million for project planning over the last decade. He seems convinced that the freeway would help the economy in struggling southern Kentucky.
Rogers might be well-intentioned, but the project is a disaster. The 420-mile route, connecting Paducah in the west to Pikeville in the east, lies directly between I-64 and I-40, which are only three hours apart. In this rural area, a freeway simply isn’t necessary. There is little traffic on existing roads. More importantly, neighboring states have abandoned work on connecting segments, meaning that the highway would effectively dead-end into local roads at both ends. But the the most dire effects would be on the environment. The road would tear through the Appalachians and the Daniel Boone National Forest, a fact conveniently ignored when the Bush Administration fast-tracked the proposal in 2003.
3. Grand Parkway — Houston, Texas
Houston, it seems, wants to be like Beijing. With six ring roads, the Chinese government has made it clear it doesn’t mind letting sprawl continue without limits around its capital. Houston’s Grand Parkway, at 184 miles in length and a projected cost of $5.1 billion, will be the city’s fourth outer loop.
The next stretch of the road to be built, funded by $181 million of stimulus money, would be a 14-mile corridor running through the traces of Texas’ famous - and now almost completely destroyed Katy Prairie, as well as a number of other uninhabited areas, including a swath of Lake Houston State Park.
The Grand Parkway Association, the nonprofit group that is pushing the road, has a board made up of major land developers, who see a profitable new frontier for exurban sprawl. One of the project’s biggest boosters is General Growth Properties, which just happens to be developing of a 20,000-home subdivision along the Parkway. (Photo: houstonfreeways.com)
2. Intercounty Connector — Prince Georges and Montgomery counties, Maryland
Former governor Parris Glendening’s assessment that this highway project would be an environmental disaster for the state didn’t prevent the Bush administration from later fast-tracking it.
The Intercounty Connector would stretch 18 miles across the suburban counties and cost up to $3 billion to build by the time it is completed in 2012. Its six to eight lanes would be tolled, but before the revenue starts coming in, the project would consume $2 billion from the state’s reserves and leave Maryland at 93% of its legal debt capacity, making it difficult for it to fund other major projects - like needed new light rail lines in Baltimore.
From the beginning, the Intercounty Connector has infuriated environmental activists. Understandably so, as the chosen alignment would destroy nearly 1,000 acres of forest and induce even more sprawl in the greater D.C. suburbs.
To make matters worse, the project won’t even be much of a help in clearing the traffic on Washington’s infamously congested Beltway. Even though the ICC would be built on average just four miles from that road, its net effect would be to increase the number of miles traveled by Marylanders in their cars, rather than reduce such movement.
Construction has just begun the project, but there’s still time to shut it down.
1. I-65 Downtown Bridge — Louisville, Kentucky
Kentucky and Indiana have a plan on the books to rebuild the Ohio River crossings in Louisville, where three interstate highways intersect. The Ohio River Bridges would double the span of the existing I-65 bridge and expand the “spaghetti junction” in eastern downtown, where the road meets I-64 and I-71. Several miles upriver, a new East End bridge would allow commuters to bypass downtown Louisville along the newly expanded I-265.
Sounds harmless enough, right? Just the expansion of an existing network of roads and the creation of a new outer loop? The problem is that this $4.1 billion project would create a 24-lane monstrosity along downtown Louisville’s waterfront, further separating the city center from the Ohio river and cutting into a brand new park. Approximately 100 residential properties and 30 businesses would be taken for the project, and the enormous, ugly interchange of the three roads would loom above downtown.
A local group that wants to nix the project as it currently stands, citing its Robert Moses-like scale of destruction and willful disinterest in the healthy function of the city, argues that I-64 should be rerouted around the city via the new East End bridge. This would eliminate any need for an expansion of the downtown span and call for a much smaller interchange. It would open up the downtown waterfront and allow the for the construction of an attractive boulevard like San Francisco’s Embarcadero. Another upshot? This plan would cost half as much.
-
See Also:
Beyond the Cloverleaf: “The Butt” and 21 Other Crazy Highway Interchanges You’ve Never Heard of
-
-
Yonah Freemark is an independent researcher currently working in France on comparative urban development as part of a Gordon Grand Fellowship from Yale University, from which he graduated in May 2008 with a BA in architecture. He writes about transportation and land use issues for The Transport Politic and The Infrastructurist.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
You guys should be happy. Interstates are wonderful modes of transportation. Here in AZ, they have been working on widening I-10 in Tucson and to the north to I-8 interchange and it is WONDERFUL!!! [censored] the envirofreaks!!!
March 17th, 2009 at 12:17 am
Yonah,
You are totally clueless. The ICC has been planned for decades. Parris was a complete tool of the EcoNuts. In case you don’t know anything about MD, Glendening first supported the ICC in both of his campaigns and then after getting elected the second time, he tried to squash it as a lame duck govenor. Fortunately for us the Democrat County Execs refused to go along as they knew that it was vital for relieving the Beltway congestion. Try getting your story from both sides next time.
Jim
March 17th, 2009 at 6:48 am
I’m familiar with the I-93 situation, as I lived near the highway for 10 years and used it regularly. Many commuters in the affected area would like to see more transit options. Public transit is almost non-existent. The only option going towards Boston is a bus, which gets some cars off the road but gets stuck in the same traffic jams.
If there was a decent train service and bus options to get people from the trains to their jobs, I would bet that a LOT of folks would give up their often hellish commutes on I-93.
The only reason I used that highway was because I had no other workable option.
March 17th, 2009 at 7:36 am
[...] The seven most ridiculous roads being built with stimulus money [...]
March 17th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Yonah,
You are wrong wrong wrong about the ICC. This highway will improve travel times - 20 to 30 minutes typically (look past the constantly cited beltway statistic, as this is not the traffic the road is intended to help) for tens of thousands of people, keep vehicles off of underbuilt, rural roads being used as urban thoroughfares, and save hundreds of lives through decreased crowding on overcrowded, poorly designed roads being used as thoroughfares, reducing pollution on those roads also.
As far as it “causing sprawl”, this argument doesn’t hold water as the sprawl happened already in anticipation of this highway, and there are virtually no areas that will be additionally developed (save the PG county Konterra development) as a result of this road being built. Additionally, it would be BETTER to increase density closer to this road, as that will reduce travel distances for future residents, rather than continue to build homes further out in Frederick and Howard counties, with those people commuting into Montgomery County, DC and even Virginia for work. But those same people whining about the road would never go for that as they think they “deserve” the rest of the world to pay for their “rural” lifestyle, meaning they demand urban conveniences (close shopping, grocery, even mass transit) but no density to support it. Purely selfish.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:09 am
The I-65 Downtown Bridge in Louisville is NOT a stimulus project. There are five stimulus projects in Jefferson County (Louisville), and all are pavement rehab. They pertain to Interstates 65, 265 and 264.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Nor is I-66 in Kentucky a stimulus project, I might add.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Jim wrote:
“Fortunately for us the Democrat County Execs refused to go along as they knew that it was vital for relieving the Beltway congestion.”
Jim, you have been misled. Originally, in the 2002 election cycle, the “End Gridlock” coalition implied that the ICC would relieve Beltway congestion, but there was no basis for this assertion. Indeed, the last official study found that there would be no such relief and stated that the ICC was not intended for that purpose.
The study also claimed that increasing vehicle miles traveled in the area by 20% (versus not building the ICC) was a benefit. If we agree that reducing our dependence on oil and our carbon footprint are important goals, then building a highway that increases VMT is a step in the wrong direction.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Chuck -
Thanks for pointing that out. The thought was that over the next few years, directly or indirectly, stimulus funds might find their way into these massive projects, even if they aren’t now on state lists.
JR
March 17th, 2009 at 11:06 am
[...] state’s chances of receiving federal help in the future. Today on the Streetsblog Network, however, The Infrastructurist has identified seven road projects in six states (Kentucky has two) that it calls "the most [...]
March 17th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
the frog5 wrote:
“Jim, you have been misled.”
I have not been misled as I have never listened to what any coalition has said. This is not about politics this about what is really needed. I live right here in Montgomery County and intend to make use of of the ICC to avoid the Beltway. While the distance may be a few miles more the time saved and aggravation avoided will be much appreciated. For those further north of me they will finally have an alternate to Rte 108. I know my Uncle in Columbia is also looking forward to it’s long overdue arrival.
As of right now there is no quick way to get from midcounty areas like Olney to any freeway especially after they dropped the speed limit on GA Ave and installed speed cameras.
Furthermore this project started long before stimulus money was even talked about.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Generally accurate comments about the Grand Parkway outside of Houston. One important point though: the Katy Prairie is not “almost completely destroyed.” It’s still perhaps 60% or so of its original size. The Grand Parkway segment would destroy another 30-40 percent. Of course, as it continues its loop around the region, it would also destroy huge portions of 3-4 other importa
nt ecosystems.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
The big problem with the ICC isn’t so much that it will utterly fail to relieve beltway congestion or cause more sprawl. The effect it has on land use will probably be to divert sprawl from still-rural upper I-270 to already-suburban (but very low density) east Montgomery County.
No, the really big problem with the ICC is that it is so expensive it’s caused the state of MD to borrow heavily against future transportation dollars, which has already had a serious negative effect on transit planning in the state and will continue to have such for years to come.
The whole reason Ehrlich tried to convert the Purple line, Corridor Cities Transitway and Baltimore Red line to BRT is because the state can’t fund rail on all those corridors AND build the ICC at the same time.
Long story short: The big problem with the ICC is that it’s a giant waste of money right at a time when there are lots of other much more worthy things we could be spending on instead.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Thanks so much for staying on top of these incredibly important stories.
The New Hampshire case is particularly mind-boggling, given Boston’s extensive transit network.
Looking forward to future posts on the stimulus cash!
March 17th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
You may want to know that technically, the $27.5 billion of Federal Highway Administration funds in the stimulus bill can also be spent on:
- intercity passenger bus or rail “facilities” and vehicles, including those owned by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation [aka AMTRAK];
- for a public freight rail facility or a private facility providing public benefit for highway users; and
- environmental restoration.
This is all according to USC Title 23, Section 601 (a)(8).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/23/usc_sec_23_00000133—-000-.html
In general, the $27.5 billion is marked for highway construction and maintenance and most likely will be used mainly for that purpose — highways to nowhere.
Technically though funds can be used to fund intercity public transportation. We should keep tabs on this.
Cheers,
Ken
March 18th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Highways to nowhere?
In the states I’m most familliar with (Minnesota, Mississippi, Alabama), I’ve found only a small handful of projects that wouldn’t be classified under maintenance or safety improvement. With the exception of an interchange near Meridian, MS, there were definately no “highways to nowhere”, which is something I *WOULD* have expected in Alabama.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Should point out my reply was directed moreso towards Ken Ott and not towards the 7 projects Yonah specified…
March 18th, 2009 at 10:11 am
As much as I (and many) loathe the ICC, this is a project that has been in the pipeline long before the last major recession. I grew up in Montgomery Village, and there was “ICC study underway” signage next to my parents’ house for the entirety of my childhood. The last time I was there, there was a new sign with the same verbage.
It’s going to get built, and it is going to induce sprawl. New roads always mean more traffic. But, people want it, and have been pushing for it for years. What ticks me off about it the most, however, is that planners recently nixed a proposal to add an adjacent bike path/walking trail, citing environmental concerns. ridiculous!!
March 18th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Unless you’re referring to Konterra, please explain how the ICC is going to induce sprawl when almost all the area it goes through (again except for Konterra) is already built up?
BDC suggests that it will divert growth to eastern Montgomery County, probably Colesville and Burtonsville. But since this area is already built, that means it would have to densify. And isn’t densification something the Smart Growthers promote?
That said, I completely agree with you on the nixing of the adjacent bike/ped trail. That was an annoyingly painful blow…
March 19th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
[...] Some of that stimulus plan is going toward infrastructure development such as road building. Will it be used well? Take a look at these seven highway projects and decide for yourself. (Infrastructurist) [...]
March 20th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
[...] on the 7 most ridiculous roads being built with stimulus [...]
March 20th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
[...] on the 7 most ridiculous roads being built with stimulus [...]
March 21st, 2009 at 2:03 am
[...] Highways to Nowhere: The 7 Most Ridiculous New Roads Being Built With Stimulus Money » INFRAST… - At a White House gathering last week, both Barack Obama and Joe Biden warned America’s governors not to squander stimulus funds on ill-conceived infrastructure projects. “Six months from now,” Biden said, “if the verdict on this effort is that we’ve wasted the money, we built things that were unnecessary, or we’ve done things that are legal but make no sense, then, folks, don’t look for any help from the federal government for a long while.” [...]
March 21st, 2009 at 10:00 am
I live near the proposed I295 project. Unfortunately it will be needed or some other alternative when Fort Bragg implements its plans to shut down highways that currently bisect the base. Currently over 65,000 vehicles a day pass through the base. Those vehicles will need somewhere to go besides the few nearby 2 lane surface roads. Also the interstate was originally designed to move military convoys efficiently. As the military bases around the country are being consolidated under BRAC Fort Bragg is getting a major influx of troops (estimated to be around 40,000 at this point). The 295 loop will be used to move troops and equipment to and from embarkation points along the NC seacoast. For once someone is planning ahead instead of building the roads after the fact.
Too many people look at a project on the surface and DON’T research the need or background. FWIW I am not a huge fan of any highway project and would much prefer to see the money spent on mass transit, pedestrian or dedicated cycling facilities. There are many more projects on the drawing board and under construction in NC that make even less sense. This is just a high profile one so it is easy to pick on.
Aaron
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:44 am
[...] 7 veje igangsat på tvivlsomt grundlag med stimulus penge i USA. Jesper Juul Andersen E-mail: FJERNDETTEjesper.juul.andersen@gmail.com Hjemmeside: Jesper Juul Andersen (f.1986) studerer økonomi på Århus Universitet. Jesper sidder i Liberators redaktion. [...]
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:59 am
Instead of funding roadways in rural areas where no one is traveling, why don’t they work on bad city traffic areas in LA, Atlanta, Chicago and Seattle?
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:09 am
[...] Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 3:07 pm March 23, 2009 Infrastructurist on the 7 most ridiculous roads being built with stimulus [...]
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:23 am
Don’t you think it would make more sense to check into these projects BEFORE we spend the money, build them AND then discover they were worthless?
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
[...] on the 7 most ridiculous roads being built with stimulus [...]
March 25th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
[...] Your humble editor on with the excellent Brian Sullivan discussing bad development patterns, suburban sprawl and Yonah Freemark’s list of seven new highways that shouldn’t be built. [...]
March 26th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Thanks for this important posting. A couple of corrections are necessary: the amount of farmland that would be taken is over 4500 acres and the amount of forest land taken would be over 2000 acres. These are much greater losses than posted on the blog. These current estimates are based on studies by the Indiana Dept. of Transportation.
Also. the cost of the project has doubled since earlier estimates; it now stands at approximately $4.5 billion. The state is proposing to cheapen construction by using asphalt instead of concrete, narrowing the ROW, using cheaper bridge materials and shortening bridges. They are also eliminating or “deferring” some interchanges and may also eliminate some proposed over/underpasses and some local service roads.
I-69 really is “ridiculous”.
March 26th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Thank you for calling out INDOT on the ridiculousness of the new-terrain I-69 project. Many, many concerned citizens in Indiana have been saying for *years* that the route through Terre Haute would be better, and that we don’t need or want this road. One local group estimates that the total cost will actually now be closer to $4 billion, rather than $3.5 billion–and they are cheapening the cost of construction by switching from concrete to asphalt and deferring interchanges, both of which will cost more in the long run! The official cost-benefit analysis just barely passed the break-even point when the road was projected to cost $2 billion, from what I hear, so how they justify it now that the cost has gone up so much is beyond me.
In fact, this road is so unpopular that when they had their ceremonial groundbreaking for the first couple miles (so that they could bolster the appearance of the project being already a done deal), they had to bring some dirt to a convention center away from the actual site, in order to hide from the protesters! Wouldn’t want any nasty negative publicity for their project, oh no.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:33 am
The public comment period on the I-69 project resulted in 94% of nearly 22,000 respondents against the new-terrain route. Indiana is about as democratic as Stalinist USSR.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Have to agree with greeneggsandsam. Indiana is a environmental disgrace and routinely ignores the wishes and well-being of its own citizens. I-69 is an environmental, social, and economic disaster and should never be built. It has never been needed and is truly a highway to nowhere.
March 27th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
[...] the dubious distinction of having the worst new road-building project in the country, as named in this recent story on the Infrastucturist. The new downtown junction of three interstates will be a local nightmare for decades to come. [...]
March 28th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Boy, you very much nailed Indiana I69, downtown Louisville interchange, and I93 in New Hampshire. (I can only guess about the others…) It’s astounding that such bombs of public infrastructure consideration make it this far (or worse) while other roads continue to degrade unheralded. FWIW, outside of fraud or near-fraud (as when the purse strings are controlled by the same people judging the projects), I think it’s very much the case of the policy-making tail wagging the policy-outcome dog — which is to say, when “What gets measured, gets done” is your watchword, it will be *only* those projects that “got measured” that got done — regardless of sensible outcomes.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Yonah, you’re right, Intercounty Connector (ICC) is a planning disaster — that 20 mile highway will raise GHG locally by 20% and generate 20,000 acres of sprawl in an area of wetlands and forests. But investing in light rail in Baltimore is no solution to the ICC dilemna. Commuter rail is best suited to compete with highways.
That $3 Billion should instead be redirected to improving MARC commuter rail, the most severely underfunded commuter rail service on the Northeast Corridor. That service, believe it or not is weekday only and is the only service on the Northeast Corridor that doesn’t allow bikes-on-trains at any time of day.
1. Electrify the CAMDEN Line and electrify the inner section of the BRUNSWICK Line
(closest to Union Station).
2. Buy new (many could be EMU) train cars with dedicated, secure bicycle parking areas on the trains - so bicyclists can multi-modal commute on MARC at any time of day.
3. Initiate weekend and late night service
4. Extend PENN Line to Newark (DE). SEPTA has made a commitment to increase service to Newark (DE).
5. Build a commuter rail connecter between the 3 lines (Brunswick, Camden, Penn) via
stops such as Silver Spring, College Park, and New Carrollton (or Seabrook). This would create a cross SUBURBAN-to-SUBURBAN regional (commuter) rail service w/o going into Union Station
By comparison, Metrolink in Southern California has suburban-to-suburban rail service between Orange and San Bernadino counties.
If service is designed correctly a passenger could get on in Martinsburg (WV), Rockville (MD), Kensington (MD), or Silver Spring (MD) and get off at BWI (MD), Baltimore
(MD), Newark (DE) without going into Washington Union Station, or even changing trains!
April 6th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Living in New York, it’s totally bizarre to hear about these projects, where we haven’t had a new road in decades. Isn’t this building-roads-through-parks stuff illegal by now? It takes 20 years of reviews and permits to rebuild a railroad on an existing right-of-way, but building a highway through farms and forests is easy? I don’t get it. And Bush can’t even take all the blame for this; the regulations prioritizing driving over public transit have existed since the 50’s.
And why is New York State that much poorer than Indiana or Maryland that it can’t afford either decent roads or public transit? In good years, Wall Street barely keeps us afloat, and in bad years all hell breaks lose.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
[...] article, Highways to Nowhere: The 7 Most Ridiculous Roads Being Built in America, by Yonah Freemark, posted on the website, The Infrastructurist: America Under Construction, [...]
April 15th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
As a resident of KY, I find the 8664 project to be the stupidest thing ever thought of. It does nothing to address the ENORMOUS traffic problem we have downtown and instead exasturbates it by removing a vital interstate running through downtown. As a commuter, the idea would cost me loads of money in gas and time every day that I commute. The only reason I can come up with that people support the 8664 project is that we have a large community of mindless hippies that will coo to anything that isn’t part of the establishment. I’m all for preserving nature and having a nice downtown, but roads exist for a reason.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
[...] Biden needs to look into this stimulus program a little closer Jump to Comments Because no one messes with Joe, right? Highways to Nowhere: The 7 Most Ridiculous New Roads Being Built In [...]
April 19th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
8664 would divert I-64 north of Louisville and allow the DT to reconnect with the waterfront of the Ohio River. It is a great idea and would be a boon for development.
Roads do exist for a reason-but that is no justification for building bad and useless ones.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:06 am
You throw around the word sprawl as if it were well defined.
Since it isn’t, your comments cannot be taken seriously.
April 26th, 2009 at 3:29 am
In the entry on the Grand Parkway road in the Houston area, you refer to General Growth Properties as a supporter of the project. FYI they have just gone into bankruptcy.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Sorry, Chris, Even if the downtown traffic problem were enormous (which it isn’t when you take out the short rush hours times of day) , 8664 would alleviate it when the East End bridge is built. Liken the 8664 plan to replacing an artery with many capillaries (downtown accesses from the riverside parkway) and you can see the effect of revitalizing the economic lifeblood of our city - particularly in the west end which got cut off from development when the existing through-town I-64 was first built. Having more, and thus less crowded, alternative routes for you to commute on will have little effect on your commute time. I have done it both ways: interstate or “back roads” to the ‘burbs, and it works out just about the same. Actually, city living is coming back into vogue. New York City has no major interstate running through it and it is probably the most vibrant city in the country. The 8664 bywords are: Better, Cheaper, Faster. Any one of them by itself would be enough to win against the two bridges and spaghetti junction monstrosity. All three together make the 8664 plan the overwhelmingly obvious choice for solving the interlinked problems of downtown traffic and downtown development. If there is a third solution out there, I’d like to hear it.
P.S. Those who developed the 8664 idea are not mindless hippies. They are in fact energetic and visionary businessmen who see very practical solutions to a problem, and are not crusaders for some selfish, short sighted cause.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
As a resident of S. Indiana just across the bridge from Louisville, I travel to work (at UofL) and back home during the height of Louisville’s rush hour. Typically, this requires about 25 min, of which about half of that time is on the freeway. At other times, it takes about 14 min. When compared to many of the other cities I’ve been to, I see ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to DOUBLE the amount of pavement across the river, and even less reason to ugly up Waterfront Park with the shadow of more expensive interstate. Other than I-69, I am unfamiliar with the other projects on this list, but if they are anywhere near the boondoggle that these two are, then our money set aside for infrastructure is in deep trouble. While I’m not entirely sold on the 8664 plan, I see no reason why the rest of the Ohio River Bridges Project can’t wait for the East End bridge to be completed first. It almost feels like the Mayor for life is trying to swindle everyone into buying the whole package before sampling the wares.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
I have to second 2whls3spds on the issue of the I-295 project in Fayetteville. All other benefits (and disadvantages!) of the interstate system aside, the original priority was to facilitate military traffic. As it stands, it takes 20-40 minutes to get to I-95 from Ft Bragg, and any emergency convoy would entail shutting down traffic all the way through Fayetteville.
That aside, would many soldiers choose to go to Raleigh for entertainment if it took 25 minutes instead of the hour it does now? I know I would. I spend most of my weekends in Raleigh or Charlotte as it is. But the businesses that would suffer most are the usual garrison-town sprawl, anyway. Fayetteville’s “city center” is only about three blocks long (for a city of 90,000 or so), and inconvenient to reach from Ft Bragg, so the indie movie theater and the antique shops aren’t exactly dependent on us soldiers. Far harder hit would be the… adult entertainment establishments that line Bragg Blvd, pretty much the definition of “the worst kind of sprawl”.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:04 am
[...] Likewise, if building a “safe” freeway involves wrecking a town or landscape (see our 7 stupidest road building projects for some examples) while encouraging obesity and creating more air pollution, then the answer is [...]
May 7th, 2009 at 12:41 am
Americans,
Thank you for furthering your addiction to gasoline. We love you.
May 11th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
We totally need more roads!! I love driving. We need more cars!! Too much money goes to public transit anyway. I say divert all funding from public transit in all cities, and build more highways!! Let’s keep this country moving people!!
May 14th, 2009 at 11:53 am
To Jim, Steven, and the rest-
I understand the reasons for supporting the ICC but the fact is that it was not planned well. Half the people I grew up with will be forced off their families’ land to make room for a polluting toll road that will not actually serve the communities that it runs through. You say its already “built up” but just because communities exist does not mean that a commuter road is a good idea or that it won’t be damaging.
P.S. Thomas i really hope that you’re joking
May 17th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
[...] Freemark of The Infrastructurist put a nice list of roads that have seemingly little value. He lists [...]
May 20th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Building ANY new or wider roads on the downslope of Peak Oil is nuts beyond language.
All of these federal pork-ways are supposedly to address traffic demands twenty years in the future — not current traffic levels. But as the oil supplies dwindle, and the “alternatives” are shown to be less concentrated than fossil fuels, it is obvious there will be less traffic as the years go by. Nationally, VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled - have “peaked,” and as the downslope of Peak Oil becomes harder to deny, total VMTs will decline as well.
As for the Inter County Connector in Maryland, the primary reason for that sprawlway is to connect the various Fed.Gov compounds and contractors, not for traffic issues. Perhaps it could be called the NSA Expressway, since it will connect the world’s largest collection of computers with the high-tech contractors along I-270.
The goal for the ICC was also to induce more sprawl north of the route, but the collapse of the real estate market will probably slow that down considerably. I hope the citizens of suburban Maryland are able to adapt to higher carbon monoxide levels - clean air is obviously an overrated concept, getting somewhere a few minutes faster is more important than using up the world’s oil supplies and poisoning your grandchildren.
Gov. Glendening was forced to withdraw his blatant support for this highway in the late 1990s when the Federal Highway Administration privately told him that the project would not meet “legal sufficiency.” He kept the project on life support and let his successor push the project through, along with the Bush administration’s “streamlining” of relevant highway laws.
The interstate highway system will be an interesting relic after the oil is gone, far more fascinating to future generations than Ankor Wat in Cambodia, the Egyptian Pyramids or the stone heads of Easter Island.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:21 am
Thanks for this informative post. After reading about I69 Extension and the projects for Louisville, KY. I wanted to share some of my thoughts. I have held a CDL (Commercial Drivers License) since Mar. of 05. During that time, I have worked for companies based just outside of Louisville & Indianapolis.
With respect to the I69 Extension, Gov. Daniels has and continues to sell Indiana tax payers short. Just recently, Gov. Daniels issued directives to INDOT to “throw away the federal highway construction rulebook whenever possible.” http://www.fox28.com/Global/story.asp?S=10387047
Not only does Gov. Daniels think that ignoring Federal code is an acceptable and safe way to do business, he continues to ignore the wishes of Indiana Tax Payers. I69 provides NOTHING for citizens that reside within Regions 5, 8 & 11 except minimum wage paying jobs.
With respect to Louisville, I spent many days navigating I65/I64 & I71. There are far fewer days when a serious accident or fatality incident does not occur on the Kennedy Bridge or at Hospital Curve. For those that navigate these corridors on a regular basis, there is a reason why 18 Wheelers grab the left lane 1 to 1.5 miles out and hang there until they are through Hospital Curve or even all the way down to the Gene Snyder. Though truck traffic is restricted through portions of I65, we’d rather take the risk of being caught with our pants down than be stuck in an Accordion style traffic jam. Though I am not versed enough to say whether or not the expansion of the East Bridge is a viable solution to this issue, I do know that until SOMETHING is done, more people will be seriously injured and killed needlessly. If I am correct, hasn’t the west bound connector of 265 been an unresolved issue for the past 10 years? Maybe the West Bound connector could be finished and truck traffic diverted around down town freeing up a lot of traffic.
Whether that is a solution to the problem I do not know. I do know this much. Anywhere, ANYWHERE you have multiple interstates ending, beginning and continuing through one another, there are going to be congestion issues. Until Indiana & Kentucky take a serious approach to it’s transportation infer structure, and for that matter our nation, projects like these will always be a cash cow for some and a socicial/economical and ecological challenges for others.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:55 am
[...] miles down the city’s Main Street, did the trend begin to reverse itself. Though the region remains committed to the construction of huge expanses of asphalt, for the first time in decades, a large transit [...]
June 4th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Anyone who thinks that the 8664 plan would stop travelers from stopping in our fair city, is dumb at best. If you are traveling on these interstates through Louisville and are from out of state then 9 times out of 10 you are not stopping in Louisville. These travelers are headed to Florida, Ohio, Michigan and are caught up in the mess that is the downtown interstates.
If any true person who drives daily to downtown Louisville would know, all it takes is one wreck on any of the 3 interstates (65,64,71) to almost stop traffic. My belief is to get the above mentioned travelers out of downtown get them around the city and on their way.
Come on the true drivers into Louisville no who they are, they are the ones that go to the football. basketball games and leave early in the 2nd half because they want to beat that traffic. Anyone that thinks the 8664 plan would create more issues, well they have already left and are no longer looking at things with new and better ideas and just think more lanes will be better. Just look at 264 (Watterson) for proof that more lanes do not alleviate traffic.
Build the East End Bridge first let the traffic normalize to the new directions around Louisville lets make the city world class and reconnect with the river that built this city in the first place.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
the fact that a lot of people with money live in the east end of louisville has everything to do with the downtown bridge being built.
these people donate to political campaigns on a regular basis with the purpose of subverting what is needed.
granted. the east end bridge is the smart and inteligent choice. but, since even the mayor of louisville lives out that way…………..
and, don’t plan on seeing either bridge built anytime soon anyway. the people in charge are more worried about passing out money to their friends firms to do consulting work work rather than actually paying for something to be done.
these bridges have been in the works for over 15 years.
it’s actually kind of sad to think that it’s like that. but, it is. and it’s the same with the I 69 project in indiana. it’s all about getting money to the right people.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:09 am
As infrastructure reporters, you guys might do a bit more research before you list a project as unnecessary. The I65 bridge and “Spaghetti Junction” reconfiguration in Louisville IS necessary. I65 runs from Chicago to Mobile. It is heavily traveled. The I65 Kennedy Bridge across the Ohio River at Louisville is inadequate to the transportation needs of the corridor. Reconfiguring the I65 interchange with I64, which runs from St. Louis to Hampton Roads/Norfolk VA, and I71 which runs from Louisville to Cleveland, OH is also necessary as part of construction of the new parallel bridge needed on I65.
The existing interchange of those 3 interstates immediately east of downtown Louisville MUST be replaced. With the new bridge and interchange there will still be 8 elevated lanes at downtown proper. No more land over downtown will be taken, and in fact, east of Waterfront Park a significant area, on the river-ward side where I71/I64 junction just east of the “spaghetti junction” is currently located, will be opened up along the River Road corridor. The new configuration will place the highway lanes farther from the park over what are now auto salvage yards, a cement plant and an abandoned brownfield oil terminal.
A group that is against this project as planned calls themselves “8664″ because they want to chop 1 mile out of the middle of I64 where it passes downtown Louisville under the Belvedere, a festival plaza and green roof on top of a parking garage and over the elevated interstate. The 8664.org crowd claims that they want to connect pedestrians and bicyclists coming from downtown Louisville to the waterfront by replacing I64 along the downtown waterfront with a surface parkway. They ignore the fact that the 30,000 or so commuters coming into downtown from the west would be put onto that surface road, making pedestrians have to cross that traffic instead of walking under the highway, as they do now under the elevated I64.
They also disregard the fact that the reason these highways are elevated is to keep them above the 100-yr floodplain. River Road underneath I64 downtown floods regularly. The 1997 flood reached within 3′ of the top of the piers supporting I64. Cutting a “Parkway” through the floodwall down there is not only NOT a good idea, it wouldn’t be allowed because the road would be in the floodplain. The “Parkway” at ground level would be impassible every time the Ohio River comes up over it, often several days per year. Even if allowed, it would add tremendously to the cost to have to replace sections of the floodwall and levee and install multiple lanes worth of new floodgates. Sewers and pump stations would also have to be removed, reconfigured and replaced.
Proponents of “8664″ completely disregard the fact that there is no other direct way for people coming from the west side of town to get to the east side of town, including to the five hospitals that are all clustered on the east side of Downtown. It is easy to disregard them because those people live in the Black and Poor White neighborhoods on the west, and they have not been asked for their opinion on this lunacy. The push to get rid of I64 is entirely coming from the wealthy White eastern part of town from people who probably never go west of 9th street. They have no idea how long it might take someone suffering a heart attack at 39th & Bank St to get to a hospital if the ambulance couldn’t go up a ramp and drive 4 miles on an interstate to the emergency room.
The primary pushers behind eliminating I64 probably do know how much their family’s real estate at 9th and Main might be worth if there weren’t a set of elevated on-ramps and 7 lanes of I64 next to their very nice tourist attraction.
The 8664.org tries to compare this project to cities where waterfront interstates have been removed, such as Portland OR. The difference is that those other cities had a parallel highway on the other side of the river connected to their downtown by multiple bridges. Louisville does not, and cannot. Southern Indiana has wetlands and the Falls of the Ohio fossil beds over there, as well as two state parks, residential neighborhoods, and a wastewater treatment plant. They are not going to sacrifice those so that certain Louisvillians can have a nicer view out their windows. The only other bridge across the Ohio River at Louisville is the Sherman Minton Bridge on I64, 4 miles west of downtown. The 8664 plan would make the Sherman Minton a ‘bridge to nowhere.’
Someone’s wish to chop about a mile out of the middle of I64 does not change the need for an additional I65 bridge across the Ohio River in Downtown Louisville, and that a small, very vocal and well-financed group of people is lobbying to do that is no basis for listing this project on your webpage.
The “I66″ corridor in Southern Kentucky IS indeed an interstate to no state that would have severe ecological impacts on the Rockcastle River watershed for no apparent reason. THAT project should be number one on this list.
Regards,
S:-D
June 5th, 2009 at 10:24 am
I agree with fellow Louisvillian Sue.
I-66 West deserves to be number 1, not number 4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_66_(west)
Seriously, we need an interstate to connect Somerset and London, which is already served by four-lane highways? This is an interstate hundreds of miles long that wouldn’t connect any communities larger than 60,000 people.
8664 is a plan to boost the property values of the wealthiest section of Louisville, the East End, while further marginalizing some of the most underserved and underconnected areas, Portland and the West End. The debate over building an East End bridge versus a downtown bridge has been going on for many years in Louisville; and 8664 is an attempt to make sure that, even if the ORBP falters, the interests of east-enders are insured.
River Road on the east side of Louisville is one of the city’s worst roads for pedestrians and cyclists. Directing traffic off of the I-64 Sherman Minton bridge onto a similar surface road on the west side is a sure way to “cut Louisville off from the river.” And anyone who regularly cycles the Riverwalk west of downtown can attest how common flooding problems can be.
Louisville needs more bridges, not fewer.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Why don’t these idiots get with the program? We don’t need another monster that they don’t intend to maintain!!! We have roads in dire need of repair all over the city and pot holes the size of New Jersey going unrepaired!!! Fix what’s really wrong, and stop trying to fix what ain’t broken!!! Uggghhh!!!
June 7th, 2009 at 5:56 am
The current I-64 infrastructure is far from the eyesore that 8664 makes it out to be. In fact, it is quite beautiful. It makes for a very scenic drive and provides perspective for photos of the city (large buildings dwarfing the roadway in front of it). There is still a beautiful downtown park that is easily accessible.
As a resident that commuted from Indiana, then lived downtown, then commuted from the East, I have found it integral to the flow of traffic. A couple of years ago they shut down the very section of the highway that 8664 wants to get rid of for maintenance. It crippled the city! Commuters were practically incapable of entering and exiting the city. Downtown was flooded with re-routed traffic causing traffic jams that lasted well into the night.
I do believe that another bridge on the East End would alleviate quite a bit of unnecessary traffic heading over I-65 to the east and I definitely believe that it is quite ridiculous for there to be only one off-ramp from I-65 heading to I-64 East and West and I-71 North and South. Almost all of the traffic jams from Indiana to Louisville are a result of a majority of the traffic attempting to squeeze into that single lane before mish-meshing with all of the traffic already on those two interstates as they intertwine and then head their separate ways. It’s quite the obstacle! Routing the off-ramp for one of the highways further down or expanding the off-ramp would be a welcomed relief for the daily commuters. I’ve been lucky enough that I was headed straight into downtown and could bypass the parking-lot known as I-65 via the 2nd street bridge.
I think that a mixture of providing more bridges at different locations allowing for through traffic to bypass the city and increasing very slightly the off-ramps from the existing I-65 bridge to I-71 and I-64 would be quite productive without taking away from the current beauty of the city.
Removing that portion of the interstate would funnel traffic into downtown that would not need to leave the Interstate otherwise, slowing their commute and putting them in the way of the downtown driver. The interstate functions to reduce travel time from distended locations and shield the downtown blocks from the influx of through traffic. It was mentioned before also, if the purpose is to reunite the urbanite with the city, how is creating an impassible roadway in their path going to assist with this. While living downtown, I often took walks with my preschooler all the way to the waterfront and found no issue at all with crossing safely underneath the interstate. The whole area is so well integrated that it is barely noticeable that such a large amount of traffic is passing right there.
Although…. I would be concerned about living in one of the multi-million dollar condo’s with a glass wall over looking the interstate that everyone can see in. I hope they are conscious of how visible they are and choose to wear only what they would be seen in in public when their shades aren’t drawn!
June 7th, 2009 at 6:00 am
Edit: It was mentioned before also, if the purpose is to reunite the urbanite with the *river*, how is creating an impassible roadway in their path going to assist with this.
June 20th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Anyone who has driven from Evansville to Indianapolis can tell you it is no picnic. There are speed limits from 40 to 60 MPH along the way. It would take much longer to upgrade 41N to Interstate standards and disrupt many more lives than a new highway that goes straight to its destination instead of out of the way. The 13 minute difference in driving time is a bogus argument put up by someone who can’t do geometry. The other bird that gets killed with new highway is a direct route for students who attend IU, the largest college in the state. Present roads are very dangerous at night and inclement weather. If you want to upgrade 41N, it is a great idea as we have no good roads to Chicago either. Just keep going past Terra Haute and upgrade 63 while your at it.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:26 pm
[...] Highways to Nowhere: America’s 7 Most Ridiculous New Road Building Projects [...]
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
[...] other great links on that page, as well. [...]
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Richard Stowe: If the PENN line extended service to Newark, DE I would no longer have to drive my private automobile 2 and a half hours to visit my family.
Newark DE is also the home of the University of Delaware and has a reasonably effective free bus service in town run by the university. Having rail service south at reasonable prices (Amtrak is NOT reasonable for students) would greatly reduce the number of students who require cars on campus.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:00 am
[...] Read More [...]
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:32 am
[...] choice to spend the majority of its transportation dollars on I-270 expansion (and on the ICC) will only exasperate existing congestion and threaten the environment. Choices like these will [...]
August 11th, 2009 at 12:24 am
I’m stationed in NC i completely agree with the top two posts about I295. It’s needed for convoys. secondly as stated before it cuts 20+ minutes of lights and interchanges you need to go south to get to 95 from bragg. if we wanted to move equipment swiftly from norfolk to bragg the best way would be the completion of 295 from where its been left at and an upgrade to US 58 from 95 to norfolk.
highways are not the real answer after the fact. roads have been known to change weather patterns from pasture destruction and such. if the solution was to go with auto trains it would dramatically subtract from the compounding issues of polution over time, and oil issues for starters.
to sum up its a good idea and its needed for military purposes with SOME civilian use but after the fact if FT Bragg/Pope AFB didnt exist it wouldnt be needed.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:53 am
[...] March, the American transportation site The Infrastructurist proclaimed it Number One in their ranking of the “Most Ridiculous New Roads Being Built In [...]
December 4th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
[...] Whittington should therefore be happy that the stimulus bill included $29 billion to fund highway construction projects across the country while leaving just $8.4 billion for public transit, $8 billion in grants for high speed rail and [...]
February 13th, 2010 at 5:41 am
I actually welcome the Grand Parkway. It will divert a lot of trucking traffic around Houston instead of through Houston, since there will be more direct alternate routes around the city. Also, Houston is not like other cities, with only one city center. In fact the Greater Houston area includes over 2 dozen cities, and the Grand Parkway is part of a regional mobility initiative, which includes light rail and commuter rail. I don’t think it is accurate to say that the Grand Parkway is a road to nowhere, as it connects many cities and communities in the region.
And you continually talk about how urban sprawl is a bad thing. I have lived in Houston for many years, and I have lived in New Jersey and was in NYC many many times, and I have been to Chicago many times as well. I must tell you that Houston’s sprawl is much much better than millions of people living on top of each other. I would much prefer urban sprawl and less people per square mile than tall buildings and crowded dirty streets with everyone fighting for space.
I should also mention that Houston’s urban sprawl means more trees, lawns and green spaces than an NYC style build on top of each other mixed use strategy.
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:16 pm
The ICC in Maryland is a terrible idea. I don’t believe that there will be a reduction of Beltway traffic at all. I agree with the posters who advocate this will spur terrible sprawl: anyone been to Northern Virginia recently? Do we seriously want that sort of congestion here as well? Most people live in MD to ESCAPE the rat race of NOVA. Yikes.
I have a novel idea. Why don’t we let DC deal with DC’s problems? Let’s put 70-S, and I-95 via downtown DC (I-395) back in the plans. I’m thoroughly disgusted with DC traffic problems being pawned off to Maryland. Man up. Nobody wants an interstate in thier backyard… but it would only serve DC right to have thier share.