Streetsblog Capitol Hill

It is really a testament to how dominant the highway industrial complex has become that we even have to talk about Birmingham’s Northern Beltline, a $4.7 billion outerbelt first proposed in the 1960s. But with backing from big companies that would reap windfall real estate profits from the highway — and with a U.S. Senator working to secure federal funding — this boondoggle might actually get built.

This 1960s-era outerbelt proposal Birmingham is pursuing would cost $4.7 billion. Image: Birmingham News

The six-lane, 52-mile highway would be fantastically expensive for any state. Even on a per mile basis — $90 million — it is extravagant, making it one of the country’s most expensive highway projects, and by far the priciest one in state history.

To make matters worse, by any measurable outcome the project wouldn’t be all that useful. Regional transportation officials have estimated that this project would reduce congestion on existing freeways by a mere 1 to 3 percent. That’s a big part of the reason, when those planners ranked the 50 most important transportation projects for the Birmingham area, the Northern Beltline was ranked a lowly 36th. (All the remaining 49 projects, by the way, could be completed for $1 billion less than the total cost of the Northern Beltline.)

Even as a job creator — its ostensible purpose — the Northern Beltline underwhelms. A study commissioned by the Coalition for Regional Transportation, a pro-highway non-profit, estimated the project would produce 70,000 jobs and $7 billion in investment. But Chattanooga’s Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies [PDF] says that study — completed by the Center for Business and Economic Research — was seriously flawed.

“The CBER data confuse permanent jobs with jobs available in any one year and rely on outdated Federal Highway Administration data,” said Ochs Center authors Ken Chilton and Peter B. Meyer.

Chilton and Meyer, on the other hand, estimate the project could produce as few as 2,800 jobs during any of the project years. That equals one job per $456,000 invested.

Plus, Chilton and Meyer say the CBER study examined only benefits of the Beltline and ignored its costs, and that it examined those benefits only against the “build nothing” alternative.

Ochs, meanwhile, estimates the project would attract only 372 businesses and 6,527 residents. Even that paltry influx could occur only after significant additional cost to taxpayers, because sewers need to be built in the undeveloped area the highway would serve.

That led Chilton and Meyer to conclude: “This project would be a poor investment of limited taxpayer dollars given its enormous cost and over-inflated economic benefits.”

Read more…

Which transportation projects are the smartest investments, and which are the most ridiculous boondoggles? The Sierra Club has put together a solid list in a new report titled “Smart Choices, Less Traffic: The 50 Best and Worst Transportation Projects in the United States.”

Boondoggle: The widening of I-5 in San Diego is expected to cost $4.5 billion. Photo: Transnet

The Sierra Club evaluated each project based on five criteria, including its effects on oil use, the environment, public health, land use, and the economy. A glance through the list quickly reveals both who is innovating for the future and who is wasting staggering sums on backwards projects, with most of the good ones originating from local governments and transit agencies, and the worst coming from state DOTs.

“Old highway spending habits die hard,” write report authors Rachel Butler, Ann Mesnikoff and Megan McLean. “U.S. transportation policy is largely getting it wrong.”

The list of “worst” projects is dominated by 1950s-style mega-highways and road expansions, the cost of which frequently reaches into the billions. Among the lowlights is Dallas’s Trinity Freeway, which costs an astounding $222 million per mile. Also notable is Phoenix’s proposed $2 billion South Mountain Freeway, a pricey eight-mile sprawl generator, which, the Sierra Club reports, hasn’t gotten past the planning stages due to lack of public support. Another worthy “worst” is the Interstate 5 widening in north San Diego County, which would widen the road to 12 lanes for the go-for-broke price of $4.5 billion.

Seattle’s Alaskan Way Viaduct — a Big Dig-style buried highway — is also singled out in the Sierra Club’s Hall of Shame. This project, which won out over the idea of replacing a damaged elevated highway with an at-grade boulevard, barely runs two miles but is expected to cost more than $3 billion. Another national embarrassment is I-269 in Memphis — the city’s second outerbelt — which the Sierra Club describes as “mainly a real estate development scheme.” Florida’s proposed 150-mile Heartland Expressway, through some of the state’s last undeveloped natural environments, wins mention as well — not only because FDOT has come out and said it can’t afford the $5.6 billion pricetag, but because it is ethically suspect as well. One of the central advocates is a state senator who, as a major land owner on the corridor, also stands to reap a windfall from its completion.

Read more…

“Why is Indiana Paying $255 Million for a Tunnel Under Kentucky’s Trees?” asked the Indianapolis Star in a recent headline.

The states of Indiana and Kentucky will pay more than $500 million to build a tunnel under these trees. Photo: Indianapolis Star

The paper was referring to the $2.6 billion I-265 bridge over the Ohio River, a joint project of Indiana and Kentucky. In a lot of ways, this project is your classic highway boondoggle. It involves a bridge widening to complete Louisville’s outerbelt, and will purportedly help reduce “bottlenecks” caused by suburban commuters.

Clearly, the powers that be in these two states are thinking from the “more roads equals less traffic” mindset. What’s truly fascinating is how far they were willing to take it in this case.

The most controversial element of this project, and there are many, is a plan to build a roughly $255 million tunnel under the grounds of a private residence — the “tunnel under the trees.” Costs for this expense will be split evenly between the two states.

So Indiana — to the outrage of transit supporters — is plunking down more than $100 million to build a tunnel of roughly 2,000 feet just over the border in Kentucky. Why?

The answer, according to Aaron Renn at the Urbanophile, is that “[Gov.] Mitch Daniels wants to.”

But the official explanation is that the private residence in the path of the proposed bridge is a registered National Historic Landmark. It got its protected status 20 years ago, due to the efforts of a group that wanted to stop this particular road project.

Read more…