U.S. Public Interest Research Group "Highway Boondoggles 2" Report

[Grzrd]

Some familiar project names are on the list:

http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/US_Boondoggles2_scrn_0.pdf

[Brandon]

Joy, a list by a so-called public interest group hating on projects they don't like.  This report is a boondoogle.

[Jardine]

Part of the low current traffic count on the remaining  2 lane portions of highway 20 is avoiding having to follow big trucks up and down some of those hills and not being able to pass.  I seem to recall the existing asphalt being pretty worn too, but maybe that's been fixed since I drove on it.

I really like the 4 laner from  I-35 to Dubuque.

[mvak36]

The only one I agree from this list is the I-77 toll lanes. I have a feeling those people are getting hosed.

The rest of the list is basically crap.

[kj3400]

At the risk if becoming off-topic, I feel like the word boondoggle is a term that just became popular. I mean, I only started hearing it in 2015. Is this the case or is it just me?

[cjk374]

At the risk if becoming off-topic, I feel like the word boondoggle is a term that just became popular. I mean, I only started hearing it in 2015. Is this the case or is it just me?

It must be you... I have heard/used this term since my youthful days.

[slorydn1]

At the risk if becoming off-topic, I feel like the word boondoggle is a term that just became popular. I mean, I only started hearing it in 2015. Is this the case or is it just me?

It must be you... I have heard/used this term since my youthful days.

Same here.

I will agree with kj, though, that it seems like I am hearing the term more often these days. It seems that every project a vociferous minority doesn't like has become a "boondoggle".

[Duke87]

One thing the authors of this report are absolutely right about: spending money on expanding a transportation system when maintenance needs of the existing system are not being met is an irresponsible and reckless thing to be doing. I allow an exception to this only in cases where the expansion is in the form of widening a road which is in need of a major overhaul, so might as well add the lanes while doing the overhaul since that's cheaper and less disruptive than adding the lanes separately later.

Beyond that, though, this group is missing the point in the same way that most people typically do. Yes, "you can't build your way out of congestion" in a major metro area because the theoretical level of expansion necessary to actually eliminate congestion is going to be beyond what is practical to build given financial and physical constraints. But, that does not mean that expanding transportation capacity is a waste of resources or an ineffective thing to be doing.

Detractors of personal automobile travel love to point out that "more roads only leads to more driving" but, if spun a different way, they are unwittingly making the proper practical argument in favor of such expansion - widen a congested highway and the same level of delay may ultimately remain, so that no one's commute is any faster. But the widening does still achieve increased through put. More people sitting in traffic might not seem pleasant from an emotional perspective, but ultimately it does mean more people traveling places. From a societal perspective there is a net increase in mobility, this in turn is ultimately good for the economy and good for business.

Take the example of I-270 in Maryland. Is it just as congested now as it once was despite having been substantially widened? Yes. But consider why it's just as congested now. Look at all the office parks and such that have been built along the corridor. All of that represents job creation. More commuters sitting in traffic = more people working. Is that really a bad thing?

Now, I will grant you that in many cases "alternative" modes (transit, cycling, pedestrians) are not given the focus or resources they deserve, and I am all for increasing investment in these things. But- BUT! There is no reason it needs to be a zero sum game. There are other ways to pay for investment in transit besides cannibalizing money from roads.

[hbelkins]

The only one I agree from this list is the I-77 toll lanes. I have a feeling those people are getting hosed.

The rest of the list is basically crap.

I don't understand the hatred behind that project. The tolls will pay for the upgrade.

[kkt]

At the risk if becoming off-topic, I feel like the word boondoggle is a term that just became popular. I mean, I only started hearing it in 2015. Is this the case or is it just me?

The earliest use of the word goes back to 1935, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.
The quotes indicate that the word was used earlier, for a braided leather lanyard made and worn by boy scouts, however they haven't found a quote supporting that.


It must be you... I have heard/used this term since my youthful days.

[mvak36]

I don't understand the hatred behind that project. The tolls will pay for the upgrade.

This is just my opinion from reading all the articles about the express lanes.

I think the problem is that the Spanish company is going to be in charge of these lanes for the next 50 years and if that company's revenue projections aren't met, the state's taxpayers have to foot the bill. I also think that they are afraid that the toll lanes might cost so much that it will make congestion even worse than it is now.

I'm not against the toll lanes, but if they're going to do them, it is probably better than NCDOT run them. Again, this is just my opinion.

[slorydn1]

I don't understand the hatred behind that project. The tolls will pay for the upgrade.

This is just my opinion from reading all the articles about the express lanes.

I think the problem is that the Spanish company is going to be in charge of these lanes for the next 50 years and if that company's revenue projections aren't met, the state's taxpayers have to foot the bill. I also think that they are afraid that the toll lanes might cost so much that it will make congestion even worse than it is now.

I'm not against the toll lanes, but if they're going to do them, it is probably better than NCDOT run them. Again, this is just my opinion.

I really haven't been following the I-77 toll lanes story too closely but my understanding is that it's not so much the actual toll project itself that is rubbing people the wrong way it's the no-compete clause that disallows (IIRC) NCDOT from improving any of the free facilities in the area of the toll project for the 50 years the deal is good for. It appears someone at NCDOT was asleep at the switch when that provision got slipped in there.

[cpzilliacus]

One thing the authors of this report are absolutely right about: spending money on expanding a transportation system when maintenance needs of the existing system are not being met is an irresponsible and reckless thing to be doing. I allow an exception to this only in cases where the expansion is in the form of widening a road which is in need of a major overhaul, so might as well add the lanes while doing the overhaul since that's cheaper and less disruptive than adding the lanes separately later.

Agreed when we are discussing tax-funded projects.  If a proposed project is to be funded mostly or entirely out of non-tax sources (usually toll revenue bonds), then it does not concern me so much.  Yes, that means that New Jersey, with a transportation trust fund that is always near empty, was able to fund a multi-billion dollar expansion of the Turnpike out of non-tax sources.

So if there is no tax money to repair things that depend on taxes for construction or heavy reconstruction or repairs, then the system should not be expanded.

Beyond that, though, this group is missing the point in the same way that most people typically do. Yes, "you can't build your way out of congestion" in a major metro area because the theoretical level of expansion necessary to actually eliminate congestion is going to be beyond what is practical to build given financial and physical constraints. But, that does not mean that expanding transportation capacity is a waste of resources or an ineffective thing to be doing.

Agreed.

Detractors of personal automobile travel love to point out that "more roads only leads to more driving" but, if spun a different way, they are unwittingly making the proper practical argument in favor of such expansion - widen a congested highway and the same level of delay may ultimately remain, so that no one's commute is any faster. But the widening does still achieve increased through put. More people sitting in traffic might not seem pleasant from an emotional perspective, but ultimately it does mean more people traveling places. From a societal perspective there is a net increase in mobility, this in turn is ultimately good for the economy and good for business.

Take the example of I-270 in Maryland. Is it just as congested now as it once was despite having been substantially widened? Yes. But consider why it's just as congested now. Look at all the office parks and such that have been built along the corridor. All of that represents job creation. More commuters sitting in traffic = more people working. Is that really a bad thing?

Now, I will grant you that in many cases "alternative" modes (transit, cycling, pedestrians) are not given the focus or resources they deserve, and I am all for increasing investment in these things. But- BUT! There is no reason it needs to be a zero sum game. There are other ways to pay for investment in transit besides cannibalizing money from roads.

People and groups (including the authors of this report) seem to want all taxes paid by highway users to go to transit and non-motorized projects (because they have made a decision that this is the moral thing to do), something that is not feasible in most of the United States for obvious political reasons, and do not seem to want to admit that transit is (and will remain) a minority mode in nearly all counties.  I am a fan of non-motorized projects in many areas, because they tend to be relatively cheap, and have significant benefit in places where paths and trails were not built as part of successive waves of development through most of the 20th Century.

The report authors also cite air quality concerns, even though the U.S. has been enjoying improved air quality since the 1990's, and that is forecast to continue to improve, even without more transit capacity.

Regarding I-270, and this Washington Post article from 1999, which  placed great emphasis on the increase in traffic volumes (beyond what was forecast for the late 1990's), without pausing to consider what was assumed in the future transportation network when the forecasts were done many years earlier.  Crucially, the network assumptions included the Inter County Connector (which had been cancelled at about the same time by then-Gov. Parris Glendening) and an Outer Beltway crossing to Northern Virginia, which would have resulted in less traffic on I-270 south of the present-day I-370 interchange.

[Duke87]

I don't understand the hatred behind that project. The tolls will pay for the upgrade.

This is just my opinion from reading all the articles about the express lanes.

I think the problem is that the Spanish company is going to be in charge of these lanes for the next 50 years and if that company's revenue projections aren't met, the state's taxpayers have to foot the bill. I also think that they are afraid that the toll lanes might cost so much that it will make congestion even worse than it is now.

There is also the same conflict of interest which is inherent in all tolled express lanes - in order for the lanes to generate revenue, there has to be a some benefit to using them that makes people willing to pay to do so. This creates a profit motive to ensure that the general lanes remain congested and avoid making any improvements to them or to other parallel roadways.

[cpzilliacus]

I don't understand the hatred behind that project. The tolls will pay for the upgrade.

This is just my opinion from reading all the articles about the express lanes.

I think the problem is that the Spanish company is going to be in charge of these lanes for the next 50 years and if that company's revenue projections aren't met, the state's taxpayers have to foot the bill. I also think that they are afraid that the toll lanes might cost so much that it will make congestion even worse than it is now.

There is also the same conflict of interest which is inherent in all tolled express lanes - in order for the lanes to generate revenue, there has to be a some benefit to using them that makes people willing to pay to do so. This creates a profit motive to ensure that the general lanes remain congested and avoid making any improvements to them or to other parallel roadways.

Above all, that is why it may be better to toll all lanes, and not just two or one.

[vdeane]

I don't understand the hatred behind that project. The tolls will pay for the upgrade.

This is just my opinion from reading all the articles about the express lanes.

I think the problem is that the Spanish company is going to be in charge of these lanes for the next 50 years and if that company's revenue projections aren't met, the state's taxpayers have to foot the bill. I also think that they are afraid that the toll lanes might cost so much that it will make congestion even worse than it is now.

There is also the same conflict of interest which is inherent in all tolled express lanes - in order for the lanes to generate revenue, there has to be a some benefit to using them that makes people willing to pay to do so. This creates a profit motive to ensure that the general lanes remain congested and avoid making any improvements to them or to other parallel roadways.

Above all, that is why it may be better to toll all lanes, and not just two or one.

Though in that case, the profit motive would still apply to the surface streets.

[Pete from Boston]

I don't understand the hatred behind that project. The tolls will pay for the upgrade.

This is just my opinion from reading all the articles about the express lanes.

I think the problem is that the Spanish company is going to be in charge of these lanes for the next 50 years and if that company's revenue projections aren't met, the state's taxpayers have to foot the bill. I also think that they are afraid that the toll lanes might cost so much that it will make congestion even worse than it is now.

There is also the same conflict of interest which is inherent in all tolled express lanes - in order for the lanes to generate revenue, there has to be a some benefit to using them that makes people willing to pay to do so. This creates a profit motive to ensure that the general lanes remain congested and avoid making any improvements to them or to other parallel roadways.

Above all, that is why it may be better to toll all lanes, and not just two or one.

Though in that case, the profit motive would still apply to the surface streets.

Yes and no.  There's a large enough segment of people on the highway who will never take the surface streets.  Longer-distance drivers, the unadventurous, the resigned...

[Duke87]

Not to mention that now we're talking about a different class of roadway. It's reasonable and normal for a surface street to be slower than a parallel freeway. It's not reasonable and normal for parallel roadways of the same class to, by design, operate at two different levels of service due to different pricing.

[vdeane]

It's one thing for a surface street to be slower because of driveways, traffic lights, lower speed limit, etc.  It's another for a DOT to not make needed improvements because they hope that the congestion will deter shunpiking.  Don't the agreements for the leases of both the Indiana Toll Road and ON 407 include clauses stating that the parallel roads can't be improved?

[cpzilliacus]

It's one thing for a surface street to be slower because of driveways, traffic lights, lower speed limit, etc.  It's another for a DOT to not make needed improvements because they hope that the congestion will deter shunpiking.  Don't the agreements for the leases of both the Indiana Toll Road and ON 407 include clauses stating that the parallel roads can't be improved?

I know that the original contract that was signed between Caltrans and the private developers of the 91 Express HOV/Toll lanes in the median of Ca. 91 (Riverside Freeway) in Orange County had a restriction of that kind, but it was nullified when those lanes were sold to a public-sector Orange County agency.

[hbelkins]

So what's the difference between the I-77 toll lanes and the I-495 or I-95 toll lanes?

[lordsutch]

I really haven't been following the I-77 toll lanes story too closely but my understanding is that it's not so much the actual toll project itself that is rubbing people the wrong way it's the no-compete clause that disallows (IIRC) NCDOT from improving any of the free facilities in the area of the toll project for the 50 years the deal is good for. It appears someone at NCDOT was asleep at the switch when that provision got slipped in there.

According to this article:

Here is what the state can and can't do under the 50-year contract:

▪ The DOT can add lanes to N.C. 115 and U.S. 21 — two highways that run parallel to I-77. But if the state chooses to convert those highways to limited access highways, I-77 Mobility Partners could seek compensation for lost business.

▪ The Transportation Department can build new rail transit in the area. There is a long-term plan to build a new commuter rail line, but that project has no funding.

▪ It can add new express toll lanes to I-77, so long as I-77 Mobility Partners has the "exclusive right"  to manage them.

The contract is silent as to who would pay for the construction of any new toll lane.

[thenetwork]

If it weren't for the I-70 viaduct so close to the end of its lifespan, I might agree with the Denver project.  But since CDOT wants to build a 10-lane highway in it's place in order to anticipate the traffic volumes for the future, as Denver is now one of the fastest growing cities in the country, and the fact that I-70 is the major link between most of Denver, points west, and one of the busiest airports in the country, it needs to be done.

The problem with the project is that they have not and probably will not prepare the parallel routes around the construction -- I-76 & I-270 -- in advance.  Each of those highways which would be the logical I-70 bypass are mostly two lanes in each direction, with I-270 already a choke point most of each workday.

This project is somewhat similar to the I-25 T-Rex project from 10 years ago:  Full rebuild to a 10-lane highway and the only limited access detour (I-225) was mostly 2 lanes in each direction.  I wasn't here then to see how bad that construction congestion was, but this will be a smaller version of T-Rex since the rebuild area will be shorter and they are not incorporating a light rail line into the rebuild.

As I have said before:  Most of the I-270 bridges were built in anticipation for a 3rd lane to be added -- now is the time to widen at least I-270 in preparation for the major rebuilds of I-70:  The viaduct section scheduled to begin in late 2017 and the old Stapleton stretch most likely around 2020.

[cpzilliacus]

So what's the difference between the I-77 toll lanes and the I-495 or I-95 toll lanes?

1. Different private-sector concession holder (Australia's Transurban in Virginia, Spanish Cintra in North Carolina).

2. Congestion not as epic in the I-77 North Carolina corridor as it has been in the I-95/I-395 and I-495 corridors in Virginia.

[The Ghostbuster]

I say build them all. Just do everything possible to limit impacts and relocations.