Birmingham

[froggie]

To be fair he did come back later and say moving it to Finley would violate a federal ordinance that keeps interstates from being moved to impoverished minority neighborhoods but that didnt come out until later.

And he actually got that part wrong.  Federal law doesn't expressly prohibit such a move.  He just used it as a convenient excuse that, combined with his claimed cost, he could use to justify pushing widening the existing viaduct.

[lordsutch]

And he actually got that part wrong.  Federal law doesn't expressly prohibit such a move.  He just used it as a convenient excuse that, combined with his claimed cost, he could use to justify pushing widening the existing viaduct.

I think moving a freeway into the middle of an impoverished, largely black community, especially as part of an admitted effort to gentrify downtown Birmingham, would be highly frowned upon under an environmental justice assessment. It might be legal but it would require massive remediation (see i.e. what had to be done to build I-105 in Los Angeles).

[froggie]

I don't disagree.  Would require significant mitigation.  But to claim that it's illegal isn't really true and is a convenient cop-out on ALDOT's part.

[Tourian]

Maybe i misquoted him. Such a move would kill any federal assistance is probably what he said.

[Rothman]

Maybe i misquoted him. Such a move would kill any federal assistance is probably what he said.

It's still b.s., whether the quote was as before or as you describe.

[codyg1985]

Burying it was determined to be too expensive because of the water table and existing conduits. I do not draw the same conclusion that you do that Cooper was being evasive because there has been talk of doing that just that no one has the 1B or so it would take to do it. Nor do we have the time to wait to do it because the current bridges needed to be replaced years ago.

I could see the utilities being a huge concern. They are nasty and expensive to relocate, even without the unknowns of underground utility routing. I am not familiar enough with the soil profiles of the Birmingham area, but I would think if the water table is indeed high the they could be handled with enough engineering of proper retaining walls and maintenance of pumps and clean outs. Both of those engineering challenges would have indeed been more costly and expensive to deal with, but I think it would have been better overall for the community. Redeck the existing bridges and sink the interstate later.

Oh well, maybe the underside of the interstate can be beautified somehow.

The current project was initially presented as a $100 million emergency repair job. However, ALDOT "found" an extra $320 million and morphed the project into a $420 million improvement project (ALDOT could probably "find" an additional $280 million if they so desired).  By incurring the extra $320 million cost for the improvements, ALDOT made it more difficult to consider either the "sinking" improvement alternative or the "moving" improvement alternative in the future.  Had it remained a basic repair job, the Birmingham community would have had time to seriously discuss an optimal long-range solution.

I think that money was found by sacrificing other projects across the state for the next few years since this project was ALDOT's top priority.

[Tourian]

Here is what he said in the latest interview I've seen.

http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/news/2016/01/22/aldot-why-we-must-redesign-and-replace-the-i-20-59.html?full=true

Most notably, federal policy disapproves of building a roadway through a minority or low-income area while another satisfactory route is available. The practical effect of that federal policy makes it highly unlikely ALDOT would receive federal funding to relocate I-59/20 along the Finley Corridor, and insufficient state funds are available to do so without federal support.

[Rothman]

Here is what he said in the latest interview I've seen.

http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/news/2016/01/22/aldot-why-we-must-redesign-and-replace-the-i-20-59.html?full=true

Most notably, federal policy disapproves of building a roadway through a minority or low-income area while another satisfactory route is available. The practical effect of that federal policy makes it highly unlikely ALDOT would receive federal funding to relocate I-59/20 along the Finley Corridor, and insufficient state funds are available to do so without federal support.

It's still total baloney. If ALDOT goes through all the necessary processes and the alternative still comes out as the preferred alternative, the Feds will still pony up the funding.

That said, I can imagine there'd be a decent amount of public opposition to the routing and the Feds would want to see it addressed before signing off on it (due to being full oversight rather than state-administered), but the fact of the matter is that such things can be maneuvered through over time and by following the proper processes.

[Tourian]

K. But the key takeaway from your post is "over time."

Finley would require at the very least the purchase of ROW. Worst case there are holdouts, superfund sites to disturb and Railroad companies that may want special consideration depending on which Finley plan you are looking at. The plan now is to use an existing road bed. One could be drawn out indefinitely the other can be started right now. Which it is. They are underway.

[Rothman]

K. But the key takeaway from your post is "over time."

Nah.  The key takeaway is that the idea is unfounded that federal funding is threatened if you want to bulldoze through a minority or low-income area.

[lordsutch]

Nah.  The key takeaway is that the idea is unfounded that federal funding is threatened if you want to bulldoze through a minority or low-income area.

Except, um, it is. See e.g. FHWA Order 6640.23a, which states in part that:

The FHWA managers and staff will ensure that the programs, policies, and activities that will have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority populations and/or low-income populations will only be carried out if further mitigation measures or alternatives that would avoid or reduce the disproportionately high and adverse effects are not practicable. In determining whether a mitigation measure or an alternative is "practicable," the social, economic (including costs) and environmental effects of avoiding or mitigating the adverse effects will be taken into account.

Since remaining within the existing ROW would avoid "the disproportionately high and adverse effects" of a Finley Blvd alignment, it would be hard for ALDOT to justify spending millions of dollars more to simultaneously gentrify one part of Birmingham and dump an 8-lane freeway in another part that was already divided by the construction of I-65.

[Rothman]

Nah.  The key takeaway is that the idea is unfounded that federal funding is threatened if you want to bulldoze through a minority or low-income area.

Except, um, it is. See e.g. FHWA Order 6640.23a, which states in part that:

The FHWA managers and staff will ensure that the programs, policies, and activities that will have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority populations and/or low-income populations will only be carried out if further mitigation measures or alternatives that would avoid or reduce the disproportionately high and adverse effects are not practicable. In determining whether a mitigation measure or an alternative is "practicable," the social, economic (including costs) and environmental effects of avoiding or mitigating the adverse effects will be taken into account.

Since remaining within the existing ROW would avoid "the disproportionately high and adverse effects" of a Finley Blvd alignment, it would be hard for ALDOT to justify spending millions of dollars more to simultaneously gentrify one part of Birmingham and dump an 8-lane freeway in another part that was already divided by the construction of I-65.

Taking adverse effects into account is hardly making the project federal-aid ineligible altogether by decree.  Again, all a DOT needs to do is follow the processes, show the alternative is practicable and voila, project becomes federally-funded. 

I'll put it this way:  That order's a paper tiger.

[Tourian]

Nah.  The key takeaway is that the idea is unfounded that federal funding is threatened if you want to bulldoze through a minority or low-income area.

Except, um, it is. See e.g. FHWA Order 6640.23a, which states in part that:

The FHWA managers and staff will ensure that the programs, policies, and activities that will have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority populations and/or low-income populations will only be carried out if further mitigation measures or alternatives that would avoid or reduce the disproportionately high and adverse effects are not practicable. In determining whether a mitigation measure or an alternative is "practicable," the social, economic (including costs) and environmental effects of avoiding or mitigating the adverse effects will be taken into account.

Since remaining within the existing ROW would avoid "the disproportionately high and adverse effects" of a Finley Blvd alignment, it would be hard for ALDOT to justify spending millions of dollars more to simultaneously gentrify one part of Birmingham and dump an 8-lane freeway in another part that was already divided by the construction of I-65.

Taking adverse effects into account is hardly making the project federal-aid ineligible altogether by decree.  Again, all a DOT needs to do is follow the processes, show the alternative is practicable and voila, project becomes federally-funded. 

I'll put it this way:  That order's a paper tiger.

And that's great because it is your opinion and no one can confirm or deny it but you are still arguing two different things. At least, in my opinion, you are. When you first said "baloney" or whatever you gave me the impression that no such rule existed and that Cooper was straight up lying. Now it isn't that he was lying but that the rule carries no real weight and just a matter of extra red tape. That isn't the same thing. He isn't lying and it isn't baloney.

Now you want to go further and claim in effect that his statements are disingenuous in nature because if he REALLY wanted to they could blow past that and get rubber stamp approval from the feds lickety split and that's fine - that really doesn't matter...to me.

What matters is that fed dollars or not it will cost more to move it to sink it and it will take more time. Neither of those things are in excess here.

[Rothman]

Nah.  The key takeaway is that the idea is unfounded that federal funding is threatened if you want to bulldoze through a minority or low-income area.

Except, um, it is. See e.g. FHWA Order 6640.23a, which states in part that:

The FHWA managers and staff will ensure that the programs, policies, and activities that will have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority populations and/or low-income populations will only be carried out if further mitigation measures or alternatives that would avoid or reduce the disproportionately high and adverse effects are not practicable. In determining whether a mitigation measure or an alternative is "practicable," the social, economic (including costs) and environmental effects of avoiding or mitigating the adverse effects will be taken into account.

Since remaining within the existing ROW would avoid "the disproportionately high and adverse effects" of a Finley Blvd alignment, it would be hard for ALDOT to justify spending millions of dollars more to simultaneously gentrify one part of Birmingham and dump an 8-lane freeway in another part that was already divided by the construction of I-65.

Taking adverse effects into account is hardly making the project federal-aid ineligible altogether by decree.  Again, all a DOT needs to do is follow the processes, show the alternative is practicable and voila, project becomes federally-funded. 

I'll put it this way:  That order's a paper tiger.

And that's great because it is your opinion and no one can confirm or deny it but you are still arguing two different things. At least, in my opinion, you are. When you first said "baloney" or whatever you gave me the impression that no such rule existed and that Cooper was straight up lying. Now it isn't that he was lying but that the rule carries no real weight and just a matter of extra red tape. That isn't the same thing. He isn't lying and it isn't baloney.

Now you want to go further and claim in effect that his statements are disingenuous in nature because if he REALLY wanted to they could blow past that and get rubber stamp approval from the feds lickety split and that's fine - that really doesn't matter...to me.

What matters is that fed dollars or not it will cost more to move it to sink it and it will take more time. Neither of those things are in excess here.

Your use of hyperbole is impressive.

Actually, if you read back to your original post and then the reactions of froggie and me, we were referring to the information you provided that the claim that construction that would plow through a minority or depressed neighborhood would violate federal law if the feds funded it.  As we both pointed out and as I still stand by my own previous comments, it's just not true.

Yes, there's a regulation on the books where DOTs have to show an alternative as "practicable" as Lordsutch pointed out, but that's a far cry from a law that would be violated as described (e.g., "Thou shall not build through depressed/minority neighborhoods or you will not be reimbursed by the Feds.")  All the reg is doing is just adding an added requirement that, at least NYSDOT, deals with all the time (otherwise nothing would get done in various urban areas around the state).  Building in such a neighborhood does not violate any law as long as you follow the set process.  It is not illegal to receive federal funding for construction projects that affect such areas.

And you're right, it's only my opinion:  The opinion of someone who has been directly involved in the request of federal-aid authorizations from FHWA.

(personal opinion expressed)

[Tourian]

I knew you'd say that.

Yes i misquoted him and admitted as much. Then i came back and corrected it. You said "baloney" both times. You could have elaborated but you didn't and thats fine. So i stand by my opinion. No one is claiming that it is illegal to do it.

Saying there is no such regulation is different from saying there is a regulation but it is a "paper tiger."

I have to weigh your claim as random anonymous internet expert vs an official I know by name who has direct jurisdiction over the city and state I live. So, let me think on who I believe...

[Rothman]

Saying there is no such regulation is different from saying there is a regulation but it is a "paper tiger."

*sigh*

I give up.  Shine on, you crazy diamond.

[Tourian]

More than just the 20/59 bridges, ALDOT plans to overhaul the 20/59/65 interchange and the RME interchange.

http://www.5920bridge.com/the-project/visual-gallery/

[Tom958]

More than just the 20/59 bridges, ALDOT plans to overhaul the 20/59/65 interchange and the RME interchange.

http://www.5920bridge.com/the-project/visual-gallery/

Cobble onto it, actually. The original horrendous layout and geometry will remain intact.

[codyg1985]

More than just the 20/59 bridges, ALDOT plans to overhaul the 20/59/65 interchange and the RME interchange.

http://www.5920bridge.com/the-project/visual-gallery/

Cobble onto it, actually. The original horrendous layout and geometry will remain intact.

Unfortunately. At least now there will be some cool flyovers to look at while driving through the interchange.

[freebrickproductions]

More than just the 20/59 bridges, ALDOT plans to overhaul the 20/59/65 interchange and the RME interchange.

http://www.5920bridge.com/the-project/visual-gallery/

Cobble onto it, actually. The original horrendous layout and geometry will remain intact.

Unfortunately. At least now there will be some cool flyovers to look at while driving through the interchange.

♪ ♬ Malfunction Junction, what's your function? ♫ ♩

[Tourian]

There's nothing horrendous, cobbled or unfortunate about these upgrades. They are significant and unexpected to many of us since this all started with what was just going to be some redecking of a couple of worn out bridges. The amount of changes, lane additions and rerouted exists will improve the flow in several different ways.

But for those of you who occasionally "just drive through", well... carry on.

[froggie]

He's referring to the fact that there will still be numerous left-side exits and entrances at Malfunction Junction, something that FHWA frowns upon these days but ALDOT either doesn't care or doesn't have the funding to remedy...though with how much they're putting into the new ramps, they easily could have addressed some of the left-side ramps instead.

[Charles2]

Am I missing something, or will there no longer be access from I-20/59 W/S to 6th Avenue North?

[froggie]

You're correct.  Though I wouldn't expect a whole lot of drivers would make that movement.  Furthermore, the current movement is very unsafe, as drivers coming from WB/SB 20/59 have less than 2,000ft to weave across 3 lanes in order to make the exit ramp to 6th Ave N.

[Charles2]

I've done that weave a zillion times.  Scares the crap out of me every time I've done it, and I've been driving it 40 years.