Theory: Cost is a more important factor than NIMBYism in freeway cancellations

[kernals12]

MA 2 serves as a toll free alternative to the MassPike for much of its route between Orange and Cambridge. But there's a pesky gap between Acton and Lexington with 8 at-grade intersections. The MassDOT has dreamed of filling in that gap since the 60s, but that hasn't happened. It's not because of NIMBYism, Concord has been asking the state for years to turn the infamous rotary into an interchange, a treatment which happened a few years ago at Crosby's Corner in Lincoln. I think it's safe to assume the reason why is mostly down to money.

Anyone who has lived in Fairfield County, CT knows about Super 7. All the way back in the 50s, there were plans to build a new freeway from Norwalk to Danbury, and possibly beyond to the Canadian border. But Wilton's affluent and politically connected residents managed to keep the project in limbo for decades. But the fact is that in 1980, the state won their case and with almost all the ROW under owned by them, they could've built it. In fact, they could start building it tomorrow. But the reason they didn't is cost.

Over in Philadelphia, there's a road known as Roosevelt Boulevard. It's 12 lanes wide and has 4 separate carriageways. It's known as a widowmaker and the city has dreamt andstill does of putting the inner lanes into a trench and making it a freeway. Nobody is happy about the existing road and very little ROW acquisition would be needed for the freeway, so again, it's probably a matter of money that has kept it from getting done.

In 1974, when Los Angeles announced it was no longer planning to join the two halves of the Slauson Freeway, the New York Times said it was down to

Inflation, spiraling construction costs and uncertain funding from the Federal Government have forced severe cut‐backs in the state's highway construction program.

. As it happened, 20 years later, LA opened its last new freeway, the Century Freeway, built on a roughly parallel alignment several miles south. That project got way more urgency, such that Caltrans agreed to provide replacement housing, light rail in the median, carpool lanes, and sound barriers, to overcome community opposition, because it provided a faster route to LAX.

And let's consider Santa Clara County, which has complained about freeways not being built fast enough more than anything else. In 1976, a city councilman used a crane to lift his car onto one of the unconnected flyover ramps for the 101 I-680 interchange. In 1985, due to impatience with the state, county voters decided to pass a sales tax to pay for the construction of SR 85. Now they want to build a whole bunch of grade separations, including turning the Lawrence Expressway into a Jersey Freeway from 101 to I-280. But that's never gone forward, again, almost certainly due to cost.

UCLA professor Brian Taylor elaborated on this well in a 1993 piece for Access Magazine titled "Why California Stopped Building Freeways". He noted that freeway construction costs per mile rose 3.5 times faster than inflation between 1960 and 1990. He also noted that the "anti-freeway" Jerry Brown managed to build nearly 3 times as many miles of freeway as his "pro-freeway" successor George Deukmejian. Land speculators drove up the cost of ROW acquisition and new environmental regulations required more costly engineering.

It's easy to romanticize or villify, depending on your point of view, the people who chain themselves to bulldozers to keep new highways from getting built, but in the end, more often than not, it comes down to simple economics.

[cpzilliacus]

UCLA professor Brian Taylor elaborated on this well in a 1993 piece for Access Magazine titled "Why California Stopped Building Freeways". He noted that freeway construction costs per mile rose 3.5 times faster than inflation between 1960 and 1990. He also noted that the "anti-freeway" Jerry Brown managed to build nearly 3 times as many miles of freeway as his "pro-freeway" successor George Deukmejian. Land speculators drove up the cost of ROW acquisition and new environmental regulations required more costly engineering.

Transit construction cost overruns were as bad or frequently worse.   The Washington Metrorail system (heavy rail) had a reported construction cost overrun of better than 80% (for the portion completed before 1986 - I think that number gets higher if the entire system is included, which was completed in 2001).  The Los Angeles Blue Line (light rail) had an overrun of over 50%.

The Purple Line in Maryland (still under construction) has a cost overrun of better than $700 million (so far).

[kernals12]

UCLA professor Brian Taylor elaborated on this well in a 1993 piece for Access Magazine titled "Why California Stopped Building Freeways". He noted that freeway construction costs per mile rose 3.5 times faster than inflation between 1960 and 1990. He also noted that the "anti-freeway" Jerry Brown managed to build nearly 3 times as many miles of freeway as his "pro-freeway" successor George Deukmejian. Land speculators drove up the cost of ROW acquisition and new environmental regulations required more costly engineering.

Transit construction cost overruns were as bad or frequently worse.   The Washington Metrorail system (heavy rail) had a reported construction cost overrun of better than 80% (for the portion completed before 1986 - I think that number gets higher if the entire system is included, which was completed in 2001).  The Los Angeles Blue Line (light rail) had an overrun of over 50%.

The Purple Line in Maryland (still under construction) has a cost overrun of better than $700 million (so far).

And this is why our freeway mileage outnumbers our transit mileage by a few orders of magnitude.

[Brandon]

I would say, based on the experience we have here with IL-53 in lake County, that the social-economic status of the NIMBYs is far more important than cost.  The IL-53 freeway could be built, and fairly cheaply as IDOT owns the ROW.  However, two suburbs with a lot of rich folks stand in the way, Long Grove and Hawthorn Woods.  Neither group of rich assholes wants the freeway built as it would "destroy their rural lifestyle".  Their "rural lifestyle" consists of living on overburdened two-lane roads while commuting to Schaumburg, Oak Brook, or Chicago for work.  They have money and therefore, they have clout.

[hotdogPi]

And this is why our freeway mileage outnumbers our transit mileage by a few orders of magnitude.

48,000 + additions + non-Interstate freeways nowhere close to even one order of magnitude more than 21,000 (Amtrak mileage, and this doesn't count commuter rail).

[kernals12]

And this is why our freeway mileage outnumbers our transit mileage by a few orders of magnitude.

48,000 + additions + non-Interstate freeways nowhere close to even one order of magnitude more than 21,000 (Amtrak mileage, and this doesn't count commuter rail).

It's not really fair to include Amtrak lines that almost nobody uses.

[SEWIGuy]

I would say, based on the experience we have here with IL-53 in lake County, that the social-economic status of the NIMBYs is far more important than cost.  The IL-53 freeway could be built, and fairly cheaply as IDOT owns the ROW.  However, two suburbs with a lot of rich folks stand in the way, Long Grove and Hawthorn Woods.  Neither group of rich assholes wants the freeway built as it would "destroy their rural lifestyle".  Their "rural lifestyle" consists of living on overburdened two-lane roads while commuting to Schaumburg, Oak Brook, or Chicago for work.  They have money and therefore, they have clout.

The "rich assholes" have rights too you know.

The reason NIMBYs exist is often because road networks have been built without consideration of the impact on the neighborhoods involved.

[Brandon]

I would say, based on the experience we have here with IL-53 in lake County, that the social-economic status of the NIMBYs is far more important than cost.  The IL-53 freeway could be built, and fairly cheaply as IDOT owns the ROW.  However, two suburbs with a lot of rich folks stand in the way, Long Grove and Hawthorn Woods.  Neither group of rich assholes wants the freeway built as it would "destroy their rural lifestyle".  Their "rural lifestyle" consists of living on overburdened two-lane roads while commuting to Schaumburg, Oak Brook, or Chicago for work.  They have money and therefore, they have clout.

The "rich assholes" have rights too you know.

The reason NIMBYs exist is often because road networks have been built without consideration of the impact on the neighborhoods involved.

OK, how does "rich hypocritical fucking assholes" suit you?  They bought knowing full well that IL-53 was planned and that the ROW was purchased by IDOT.  These jackasses have theirs and don't want anyone else to have.  Fuck them.

[kphoger]

And this is why our freeway mileage outnumbers our transit mileage by a few orders of magnitude.

48,000 + additions + non-Interstate freeways nowhere close to even one order of magnitude more than 21,000 (Amtrak mileage, and this doesn't count commuter rail).

It's not really fair to include Amtrak lines that almost nobody uses.

So were you only including urban freeway miles, then?

I don't think it's fair to include I-10 in western Texas under "freeway miles" if it isn't fair to include Amtrak under "transit".

[kernals12]

And this is why our freeway mileage outnumbers our transit mileage by a few orders of magnitude.

48,000 + additions + non-Interstate freeways nowhere close to even one order of magnitude more than 21,000 (Amtrak mileage, and this doesn't count commuter rail).

It's not really fair to include Amtrak lines that almost nobody uses.

So were you only including urban freeway miles, then?

I don't think it's fair to include I-10 in western Texas under "freeway miles" if it isn't fair to include Amtrak under "transit".

Amtrak ridership is about .1% of all domestic travel. Americans travel nearly 1,000 times more miles by car or motorcycle than by Amtrak. Also, has Amtrak built any new rail lines since it started in 1971?

[MaxConcrete]

I've heard the rule of thumb that infrastructure construction cost inflation generally runs at double the CPI. I did a quick exercise using this document https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/PRC-17-73.pdf, which shows cost increasing by about a factor of 2.2 between December 1998 and February 2017. This works out to an annual inflation rate around 4.344%.

Then I went to this official inflation calculator https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm, which for the same period shows $1 inflating to $1.49, which is an annual inflation rate of 2.196%.

4.344/2.196 = 1.98. Amazing! The rule of thumb is nearly perfect for this period in Texas.

This is also very disturbing. Over long time horizons, this double inflation rate has vast implications for rising costs of infrastructure.

Here is $100 inflated over numerous 10-year periods at 2.5% and 5% inflation.
YRS  2.5%   5%
10    128     163
20    164     265
30    210     432
40    269     704
50    344     1147

This means that a $10 million project in 1971 would cost $34.4 million today if inflation is roughly the CPI, but $115 million using the highway cost construction index, or a factor of 3.34 more expensive than the CPI. This is very close to the 3.5 factor mentioned by kernals12. (NOTE: of course average CPI inflation since 1971 is much higher than 2.5%, but these numbers are just to illustrate the difference in the double inflation rate for infrastructure.)

This is entirely consistent with what I've seen when I do historical research on freeways. The costs of projects built in the 1960s are incredibly low, even considering inflation. While I don't have specific numbers readily available, I seem to recall that the original 4-level interchange at IH635 and IH30 in Dallas cost around $10 million when it opened in 1970. There's no way you could build something comparable for $34.4 million. I don't even know if you could do it for $115 million.

This is why you could never even begin to replicate a Los Angeles style freeway network using modern costs. I sometimes wonder how much it would cost today to build a massive interchange like the interchanges at IH105/IH405 or IH105/IH110. I seem to recall those interchanges cost around $250 million each in the early 1990s. I'm thinking a minimum of $1 billion today. Which explains why we likely will never again see a comparable interchange built in California.

Public transit construction inflation has been worse. The obscene costs of construction in NYC have received a lot of attention, and much of that is due to bureaucracy, unions and corruption. In Houston, the original section of the Red line opened in 2004 cost $325 million for 7 miles, or $45 million per mile. The extensions opened in 2013 cost around $150 million per mile.

I think China is in an infrastructure cost situation that the United States experienced in the 1950s or 1960s, which explains why China can build so many highways and high speed rail lines.

So yes, I tend to agree with kernals12. The excessively high cost of infrastructure construction in the U.S. has surely killed many projects that have plenty of political support and no NIMBY opposition. And with each passing year, building projects becomes more difficult and unlikely due to cost escalation higher than the CPI.

[Max Rockatansky]

Something I would question with is that a lot of that cheaper infrastructure built in the 1950s and 1960s would be; was it really intended to last?  It seems like a lot of the cost cutting measures taken in the early freeway development era have been points of failure (especially in California and the West Coast) and have been frequently problematic to replace.  Also, aesthetically many 1950s/1960s freeway designed are hideous to look at.  That might not mean much regarding structural integrity but definitely have been a draw for blight and vandalism.

Put it this way, stuff like the Embarcadero Freeway and Alaskan Way Viaduct couldn't withstand seismic activity appropriately.  When it came down to deciding on whether to replace or demolish these structures their memory was so bad that nobody wanted a modern one-for-one replacement.  The Viaduct replaced with a tolled tunnel and almost nobody wanted another Embarcadero Freeway. 

[kernals12]

Something I would question with is that a lot of that cheaper infrastructure built in the 1950s and 1960s would be; was it really intended to last?  It seems like a lot of the cost cutting measures taken in the early freeway development era have been points of failure (especially in California and the West Coast) and have been frequently problematic to replace.  Also, aesthetically many 1950s/1960s freeway designed are hideous to look at.  That might not mean much regarding structural integrity but definitely have been a draw for blight and vandalism.

Put it this way, stuff like the Embarcadero Freeway and Alaskan Way Viaduct couldn't withstand seismic activity appropriately.  When it came down to deciding on whether to replace or demolish these structures their memory was so bad that nobody wanted a modern one-for-one replacement.  The Viaduct replaced with a tolled tunnel and almost nobody wanted another Embarcadero Freeway. 

Also, those old highways used diabolical cloverleaf interchanges, had no breakdown lanes, and sometimes had left hand entrance and exit ramps. Such cost cutting measures would not work today.

[kernals12]

It's ironic that our cars have gotten so much cheaper but the roads that we drive them on have gotten way more expensive.

[Max Rockatansky]

It's ironic that our cars have gotten so much cheaper but the roads that we drive them on have gotten way more expensive.

Cars have way outpaced inflation since the 1950s/60s. 

[kernals12]

It's ironic that our cars have gotten so much cheaper but the roads that we drive them on have gotten way more expensive.

Cars have way outpaced inflation since the 1950s/60s.

Not when you consider the improvements that have been made.

[Max Rockatansky]

It's ironic that our cars have gotten so much cheaper but the roads that we drive them on have gotten way more expensive.

Cars have way outpaced inflation since the 1950s/60s.

Not when you consider the improvements that have been made.

But those improvements: safety, fuel economy/emissions regulations, added weight, associated engineering/development and thus drive up the cost.  Back around 1970 $3,000 dollars could probably get you a really nice car with some decent options.  That's about $20,000 dollars today and probably won't get you much outside of a base level compact car or sub-compact CUV.

No doubt cars are far better designed today, but there is definitely an artificially induced price increase that has occurred.  It sure would be nice to go to the dealership and pick up a GT Mustang for 20K today.  Relative pricing isn't going down any time soon now that electric cars are being pushed so hard by regulators. 

In a sense with the Malaise Era a lot of regulations were driven out of a fear that consumers wouldn't have accepted smaller cars and automakers would develop; fuel efficiency, safety and emissions standards on their own.  Those concerns were probably more warranted then than they are now.  The market is already turning naturally towards a large segment of electrics.  I tend to question how the consumer will be affected price wise when you have certain regulators trying to dictate the market. 

[3467]

The cancellation of two Illinois projects show the interplay of of both factors and NEPA and maybe new floodplain costs.
US 51 is a low volume road that locals had some interest in making expressway. In order to justify it the consultants had to justify it. They took an economic development angle. But that made the road expensive and it had very unpopular bypasses. The project is still on the IDOT site and you can read the angry comments. It ended with a small obit in the Federal Register.
Then there was US 30. Some initial local interest and big Interest from a city in Iowa.
It's got expensive over floodplain issues and the bypass became very unpopular in Illinois. Toward its passing only Iowans wanted it. It's main justification was volume. It was about 6000 compared to 3000 on 51. The traffic projections though turned out to look lower and a couple of passing lanes would do it and at high cost and low popularity local IDOT official went on TV to explain cause of death.
So in these cases it was both and now....

[3467]

On the other hand things can be different for roads with a lot of support.
US 34 ran into huge floodplain costs and almost got cancelled but the State Senator Sullivan insisted the Biggsville bypass be built. It was and now will be extended close to Monmouth. He cost almost killed it but public support for something.
Same with 336. Costs exploded some Nimby  but but still support got US 24 a four lane and I think a new spoon river bridge on Illinois 9.

The lesson too much cost and NIMBY  and nothing maybe a passing lane someday.

Local support plus a big cost of environmental problem and you still have a chance.

[kernals12]

It's ironic that our cars have gotten so much cheaper but the roads that we drive them on have gotten way more expensive.

Cars have way outpaced inflation since the 1950s/60s.

Not when you consider the improvements that have been made.

But those improvements: safety, fuel economy/emissions regulations, added weight, associated engineering/development and thus drive up the cost.  Back around 1970 $3,000 dollars could probably get you a really nice car with some decent options.  That's about $20,000 dollars today and probably won't get you much outside of a base level compact car or sub-compact CUV.

No doubt cars are far better designed today, but there is definitely an artificially induced price increase that has occurred. It sure would be nice to go to the dealership and pick up a GT Mustang for 20K today.  Relative pricing isn't going down any time soon now that electric cars are being pushed so hard by regulators. 

In a sense with the Malaise Era a lot of regulations were driven out of a fear that consumers wouldn't have accepted smaller cars and automakers would develop; fuel efficiency, safety and emissions standards on their own.  Those concerns were probably more warranted then than they are now.  The market is already turning naturally towards a large segment of electrics.  I tend to question how the consumer will be affected price wise when you have certain regulators trying to dictate the market.

You can

[Max Rockatansky]

It's ironic that our cars have gotten so much cheaper but the roads that we drive them on have gotten way more expensive.

Cars have way outpaced inflation since the 1950s/60s.

Not when you consider the improvements that have been made.

But those improvements: safety, fuel economy/emissions regulations, added weight, associated engineering/development and thus drive up the cost.  Back around 1970 $3,000 dollars could probably get you a really nice car with some decent options.  That's about $20,000 dollars today and probably won't get you much outside of a base level compact car or sub-compact CUV.

No doubt cars are far better designed today, but there is definitely an artificially induced price increase that has occurred. It sure would be nice to go to the dealership and pick up a GT Mustang for 20K today.  Relative pricing isn't going down any time soon now that electric cars are being pushed so hard by regulators. 

In a sense with the Malaise Era a lot of regulations were driven out of a fear that consumers wouldn't have accepted smaller cars and automakers would develop; fuel efficiency, safety and emissions standards on their own.  Those concerns were probably more warranted then than they are now.  The market is already turning naturally towards a large segment of electrics.  I tend to question how the consumer will be affected price wise when you have certain regulators trying to dictate the market.

You can

Definitely not new, that's what I'm basing those prices off of. 

[kernals12]

It's ironic that our cars have gotten so much cheaper but the roads that we drive them on have gotten way more expensive.

Cars have way outpaced inflation since the 1950s/60s.

Not when you consider the improvements that have been made.

But those improvements: safety, fuel economy/emissions regulations, added weight, associated engineering/development and thus drive up the cost.  Back around 1970 $3,000 dollars could probably get you a really nice car with some decent options.  That's about $20,000 dollars today and probably won't get you much outside of a base level compact car or sub-compact CUV.

No doubt cars are far better designed today, but there is definitely an artificially induced price increase that has occurred. It sure would be nice to go to the dealership and pick up a GT Mustang for 20K today.  Relative pricing isn't going down any time soon now that electric cars are being pushed so hard by regulators. 

In a sense with the Malaise Era a lot of regulations were driven out of a fear that consumers wouldn't have accepted smaller cars and automakers would develop; fuel efficiency, safety and emissions standards on their own.  Those concerns were probably more warranted then than they are now.  The market is already turning naturally towards a large segment of electrics.  I tend to question how the consumer will be affected price wise when you have certain regulators trying to dictate the market.

You can

Definitely not new, that's what I'm basing those prices off of.

The average used car today is probably going to last longer than the average new car of 1970. Also, in the last 51 years, personal income per person has increased over 80% in real terms.

[I-39]

I would say, based on the experience we have here with IL-53 in lake County, that the social-economic status of the NIMBYs is far more important than cost.  The IL-53 freeway could be built, and fairly cheaply as IDOT owns the ROW.  However, two suburbs with a lot of rich folks stand in the way, Long Grove and Hawthorn Woods.  Neither group of rich assholes wants the freeway built as it would "destroy their rural lifestyle".  Their "rural lifestyle" consists of living on overburdened two-lane roads while commuting to Schaumburg, Oak Brook, or Chicago for work.  They have money and therefore, they have clout.

And I'd add this kind of NIMBYism drives up the cost. I imagine the cost of the IL-53 extension wouldn't be as high as $2 billion+ if it was built sometime between the 60s the 90s like it should have.

[MaxConcrete]

This image appears in the article referenced by kernals12. Where is this? Was this a partially complete freeway which was later finished, or was this an artifact later demolished?

[Max Rockatansky]

Regarding the cost of cars compared to modern times, apparently MSN and GoBanking Rates did an article based off of 2020 dollars going back to 1950:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/other/what-an-average-car-cost-in-the-year-you-were-born/ss-BB19SAUF