Nine "Wasteful" Highway Projects Across the U.S. Identified in New Report

[sprjus4]

U.S. PIRG Education Fund and Frontier Group have identified what they deem to be nine new wasteful highway expansion projects across the country in what is now the fifth edition of their Highway Boondoggles report.

Collectively, these nine newly identified projects are slated to cost at least $25 billion. Over the course of five reports, the two groups have profiled 50 "boondoggles" in the U.S.

In addition to identifying the nine new projects, this fifth Highway Boondoggles report looks back at five projects profiled in previous editions, highlighting some cases where states went ahead with their expansion projects. In other cases, states reversed course and opted for dedicating money allocated to boondoggles to road repairs and public transportation.

The "boondoggles" listed in the 2019 report include: the "Complete 540" project in North Carolina (estimated cost: $2.2 billion); the North Houston Highway Improvement Project in Texas ($7+ billion); High Desert Freeway in California ($8 billion); I-75 in Michigan ($1.4 billion); the Tri-State Tollway widening in Illinois ($4 billion); Connecting Miami project (I-395/S.R. 836/I-95) in Florida ($802 million); I-83 widening in York County, Pennsylvania ($300 million); I-5 Rose Quarter widening in Oregon ($450 million); and I-81 in Virginia ($2.2 billion).

The report identifies some specific issues with the projects that made the list. For instance, it says the North Houston Highway Improvement project would expand already large stretches of highway through the middle of Houston, and would displace homes and businesses in addition to widening barriers between communities. When it comes to the High Desert Freeway, the report notes that the project has the potential to encourage sprawl in fragile desert ecosystems, where development could alter the landscape and strain scarce water resources.

The report recommends that states cancel these–as well as other–proposed highway expansion projects in light of changing transportation needs and instead invest in more effective solutions, such as road repair and transit expansion.

https://www.roadsbridges.com/nine-wasteful-highway-projects-across-us-identified-new-report

It's funny - most of these projects are needed and will greatly help traffic and mobility.

Maybe we should deconstruct the interstate highway system and build 45 mph 2-lane divided boulevards with a 12 foot bike lane, on street parking, 10 foot multi-use path, and scenic medians to replace all of them? Oh, also a light rail track to the side with well-designed stations every mile.

It's interesting how they say the organization "recommends the states cancel them". Yeah, that's not happening 

The report is a boondoggle, and the organization producing it is a boondoggle. 'Nuff said.

[vdeane]

Maybe we should deconstruct the interstate highway system and build 45 mph 2-lane divided boulevards with a 12 foot bike lane, on street parking, 10 foot multi-use path, and scenic medians to replace all of them? Oh, also a light rail track to the side with well-designed stations every mile.

I wouldn't be surprised if such was actually the end goal of these types of campaigns.

[Revive 755]

I think having the Tri-State Tollway project in Illinois on the list shows how flawed said list is.

* The interchange at I-290 has congestion well outside of peak hours.  I should not have to sit in traffic to take a recreational trip to Indiana on a Saturday morning.
* I question how well they are accounting for population and freight growth in Chicagoland.
* Transit is not a feasible alternative to a trips outside of Chicagoland, which the Tri-State enables.
* They site the highways as causing sprawl.  Maybe we should cut back Metra service beyond a certain point, as it seems to be causing sprawl in areas such as Elburn where there is not a convenient freeway or tollway.  And maybe they should consider the possibility of people moving outward to avoid living in a pricey core county that seems to ignore its residents.

[thenetwork]

I think having the Tri-State Tollway project in Illinois on the list shows how flawed said list is.

* The interchange at I-290 has congestion well outside of peak hours.  I should not have to sit in traffic to take a recreational trip to Indiana on a Saturday morning.
* I question how well they are accounting for population and freight growth in Chicagoland.
* Transit is not a feasible alternative to a trips outside of Chicagoland, which the Tri-State enables.
* They site the highways as causing sprawl.  Maybe we should cut back Metra service beyond a certain point, as it seems to be causing sprawl in areas such as Elburn where there is not a convenient freeway or tollway.  And maybe they should consider the possibility of people moving outward to avoid living in a pricey core county that seems to ignore its residents.

Not to mention, the Tri-State is more or less a *Private* tolled entity, as there is a fee to traverse it, along with the other Illinois Tollway segments.  As the Tollway generally does not fund non-Tollway projects, they can spend money on any project they want with their toll proceeds.

[skluth]

The High Desert Highway has been an on/off-again proposal for a while. It's probably needed eventually, though right now it's debatable. It would promote a lot of exurban growth from LA, but the growth is likely inevitable and it's only a matter of how fast and exactly where it happens. Traffic on CA 138 is getting worse. That the Victorville and Lancaster area populations have exploded in the last 30 years shows that growth will continue to happen here. My guess is it would at least direct growth along the corridor.

This upsets a lot of urbanists and I understand their point. They are right in that it would be bad for the environment, etc. But growth will happen regardless. LA only has so much space. The only alternatives are building further up the mountainsides and further destabilizing the slopes along with increasing the fire risk that comes from building into SoCal's mountain forests, or tearing down neighborhoods to build high-rises. A highway corridor would promote growth along the corridor and force communities to coordinate planning. This would create at least a logical pattern to the current patchwork development currently happening in the High Desert.

I think the thread on AA Roads shows it's unlikely to be built anytime soon. The High Desert Highway accounts for $8 billion of the proposed $25 billion "wasteful" total. I've also experienced the need for both the I-81 and Tri-State projects, so I hope they are built. Still, the writer could claim this unlikely expensive project wasn't built when others are as "proving" he was right all along since it accounts for almost 1/3 the total proposed project monies.

[wriddle082]

How did the I-77 HOT lane BS in Charlotte *not* make this "list" ?  It's way behind, and really doesn't address enough of the problems at the northern end of the project IMO.  That project, my friends, is the definition of a boondoggle!

[sprjus4]

How did the I-77 HOT lane BS in Charlotte *not* make this "list" ?  It's way behind, and really doesn't address enough of the problems at the northern end of the project IMO.  That project, my friends, is the definition of a boondoggle!

It's "innovated planning"  and "encourages transit"  also carpooling, etc.

They love those projects.

But agreed, a regular interstate widening would have suited that corridor far better than this boondoggle.

I could see 1 HO/T lane between Downtown and where it currently drops to 1 HO/T lane, but north of there, should just be 6 GP lanes.

[RoadMaster09]

Maybe we should deconstruct the interstate highway system and build 45 mph 2-lane divided boulevards with a 12 foot bike lane, on street parking, 10 foot multi-use path, and scenic medians to replace all of them? Oh, also a light rail track to the side with well-designed stations every mile.

I wouldn't be surprised if such was actually the end goal of these types of campaigns.

45 mph? In the era of Vision Zero, those urbanists probably want a 20 mph speed limit (or less).

[thspfc]

Maybe we should deconstruct the interstate highway system and build 45 mph 2-lane divided boulevards with a 12 foot bike lane, on street parking, 10 foot multi-use path, and scenic medians to replace all of them? Oh, also a light rail track to the side with well-designed stations every mile.

I wouldn't be surprised if such was actually the end goal of these types of campaigns.

45 mph? In the era of Vision Zero, those urbanists probably want a 20 mph speed limit (or less).

Every time a cyclist swerves out onto the road and causes an accident, then sues the driver of the car who did nothing wrong, the bike lanes will be widened by two feet and the speed limit will drop by five.

[sprjus4]

Maybe we should deconstruct the interstate highway system and build 45 mph 2-lane divided boulevards with a 12 foot bike lane, on street parking, 10 foot multi-use path, and scenic medians to replace all of them? Oh, also a light rail track to the side with well-designed stations every mile.

I wouldn't be surprised if such was actually the end goal of these types of campaigns.

45 mph? In the era of Vision Zero, those urbanists probably want a 20 mph speed limit (or less).

Every time a cyclist swerves out onto the road and causes an accident, then sues the driver of the car who did nothing wrong, the bike lanes will be widened by two feet and the speed limit will drop by five.

Perfect! This is the new America 

But wait, at 20 mph, you shouldn't hit the bicycle. Unless you were speeding and doing 30 mph on a multi-use roadway in west Texas surrounded by desert and nothing in sight for 10+ miles

[sparker]

When it comes to general-purpose traffic/capacity improvements, PIRG=BANANA. 

[Ned Weasel]

I guess I should just expect pro-highway activists to dismiss valid concerns about wasteful automobile infrastructure, just like a normal person would exhale carbon dioxide after taking in oxygen.

[RoadMaster09]

U.S. PIRG Education Fund and Frontier Group have identified what they deem to be nine new wasteful highway expansion projects across the country in what is now the fifth edition of their Highway Boondoggles report.

Collectively, these nine newly identified projects are slated to cost at least $25 billion. Over the course of five reports, the two groups have profiled 50 "boondoggles" in the U.S.

In addition to identifying the nine new projects, this fifth Highway Boondoggles report looks back at five projects profiled in previous editions, highlighting some cases where states went ahead with their expansion projects. In other cases, states reversed course and opted for dedicating money allocated to boondoggles to road repairs and public transportation.

The "boondoggles" listed in the 2019 report include: the "Complete 540" project in North Carolina (estimated cost: $2.2 billion); the North Houston Highway Improvement Project in Texas ($7+ billion); High Desert Freeway in California ($8 billion); I-75 in Michigan ($1.4 billion); the Tri-State Tollway widening in Illinois ($4 billion); Connecting Miami project (I-395/S.R. 836/I-95) in Florida ($802 million); I-83 widening in York County, Pennsylvania ($300 million); I-5 Rose Quarter widening in Oregon ($450 million); and I-81 in Virginia ($2.2 billion).

The report identifies some specific issues with the projects that made the list. For instance, it says the North Houston Highway Improvement project would expand already large stretches of highway through the middle of Houston, and would displace homes and businesses in addition to widening barriers between communities. When it comes to the High Desert Freeway, the report notes that the project has the potential to encourage sprawl in fragile desert ecosystems, where development could alter the landscape and strain scarce water resources.

The report recommends that states cancel these—as well as other—proposed highway expansion projects in light of changing transportation needs and instead invest in more effective solutions, such as road repair and transit expansion.

https://www.roadsbridges.com/nine-wasteful-highway-projects-across-us-identified-new-report

It's funny - most of these projects are needed and will greatly help traffic and mobility.

Maybe we should deconstruct the interstate highway system and build 45 mph 2-lane divided boulevards with a 12 foot bike lane, on street parking, 10 foot multi-use path, and scenic medians to replace all of them? Oh, also a light rail track to the side with well-designed stations every mile.

It's interesting how they say the organization "recommends the states cancel them". Yeah, that's not happening 

The report is a boondoggle, and the organization producing it is a boondoggle. 'Nuff said.

Back to the project listing from these tree hugging urbanists:

* Complete 540: I can see some merit in it not being warranted where it is, but they would need to widen I-40 (probably to at least 12 lanes) and that would be just as costly. Pick one - they'd fight either way.

* North Houston: This one I can somewhat agree with. The inner city is not a good place these days for ultra-wide freeways and the transit argument can come into play here to SOME extent (it won't replace nearly all trips). That said, there might be other options - elevated HOV lanes would work. There is probably also enough room within the ROW to widen I-45 in most of the north metro by one more lane. But they should try to keep everything within the existing ROW's.

* High Desert: The merit is definitely there - it's badly needed. I do wonder why the cost is $8 billion when much of the route is desert?

* I-75 in Michigan: Here's where USPIRG really gets into social engineering. I-75 is hopelessly congested (it's only 6 lanes now) in the north Detroit metro, even if traffic doesn't increase and their only response is for further urbanization which many people don't want. You could easily widen to 10 lanes within the current ROW. The only transit that would work are express buses...get one of the lanes as an HOV lane and that would work quite well.

* Tri-State Tollway Widening: The Chicagoland area is seeing population decline right now, but I-294 is extremely congested. The earlier widenings happened with population growth so it was only keeping pace with it. Transit isn't a great argument since it doesn't go downtown.

* Connecting Miami Project: Traffic counts are far too high for any of them to be suitable as an urban boulevard. There aren't any other good ideas that would work.

* I-83 Widening: It's a fairly calm tone here, but 6 lanes is definitely warranted. The price tag isn't too high either.

* I-5 Rose Quarter: Here's a problem without a good solution. Taking away the land to widen I-5 isn't necessarily the best idea. However, the area is incredibly congested. I can see their arguments (other than with climate change - what good does idled cars do?!?) Eliminating truck traffic could be a place to start. Would it make more sense to widen I-205 (plenty of ROW exists to go all the way up to 12 lanes), re-designate that as I-5 and leave the city routes to city traffic (even if it means putting a toll on it)? Worth discussion, but the status quo is unacceptable.

* I-81 Widening: The report is definitely over-doing it. The ROW is already there for widening and straightening and the plan has little of what they are mentioning, so what are they talking about for the impacts? Build as planned.

[sprjus4]

I guess I should just expect pro-highway activists to dismiss valid concerns about wasteful automobile infrastructure, just like a normal person would exhale carbon dioxide after taking in oxygen.

We're talking about a group who opposes every and all highway project or proposal in existence if it doesn't include rapid transit, walking, etc. Hate to burst the bubble - but most of these projects don't have viable alternatives that would please these people. And most of the time when their proposed "alternatives" are actually used - they fail.

Face it, most Americans want to drive.

[sprjus4]

* Complete 540: I can see some merit in it not being warranted where it is, but they would need to widen I-40 (probably to at least 12 lanes) and that would be just as costly. Pick one - they'd fight either way.

It would finally complete a full 70 mph interstate-grade beltway around Raleigh, and accommodate the inevitable growth that is coming. With new growth, neighborhoods, etc. you need better infrastructure, roads, schools, etc.

A brand new freeway to accommodate that growth is a perfect solution. It's not promoting "sprawl", it's growth that's going to come one way or another.

[RoadMaster09]

I guess I should just expect pro-highway activists to dismiss valid concerns about wasteful automobile infrastructure, just like a normal person would exhale carbon dioxide after taking in oxygen.

We're talking about a group who opposes every and all highway project or proposal in existence if it doesn't include rapid transit, walking, etc. Hate to burst the bubble - but most of these projects don't have viable alternatives that would please these people. And most of the time when their proposed "alternatives" are actually used - they fail.

Face it, most Americans want to drive.

That is especially true outside of the core of urban areas. Besides, the only form of transit really suitable in those cases - express buses - require the same freeway lanes!

[hbelkins]

valid concerns

[SectorZ]

I had dealings with MassPIRG when I went to U-Mass Lowell 20 years ago. A classmate in my major was actually the university rep for them. She went in altruistic, she left wanting to destroy the organization. Miserable, miserable people.

[sparker]

I guess I should just expect pro-highway activists to dismiss valid concerns about wasteful automobile infrastructure, just like a normal person would exhale carbon dioxide after taking in oxygen.

Yes, there are valid concerns.  But the PIRG approach is a "machete" or "sledgehammer" one -- if a road project gets one iota of PR -- and thus onto their radar -- they crank up the negativity machine to maximum  "piss & moan" level.  In the meantime, other more localized projects for capacity increase fall well under their radar.  And in engaging in such generalized opposition, they tend to preach to the choir -- others with a knee-jerk reaction to automotive transportation projects at large (Atlantic Cities subscribers, et. al.).  Having said that, I can see their point when it comes to additional urban mileage and/or projects that would displace large segments of residents.  But instead of offering alternatives that don't involve decimating both the driving public and commercial transport, they should be sitting down with planning agencies as well as the proponents of highway projects in order to incorporate positive ideas & concepts into the scope of said projects.  Otherwise, the level of discussion will just be reduced to a less amusing version of Monty Python's "Argument Clinic"; hardly a recipe for genuine progress! 

[Rothman]

I had dealings with MassPIRG when I went to U-Mass Lowell 20 years ago. A classmate in my major was actually the university rep for them. She went in altruistic, she left wanting to destroy the organization. Miserable, miserable people.

I had a friend who had almost the exact same experience with them.

[nexus73]

The High Desert Highway has been an on/off-again proposal for a while. It's probably needed eventually, though right now it's debatable. It would promote a lot of exurban growth from LA, but the growth is likely inevitable and it's only a matter of how fast and exactly where it happens. Traffic on CA 138 is getting worse. That the Victorville and Lancaster area populations have exploded in the last 30 years shows that growth will continue to happen here. My guess is it would at least direct growth along the corridor.

This upsets a lot of urbanists and I understand their point. They are right in that it would be bad for the environment, etc. But growth will happen regardless. LA only has so much space. The only alternatives are building further up the mountainsides and further destabilizing the slopes along with increasing the fire risk that comes from building into SoCal's mountain forests, or tearing down neighborhoods to build high-rises. A highway corridor would promote growth along the corridor and force communities to coordinate planning. This would create at least a logical pattern to the current patchwork development currently happening in the High Desert.

I think the thread on AA Roads shows it's unlikely to be built anytime soon. The High Desert Highway accounts for $8 billion of the proposed $25 billion "wasteful" total. I've also experienced the need for both the I-81 and Tri-State projects, so I hope they are built. Still, the writer could claim this unlikely expensive project wasn't built when others are as "proving" he was right all along since it accounts for almost 1/3 the total proposed project monies.

Bingo!  "You can pay me now or you can pay me later!" comes to mind.  Best to build now before more urbanization sets in.

Rick

[Beltway]

and I-81 in Virginia ($2.2 billion).

These people must be taking reefer on a regular basis!

[sprjus4]

and I-81 in Virginia ($2.2 billion).

These people must be taking reefer on a regular basis!

Or think it has the traffic that I-64 has west of I-81.

These people clearly have never driven I-81 before - they just identify projects across the United States, call them boondoggles, and find something to claim it will hurt.

For instance, the Complete NC-540's focus is on a wetland it will bridge over, claiming it will endanger some small species I've never even heard of it.

I think SELC already sued NCDOT based on its FEIS, and they lost.

[Occidental Tourist]

I guess I should just expect pro-highway activists to dismiss valid concerns about wasteful automobile infrastructure, just like a normal person would exhale carbon dioxide after taking in oxygen.

You must be the sort of person who thinks the Auto Club and AARP are both public interest advocacy groups rather than insurance sales companies.  How lovely to live in your world.

[RobbieL2415]

Sprawl can be controlled with zoning and land conservation.