My personal views on how much Highway is the right amount

[bwana39]

I wrote the following over a decade ago. It is from my Blogger page that has far fewer views than the responses on my least responded to topic on this forum. It uses US-59 as my example. 59 is probably gonna get the whole ballgame (IH-369).

I still believe from a cost and economic perspective that what I said in 2010 is still right on track.


Everybody wants an INTERSTATE (highway). If your community gets its own INTERSTATE, it undoubtedly will create economic growth. The problem is that building this INTERSTATE costs an almost unbelievable amount. Most of the time it is not even warranted. The bottom line is in MOST cases a DIVIDED RURAL HIGHWAY will suffice. The difference is that intersections with major roads should be controlled (over / underpass). The entire route with FEW exceptions should have a speed limit of 65 MPH or greater. There should be NO traffic signals on main lanes and when Loops and bypasses are built, the right of way should be purchased as per Section 6:( Texas Highway Trunk System) of the Texas Transportation Planning Manual:

  " Right of way should be initially purchased for the entire facility, although the facility will be developed in stages. The early acquisition of selected right of way, in certain instances, may be desirable along Trunk System routes. The priority of acquisition might not follow the approved project schedule in order to avoid delays and facilitate the economical considerations of acquisition."

What this means is that loops and bypasses should be built so that expansion to fully controlled access can be done in the future with minimal disruption to existent homes and businesses.  Loop 286 (US 271 & US 82) in Paris and US 69 / 380 in Greenville are excellent examples. Admittedly they were built in the seventies, both are grown up with little room for expansion. Loop 286 is trying to get rid of the traffic signals on the Northeast side of town, but it is a slow and messy proposition. There are no room for frontage roads and the best case example is right only turns.

MY way of seeing it is traffic seems to move well between these midsized towns but slows to a crawl as it goes through them. US 59 between Carthage and Texarkana is an excellent example of this. Traffic moves well from Carthage until Marshall. Marshall has seven traffic signals and a speed limit of 40 mph. Jefferson has a two traffic signals and the traffic slows down. Linden has reduced speed limits. Atlanta has a loop with a hand full of traffic signals and a dramatically reduced speed limit.  There are even two a traffic signals in rural areas between Atlanta and Texarkana.

While additional Interstate highway miles are desirable; ARE THE AFFORDABLE? If we can just get roadblocks of going through small and mid-sized towns out of the way so traffic can flow, it will improve the traffic dilemma manifestly. Currently from Carthage to Texarkana is 99.2 miles Google says it takes 1 hour 59 minutes. So about 50 MPH on average. Picking out the rural portion from the Junction of FM 2625 and US59 south of Marshall and Going to the Intersection of US 59 and US 79 on the North Side of Carthage is 17.5 miles in 16 minutes of about 65 MPH. If the entire trip were at that rate it would amount to just under 30 minutes less. Combined with the removal of starts and stops: the fuel economy, localized pollution, and even traffic safety would improve.

I CONCEDE not to the level of a fully access controlled Interstate, but again it is about what we can afford, not what is ideal. After I used US 59 as an example, I must add that it is actually an excellent candidate for the next Interstate. The point is that I was familiar enough with it to make the case. The bottom line is several roads in Texas such as US 287 from Fort Worth to Amarillo and  US 82 from Wichita Falls to Lubbock would benefit greatly with this.

There is much more to be added to this. I didn't even address the rail component of the equation. This blog entry is only a brief overview, but simply. We need to improve our transportation capacity without breaking the bank. In this case, the bank is US: THE TAXPAYER.

[skluth]

When you start with "Everybody wants an INTERSTATE (highway)", your initial premise is already wrong. There are plenty of people who do not want an interstate and they certainly don't want any additional interstates. You can find plenty of sites, urbanist and other communities, who think almost every additional or widened interstate needs to be stopped. I admit many of them are beyond wacko, but others have valid points.

Are there places where limited access highways are needed now? Most definitely. Texas needed a limited access highway between Texarkana and Houston back in the late 70's when I took US 59 between the two and that need has only increased from my perspective. But I think the much-maligned "let's get every community >10K a four-lane highway" concept (maligned because DOTs couldn't deliver on this promise after they made it thanks to politicians on both sides) is more possible and definitely more affordable. I also agree that DOTs should plan expressways with the purpose of eventually making them fully limited access but that requires both foresight and the support to pay for future ROWs for both highways and access ramps.

Highways in urban and suburban areas need to designed with transit in mind. One of the best opportunities in So Cal was recently lost with the cancellation of the High Desert Highway. The corridor mostly parallel to CA 138 from Palmdale to Victorville is soon to be gobbled up by a host of uncoordinated residential developments. The High Desert Highway would have had both a limited access highway connecting the end hubs and included a light rail line that would connect to the Metrolink train at Palmdale. It would have spurred commercial and light industrial development around the interchanges and light rail stations, making both far more useful to residents and workers than the random development currently happening in the area and filling in any potential ROW which will make the High Desert Highway practically impossible. Sadly killed by a few special interests who didn't care or couldn't/wouldn't see a bigger and better future.

[bwana39]

You are right. I said EVERYONE from a very limited worldview. I wrote this over ten years ago and did virtually no editing before pasting it here.

The "everyone" I was discussing was primarily rural southern regions, cities, and towns. Even from that limited worldview, it could be limited farther to the property speculators and developers: those who actually drive the call for new freeway routes. Those who specialize in one way or another in ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (which I have come to  believe  SOLELY means increasing the price of lands that are on the fringes of small cities and towns.)

It clearly was not meant to include the larger cities, especially major metro areas. Mainly it was meant to consider places with no interstates. Primarily I was thinking of roads like  the US-84 corridor or the US-87 corridor. 

[jeffandnicole]

To add to skluth's answer, adding an interstate in no way guarantees to spur economic growth.  We can easily see this in the many interstate exits where there's no (or extremely limited) services.  In some areas, growth may not occur because the land is already being used.   In other areas, people or the town are against growth. 

In many cases, adding an interstate highway destroys existing land currently being used.  Farms aren't vacant land - they are an important business just like a gas station or warehouse.  Drive a highway thru there and you destroy a business, just like forcing a warehouse to close and be knocked down because you want that land for a highway.

[bwana39]

To add to skluth's answer, adding an interstate in no way guarantees to spur economic growth.  We can easily see this in the many interstate exits where there's no (or extremely limited) services.  In some areas, growth may not occur because the land is already being used.   In other areas, people or the town are against growth. 

In many cases, adding an interstate highway destroys existing land currently being used.  Farms aren't vacant land - they are an important business just like a gas station or warehouse.  Drive a highway thru there and you destroy a business, just like forcing a warehouse to close and be knocked down because you want that land for a highway.

Boy I walked into a hornets' nest. I actually agree with you to a point. There are groups even in rural East Texas who are against interstates. Most of them are people whose land is being bought either through eminent domain or just the reality that they cannot fight it. More often, the beef is not about the forced sale but about the way the value was decided. IE they want to get rich off the sale.

Regional highway coalitions tend to be made up primarily of commercial real estate brokers and investors. Even if there is virtually no other economic impact, they benefit setting up the new dealers of goods and services that eventually move to the less rural intersections  and those that are more urban.  The longer it takes these services to locate along the exits, the more money the brokers would make. Commercial real estate is about mid to long term results not about the fast buck.

Freeways do not disrupt tillage operations nearly as much as they do livestock operations. The bigger problem for either of them is urban sprawl, not a particular super highway.  Collin and Hunt counties (TX) were the largest cotton producing counties in the US as late as the 1960's.  I can remember seeing some (minimal) cotton farming even in Dallas County.  Today there is none in Dallas or Collin Counties and minimal cotton farming in Hunt County (and as far as that goes ANY tillage farming. ) Most of the row crops in any of the three is corn. While they don't do it to lose money, generally the goal is the ag exemption on the land, not the actual realization of farming.

My point was supposed to be that people want an interstate when a lesser highway should suffice.

As to your warehouse example, the reason businesses close is generally because the business owner takes the proceeds from the sale of the existing building and runs away. Yes, it costs jobs, but the economic impact is GENERALLY a positive for the owners of commercial and light industrial properties ESPECIALLY older or poorer condition buildings. If the business does opt to relocate , it would likely move to an area that offers tax abatements and economic subsidies which are unlikely to be in the same area as they previously were.

Economic growth would seem to suggest new and better jobs and employment. Generally from a regional planning perspective, it may be touted, but in actuality the sole concern is creating new commercial real estate and increasing its value.  Job creation is an unnecessary consequence. It sounds good from a PR perspective, but in reality, it is beside the point.  Even the jobs it creates locally are mostly crappy sales and fast food jobs. I certainly am not suggesting this is right, I am just saying that is how it is.

For what it is worth, building reservoirs is a bigger drain on agricultural land than highways.

[kalvado]

To add to skluth's answer, adding an interstate in no way guarantees to spur economic growth.  We can easily see this in the many interstate exits where there's no (or extremely limited) services.  In some areas, growth may not occur because the land is already being used.   In other areas, people or the town are against growth. 

In many cases, adding an interstate highway destroys existing land currently being used.  Farms aren't vacant land - they are an important business just like a gas station or warehouse.  Drive a highway thru there and you destroy a business, just like forcing a warehouse to close and be knocked down because you want that land for a highway.

Interstate can also be what it is supposed to be - a long haul road. It can go through hard to develop terrain, with limited development potential.
Over here, I-88 (east one, Albany-Binghamton) and most of I-87 (northern one, NYC-Montreal) run through somewhat-mountains and have long stretches through more or less wild areas.

Suburban interstates are a very different story, where they can open up new land for residential and industrial use, or at least increase the value and population density  (and we can discuss the need for that in another thread)