Is the original signage for the US40 freeway stub still there? It's like a time vault.
Signage at the far western end has probably come down by now due to a reconstruction project that was just starting when the Baltimore meet was held a few years ago. Might still be the sign with the "I-170" shield imprint on MLK Drive...
The only one removed as part of the demolition project was the sign bridge along side Mulberry Street ahead of U.S. 1 south (Monroe Street).
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland170/i-170_eb_exit_001a_02.jpg)
While this is slightly off-topic, if I-595 had been completed under the revised 1981 plan (after it was determined that I-70 would not pass the city line), there definitely would've been signs for the route, and I'm suspecting that it would be marked north/south, as it was to bend southwest along the railroad tracks, and then double back southeast to meet I-95 at the big interchange that was never built out.
Quote from: Henry on July 26, 2013, 09:45:51 PM
While this is slightly off-topic, if I-595 had been completed under the revised 1981 plan (after it was determined that I-70 would not pass the city line), there definitely would've been signs for the route, and I'm suspecting that it would be marked north/south, as it was to bend southwest along the railroad tracks, and then double back southeast to meet I-95 at the big interchange that was never built out.
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/images/i0595_baltimore_map.jpg)
Quote from: Henry on July 26, 2013, 09:45:51 PM
While this is slightly off-topic, if I-595 had been completed under the revised 1981 plan (after it was determined that I-70 would not pass the city line), there definitely would've been signs for the route, and I'm suspecting that it would be marked north/south, as it was to bend southwest along the railroad tracks, and then double back southeast to meet I-95 at the big interchange that was never built out.
In a perfect (perhaps fantasy) world, the western part of I-70 through Leakin Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynns_Falls_Leakin_Park) in Baltimore City would have constructed
under the park as a pair of bored tunnels using tunnel boring machines (though I am not certain if TBM technology had been perfected in the 1970's when the Baltimore freeway wars were going on).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2013, 10:27:59 PM
Quote from: Henry on July 26, 2013, 09:45:51 PM
While this is slightly off-topic, if I-595 had been completed under the revised 1981 plan (after it was determined that I-70 would not pass the city line), there definitely would've been signs for the route, and I'm suspecting that it would be marked north/south, as it was to bend southwest along the railroad tracks, and then double back southeast to meet I-95 at the big interchange that was never built out.
In a perfect (perhaps fantasy) world, the western part of I-70 through Leakin Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynns_Falls_Leakin_Park) in Baltimore City would have constructed under the park as a pair of bored tunnels using tunnel boring machines (though I am not certain if TBM technology had been perfected in the 1970's when the Baltimore freeway wars were going on).
Definitely fantasy. No one was gonna pay for that.
It's a shame they did the demolition project. But I have to ask why? Do they plan on putting something there? If not, then why waste the money to tear it down if it isn't affecting anybody.
Quote from: doofy103 on July 27, 2013, 11:37:47 AM
It's a shame they did the demolition project. But I have to ask why? Do they plan on putting something there? If not, then why waste the money to tear it down if it isn't affecting anybody.
There are plans to redevelop the area with the coming Red Line project (Light Rail connecting Security Square in Baltimore County to Hopkins Bayview on the Eastside). Also, parking for the West Baltimore MARC station needed to be expanded and the highway to nowhere was in the way.
Quote from: Steve on July 27, 2013, 02:08:02 AM
Definitely fantasy. No one was gonna pay for that.
Somebody (mostly federal taxpayers) funded the Big Dig in Boston.
And yes, the cost overruns were massive.
QuoteSomebody (mostly federal taxpayers) funded the Big Dig in Boston.
And yes, the cost overruns were massive.
IIRC, the Federal legislation put a cap on how much Federal taxpayers would kick in...cost overruns were thus pushed onto the state and local entities.
OK, this may be a dumb question, but is "I-170" really I-170?
It's still marked in the 2013 Rand McNally as I-170.
I need to know so I will know whether I will need to drive it or not when I clinch all of Maryland's interstates in a couple of weeks.
(I plan to get I-97, I-195 and the portion of I-695 that I don't already have when I am in the state for a wedding.)
It's not I-170. Fuck the Rand.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 28, 2013, 12:56:09 PM
OK, this may be a dumb question, but is "I-170" really I-170?
It's still marked in the 2013 Rand McNally as I-170.
I need to know so I will know whether I will need to drive it or not when I clinch all of Maryland's interstates in a couple of weeks.
(I plan to get I-97, I-195 and the portion of I-695 that I don't already have when I am in the state for a wedding.)
I'm going to pretend it's still I-170 just so that you get to drive it.
QuoteOK, this may be a dumb question, but is "I-170" really I-170?
Not that hard to look up. But in short, no, just as SPUI said.
Quote from: froggie on July 29, 2013, 01:31:14 AM
QuoteOK, this may be a dumb question, but is "I-170" really I-170?
Not that hard to look up. But in short, no, just as SPUI said.
Annoyingly, SHA does not normally publish a Highway Location Reference volume for Baltimore City (possibly because it maintains exactly nothing in the city, though MdTA maintains quite a lot).
But the Baltimore County traffic count map includes the city, and I-170 is not listed there.
There's the SHA grid map series. There's also the FHWA Interstate Log and Route Finder list. And hordes of official mapping applications. Unofficial websites too (thinking mainly Wikipedia, the MDRoads website, and Clinched Highway Mapping here).
I-170 was decommissioned in 1989, although Rand McNally has erroneously tried to resurrect it over the past few years.
On a random note, had the southern portion of I-70 in the city been built and designated I-595, would the 170 designation have remained, or would it have been absorbed into 595?
Quote from: Laura Bianca on September 04, 2013, 11:59:22 PM
I-170 was decommissioned in 1989, although Rand McNally has erroneously tried to resurrect it over the past few years.
On a random note, had the southern portion of I-70 in the city been built and designated I-595, would the 170 designation have remained, or would it have been absorbed into 595?
595.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fhwa.dot.gov%2Fhighwayhistory%2Fdata%2Fimages%2Fbaltimore.gif&hash=f12079aebfdc08b0a079e7eba425075d6a603fb2)
from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page05.cfm
I find it interesting that even after I-70 was cancelled at this point, they were still prepared to go ahead with I-83. Or is that map of the bits they weren't going to do? It's confusing, as it's black and white.
Quote from: kj3400 on September 05, 2013, 02:20:24 AM
I find it interesting that even after I-70 was cancelled at this point, they were still prepared to go ahead with I-83. Or is that map of the bits they weren't going to do? It's confusing, as it's black and white.
It's in the text:
QuoteStage One
On July 28, 1981, Governor Harry Hughes and Mayor William D. Schaefer submitted a joint request by the State of Maryland and the City of Baltimore for the withdrawal of a portion of I-70 inside the Baltimore Beltway from the Interstate System.
On September 3, 1981, Federal Highway Administrator R. A. Barnhart and Urban Mass Transportation Administrator Arthur E. Teele approved the withdrawal under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4). The withdrawn segment extended for 3.3 miles from Security Boulevard to I-170 and would have impacted Leaken Park. The portion of I-70 from the I-695 Baltimore Beltway to Security Boulevard was already constructed at the time of this withdrawal and remains on the System as I-70.
As a result of this withdrawal, an unbuilt section of I-70 from I-170 to I-95 remained on the Interstate System. This section, along with I-170, were eventually renumbered as I-595, and in Stage Two were also withdrawn from the Interstate System.
Stage Two
On July 22, 1983, Governor Hughes and Mayor Schaefer submitted a joint request by the State of Maryland and the City of Baltimore for the withdrawal of all of I-595 and a portion of I-83 from the Interstate System.
On September 29, 1983, Federal Highway Administrator R. A. Barnhart and Urban Mass Transportation Acting Administrator G. Kent Woodman approved the withdrawal under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4).
I-595 had been established following the Stage One withdrawal described above and consisted of (1) 2.22 miles that was formerly I-70 between I-170 and I-95 and (2) all of former I-170 (3.35 miles in length). The 2.22 mile segment was withdrawn under 103(e)(4) and the I-170 section which had been completed and open to traffic for a number of years was deleted from the System under 103(f).
The withdrawn portion of I-83 was 3.35 miles long and extended from its southern terminus at I-95 to Fayette Street near downtown Baltimore.
As I recall from Kozel's website, while opposition is largely what killed I-70, I-83 died because of cost. Even with 90% Federal funding, the local share was too much for the city to afford.
Late 1970s
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54807735/170%20Baltimore.JPG)
Sweet. And inconsistent (is it US 40/I-170 west or US 40 west to I-170?)
Quote from: froggie on September 05, 2013, 03:13:18 AM
As I recall from Kozel's website, while opposition is largely what killed I-70, I-83 died because of cost. Even with 90% Federal funding, the local share was too much for the city to afford.
The plans that I recall for I-83 were really, really bad (I
MO worse than I-70). The proposed route of I-83 would have done immense damage to the Canton area of Baltimore City.
A member of the Baltimore City Council at the time that I-83 through Canton was being debated helped to make her political career by opposing it - her name was Barbara Mikulski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Mikulski), currently the senior U.S. Senator representing Maryland.
I'm curious about the route I-83 was supposed to take. The abandoned ramp stubs at the Moravia Rd exit seem a bit far north don't they?
Quote from: kj3400 on September 27, 2013, 04:25:53 AM
I'm curious about the route I-83 was supposed to take. The abandoned ramp stubs at the Moravia Rd exit seem a bit far north don't they?
I-83 would have gone to the stubs at O'Donnell. The Moravia stubs would have tied into the sharp curve on I-695 at Chesaco.
In addition, Moravia was to have become a freeway under the 1964 BMATS plan.
Once the original I-83 extension was shot down; was there any alternative freeway alignment considered?
Looking at a map, one logical alignment alternative would have been to extend I-83 due south or southwest to I-395's northern terminus and redesignate I-395 as I-83.
No. Once the 83 extension was done, that was it. No more new Baltimore freeways. The proposal to do what you suggest (part of the original freeway system planning) died over a decade before the I-83 extension did, back when the plan for I-95 shifted from crossing the Inner Harbor to putting it in what was built as the Fort McHenry Tunnel.
Quote from: froggie on September 27, 2013, 08:55:22 AM
No. Once the 83 extension was done, that was it. No more new Baltimore freeways. The proposal to do what you suggest (part of the original freeway system planning) died over a decade before the I-83 extension did, back when the plan for I-95 shifted from crossing the Inner Harbor to putting it in what was built as the Fort McHenry Tunnel.
The artistic renderings of the I-95 crossing of the Inner Harbor on a high bridge were really, really awful. Almost as if they had been drawn by a group opposed to routing I-95 that way.
The construction of the crossing as the Fort McHenry Tunnel was the right solution to the problem. You can stand on the grass at Fort McHenry looking out in the direction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge and not even know that there are 12 lanes of Interstate highway crossing close by.
Presuming you're counting the Harbor Tunnel in that, though it's a little over a half-mile away from the southeast tip of Fort McHenry.
Quote from: froggie on September 27, 2013, 01:46:26 PM
Presuming you're counting the Harbor Tunnel in that, though it's a little over a half-mile away from the southeast tip of Fort McHenry.
I am.
The BHT (I-895) portal (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=canton+-inn+baltimore,+md&hl=en&ll=39.264175,-76.563452&spn=0.004677,0.009645&sll=39.239155,-76.579165&sspn=0.01858,0.038581&t=h&hnear=Canton,+Baltimore,+Maryland&z=17) on the north side is very close to the FMT (I-95) north portal (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=canton+-inn+baltimore,+md&hl=en&ll=39.263925,-76.566328&spn=0.004677,0.009645&sll=39.239155,-76.579165&sspn=0.01858,0.038581&t=h&hnear=Canton,+Baltimore,+Maryland&z=17) in the Canton area, but they diverge from there, and the south portal of the BHT (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=fairfield+-inn+baltimore,+md&hl=en&ll=39.243023,-76.578183&spn=0.00929,0.01929&sll=39.263925,-76.566328&sspn=0.004677,0.009645&t=h&hnear=Fairfield,+Baltimore,+Maryland&z=16) in the Fairfield section of Baltimore City is rather far from the south portal of the FMT in the Locust Point area (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=locust+point+baltimore&ll=39.264391,-76.589985&spn=0.018574,0.038581&hnear=Locust+Point,+Baltimore,+Maryland&gl=us&t=h&z=15) of Baltimore. Still, imagine what the view from Fort McHenry would have been like if both the FMT and BHT had been built as above-water crossings.
I don't want to think about it.
I live in Brooklyn, just south of I-895 and, at this park near my job, have a clear view of downtown, the port and everything I wouldn't be able to see if I-95 had an ugly bridge cutting across the Harbor. I can imagine Fort McHenry wouldn't be so popular sitting in I-95's shadow.
Quote from: kj3400 on September 28, 2013, 05:51:30 AM
I don't want to think about it.
I live in Brooklyn, just south of I-895 and, at this park near my job, have a clear view of downtown, the port and everything I wouldn't be able to see if I-95 had an ugly bridge cutting across the Harbor. I can imagine Fort McHenry wouldn't be so popular sitting in I-95's shadow.
Think about the highway having to rise up and over the harbor entry, would probably be similar to the platt bridge in philly
Quote from: kj3400 on September 28, 2013, 05:51:30 AM
I don't want to think about it.
Agreed.
Quote from: kj3400 on September 28, 2013, 05:51:30 AM
I live in Brooklyn, just south of I-895 and, at this park near my job, have a clear view of downtown, the port and everything I wouldn't be able to see if I-95 had an ugly bridge cutting across the Harbor. I can imagine Fort McHenry wouldn't be so popular sitting in I-95's shadow.
Imagine
both I-95 and I-895 on their current alignments as bridges instead of in tunnels. That would have been even worse.
I was not so enthused about the I-695 Outer Harbor Crossing (that was the planning name, now the F.S. Key Bridge) being a large bridge, but it's far enough out from the Inner Harbor that it does not loom over Fort McHenry.
According to Scott Kozel's excellent historical (http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Balt_Outer_Harbor.html) write-up, the MdTA had envisioned it as a two-lane tunnel, but it became a four-lane bridge (with Super-2 approaches on both sides) because the cost was less.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 29, 2013, 06:05:33 AM
Quote from: kj3400 on September 28, 2013, 05:51:30 AM
I don't want to think about it.
I live in Brooklyn, just south of I-895 and, at this park near my job, have a clear view of downtown, the port and everything I wouldn't be able to see if I-95 had an ugly bridge cutting across the Harbor. I can imagine Fort McHenry wouldn't be so popular sitting in I-95's shadow.
Think about the highway having to rise up and over the harbor entry, would probably be similar to the platt bridge in philly
Perhaps the Girard Point Bridge (I-95) would be a better comparison?
Found a website about the MARC project, that involves tearing down part of the US-40 stub.
This PDF has some plans complete with old signage in some of the drawings.
http://www.wbmarcproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MTA_WBMARC_Project_Update_2014_0224.pdf
Also, one sentence concerns me:
The removal of the wall or highway to nowhere. Hopefully not the whole thing.
http://www.wbmarcproject.com/projects/parking-expansion-enhancements/
So, what is there and what isn't? Google Maps isn't updated past 2011. More signage gone?
Quote from: doofy103 on April 17, 2014, 10:44:29 PM
Found a website about the MARC project, that involves tearing down part of the US-40 stub.
This PDF has some plans complete with old signage in some of the drawings.
http://www.wbmarcproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MTA_WBMARC_Project_Update_2014_0224.pdf
Also, one sentence concerns me:
The removal of the wall or highway to nowhere. Hopefully not the whole thing.
http://www.wbmarcproject.com/projects/parking-expansion-enhancements/
So, what is there and what isn't? Google Maps isn't updated past 2011. More signage gone?
The most conspicuous absence is the old US 1 sign bridge showing the one-way paired street names.
Hopefully one day there will be a resurgence of freeway building and the Baltimore freeway system will be completed (and supplemented by other new freeways).
Quote from: bugo on April 19, 2014, 01:21:19 AM
Hopefully one day there will be a resurgence of freeway building and the Baltimore freeway system will be completed (and supplemented by other new freeways).
As hopeful as that sounds (I share the same sentiment), I don't know how it would happen. I-70's getting truncated at the Beltway because of the Red Line project and I'm not sure how they'd deal with I-83.
Simply put, it won't. I-70 would have to go deep bore ($$$$$$$) to avoid Leakin Park and Gwyns Falls, and I-83 has a harbor and historic neighborhoods in the way.
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2014, 11:18:45 AM
Simply put, it won't. I-70 would have to go deep bore ($$$$$$$) to avoid Leakin Park and Gwyns Falls, and I-83 has a harbor and historic neighborhoods in the way.
I-83 is FAR more likely to be finished in comparison to I-70, even though the former would also need deep bore tunnels to avoid Fells Point. I think it is highly unlikely that central Maryland will see another freeway similar in size and footprint to the ICC built anytime soon, even with the most lavish environmental mitigation ever devised. I-83 has far fewer environmental concerns in comparison.
That being said, anyone who has read The Big Roads by Earl Swift will understand just how inflammatory any extension of I-70 would be, because people have LONG memories and will remember just how much of a mess the SRC and the city planners made when planning I-70 throug West Baltimore.
Quote from: TheOneKEA on April 19, 2014, 09:41:12 PM
That being said, anyone who has read The Big Roads by Earl Swift will understand just how inflammatory any extension of I-70 would be, because people have LONG memories and will remember just how much of a mess the SRC and the city planners made when planning I-70 throug West Baltimore.
Though if there is
one place in Maryland that would likely benefit from a modern freeway connection to the outside world, it's West Baltimore.
Quote from: TheOneKEA on April 19, 2014, 09:41:12 PM
That being said, anyone who has read The Big Roads by Earl Swift will understand just how inflammatory any extension of I-70 would be, because people have LONG memories and will remember just how much of a mess the SRC and the city planners made when planning I-70 throug West Baltimore.
Long memories don't last forever. These folks will eventually die and there's always the chance that the younger generations will be pro-freeway and the system will be completed. Never say never.
Quote from: bugo on April 20, 2014, 03:10:13 AM
Long memories don't last forever. These folks will eventually die and there's always the chance that the younger generations will be pro-freeway and the system will be completed. Never say never.
How many injuries and deaths (and missed economic development opportunities) have to happen before those people die?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 20, 2014, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: bugo on April 20, 2014, 03:10:13 AM
Long memories don't last forever. These folks will eventually die and there's always the chance that the younger generations will be pro-freeway and the system will be completed. Never say never.
How many injuries and deaths (and missed economic development opportunities) have to happen before those people die?
I know right? These folks have blood on their hands.
Don't forget about wasted time and more pollution because of the design of the road.
Quote from: TheOneKEA on April 19, 2014, 09:41:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2014, 11:18:45 AM
Simply put, it won't. I-70 would have to go deep bore ($$$$$$$) to avoid Leakin Park and Gwyns Falls, and I-83 has a harbor and historic neighborhoods in the way.
I-83 is FAR more likely to be finished in comparison to I-70, even though the former would also need deep bore tunnels to avoid Fells Point. I think it is highly unlikely that central Maryland will see another freeway similar in size and footprint to the ICC built anytime soon, even with the most lavish environmental mitigation ever devised. I-83 has far fewer environmental concerns in comparison.
That being said, anyone who has read The Big Roads by Earl Swift will understand just how inflammatory any extension of I-70 would be, because people have LONG memories and will remember just how much of a mess the SRC and the city planners made when planning I-70 throug West Baltimore.
The same can be said about I-66 and I-95 going through Washington, DC.
Quote from: Henry on April 21, 2014, 03:46:45 PM
Quote from: TheOneKEA on April 19, 2014, 09:41:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2014, 11:18:45 AM
Simply put, it won't. I-70 would have to go deep bore ($$$$$$$) to avoid Leakin Park and Gwyns Falls, and I-83 has a harbor and historic neighborhoods in the way.
I-83 is FAR more likely to be finished in comparison to I-70, even though the former would also need deep bore tunnels to avoid Fells Point. I think it is highly unlikely that central Maryland will see another freeway similar in size and footprint to the ICC built anytime soon, even with the most lavish environmental mitigation ever devised. I-83 has far fewer environmental concerns in comparison.
That being said, anyone who has read The Big Roads by Earl Swift will understand just how inflammatory any extension of I-70 would be, because people have LONG memories and will remember just how much of a mess the SRC and the city planners made when planning I-70 throug West Baltimore.
The same can be said about I-66 and I-95 going through Washington, DC.
On the one hand, I-95 can easily make it through DC by extending the tunnel. It's costly, but we theoretically could have the funding and technology to get it done with minimal disruption in the future. But on the other hand, do you want to be adding any traffic to I-395? I'm gonna say "no" to that one. On the other hand, completing I-70 and I-83 would actually bring a benefit to traffic along those corridors and their connections to I-95.
Still catching up on this thread. There are some ghost I-170 shields on a BGS on MLK. By ghost, I mean the shield has been removed, but the paint around is faded on the BGS so you can see it still.
Here is Google Street View:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.293699,-76.627719,3a,33.9y,314.25h,90.06t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sS9L6gKM_y_rU8RmhG0at8A!2e0
Quote from: talllguy on April 21, 2014, 08:26:02 PM
Still catching up on this thread. There are some ghost I-170 shields on a BGS on MLK. By ghost, I mean the shield has been removed, but the paint around is faded on the BGS so you can see it still.
Here is Google Street View:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.293699,-76.627719,3a,33.9y,314.25h,90.06t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sS9L6gKM_y_rU8RmhG0at8A!2e0
www.alpsroads.net/roads/md/mlk/ (:
Quote from: Alps on April 21, 2014, 08:31:34 PM
Quote from: talllguy on April 21, 2014, 08:26:02 PM
Still catching up on this thread. There are some ghost I-170 shields on a BGS on MLK. By ghost, I mean the shield has been removed, but the paint around is faded on the BGS so you can see it still.
Here is Google Street View:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.293699,-76.627719,3a,33.9y,314.25h,90.06t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sS9L6gKM_y_rU8RmhG0at8A!2e0
www.alpsroads.net/roads/md/mlk/ (:
Steve, that's awesome! I want to go out and shoot some of these in case they've made any updates. I just need a driver and a convertible haha. Mike (mdroads) might be interested too. I want to look around the city interstates, and then the main routes for those "TO" type signs.
Yes, no GSV needed for dead I-170 between Steve and AARoads: https://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=i0170md
I have video of the thing from 1993. The same drive is where we found two sets of these:
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland040/us-040_wb_app_i-695.jpg)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 19, 2014, 11:22:00 PM
Quote from: TheOneKEA on April 19, 2014, 09:41:12 PM
That being said, anyone who has read The Big Roads by Earl Swift will understand just how inflammatory any extension of I-70 would be, because people have LONG memories and will remember just how much of a mess the SRC and the city planners made when planning I-70 throug West Baltimore.
Though if there is one place in Maryland that would likely benefit from a modern freeway connection to the outside world, it's West Baltimore.
Agreed, and Swift's book makes it clear that despite the ham-fisted mess the original plans made of that connection, the pre-1950 transport corridor in the area deserved a modern link with the western suburbs and the rest of the city.
Unfortunately the only way to fix it now would be either a deep bore tunnel or the complete replacement of Cooks Lane and Edmondson Avenue with a surface route. I think that in today's climate, the vocal minority would make short work of any proposals to build either. Even a short four-lane parkway from the I-70 terminus down to Hilton Parkway would be hard slogging against the protests that would result.
QuoteI think that in today's climate, the vocal minority would make short work of any proposals to build either.
The fiscal environment will shoot it down before it even gets to the "vocal minority".