Aesthetic designs on road projects. Worth the extra cost or not?

[peterj920]

In Wisconsin, WISDOT had a Community Sensitive Solutions program to include special landscaping and designs on new road projects.  The I-41 project in Green Bay had about a $1 billion price tag, and WISDOT claims that the extra designs cost about $14 million.  Lawmakers in Madison felt that the aesthetic improvements weren't worth the extra cost and felt that money used in those projects could go towards other road projects, so they passed a law prohibiting WISDOT from using funds towards such projects.  Municipalities can pay for the extra designs if they want to.  In this case, is $14 million out of $1 billion a small price of the overall cost to improve the look of the freeway, or would it be better to put $14 million towards other road projects while leaving the freeway corridor looking like an ordinary concrete freeway?  I have a story link from WBAY TV below.

http://wbay.com/2016/03/08/special-highway-designs-cut-from-state-funding/

[kkt]

1.4% of the project doesn't seem like that much to make it look good.  The communities the road runs through shouldn't be penalized with an ugly design.

[jakeroot]

Can they even do that? It used to be that an engineers' comments were the only one's considered, because the public worried too much about themselves, but ever since the freeway revolts, public outreach has been (AFAIK) a requirement. As long as the public is legally permitted to comment on a proposed design, the DOT is legally required to listen to them, and at the very least respond. If their response is, for example, "sound walls are not legally permitted by the government because they aren't essential", that's gonna result in at least some backlash.

[ET21]

You can ask the Illinois Tollway about their aesthetic concrete columns that hold up specific sign gantries. No point for them in my opinion.

[wxfree]

I'm not in favor of extra spending to make a road pretty.  It isn't meant to be appreciated as a work of art.

The northern end of the Chisholm Trail Parkway costs more to drive on because the toll rates include an extra cost, initially set two cents, which increases along with the regular toll increases, per mile higher than the general NTTA rate to pay for aesthetic enhancements.  I'd really rather leave the artwork out and pay less to drive on the road.  (On a different point, who thought it was a good idea to make the guardrails look rusted?  Why am I paying more for fake rust?)  It isn't as bad because this is a toll road so only the toll payers' money is wasted.

If the community wants anything beyond the basic design, let them pay for it.  Tax money should be used for transportation.  Grass is important because it provides erosion control; it's fortunate that it's also prettier than dirt.  Get donations if you want pavement imprints or colored bridges.

[corco]

Yes, within reason.

While roads certainly are intended to be roads and not art, roads are not built in a vacuum.

The question should be tackled as a basic benefit-cost analysis. Will these aesthetic improvements increase (or offset the decrease in) surrounding property values or stimulate commerce to the point that those properties will contribute more to the tax base than the cost of the improvement over some number of years? If the answer to that is yes, the improvement should absolutely be implemented.

If reasonable investments can be made to offset property value hits by building a highway near a residential neighborhood, or if reasonable compromises can be made to preserve the walkability of a downtown core with a state highway through it, that's absolutely worth a modest investment. Painting freeway underpasses is a bit harder of a sell for me, though if somebody can demonstrate that this increases commerce by encouraging people to get off the freeway because they perceive the area as safe and welcoming, then they could very well be worthwhile. In a gateway setting especially (either near a major airport or entering city limits on a major highway), I understand the point.

[Bruce]

Some cities have ordinances requiring that public projects dedicate 1% of their budget to art and other aesthetic improvements. It's a good program that has churned out some great things (Seattle's light rail stations have a good variety of public art to gawk at) and I'd like to see it incorporated into highway projects around here a bit more. Sound wall designs with embedded patterns are becoming rather common and look much better than the plain ones of days long past.

[noelbotevera]

My two cents here is that there's a couple questions that should be asked:

If we build an elevated highway through a city, should we pay for aesthetic designs?
If this is a developed area, would the area benefit from aesthetic designs?
How would you stimulate a poor/dying area? Would aesthetics help?
How will this affect the surrounding area is we use aesthetic designs?
Will this appease residents if aesthetic designs are used?


I know, a road is not a piece of art, but unless you appreciate concrete, what do you prefer?

[cpzilliacus]

It is not that much more expensive to landscape the right-of-way of a road and to make bridges look reasonably attractive.

Some bridges, utilitarian though they are, become massive works of art in their own right, such as the Golden Gate Bridge, the Millau Viaduct, the George Washington Bridge, the "high bridge" part of the Øresund Bridge-Tunnel and the New River Gorge Bridge, and many others.

[Zeffy]

I posted a thread on these a while back. Apex, NC used pretty awesome looking designs for one of their bridges.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16680.msg2100927#msg2100927

I think it's worth it, because while people may hate the functions that highways serve, they are a needed part of our society, so if we can do something to mitigate their impact (no matter how small), we should. I think that adding some flair to the boring concrete may make people accept them more.

[dlainhart]

This is a public reaction to the aesthetics of urban decay. While understandable in context, this is not a good reason to spend too much time listening to the aesthetic suggestions of the unwashed masses, as the common riffraff are (let's be real here) known for their utter lack of taste. Their favored "aesthetic" designs are frequently tacky as all hell and do not take longevity into account at all. Aesthetic concrete ages like milk, and spalls and cracks are not good for property values at all. Roads these days are enough of a mess of poor-quality landscaping concrete whose budget ought to be spent where it matters, namely long-lasting concrete driving surfaces that don't develop cracks before the construction signs even come down (looking at you, Kamikaze Curve). The worst part is that these types of fluff projects usually specify asphalt driving surfaces, and those surfaces seem to be built rutted. The same guilty hoi polloi then whines and moans about it, totally unable to recall that they were more concerned with beautiful mockup images than long-lasting roads.

Maybe the highway revolts ought to have been put down with arms...

unless you appreciate concrete

Heh, you got me there.

[Bitmapped]

For me, it depends on the cost of the enhancements relative to the overall project. 1%-2% doesn't seem unreasonable for something that likely tens of thousands of people per day will see.

[triplemultiplex]

I absolutely reject the idea that infrastructure should be utilitarian to save a few pennies.  Why can't it look okay while providing it's function?  What's wrong with putting a little goddamn civic pride into your work? 

It's chump change the the GOP controlled legislature is 'saving' Wisconsinites.  The same portion of the same body that has spent decades spending lavishly on huge superhighways through rural, low traffic areas.  To say I question their sincerity in this matter is an understatement.  After spending billions on new rural highways, they turn around and shave a token cost off of urban road projects and pat themselves on the back.  Ridiculous.

Add that to the long list of money they are 'saving' by dumping the responsibility on county and municipal governments.

[roadfro]

Little late to this discussion, but a couple comments.


I seem to recall reading somewhere that implementing aesthetic enhancements has a tendency to slightly reduce road rage and other negative driving behaviors. In the grand scheme of things, that has a positive impact by helping to maintain traffic flow and reduce agency costs through reduced need for accident response.

Anecdotally, places where highways have had some aesthetic treatments implemented seem to have a reduction in graffiti and other vandalism (this might be because the aesthetic enhancements provide less of a 'clean slate' for vandals to display their "art"). If this is true, then that results in a long-term savings in reduced maintenance costs–although this likely does not offset initial costs.


Nevada DOT now allocates up to 3% of major construction project budgets to aesthetic enhancements. Typically, this will include painting structures and laying colored aggregate within the right of way, but larger projects include drought-tolerant plants, more detailed designs on bridge walls, and sometimes iron/stone sculptures (typically of animals) that fit the landscape theme of the area. There are a number of examples–most notably the several recent projects along I-15 & US 95 in Las Vegas, the I-215/515 interchange in Henderson, and the I-80 project in Reno. For a measly percentage of an overall expensive project, spending an extra few million to make it look nice seems worth it to me.

Also, I'm seeing increasingly that cities want the streets to look nicer as well. Las Vegas has done more aesthetics with some projects in recent years. "Complete streets" projects, where money is spent to enhance the roadway for all user modes, seem to be a driver of this in many instances–and also is an opportunity to provide local art and/or display elements that relate historical significance to a corridor.

[ET21]

If they want to go ahead and add plant life in between the interchanges that's fine. I just hate when 5 years later they tear up those same trees (I'm looking at you Illinois tollway) when a new project starts up.

[nexus73]

Make your highways and byways look nice!  They are a source of civic pride.  People in the US don't want the Soviet-style look in their infrastructure after all.  Pretty as a picture helps the cause of public support in the long run methinks.

Rick

[Chris19001]

I'll agree with the general sentiment here.  Make 'em pretty, but also make 'em last.

[cpzilliacus]

Curiously, one of the nicest-landscaped freeway-class roads I have ever been on is the 1D toll road between Tijuana, Baja California and Ensenada.

Yes, a section suffered a catastrophic collapse (perhaps when a slope failed from heavy rains, details here), but the landscaping on this road and the views of the Pacific Ocean are great.

[jwolfer]

Here in Florida they put palm trees all over.. I appreciate the aesthetics of a tropical look.

New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway perfect example of utilitarian vs aesthetics.. Both built in same era, very different feel to the roads