I-66 PROMOTER TAKES ISSUE WITH STUDY FINDINGS

ST. LOUIS -- Some people at Thursday's meeting held to discuss a study of an Interstate 66 took issue with conclusions about the economic feasibility of the trans-America corridor.

In particular, concern was voiced over the conclusion that jobs generated along the corridor would only be jobs moved from other parts of the country, and, therefore, would not have an impact on the national economy.

One of the people who took issue was Walt Wildman, executive director of the Cape Girardeau Regional Commerce and Growth Association, which originated the idea of the coast-to-coast highway known as I-66.

Wildman, also co-director of I-66 Project Inc., asked Tom Weeks of the Federal Highway Administration and others involved in the study to consider softening the conclusions on feasibility. "I am concerned about the finality tone of the report," said Wildman.

Because of conclusions in the study, Wildman said it is difficult for his group to continue promoting the I-66 concept. He and several others involved with I-66 Project asked that Weeks make sure the final report explained some assumptions that were considered that might make the project feasible.

Weeks replied that the final study document will outline everything that was considered. He also invited Wildman and others to prepare written comments that would be included with the study when it is turned over to the Federal Highway Administration and Congress.

Wildman said he intended to prepare a response on behalf of I-66 Project Inc. that would include points that should have been studied but weren't. For example, Wildman said the study's results do not take into account the benefits of reducing truck traffic on existing Interstates 70 and 40, which I-66 would run between.

A member of the consulting team, Jim Covil, said the impact was discussed but was not figured into any conclusions on feasibility.

Wildman distributed a statement from Kevin Spaeth, chairman of the RCGA transportation committee, saying his organization "wishes to go on record that we disagree with the conclusions drawn by this summary."

It said: "As we understood the requirements for the study, Congress was to be presented with a report that examines and reports the facts as to the economic impact a trans-America corridor would have on not the local but the national economy. While the report, as submitted, is certainly forward thinking, it doesn't address the economic impacts in today's world," Spaeth wrote.

Wildman said the report asks more questions than it answers.