I-66 STUDY: COAST-TO-COAST ROUTE INFEASIBLE

A proposed coast-to-coast Transamerica Transportation Corridor -- promoted locally as the I-66 project -- is not economically feasible, according to a final executive summary.

The study, funded by Congress, concluded that the concept "does not meet the economic feasibility tests from a national perspective."

The Kansas City engineering firm of Howard Needles Tammen and Bergendoff was hired to do the report.

The corridor is mentioned in the new federal highway bill as one of 21 high priority routes in the United States to be studied. The corridor concept originated in the Cape Girardeau area in 1990 by the Regional Commerce and Growth Association.

Participants in I-66 Project, Inc. have been working toward construction of a new coast-to-coast interstate between Interstates 70 and 40. However, the feasibility study conclusions leave the future of such a project in doubt.

A conclusion in the executive summary points out that many of the technologies studied that may be the most feasible are in the development stage, making costs difficult to estimate. As technologies advance in the future, the report says that review of the overall corridor might be warranted.

But for now, "the study does not support undertaking a major new coast-to-coast corridor at this time," the summary said.

Another point made in the conclusion, however, is that some individual segments of the corridor might be desirable from a state or regional perspective because they could be linked to the National Highway System or to a state's transportation system.

Eighth District U.S. Rep. Bill Emerson is one of several members of Congress that have supported the study of I-66. Pete Jeffries, a spokesman for Emerson, said Thursday they had not yet seen a copy of the report but planned to study it.

Jeffries said that David LaValle, legislative director for Emerson, was expecting to receive a copy of the study in the next day or two.

The corridor area studied is about 3,000 miles long and between 250 and 350 miles wide, which the report notes has "a great diversity of conditions. While there are some major communities in the corridor, it has an average of 40 percent fewer persons per square mile than the U.S. as a whole and is situated generally between most of the major U.S. urban areas."

The report also notes that mountain ranges in the eastern and western parts of the corridor "present formidable challenges for a transportation facility, especially because of their north-south orientation.

"Wetlands, such as those associated with the Mississippi River, also will require special consideration. Land ownership patterns also vary, and the large parcels in the western states will have certain advantages.

"On the other hand, lands under the jurisdiction of Indian Tribal Governments and national parks and forests will constrain the choices for where a transportation facility might be sited."

In assessing the financial viability, the study report indicates that a major commitment of federal funds to the Transamerica Transportation Corridor (TTC) would be necessary.

"Analyses were undertaken to assess project costs relative to potential project revenues, to identify funding options, and to determine funding requirements for each of the principal transportation alternatives," the report states. "These analyses determined that toll (if assessed) and fare revenues would offset a significant portion of the TTC costs. However, revenue requirements for the various alternatives still would present enormous costs to be covered by federal, state or other sources.

"Increasing the transportation budgets of the corridor states to fully cover the TTC costs is not realistic given current expenditure trends and procedures. The study concluded that these funding needs could not be met by the states alone and a national commitment to the TTC would be needed."

The study was commissioned to determine whether another east-west, coast-to-coast interstate-type highway is needed and appears feasible, and it also analyzed some of the advanced transportation systems and techniques that might be used.

A goal of the study was to see if the corridor could be built in a way that is consistent with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. That current policy is: "to develop a National Intermodal Transportation System that is economically efficient and environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the nation to compete in the global economy, and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner."

One part of ISTEA was to see that new technologies be studied to determine how that could fit into future transportation development.

Various transportation alternatives were considered by the study steering committee, which included representatives from highway departments in states along the proposed corridor.

Four principal alternatives that were studied included: a conventional interstate type highway, with some capabilities for use of new technologies; upgraded rail, using tilt train technology with speeds of 125 to 135 mph; a super highway and truckway, with the capability for vehicle speeds of up to 150 mph with substantial use of technologies including Advanced Vehicle Control Systems and Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems; and a very high-speed fixed guide way, which considers high speed rail with speeds up to 300 mph on flat terrain.

In the category of super highways, consideration was also given to upgrading Interstates 70 and 40, as well as the new highway to super highway status.

Three different corridors also were analyzed, based on the four transportation alternatives that were studied.

The study points out that a major public investment like the TTC could be "economically feasible" if the economy is better off with the TTC than without it. Economic benefits can come from travel efficiency, which is transportation cost savings, and from the attraction of resources and economic development along the corridor.

But in summarizing the economic efficiency assessment, the study notes: "All of the five major alternative concepts create very large travel benefits. However, when the high costs associated with this project are considered, none of the alternative concepts are found to be feasible."

The one super highway alternative proved to be the most feasible of the five TTC options considered, however, still falls short.

The study points out that the construction would lead to some economic development, attracting industries and tourism to the area. The single super highway is projected to attract 220,000 jobs to the region by 2040, excluding TTC construction jobs. The economic impact of all the options would be in the billions of dollars.

But the study says: "While these impacts are sizable, they represent 1 percent or less of total jobs and total value added already in the corridor area. In addition, the value added and jobs impacts primarily represent a redistribution of jobs, and money, from elsewhere in the U.S. Investment in transportation is a very expensive way of creating permanent jobs."