I-66 STUDY EXPLAINED IN ST. LOUIS

ST. LOUIS -- Consultants who worked on a two-year feasibility study of an Interstate-66 reported Thursday there is no pressing need for the coast-to-coast highway and the project would be an unwise use of federal money.

Jim Covil, senior vice president of Wilbur Smith and Associates, which conducted the study, explained the study's conclusions at a meeting in St. Louis.

Among conclusions:

The project is "extremely expensive" and costs exceeded projected user benefits; no national need for the project exists; because the route studied would be in some sparsely populated areas, usage would be limited; and there exists a number of constraints, though not insurmountable, that could drive up costs and make the project difficult to carry out.

Some of the constraints discussed by Covil and others are a lack of population along the corridor, which makes it difficult to justify on a national scale; mountain ranges, national parks, and environmental areas that would be difficult to cross, and in some cases controversial; the corridor would require approval from several Indian tribes; interest-group pressures such as conflicts between railroads and truckers over a project that could alter their share of freight might be difficult to deal with.

Another problem cited was difficulty in getting the highway departments of all the states involved working together on a project of such magnitude.

Tom Weeks of the Federal Highway Administration chaired the meeting, which was held to explain findings of the study and to offer input.

Weeks also chaired the steering committee of representatives of state highway departments along the corridor that oversaw the study. About half of the 14 members of the committee attended the meeting, which drew more than 50 people from a number of states as far away as Utah.

Funding for the study was authorized by a highway appropriations bill in 1991 that provided $1.275 million, with a $306,000 match from 11 states along the corridor. In the federal highway bill passed in December 1993, the project, referred to as a trans-America transportation corridor, was listed as one of 21 high-priority corridors in the country.

Covil said that in doing the study a 30-to-50-year timeframe in planning and assessing benefits was considered.

"We kept in mind that throughout the study we must have a futuristic vision," said Covil. "We looked at technologies not even in use yet."

To compensate for the lack of urban areas along the corridor, the study team reviewed a "transportation-spine" concept whereby existing routes and some new routes would be connected from urban areas to the highway.

"That is one of the ways we tried to enhance the economic feasibility of the corridor," said Covil.

The study also looked at joint-use options such as using the corridor for pipelines, railroads, and fiber optic cables.

Joe Guyton, an engineer involved in the study, said the team looked at routes along a 3,000-mile-long, 350-mile-wide corridor from Virginia to California. He said the study area represented 31 percent of the land in the 48 contiguous states, which made it difficult to get too specific.

Transportation options reviewed were an interstate-type highway a grade above existing interstates; a high-speed rail corridor with tilt train technology; construction of a superhighway with new technology, or making it one of three new superhighways running coast-to-coast; and very high-speed fixed guideways for cars and trucks as well as rail, to handles speeds to 300 mph.

From their comparison of costs to economic return, the consultants agreed that none of the rail options were feasible. The most feasible option was a superhighway; the next closest was an interstate highway.

Bob Zuelsdorf, a senior vice president of Wilbur Smith and Associates, discussed rationale used to determine economic feasibility. He said the basic question asked was, "Is the economy better off with the system than without?" Perspectives examined were the nation as a whole and the economic impact along the corridor.

From the national perspective Zuelsdorf told the group that none of the options is feasible, although a superhighway comes closest. He said, however, there are some scenarios that could be used to make a superhighway meet feasibility standards.

There would be benefits along the corridor, he said, but there would be only a fraction-of-a-percent impact on regional economic growth in the next 40 to 50 years.

Most of the jobs created along the corridor would be jobs taken from other areas, the study concluded.

"If you live along the corridor it is worthwhile, if you can find someone else to pay for it," said Zuelsdorf. "But from a use of federal tax dollars, it is probably not a good investment."

Covil said that even with money from tolls, concession leases and advertising, to build a superhighway would still require $21.2 billion in public money.