Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, July 3, 1994 TAG: 9407030067
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: GREG EDWARDS STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
A steering committee made up of representatives of the various states through which the highway would pass will unveil the results of its study Thursday at a public meeting in St. Louis.
According to a draft of the committee's final report, none of the various options studied for a Trans-America Transportation Corridor, I-66, would pay off for the nation as a whole.
"These findings, however, do not mean that individual segments of the corridor would not be desirable from a state or regional perspective," the committee concluded. And, it said, as some segments are built and transportation technologies advance, it might be worthwhile to take another look at the overall proposal.
The language of the final report may change somewhat, but the conclusions won't, said Tom Weeks, chief of the planning programs branch of the Federal Highway Administration.
However, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke, a supporter of I-66 in Virginia, said he doesn't think the study will have much effect on the eventual decision to build the road.
For one thing, Goodlatte said, the technology envisioned for some of the transportation options being considered isn't available yet, while the study is based on current economic circumstances. For another, he said, the study is "extremely skimpy." He pointed out that he recently won House approval for $8 million to study a potential I-66 route between Beckley, W.Va., Roanoke and Norfolk, while the entire national study of I-66 was done for $1 million.
Goodlatte said he believes the entire road eventually will be determined to be feasible. "The need to connect different communities is going to continue to exist," he said.
The steering committee's report will be forwarded to the highway administration and then to the congressional appropriations committees. The study was requested by the House Appropriations Committee.
Congress didn't ask the highway administration for recommendations on I-66 along with the report, and it has not been determined yet whether the agency will make any recommendations, Weeks said. He speculated that in this case the agency probably will send along the report without recommendations.
Weeks said it was important to keep in mind that the study's conclusions are based on I-66 as a transcontinental road and that the study didn't look at the feasibility of building individual segments.
Richard Lockwood, chief of planning for the Virginia Department of Transportation and a member of the I-66 steering committee, said the Virginia portion fared better from an economic standpoint because it is closer to more people than segments of the road to the west. "We were on the best end of the road," he said.
The committee and its consultants looked 50 years into the future at a potential corridor 3,000 miles long between Virginia and Southern California and 250 to 350 miles wide, lying generally between Interstates 70 and 40. The corridor contains some major cities but, overall, averages 40 percent fewer people per square mile than the country as a whole.
The committee considered construction of a conventional interstate-type highway with some basic "smart road" technologies included, but did not limit the study to that transportation mode. Also examined was the economic viability of building:
An upgraded rail track, incorporating tilt-train technology and allowing for train speeds up to 135 mph.
A superhighway and truckway with extensive "smart road" technologies, including vehicle control systems. It would feature a separated truckway and speeds of up to 150 mph.
A high-speed fixed guideway with the potential for both high-speed rail and magnetic levitation vehicles and design speeds of up to 300 mph in flat terrain.
The projected costs (in 1993 dollars) of building the alternatives ranged from $17.9 billion for an interstate-type highway to $78.1 billion for a high-speed fixed guideway.
Of the alternatives, the superhighway and truckway, estimated to cost $53.4 billion, was found to come closest to paying for itself. The study concluded the superhighway could return 94 cents in benefits for each $1 spent to build it. With an 18-cent return on the dollar, the fixed guideway for high-speed rail or magnetic levitation was found to have the least economic justification.
The superhighway-truckway was also found to have the largest potential for job creation, providing a possible 243,994 jobs (including road construction jobs) in 2001 and 220,700 jobs in 2040.
"While these impacts are sizeable," the committee report notes, "they represent 1 percent or less of total jobs . . . already in the corridor area." It goes on to say that "investment in transportation is a very expensive way of creating permanent jobs."
Lockwood said he was surprised that the superhighway-truckway, one of the higher-cost options, provided the greatest economic benefit. He said he considered the study "a good piece of planning work" by the consultant team, led by Wilbur Smith and Associates of Columbia, S.C.
Funding for the feasibility study was provided by the 1991 U.S. Department of Transportation Appropriations Act. The study was identified in the 1991 federal highway bill, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, as one of 21 high-priority corridors to be included in the National Highway System.
The public meeting is being held in St. Louis because many public groups promoting construction of the road are located in that area.
by CNB