Check out the link here:



http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071216/NEWS01/712160492

SPECIAL REPORT: INTERSTATE 66
Politics drive Kentucky road project that other states have rejected
Rep. Hal Rogers funneling millions to keep interstate route alive, putting other priorities at risk
By R. G. Dunlop
[email protected]
The Courier-Journal


RELATED VIDEO: Pro and Con of I-66
RELATED VIDEO: Concern for Short Creek

SOMERSET, Ky. -- U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers has funneled nearly $90 million in federal funds toward a proposed interstate highway in Kentucky that likely will never cross the state, much less stretch beyond its borders.

Despite the substantial expenditure of funds, not a single shovelful of dirt has been turned on Interstate 66, conceived nearly two decades ago as a coast-to-coast corridor that would run through Southern Kentucky. Since then, it has been abandoned by every other state as unnecessary or too expensive.



"We try not to build roads that don't lead anywhere," said Brent Walker of the West Virginia Department of Transportation, which has never seriously pursued I-66.

Nevertheless, Kentucky continues to push forward, urged on by I-66 supporters, including local politicians and economic-development officials, and driven by Rogers' powerful influence as a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee.

That influence -- accumulated over the 27 years Rogers has represented Southern and Eastern Kentucky's 5th Congressional District -- combined with Congress' general reluctance to oppose a member's pet projects, helps explain I-66's staying power.

"Why is Kentucky the only state to find the road worthy of pursuit?" asked Dr. Hilary Lambert, a longtime I-66 opponent who has taught geography and environmental studies at several universities and who is a former associate director of the Kentucky Waterways Alliance.

"Because Hal loves it so much. He's a guy who brings roads to his district."

Many critics, including environmentalists, government-spending watchdogs and some affected landowners, say I-66 is a bad investment and a poor use of scarce transportation funds.

Only two short, widely separated segments of I-66 have even reached the planning stages -- one in Pike County, the other in Laurel and Pulaski counties. Yet the estimated cost of those sections alone is $3.5 billion or more, and building them would deplete limited transportation funds that could finance other major projects, such as the Ohio River bridges at Louisville.

The project's critics also contend that optimistic projections of economic-development windfalls resulting from I-66 in some of Kentucky's most depressed counties -- new industry, thousands of jobs, an influx of tourism -- are unrealistic.

They also question whether road-building -- rather than, say, investment in education -- is the best way to stimulate economic activity.

Critics cite a host of other reasons why Kentucky should abandon I-66, including these:

The sole economic analysis of the project a decade ago showed that, at best, I-66 would have only a marginal net benefit for drivers, compared with the estimated cost of construction. For the most likely locations and speed limits, the analysis found, every dollar spent would only yield benefits ranging from $1.16 to $1.43.

Traffic counts don't appear to support the need for the project. Daily volumes on existing roads in Pike, Laurel and Pulaski counties that would be supplanted by I-66 generally are far below those typically seen on interstates, even in rural areas of Kentucky.

Counts on Ky. 80 in Laurel and Pulaski counties are 30,000 or less, and are even lower on most Pike County roads. By comparison, an average of 61,000 vehicles per day travel I-75 near Richmond and 58,000 per day pass through Oldham County on I-71.

The environmental impact of I-66 would be significant, taking nearly 200 acres of the Daniel Boone National Forest, mostly in Laurel County, and requiring a second bridge across a protected area of the Rockcastle River where construction is prohibited by the state's wild-rivers law.

The road also would traverse unstable cave and sinkhole areas of Pulaski County that are vulnerable to groundwater pollution, flooding, destruction of wildlife and habitat and, possibly, catastrophic collapse.

"What exactly is the problem they're trying to solve?" said Karyn Moskowitz of the GreenFire Consulting Group in Bloomington, Ind., which has been involved in the fight against I-66. "Is it a lack of economic development, safety, unemployment? They (supporters) throw everything into the mix. I haven't seen that they've really proved a basis for the road."

Rogers, a Somerset Republican who has championed I-66 since the early 1990s, turns aside questions about the wisdom of building it, saying they reflect a bias against rural Kentucky, including his district.

"I didn't hear these arguments when we were talking about building I-75 through the Bluegrass, the charming, beautiful part of our state," he said in a recent interview. "… But when we start building … a highway through the most impoverished part of the state … we hear all of this noise about, 'Oh, it's not needed.' Well, we could have made that same argument in all of these highways that we've built over the years."

NO 'PRESSING NEED'

Kentucky only statethat's moving ahead
While I-66 was once projected as a coast-to-coast highway, a 1994 national study ultimately concluded that it was not worth the cost. Individual states then were given the option of considering its merits.

But only Kentucky is aggressively moving ahead, thanks to Rogers' efforts to secure between $1.8 million and $24 million a year since 1998 for planning, engineering and design work.

"It's nothing that has been identified as a pressing need, either by us or by any community groups we work with," said Jeff Briggs, a spokesman for the Missouri Department of Transportation.

Illinois is the only other state even considering the idea, and officials there said the lack of commitment in Missouri and Western Kentucky would almost certainly doom the project.

Yet in Southern Kentucky, red-and-blue signs proclaiming the "Future Route of I-66" dot the proposed corridor.

One of the two sections of I-66 currently under active consideration, a 33-mile segment from Pikeville to the West Virginia border, would roughly parallel a newly upgraded $400 million four-lane highway, U.S. 119, and would serve a relative handful of people in one of the most remote areas of the state.

The presence of the improved U.S. 119 has led some to question the need to spend $2 billion or more to build the section of I-66 just a few miles away, especially because most roads in the area of Pike County that would be served by I-66 generally are lightly traveled.

Pike County is in Rogers' district and also is the home of Paul Patton, Kentucky's governor from 1995-2003 and another prominent supporter of the highway.

"One of the fundamental problems with Appalachia is that the interstates avoided it," Patton said in a recent interview. "If you work in economic development, as I have, almost everybody wants to be in the proximity of an interstate. It's almost magical."

In Laurel and Pulaski counties, the 28-mile segment of I-66 would supersede a serviceable highway, Ky. 80, which consists of three and four lanes for all but a few miles between London and Somerset. Moreover, Ky. 80 would remain in use.

The two proposed segments of I-66, which are five counties and 120 miles apart, would be linked by existing roads. One of them, the Hal Rogers Parkway between London and Hazard, is largely two-lane and has several stoplights -- hardly the seamless, high-speed corridor once envisioned.

The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet has issued conflicting estimates for the cost of building just those two portions of I-66.

Pike County residents, for example, were told at a meeting last March that the cost of the segment from Pikeville to West Virginia would be $800 million. But a brochure distributed at the same meeting put the cost at "over one billion." And the cabinet's six-year road plan says the cost is likely "more than $2 billion."

After the preferred route for the proposed London-to-Somerset portion of I-66 was announced last August, the state said it would cost $331 million. But Transportation Cabinet officials said in subsequent interviews that the road likely would cost at least twice that amount, and perhaps as much as $1 billion. The six-year road plan puts the cost at $1.5 billion.

David Kratt, the Transportation Cabinet's coordinator for the I-66 project, said the higher estimates were "a way for the cabinet to demonstrate that the 'mega projects' are very expensive, and we wanted to encourage a dialogue with the legislature."

The cabinet's Web site for I-66 includes 25 "frequently asked questions" about the London-Somerset segment, along with answers to them. Not one mentions the cost of the project.

Asked where the money would come from to pay for I-66, Kratt said: "You've asked a very good question, and no one has a good answer for it."

During an I-66 public hearing last August, Laurel County resident Jane Sparkman stood outside the London Community Center wearing a hand-painted sandwich board asking, "Who Will Benefit?" The sign also contained Sparkman's answer: "Road-builders, land speculators and politicians," who were portrayed holding wads of cash or gold coins.

Sparkman, who is 58 and a retired pharmacist, said she was protesting because she considers I-66 a waste of money and a threat to the environment.

"We have a perfectly good road in place, and it's not busy," she said. "There's no need for a parallel road."

'LONG-TERM PROJECT'

Rogers, state officialsstress road's importance
Despite such sentiments, I-66 has generated little sustained criticism, except from environmentalists and a few national organizations. Sparkman thinks that's partly the result of apathy, both locally and in major metropolitan areas, because most people don't see themselves as directly affected.

In 2004 Friends of the Earth and Taxpayers for Common Sense designated I-66 as the fifth most wasteful and environmentally destructive highway project in America.

In a report titled "Road to Ruin," the groups concluded that claims of a jobs, industry and a tourism bonanza resulting from I-66 were based on "flawed premises and outdated economic models," and that the Transportation Cabinet had underestimated the project's costs and exaggerated its benefits.

"I-66 would impact undeveloped green space, scenic beauty, … local businesses, and the general quality of life in rural Southern Kentucky," the report concluded. "It is these qualities that make the region an attractive place to live, work, recreate, and visit, and underlie its greatest economic value as a tourist destination."

Tom FitzGerald, head of the Kentucky Resources Council and an I-66 opponent, said he thinks the money being spent on the I-66 project should instead be used for existing roads and bridges "in dire need of repair."

"To divert money from that to build a road that can't be justified is highly questionable," he said.

FitzGerald added that the project's continued existence "is closely tied to the seniority and status of the congressman from that area."

Lee Florea, a geologist and a former Pulaski County resident who now lives and works in Florida, said a growing number of citizens in the area agree.

Rogers has "been dead set on getting this highway through his part of Kentucky since 1994," Florea said. "It's been deemed infeasible in most of the rest of the country. Why it's feasible in Southern Kentucky kind of escapes me."

Rogers and Transportation Cabinet officials, however, continue to stress the highway's importance, and to express optimism about getting it built.

Rogers' congressional Web site proclaims that I-66 "will provide Kentuckians with a new east-west highway stretching from the coalfields of Eastern Kentucky to the cornfields of Western Kentucky."

Mike Hancock, the Transportation Cabinet's chief of staff, said officials "still believe that, in time, I-66 can be constructed, not only in Kentucky but also in Virginia and West Virginia, making a positive contribution to Appalachia."

Jack Fish, president of Kentuckians for Better Transportation, an advocacy group that supports I-66, said he believes the project will continue to be funded as long as Rogers is in Congress.

Rogers, however, was cautious when asked about the prospects for funding to get just the two segments of I-66 off the drawing board and under construction. He said he did not know when that might occur, or who would pay the bill.

"Well, that's a big question. It will be up to the Congress to decide that," Rogers said. "This is a long-term project … and I have no illusions that we can do this in a matter of months, or even years."

FUNDING OPTIONS

Demand for dollarssparks search for options
I-66's opponents hope that, as more time elapses with no road being built, the project will quietly fade.

"We are not flush with money for road projects," FitzGerald said.

But they also worry that at some point their concerns about the project will be trumped by the argument that too much has been invested not to proceed. The federal transportation bill for the current fiscal year, still before Congress, contains $2.5 million for additional I-66 planning.

"A million here, a million there, no one objects," said Deb Bledsoe, executive director of Appalachia-Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit resource center based in Rockcastle County.

But federal funding, historically the primary source for major road and bridge projects nationwide, is uncertain at best, especially for so-called "mega-projects" such as I-66 and the Louisville bridges.

"From every piece of information I get, there's no chance there's going to be additional federal funding for any of them," said U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, a Democrat whose 3rd District would include the bridges. " … We're going to have to find ways to finance them other than tax revenues."

It's unclear what other funding sources might be tapped.

Gov. Steve Beshear and legislative leaders have flatly ruled out a gas-tax increase. Beshear also said in a recent interview that he is "not a fan of" tolls, although he intends to explore various funding options for road projects, including public-private partnerships of the sort proposed earlier this year by state Senate President David Williams.

Williams, a Burkesville Republican, has pre-filed a bill for the 2008 session that would give local agencies the authority to issue bonds, levy tolls, lease roadways to private companies and consider other methods of raising money for expensive projects, such as the Louisville bridges or I-66.

The only economic analysis of I-66 in Kentucky concluded that revenue from tolls would not be enough to cover most of the construction and maintenance costs, and that building the road would require a "massive increase" in highway-related spending.

House Speaker Jody Richards, D-Bowling Green, said he hadn't considered the possibility of I-66 as a toll road and does not intend to propose it. Williams thinks tolls are an option at least for the Louisville bridges and for a proposed new interstate bridge at Cincinnati.

"If people are going to use those bridges to drive from Detroit to Biloxi, why should Kentuckians or Hoosiers bear the total cost?" Williams said.

Rogers declined to discuss specific funding options for I-66, saying, "That's for wiser heads than mine."

Complicating the possibility of major federal or state financial support for I-66 is the competition it would pose for the Louisville bridges.

Williams and Richards noted that the state's current Six-Year Highway Plan includes approximately $789 million for the Louisville bridges but no money for I-66 -- a clear indication that the bridges are a higher priority for the state.

The bridges project is "certainly the most prominent in our six-year highway plan and, by that measure, our top priority," Hancock, of the Transportation Cabinet, said.

"I wouldn't want to say to someone from southeast Kentucky that we don't value their accessibility as much as we value the accessibility of someone in Louisville or in Northern Kentucky," he said. "But in those locations, you have immediate needs that have to be addressed."

Reporter R.G. Dunlop can be reached at (502) 582-4227.