The Indy Star mainly has an article entitled Daniels: Toll road would offer vitality beyond Indy. The article has to do with Daniels’ response to the criticism of former Indianapolis mayor William Hudnut and developers and land-use experts who think that the Daniels’ Toll Road might “perpetuate the migration by businesses and residents out of the city to the suburbs and beyond.” Daniels responds that this smacks of provincialism and that we can’t be concerned about the welfare of Indianapolis above all else. “Even so, Daniels could not point to any studies or data showing the potential economic benefits of the road, or how it might reduce or influence traffic congestion.”
Mainly, however, I wanted to cite the article in order to puzzle over this sentence: The 75-mile project would run in a clockwise arc from Pendleton to Indianapolis International Airport. Can a highway’s arc really be said to run clockwise or counter-clockwise? Assuming, of course, that traffic will be permitted to run in both directions. Traffic will also flow in a counter-clockwise arc from the airport to Pendleton I presume.
Doug, they’re explaining that it will be an arc, not a circle like I-465. Since it isn’t a complete loop, they’re indicating how you can mentally draw the road clockwise (around the south-east corner) rather than counter-clockwise (around the north-west corner). Yes, it will go 2/3 the way around Indy, but not all the way around. Argh.
I’m really upset about this from the standpoint that I feel a mass-transit line would be a much better addition to Indy instead of this. While I’m not the “PEAK OIL” doomsayer, I think it it much more wise to invest in public mass-transit than more roads. More roads just mean more traffic and more smog. No thanks.
O.k. Your explanation maks sense, and I can’t beat on this too hard, since I can’t claim to be perfectly articulate 100% of the time. But, it seems to me a perfectly good description would’ve been “an arc from Pendleton through [pick a southern point] to the airport.” That would’ve described the route without potentially creating the impression that the road might be one-way.
This road seems like a solution in search of a problem. Congestion can be tough on the north and northeast sides of town during rush hour, but it’s simply not that bad in the grand scheme of things, and is at very limited times of day. I question whether trucking companies will choose to pay a toll to save just a couple of minutes when the drive time is just fine on 465 for about 20 hours a day. What will draw traffic to the road is development along the road, destinations that are about 25-30 miles from the center of a city that isn’t all that large. I agree that development in the suburban counties can be beneficial to the city, but is there really a problem in Indiana regarding the availability of cheap land in proximity to interstates? I can’t imagine that there is any such problem. While such development isn’t a zero sum game, it is going to have some unintended consequences. Indy has developed areas (Eastgate, industrial areas on the south, west, and east sides) that are very close to multiple interstates and would be prime candidates for redevelopment. I don’t think it’s provincial to think that redeveloping blighted areas of the city is better for the whole nine-county area than building a brand new road 20 miles beyond 465 that probably isn’t even wanted by most of the landowners who will be displaced by it. If some parcel in eastern Hancock County isn’t developed, it remains unspoiled farmland. If some blighted area in Indy isn’t redeveloped, it remains blighted.
I should note that I say that as someone who buys into the economic development rationale of the I-69 extension. A community like Washington, Indiana can’t really dream of a big project like the Greensburg Honda plant because there just isn’t a good highway anywhere nearby. But Mitch isn’t really advocating breaking any new ground with the ICC. If there were development on the outer fringes of Indianapolis near now existing interstates, that would benefit potential workers in the surrounding counties.
I should disclose my biases. I live in Indianapolis, within the old (i.e., IPS) city limits, so I’m not much of a fan of suburban sprawl in the first place. Still, am I wacky for thinking that a vibrant central city is better for the whole area than neverending concentric circles of development? I don’t think this project can be understood as anything other than a way to pay for something the state currently cannot afford.
Why not buy into the “peak oil” concept? We aren’t burying any more dinosaurs, so pretty much all the oil that’s in the ground is all there’s going to be. It took millions of years to make, and has taken only about a hundred years to burn up about half of it. The production vs. discovery graphs do indicate that worldwide production is nearing a peak, which is predicted to be followed by a slow decline. There’s enough oil to continue to drive for several years. But the oil we’re discovering now is hard to get to, and therefore more expensive to produce. The rising cost of oil should at some point start to limit the amount people drive, and decrease the total lanes of traffic needed. We’re not there yet. But some effort should be made to figure out how close we are to that point before we make too much effort to give everyone their own lane to everywhere.
There are large chunks of Indianapolis in the old city limits many folks don’t want to live in (near Eastgate would be on my list, as would near Lafayette Scare Mall). Those areas are re-developing on their own as immigrants move into the area, IMO. The city of Indianapolis, with the looming public pension disaster, won’t have any money to re-develop those areas.
As far as mass transit, I’d love to see it but I’m not sure Indianapolis has the density as far as population that would use it outside of the I-69 corridor.
So is the best solution to raise taxes in order to pay for the I-69 extension, which (around here at least) seems to be agreed upon as needed? Are taxes more suitable than a new toll road to pay for I-69?
T,
My point is, I don’t think PEAK OIL is here, though I wish it were. I buy into the idea, but I think it is farther away.
We will run out of oil at some point. However, the oil companies will raze Giza if it means getting a few more months of oil, and almost every government will give up whatever treasure they have to keep their “fix”. We have a lot of resources to sell before we run out.
What I meant is that I don’t think we’ll see the sudden shock in the next 30 years that will cause cars to be removed from the road. Some have pointed out that major roads will be useless in 30 years, and I just don’t see it that way…yet. :)
I’m not sure that the “clockwise” sentence is any different from saying that I-65 runs north from Indy to Chicago – even though it also runs south from Chicago to Indy.
Hudnut’s criticism: Daniel’s can’t win on this issue. He’s either too biased towards Indy, or too biased against it.
This is not the same as the wasteful I-69 proposal.
The environmental concerns are negligible, the cost will be recouped through tolls rather than taxes (or the road to be sold for a few billion dollars), and the road will accommodate urban sprawl, not cause it.
Other than a prospective eminent domain issue, I don’t see the problem. Build the road.
Prominent anarcho-capitalist Murray N. Rothbard would have argued that in fact all roads should belong to private entities.
I think he would be less than happy about such a project having to go through government bureaucrats (let alone be proposed and driven by them), but as long as the resource ends up in private hands, I guess the reasoning is, “it’s all good”.
(BTW, Doug, I’m digging the new preview feature — it even works in real-time! That’s pretty damn cool. Thanks!)
I thought the ‘clockwise’ reference was just to open up yet another discussion thread to a Daylight Savings Time reference…
Don’t tempt me.