To citizens concerned about getting more highways:

1. Urban Congestion Relief--adding more lanes to I-35 within existing right-of-way; adding new bypass routes around cities; double-decking the highway in cities; developing Intelligent Transportation Systems; encouraging public transit.
   
   
2. Trade Focus--all of #1 plus a NAFTA Truckway (road designed for high truck traffic) on the southern 1/3 of the corridor (much of Texas).
   
   
3. Combination--all of #1 plus two additions:
   • acquiring more right-of-way to add more lanes to I-35, up to a total of 12, and
   • relieving truck traffic with enhanced rail service.
   Sample comments are below.

   As usual, the main focus of their solutions is "more roads." Public transit & rail freight, although mentioned, are not emphasized, and proven congestion-reduction strategies NOT requiring more roads were completely ignored.

   The study team will be accepting comments from the public until May 13, 1999. It's *VERY* important for folks to tell the study team what they think, so public concern will register on the study team's radar screen. This is one way we can make democracy work. Please comment, either on the official feedback forms, by phone, or by email.

   SAMPLE COMMENTS FOR PEOPLE SKEPTICAL OF THE "MORE ROADS" ANSWERS ARE INCLUDED BELOW. PLEASE USE THEM IF YOU WISH; THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT YOU RESPOND!

   Public comments will be incorporated into the study team's final report, scheduled to be done in June, 1999. You might also consider asking for ANOTHER public comment period afterwards; only then will the public have had the chance to review the study team's work in detail.

   The email address for comments is: I35Study@hntb.com

   The phone # is: 1-800-590-0066

   The postal address is:
   I-35 Trade Corridor Study
   P.O. Box 410482
   Kansas City, MO 64141-0482

   Thank you,
   Mike Opitz
   Sierra Club, Oklahoma Chapter

   Sample comments questioning the need for more roads:

   • more roads encourages more traffic, meaning we'll need even more roads later, encouraging even more traffic, etc. We should think long-term, breaking the cycle NOW by shifting resources to other transportation options.
     
     
   • using cars is fine, but government policies cause several unjustified distortions in our transportation markets that result in excessive automobile use and less efficient land use than is optimal for consumers and society. Studies like yours should consider correcting these distortions, rather than simply magnifying them.
     
     
   • focus more strongly on rail for long-distance freight and passenger travel
     
     
   • make all freight trucks pay for all the road damage they cause, reducing the unfair financial advantage they enjoy compared to rail
     
     
   • re-introduce TDM (Transportation Demand Management) strategies into the study, allowing congestion to be reduced WITHOUT more roads. Over 3 dozen TDM strategies are possible, including congestion pricing, ride-sharing incentives, shifting work schedules of commuters, & incentives for telecommuting.
     
     
   • diverting some freight traffic from roads to waterways seems to make sense for at least part of the I-35 Corridor, yet your study apparently ignored this option. Why?
     
     
   • in cities, focus more strongly on mass transit--the freedom NOT to drive is as important as the freedom to drive, especially since in 2025 our population will demographically be much older. Our transportation system should focus on the needs of PEOPLE, not cars; right now our society is too car-dependent.
     
     
   • your newsletter omitted important public safety information: how did the 3 strategies compare *to each other* in total annual accidents, injuries, and fatalities?
     
     
   • according to your study, in which I-35 cities will relief routes (i.e., bypasses) be needed? If a city rejects a bypass option, what are its other choices?
     
     
   • if freight trucks cause more air pollution per vehicle-mile than cars, charge them an "air pollution fee" unless they clean up their exhaust
     
     
   • regarding environmental impacts, your newsletter mentions only air quality. How did you address broader environmental issues, if at all? (spills of toxic or radioactive materials, erosion and pollution of drinking water from stormwater runoff, paved-over farmlands & natural areas)

   ---

   Posted 7/99

   Return to the Oklahoma Sierra Club Chapter’s Sprawl page.

   Return to the Oklahoma Sierra Club Chapter home page.