By James L. McDowell

Special to the Tribune-Star

Dr. James L. McDowell is a professor of political science at Indiana State University

The recent round of public hearings by INDOT on the location of the "preferred alternative" for the extension of Interstate 69 provides the backdrop for a contemporary Tale of Two Cities -- or more precisely a Tale of Two Sets of Cities.

First, there is perhaps the final chapter in the long, long saga of the "missing link" in the state's highway system. The creation of an Indianapolis to Evansville route may be the best of times for the Pocket City community and finally silence the complaints of residents from the Vanderburgh County area about the difficulties of reaching their own state capital.

Then there is the continuing story of Terre Haute and Bloomington, for which INDOT's location decision may be the worst of times for both communities: Terre Haute/Vigo County apparently will not get a highway many residents desperately want, and Bloomington/Monroe County possibly will get a roadway many inhabitants vociferously oppose. This controversy over where, as well as whether, this highway should be constructed provides a fascinating opportunity to examine this part of the public policy process. But first, some background is necessary to place this matter in perspective.

Highway politics has been a major issue since the early 20th century, but roads were primarily a state concern. Although the national government passed a Federal Aid Road Act in 1916, it did not approach road-building programs as creating a comprehensive transportation system but as finding a way out of economic crises. "Washington" contributed little to the cost of state or local road construction until the 1930s and then only as part of a package aimed at relieving unemployment. President Roosevelt did recommend in 1939 that Congress consider creating a system of "direct inter-regional highways," but the time was not ripe for a massive highway program with the country likely to enter the war in Europe.

With the war winding down in 1944, however, the president was concerned that returning soldiers might have trouble finding work in the post-war period. He continued to promote a network of inter-regional highways as a public works measure to avert another economic collapse. Congress responded by passing the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1944. This law established an interstate highway program but did not commit the national government to construct these roads or provide any additional funding for states to develop their own superhighways.

President Eisenhower in 1954 also sought road building programs to halt a post-Korean War economic downturn, but Congress rejected his proposals. However, the president was successful in 1956 in persuading lawmakers to establish a "National System of Interstate and Defense Highways" that would link nearly every city with a population of 50,000 or more. This measure passed because its vast economic benefits promised to give something to almost every congressional district in an election year.

Moreover, the president was able to persuade Congress that this highway system provided "avenues of escape" from major cities threatened by aerial attack, an important consideration in the Cold War Era. The Interstate Highway Act of 1956 produced the first national road program not devised with economic relief as its major goal, although it was the largest peacetime construction project undertaken by the United States or any other country. The plan called for completion of a 42,500-mile highway network by 1975. The "Interstate era" officially ended in 1996 with the completion of a 45,744-mile system of uniformly designed, limited-access, four-lane divided roadways.

But back to the 1944 law that launched the interstate highway concept but did not provide a single mile of paved road. This law did require state highway departments to propose routes for eventual inclusion in an interstate system. Accordingly, Indiana's highway agency proposed as early as 1947 a major north-south highway. But the state failed to obtain national approval for this proposal (or six succeeding plans advanced through 1990) because a direct highway route between Indianapolis and Evansville was not deemed economically feasible due to "the lack of continuing Interstate linkage" south of Evansville. Then came adoption of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1992 which fostered interest in creating an international trade route linking Canada and Mexico.

Already on the drawing board, in a 1991 transportation law, were two proposed additions to the Interstate system: Corridor 18, an extension of Interstate 69 from Indianapolis to Evansville, then through Kentucky to Memphis; and Corridor 20, a Texas superhighway from Texarkana through Houston to the vicinity of Laredo. Following the election of President Clinton from Arkansas, Congress linked the two separate proposals in 1993 by extending Corridor 18 across Arkansas and Louisiana to link Memphis with Corridor 20 in Texas.

The law was not only practical but also was politically feasible in that it included the home states of the president and of U.S. Sen. Bennett Johnson of Louisiana, member of the Senate appropriations committee.

The Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, however, altered the proposed highway in two ways. First, new House majority whip Tom DeLay of Houston in 1995 managed to add two segments south of Houston to the original route extending to Laredo. Next, the then-Senate majority leader Trent Lott of Mississippi succeeded in changing the route south of Memphis to include more of his home state and eliminate most of the mileage originally planned for Arkansas. With these revisions, Corridor 18 was formally adopted in the Transportation and Equity Act for the 21st Century in 1998, creating in effect the "NAFTA Highway."

But the controversy over the siting of the Indiana portion of the proposed international trade route also illustrates the contemporary highway construction process. Highways are not built as a continuous ribbon of pavement from one point to another but are fashioned by connecting "segments of independent utility" -- stand-alone sections that can be utilized as independent roadways until combined into an overall highway system. The segment connecting Indianapolis with Evansville is but one of 93 stand-alone sections, although it constitutes about 10 percent of the project's total length of some 1,400 miles.

Further, highways are no longer constructed as they were before adoption of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Prior to that time, in the words of a former INDOT commissioner, "Interstate construction meant a group of engineers gathered in a room, planned the most direct route, and plowed through whatever was in the new highway's path."

Initially, however, INDOT appeared to prefer a variation of this traditional approach. Apparently assuming that any Indianapolis to Evansville highway would incorporate the existing four-lane Indiana 37 from Indianapolis to Bloomington, the state highway agency in 1996 assessed only alternatives for a direct-as-possible, interstate-type facility connecting Evansville and Bloomington. This study satisfied many advocates of a direct route between Indianapolis and Evansville, but it also produced extensive public debate that led INDOT to back off from this plan in 1998.

Ostensibly reconsidering its options, INDOT conducted extensive public hearings and produced 14 "potentially reasonable alternatives" by last December. In recent weeks, of course, the state transportation agency eliminated most of these alternatives. INDOT appears set on an Evansville-to-Indianapolis route that includes Bloomington and Monroe County, a route that is considerably more expensive to construct than one through Terre Haute and Vigo County but reduces travel time by about 15 minutes.

The probability that the I-69 extension will pass much closer to Bloomington than Terre Haute is almost as certain as the outcome of more than 90 percent of the upcoming congressional races. However, what seems to be INDOT's "preferred corridor" is not necessarily (pardon the pun) set in concrete. Public opinion as voiced in last week's public hearings may not sway highway planners, but other factors may yet influence the final location of I-69 in southwestern Indiana.

Of major interest and possible impact is the upcoming election of two Monroe County Council positions. The leading candidates, if successful, would give no-growth adherents a council majority that opposes any financial support of continued development west of Bloomington. Other issues remain unresolved.

Siting of the highway in the Evansville-Henderson, Ky., metropolitan area is still a concern. Present plans call for the road to follow I-164 around Evansville on that city's east and south sides, but others advocate a west side highway that would benefit Posey County and the University of Southern Indiana.

An even greater problem, and one that has yet to be formally studied, is determining the segment that will connect existing I-69 on the northeast side of Indianapolis with whatever point on the southwest side that the new section joins I-465. Only one thing is certain: Evansville will eventually get a faster route to Indianapolis -- perhaps by the year 2020.

But proponents of the "non-preferred" I-70/U.S.41 alternative have to wonder this: After waiting at least since 1947, some 55 years, does a 15-minute difference in travel time matter that much?

Copyright 2002 Tribune Star