Rooftop boondoggle
By PETER CROWLEY, Enterprise Managing EditorIf you want to drive between the North Country's two biggest cities, Watertown at the far west and Plattsburgh at the far east, it's a toss-up on whether it's faster to take state Route 3 through the Adirondacks or U.S. Route 11 through the northern dairy-farm country.
Either way, you'll drive through some beautiful landscapes and some small towns that we consider wonderful. You'll pass some mom-and-pop-owned restaurants with delicious, home-cooked, cheap food, and you'll drive through downtown main streets lined with century-old buildings that have seen better days, sure, but still have that old upstate New York dignity clinging to them.
Also, either way, you won't encounter much traffic. If it's in the middle of a winter snowstorm and you get stuck, it's a legitimate concern that you may not encounter another vehicle for a while.
Even on the busiest weekend of the year, you probably won't find yourself thinking, "Boy, it's getting on about time that they widen this road," except maybe on a few tight turns in the bigger villages of Tupper Lake, Potsdam or Saranac Lake. And these are only an issue if you're driving a big rig.
Yet some in the North Country still are under the delusion that we need to put a full-on, controlled-access interstate highway where Route 11 is now - and at a time when our federal government is embarrassingly in debt.
I wonder how many of these same people gripe about high taxes and government spending - hypocrites, all.
The project formerly known as the "rooftop highway," which they're now calling I-98, would straighten out a few tight intersections and widen a highway that doesn't have the traffic to justify widening it. That's it.
It will not bring industry to places like Massena and Malone. Why would it? It wouldn't lower businesses' costs, making this a cheaper place to locate. Their trucks will still have to drive the same routes and spend the same amount on drivers and gas. And they'd still have to pay the same old high New York taxes.
It will not add to tourism, either. Tourists want destinations. Unless you're adding attractions, you won't draw tourists. Lake Placid has a huge amount of tourism, by North Country standards, and it's only accessible by three narrow, two-lane roads, two of them squeezing through tight mountain notches.
An interstate here wouldn't just be expensive and useless; it would be an ugly concrete monstrosity that would take the drivers we do have on the roads away from our local businesses. It would do much economic harm and no good. Small business is the North Country's main business.
The only reason this bad idea is still around is that federal politicians want to throw the North Country a bone and can't think of anything else. That's why the feds spent $75 million last year just to study the idea. The final cost, if this thing goes through, will be obscene.
It's humiliating to see local officials begging for such a huge and unhealthy slice of pork. It's embarrassing that a St. Armand town councilman proposed a resolution supporting this boondoggle Tuesday night. It's a good thing the rest of the board knew better. They should have resolved to oppose it, since it would route traffic away from Route 3 and the town's main hamlet of Bloomingdale.
Few catch phrases have been more abused than "If you build it, they will come," from W.P. Kinsella's book "Shoeless Joe (and, more famously, the movie "Field of Dreams"). Build what? People won't come for a road that replaces another road that was doing just fine.
How about this? "If you quit spending so much, get your financial house in order, reduce taxes, maintain your local quality of life and think about what else people want to come to, then maybe - just maybe - they will come."
|
stlawfishman
|
|
|---|---|
|
03-24-10 9:43 PM
|
re the so-called rooftop hiway-want to see a preview-drive down old rte 11 from watertown to syracuse-wow--better still take rte 9 North from saratoga north--wow-
|
|
BoutrosGali
|
|
|
03-16-10 10:08 PM
|
Why not attempt to make a toll road that would be less invasive without a ton of infrastructure? Make a number of limited exits and charge a rate to use it. It works in other states. Truckers traversing the road would need to pay and to use it and travelers would benefit by quicker travel. Tourists could get off at certain exits and use country roads, and thus reduce the touron traffic of the summertime.
|
|
YouKnowImRight
|
|
|
03-15-10 5:25 PM
|
Freedom-Wal-MArt= Good Idea. Rooftop Highway+ Bad idea.
|
|
FreedomFighter
|
|
|
03-12-10 10:30 PM
|
The Trucks will not Drive the same Routes that's the whole Point. The Routes will be much faster and Save time and money Maybe you've never heard the phrase Time Is Money. Transportation Time and Costs are exactly why GM and all the other industry closed Up. Business no longer maintains huge inventory they insist on High speed transportation to move supplies when needed where needed. Just admit the truth you want to keep the North Country in the 18th. Century. You Fought Wal Mart and your Fighting this because you want nothing to Change for any Reason
|
|
phahn50
|
|
|
03-12-10 8:55 PM
|
I thought the idea of the roof-top highway was to encourage Montreal-centered regional development (like around Boston or NYC). Including the north country and Vermont. Not that its a great idea, but its not necessarily a bridge to nowhere.
|
|
TruLiberShultz
|
|
|
03-12-10 8:26 PM
|
An astounding and encouraging rejection of government hand-outs by Peter seconded by some of the "forum". Look out for the Thought Police.
|
|
YouKnowImRight
|
|
|
03-12-10 5:57 PM
|
Uh Pete, it's a lot quicker to take Rt. 3. I don't mind taking Rt. 11 if I'm in no hurry. The Rooftop Highway is a stupid idea any way you look at it. And Jackkko, do something.
|
|
pcrowley
|
|
|
03-12-10 12:03 PM
|
FreedomFighter: Why would I be jealous? I'd love to see GM Powertrain return to Massena and see Alcoa ramp up to old levels. But this highway won't help that happen. "Why wouldn't it?" you asked. As I wrote in this piece, "It wouldn't lower businesses' costs, making this a cheaper place to locate. Their trucks will still have to drive the same routes and spend the same amount on drivers and gas." This would cost billions, and the increased taxes and debt would hurt the same large industrial employers I-98 is supposed to help. -Peter Crowley, managing editor
|
|
iman05
|
|
|
03-12-10 9:49 AM
|
As Peter points out, at what cost? Billions and billions is how much. That is OUR taxes!It wouldn't make sense to build something that would actually get less back, so the benefit would have to be in the tens of billions just to justify building! Tacking on billions more to our federal budget is not a growth policy.
|
|
FreedomFighter
|
|
|
03-11-10 10:02 PM
|
As usual the same old Line No Growth No Future No Hope. Nothing will ever happen to Grow Jobs or a sustainable future with out a modern Transportation system.. These are the Same People who Fought Wal Mart that would give Us 100% Employment. The North County Outside the Blue Line Is Dead and your happy to watch them die. There is No Express Mail Delivery Between Watertown and Plattsburg End of Story. It will bring industry to places like Massena and Malone. Why wouldn't it? You afraid and jealous that anyone outside the Blue Line would see any Progress or Growth.
|
|
TruLiberShultz
|
|
|
03-10-10 4:18 PM
|
Refreshing to hear a voice expressing something approaching a rational cost/benefit analysis in opposition to generations of reflexive government pork addiction - thanks.
|
|
pcrowley
|
|
|
03-10-10 11:46 AM
|
(That last comment was a response to jackkk.) grizzlyadam: It would be easier to justify taking local business away if the highway served some public good that overruled the down sides. I don't see that here. -Peter Crowley, managing editor
|
|
pcrowley
|
|
|
03-10-10 11:42 AM
|
This is not a new stance. Our Aug. 6, 2009 editorial said the same thing. (This comments field doesn't accept links, so you'll have to look for it on this Web site.) -Peter Crowley
|
|
grizzlyadam
|
|
|
03-10-10 11:31 AM
|
You seem to be against it because it will reroute traffic from some villages and because of its cost. I agree that it will cost too much to do in this economy. I disagree that it shouldn't be done because of the impact to villages. We wouldn't have any interstate highways in this country if we would have been afraid of rerouting traffic around small villages.
|
|
phahn50
|
|
|
03-10-10 11:08 AM
|
It would help though to build by-passes around some (or all) of the villages on rt 11. (might not help traffic-dependent small businesses though)
|
|
jackkk
|
|
|
03-10-10 10:27 AM
|
Looks like Petey has had a Conservative epiphany, while away in Vancouver.
|