Why do politicians support bad projects?

 Why do politicians support bad projects?

A conversation with Chat GPT

Michael Waldon, July 19, 2025

PROMPT: There are proposed new government projects in the US such as new urban interstate highways that would run through cities. Speculate on why some local politicians support bloated government projects in their communities that would do much more harm than good in their voters and communities? 

REPLY: This is a thoughtful and important question, and one that has surfaced repeatedly throughout U.S. history in debates over infrastructure, urban renewal, and land use. While every case is different, there are several recurring political, economic, and social reasons why some local politicians support large, potentially harmful government projects like new urban interstate highways. Here’s a breakdown of possible motivations and dynamics at play:

---

1. Economic Promises and Political Incentives

Jobs and investment claims: Big infrastructure projects often come with promises of economic development, job creation, and increased tax revenues. Politicians may support them to appear pro-growth, even if the long-term community impact is negative.

Short-term political gain: Politicians may support large projects to secure campaign donations, curry favor with state/federal agencies, or create ribbon-cutting moments they can point to in future campaigns, regardless of the broader consequences.

---

2. Influence of Powerful Interests

Construction and engineering lobbies: The road-building and engineering sectors have strong lobbies. Contractors, developers, and consultants benefit from large projects and may contribute to politicians’ campaigns or shape public messaging around the project.

Real estate speculation: In some cases, new infrastructure raises land values in areas targeted for redevelopment, creating profits for developers and landowners who may have relationships with local officials.

---

3. Misaligned Planning Priorities

Car-centric planning ideology: Some decision-makers still operate from outdated mid-20th-century urban planning ideals that prioritize car travel and suburban commuting over walkability, public transit, and livability.

Disconnect from affected communities: Local leaders may represent broader constituencies or business districts and ignore the needs and voices of those most affected—often low-income or minority communities who bear the brunt of displacement and pollution.

---

4. Federal Funding Dynamics

Use-it-or-lose-it funding: Federal transportation funds are often earmarked for highways and come with time limits. Local leaders may push to capture these funds, fearing that rejecting them would mean losing money to other regions or states.

Top-down project imposition: In many cases, projects originate at the state or federal level and are not fully shaped or controlled by local governments. Local politicians may feel pressured to “go along” or risk losing influence.

---

5. Lack of Community Power and Transparency

Limited civic engagement: If decision-making processes are opaque or if affected communities lack political power, harmful projects can advance with little resistance until it's too late.

Manipulated environmental review: Agencies and consultants may downplay environmental or social harms in official documents, skewing public understanding and weakening opposition.

---

Historical Parallels

We’ve seen this pattern before—most infamously with the mid-20th-century U.S. interstate highway system, which destroyed many inner-city neighborhoods (especially Black and immigrant communities) under the banner of progress. Similar critiques have emerged around recent projects like the I-49 connector in Louisiana or various highway expansions in Texas and California.

---

Conclusion

While some local politicians genuinely believe they are doing what’s best, others may be driven by distorted incentives, pressure from powerful interests, or outdated ideas of what makes a city thrive. The harm done—displacement, increased pollution, neighborhood destruction—often isn’t felt until after decisions are locked in. That’s why public engagement, transparency, and community-centered planning are essential in countering harmful projects and shaping more equitable alternatives.

Let me know if you'd like examples of current projects fitting this pattern or ways communities have successfully resisted them.

PROMPT: Please provide a map and/or visual showing where these types of projects and resistances are happening across the country.

REPLY: Here’s a map of the United States highlighting major interstate routes and urban freeway corridors—many of which have been either the focus of recent large-scale megaprojects or historic community resistance efforts (Bloomberg.com).

---

🗺️ Key Cities & Highway Projects Facing Resistance

Detroit, Michigan (I‑375)

Detroit is advancing a plan to remove the downtown I‑375 spur and replace it with a surface boulevard and open space. The project, estimated at $300 million, is explicitly framed as a way to reconnect neighborhoods and address its historically inequitable impact (Newsweek).

Seattle, Washington (SR‑99 / State Route 99 through South Park)

Community coalitions in Seattle’s South Park neighborhood are pushing to transform the aging, elevated SR‑99 into an equitable development corridor. A recent USDOT “Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program” grant ($1.6 million) supports community-based design and potentially full removal of the highway segment (CNU).

Rochester, New York (Inner Loop East)

Rochester successfully removed its eastern Inner Loop highway in 2017, replacing it with boulevards and mixed-use development, reconnecting neighborhoods and revitalizing downtown space (Mobilify). The city is now considering removing additional sections of the loop.

Syracuse, New York (I‑81 Viaduct)

Instead of rebuilding the aging elevated I‑81 through a primarily Black neighborhood, planners are pursuing the Community Grid Alternative, which will dismantle the viaduct entirely and restore the street grid and neighborhood connectivity (Mobilify).

New Orleans, Louisiana (Claiborne Expressway, I‑10 / I‑610)

The Claiborne Expressway, built in the 1960s, damaged New Orleans’ Tremé neighborhood. In recent years, advocates have campaigned for its removal and neighborhood restoration. Although no official removal plan exists yet, the issue is central to broader “Reconnecting Communities” efforts (WIRED).

Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Park East Freeway)

One of the earliest freeway removal success stories occurred when Milwaukee demolished its Park East Freeway in 2003. The reclaimed land spurred housing development and public space, inspiring other U.S. cities to consider similar moves (Financial Times).

---

🔍 Other Cities Exploring Removals or Studying Alternatives

• Baltimore, MD: US 40 (“Highway to Nowhere”) is being studied for potential removal, retrofit, or transformation as part of broader connectivity and community restoration efforts (usa.streetsblog.org).
  
  

• Oakland, CA: I-980 removal is under study with community-led planning from grant funding programs (usa.streetsblog.org).
  
  

• Albany, NY: Interstate 787 is being evaluated for removal or redesign via feasibility studies supported by USDOT (usa.streetsblog.org).
  
  

• Tulsa, OK: Officials are exploring removal of I-244, constructed over the historic Black Wall Street neighborhood, with Reconnecting Communities funding (usa.streetsblog.org).
  
  

---

📋 Summary Table

City / Highway	Status / Resistance	Approach & Vision
Detroit (I‑375)	Planning removal underway	Rebuild as boulevard to reconnect city
Seattle (SR‑99)	Community-led visioning with study funding	Flooding public space, equitable housing
Rochester (Inner Loop)	Completed eastern section removal	At-grade road, development & transit links
Syracuse (I‑81)	Planning Community Grid Alternative to replace elevated viaduct	Reconnecting street grid, plazas & retail
New Orleans (Claiborne)	Advocacy for removal continues	Undo neighborhood divisions of past
Milwaukee (Park East)	Removal completed in 2003	Now public open space and development
Baltimore (US 40)	Study for potential removal underway	Retrofit or boulevard conversion
Oakland (I‑980)	Feasibility studies funded	Community-driven alternatives
Albany (I‑787)	Evaluating removal feasibility	Frees waterfront, allows redevelopment
Tulsa (I‑244)	Studying removal impact on historic communities	Reconnect Black Wall Street corridor

---

These cases show a growing national movement—often part of USDOT’s Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program—to challenge the legacy of mid‑century highway projects. The strategy combines grassroots activism, equity‑focused planning, legal and environmental frameworks, and alternatives that prioritize people over vehicles (Wikipedia, Bloomberg.com, Esri, CNU, prrac.org, Mobilify, Wikibooks, WIRED, usa.streetsblog.org, expressnews.com).

Let me know if you'd like an interactive view or more details on a specific project!

Comment: The Lafayette Connector project has failed to meet federal requirements for public involvement and environmental justice

 

From: Mike Waldon

Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 3:56 PM

To: comment@lafayetteconnector.com Cc: Josh Guillory, Charles Bolinger, Shawn Wilson, Monique Boulet, Tim Nickel, Col. Greg Ellison, Andy Naquin, Glenn Lazard, Liz Hebert, Nanette Cook, Patrick Lewis, Abraham Rubin Jr., Bryan Tabor, John J. Guilbeau, Joshua Carlson, Kevin Naquin Subject: Comment for November 4, 2021 event transcript - Failure to address contamination and environmental justice This is my public comment following the event that was called a "public meeting" held on November 4, 2021. I ask that my comment be included in its entirety in the public meeting transcript and the record of Lafayette I-49 Connector project comments. It is misleading for the meeting transcript to call this a public meeting.  As with your previous meetings, the public was given no opportunity to openly provide comments or feedback. Simply providing an email address and comment cards is not adequate. This event would more accurately be called a poster session.  This and other meetings held by the Lafayette Connector project fails to meet state open meeting law requirements (see my comment submitted October 19, 2017), and federal requirements for public involvement (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/public_involvement/orders/#a9).In the future, I urge the Lafayette Connector management team to follow not only the statutory and regulatory requirements for public involvement, but to also sincerely follow the spirit of open involvement on which these requirements were based. This proposed state/federal urban interstate project completely ignores the issues of social justice, environmental justice, risk of severe health impacts on the predominantly disadvantaged community, and damage to property caused by spreading of toxic contaminants. This is in clear violation of federal requirements for public involvement. This project is in violation of Executive Order 12898, and the federal FHWA's published public involvement requirement to "assure that possible adverse economic, social, and environmental effects relating to any proposed project on any Federal-aid system have been fully considered." Specifically, a large part of the proposed corridor of this project is heavily contaminated or likely to have contamination of soil and groundwater. This fact has been established in past court proceedings. However, the full spatial extent of contamination has never been publicly disclosed, and is likely unknown. Data and reports in possession of the Louisiana DOTD have been declared confidential by DOTD leaving the public ignorant of potential health risks that DOTD already knows about, or should know about after more than 30 years of floundering through design after design of this anachronistic project while avoiding knowledge of the risk and cost.  Long ago when I was studying to be an environmental engineer, I recall learning that the first thing to do when considering working with a contaminated site is to determine the spatial extent of the contamination. After decades, the Connector project planners either have not made the determination of spatial toxic extent in the project corridor, or are not disclosing it to the at-risk public. In either case, this failure clearly violates federal policy including environmental justice requirements We, the public, do have enough information about toxic contamination in the project corridor to know that it is an extremely serious risk. Indeed, neighbors of the railyard have sued seeking cleanup. We know that operating construction machinery over land contaminated with asbestos, arsenic, and lead risks spreading toxic dust through neighboring homes and businesses. If you want to give us poster sessions on your plans, show us how you will work in this toxic environment without further exposing us to toxic and carcinogenic chemicals through air, surface water, groundwater, and drinking water. Likely, for over a century, contaminants have been eroded and followed drainage along Evangeline Throughway contaminating much of the surface soil in the corridor. Other contaminants have surely moved through the surficial aquifer under surrounding homes and businesses. It is known that the contaminants from the railyard migrated through groundwater off-site because Lafayette city/parish workers found and reported visible contamination off site near the railyard.  We do not know the extent of migration of the contaminants from the contaminated railyard and other contaminated sites along the proposed route. However, we do know that in Houston a similar railyard has had significant off-property migration. Further, the State of Texas has confirmed that this contamination is coincident with cancer clusters in neighboring communities.  The impact of the Lafayette Connector project on air and water toxic migration is vitally important to our community. The impact of toxic migration on design and construction of the Connector is vitally important to taxpayers who are paying for this project. A cleanup plan must be proposed for this project and must be disclosed to the at-risk public for public review and comment. This is not only a regulatory requirement, it is a moral and ethical requirement for those promoting this project.  Finally, I address the engineers working on this project. How can you propose a project while remaining willfully ignorant of environmental consequences of your proposed actions on the surrounding community and construction workers? Every engineer  is ethically required to give protection of human life and property the highest priority. Doesn't the sequencing and planning of the I-49 Lafayette Connector project to-date breach your professional engineering ethical boundaries? I am submitting these comments via email to comment@lafayetteconnector.com. I am also copying some interested members of the community, members of the I-49 Connector Executive Committee, and our City and Parish Council members. I will also send these comments in a separate message to US Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg. Thank you for considering my comments. Michael G. Waldon, Ph.D. 110 Seville Blvd  Lafayette, LA 70503  337-852-3668, email: mike@mwaldon.com November 15, 2021

Notes from the Lafayette Connector Neighborhood Meeting April 21, 2021

 Rosa Parks Transportation Center, 4:30 pm, April 21, 2021

Meeting Notes 

In attendance there were 3 other citizens present in the meeting room (4 total including myself). Other citizens may have attended online but if they did they never commented or questioned. That makes me think that the online Zoom participants were all government employees  or others who were just observing.

Alternative pilings*

As in prior meetings, the meeting was organized around a set of questions about the project design. We were offered 4 different piling designs (see figure), one with art. We were asked which piling design we preferred. Then different girder designs were offered, and we were asked to choose from the pictures. I commented that I prefer as few pilings as possible, that pilings should not go deep enough to get past the clay layer, and I suggested earthen berms instead of piers under the bridge where there is contamination. I and another participant also noted that picking a selected pier or girder does not mean we approve of the project.

Another neighborhood concern is toxic construction dust and runoff. I commented that the preferred design should disturb the contaminated soil as little as possible. Much of the soil in the right-of-way is contaminated with arsenic, lead, asbestos, and other toxics. I believe that decades ago the railyard soil was perhaps covered with a thin layer of cleaner soil as remediation. Any digging or use of heavy machinery may therefore require workers to wear protective masks and clothing (moon suits), and the site will need to have a dust and runoff control plan. It may also need continuous dust monitoring at the fence line testing for the known toxic contaminants released from the disturbed soil. 

One question was whether we prefer a roadway elevation that allows 17 feet of clearance, or 22 feet of clearance. This led to questions about how this decision affects the noise level and area of noise impact. Noise was a big concern. We asked “What is the impact of roadway height on noise? We were told that we will not know how much noise to expect or how the design impacts noise until after the design is selected. Then they will model the noise levels from the selected design. We pointed out that the height of the elevated roadway may impact the noise level. 

I also commented on train noise. With the planned elevated roadway next to the railway, the project is likely to focus noise from trains and train whistle blasts into the surrounding community. With only my intuition to guide me, I am guessing the train whistle could actually cause hearing damage if it blasts next to people standing under the highway. I am also guessing the project would mean that the train whistle will be a lot louder in people’s homes if the Connector is ever constructed.

It seems clear that for those who will be living in the vicinity of the highway, noise and contamination, and health risks are very high priority concerns. However, as I understand from this meeting, DOTD will only publicly consider and evaluate these priority issues after the final design is selected and approved. 

Concerning noise barriers, we learned tonight that a new policy concerning storm evacuation routes allows sound walls on the roadway structure to be 14 feet high rather than the previous maximum of 10 feet. That is good news, but it does not mean DOTD will necessarily approve building sound walls or how high they will build them.

On the topic of connectivity, we learned that there is a Complete Streets policy. I had not heard of that before. It sounds like a very good thing. However, it also sounds like the policy is more of a vision statement and not strictly a requirement.

We were asked about alternative designs for gateway markers at one or both ends of the project. We were shown alternative pictures of lighted ornamental metal structures that would communicate some abstract message about our city. 

There seemed to be little interest in gateway ornaments, but this question did lead us into talking about the loss of our Lafayette visitor center. It seems reasonable that the new visitor information center should be located at one of the gateways. I commented that my understanding is that replacement of the visitor center is a local expense that must somehow come from local sources rather than federal or state highway funds.

The final question was what use do we prefer for the space under the elevated roadway. We were shown pictures of parks and playgrounds. Another participant immediately pointed out that this question amounts to pure propaganda for the project because none of these uses would be funded by DOTD. We were then told that indeed, DOTD will not build a park or even a single basketball goal. I believe they said that this question is simply aspirational. 

It was also pointed out by another citizen that much of the land under the bridge is classed by DEQ as being only for industrial use. I pointed out that DOTD could choose to clean up the site to residential standards, and that railyards in other places have been cleaned up to that level. However, DOTD plans to do only the minimal clean up required to complete the project. 

We were also told that DOTD does not intend to buy or take the entire railyard site, and any part outside the right-of-way will receive no remediation by DOTD. 

The meeting ended at about 6:00 pm. This meeting was for neighborhood input. I attended because my church is in the neighborhood, and I tried to limit comments to neighborhood issues. We were assured that there are upcoming meetings that will include the entire community and provide more details on the new design proposals.

Michael Waldon, PhD

*The figure is copied from the LCAG meeting Sept. 9, 2020. It is similar to the one shown during this meeting.

This post was updated to correct the date of the meeting. Sorry!. --mike

Meetings Announced by DOTD Will Again Suggest Design Revisions

For over two decades LaDOTD has been revising designs for their "I-49 Connector" in Lafayette. Each new design that has been presented has fallen to design flaws, impracticality, legal challenge, and/or extreme public opposition.  Once again, the LaDOTD Lafayette I-49 Connector is returning to make renewed plans for building their urban interstate through the heart of Lafayette. Two online meetings of the LCAG (I believe this is the Lafayette Connector Advisory Group) are planned:

• Tuesday, July 28, 2020, 4:00 pm - 6:00 pm: An Introduction to Bridge Design and Construction. Focus will be on the Mainline Structural Viaduct Type Alternatives, the Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation Process conducted to date, and other opportunities to improve structural components with the CSS (Context Sensitive Solutions) process. 
• Thursday, July 30, 2020, 4:00 pm - 6:00 pm: Working Session utilizing breakout Focus Groups and a summary round table to further discuss structural concepts and alternatives introduced in the Tuesday LCAG Meeting. The breakout Focus Groups will discuss the Mainline Structural Viaduct Types and their detailed characteristics including such things as scale, constructibility, cost, and long-term operations and maintenance; and other CSS Structural Considerations such as abutment walls, piers, retaining walls, and railings.These focus groups will report back the results of their discussion, evaluation,and preferences.  Consensus will be developed on LCAG conclusions/preferences for report out to the Partner Agency and Executive Committee, at future meetings.

The Louisiana Open Meeting Law requires that the public be given a reasonable opportunity to speak at advisory committee meetings. However, as with past LaDOTD sponsored I-49 Connector committee meetings, no public input will be allowed. The I-49 Connector website states:

This is a committee working meeting, but if members of the public would like to attend in a listen-only manner, please email info@lafayetteconnector.com to request the Online Meeting access information.

Although I will have no opportunity to comment, I do plan to view the meeting. As described above, I have emailed my request for this meeting information, and I urge all interested citizens to also make this request and observe the meeting.

CSS Map I-49 Lafayette Connector