One of the proposals under consideration by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) for its I-30 Crossing project is the elimination of the I-30 entrance and exit at Cantrell Road. In a guest column published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Retain the Cantrell Road/I-30 interchange, July 17) we explained why this is a terrible idea.
One reason we submitted our piece to the Democrat-Gazette is that the editorial writers for this paper had strenuously argued for the same position nine months earlier (Hard to believe: Block I-30 from LaHarpe?, Nov. 3, 2015). We were thus quite surprised when the next editorial changed its stance on this subject (The 10-letter word: It can be used in mixed company, Sept. 4). This striking and unjustified reversal demands a response.
Under the AHTD's "split diamond interchange option," access to and from I-30 would be moved from Cantrell south to Fourth Street, Capitol Avenue, and Sixth Street. This would increase the number of stoplights between Cantrell and I-30 from one to between four and six (or possibly more). This violates one of the most fundamental principles of urban planning: The transition between major arteries in a metropolitan area should be as seamless as possible. Failing to comply with this standard creates countless problems for urban communities. And as we explained in our July column, the split diamond proposal is no exception.
The split diamond will lengthen the commute between Cantrell and I-30. This will waste critical amounts of time for numerous Arkansans each day and increase both gasoline usage and pollution. The longer commute will also damage businesses throughout Pulaski County because people will travel less between neighborhoods that are best accessed via the Cantrell/I-30 transition. The drop in sales will in turn lead to important losses in tax revenue and jobs.
In addition, the increased traffic in downtown residential communities will stunt growth in those areas. Finally, the two arguments pressed by proponents of the split diamond--increased development in the River Market and safety--are meritless. Indeed, the split diamond will very likely undercut the River Market district and critically decrease safety for downtown commuters and pedestrians.
The Democrat-Gazette editorialized on this issue in November 2015, criticizing an earlier I-30 Crossing proposal that also would have added multiple stoplights to the transition between Cantrell and I-30. The paper made some of the same arguments that we pressed, highlighting the lost travel time caused by additional stoplights and the decrease in safety. In fact, the editorial writer observed that the proposal would "create a traffic nightmare downtown."
It is entirely logical that the editorial was titled "Hard to believe." It is hard to believe that anyone thinks eliminating the smooth transition between two major arteries in central Arkansas is a good idea. As the Democrat-Gazette rightly concluded, dramatically increasing the number of stoplights between Cantrell and I-30 "might solve one or two problems. But create dozens of other problems elsewhere."
After such a compelling indictment, one can imagine our shock when the editorial writers reversed themselves. And our surprise was all the greater because the split diamond option is actually worse than the earlier proposal attacked by the paper. The split diamond would add just as many lights to the transition between I-30 and Cantrell. But it would also force more traffic through residential areas and eliminate more parking downtown. Given that, what could possibly justify the editorial change? The answer is simple: nothing.
The editorial writers appear to have been seduced by the number of parties who have endorsed the split diamond interchange. Indeed, the new editorial offered the purported level of agreement as a paradigm of political compromise--a lesson to us all during the silly season of election madness. The Democrat-Gazette often uses the broad sweep of history and high theory to contextualize local events. Whether it be the Declaration of Independence, Edmund Burke, or Friedrich Hayek, we applaud the paper's reliance on big ideas to cast light on the conflicts of the day. But in this case, the editorial writers have gone astray. The "agreement" over the split diamond interchange is not an example of grand compromise; it is a reflection of the lessons of public choice theory.
Public choice theory is the application of economic principles to politics. It uses concepts like economic rationality to explain the behavior of government officials, special interests, and voters. One of the great insights of public choice theory is that a small group with a deep concern for a particular issue will often get its way politically despite opposition from the general populace. The classic example is pork-barrel legislation, which frequently is enacted because the parties who benefit from government spending have a considerably greater incentive to lobby for such legislation than the public does to oppose it. That flows from the fact that recipients have much to gain from the passage of pork-barrel laws, while each citizen will lose only a small amount in extra taxes as a result of individual spending projects.
The proposals to eliminate the Cantrell interchange are wonderful illustrations of public choice theory in action. The downtown interests that support the split diamond believe they will benefit from the new urban layout. Thus, they are lobbying more intensely. The vast majority of central Arkansans--who will be damaged as a result of longer commute times, higher gas costs, and much else--lack sufficient incentive to fight back. Instead of applauding the agreement of the downtown groups as an example of political compromise, the Democrat-Gazette should have criticized the "consensus" for what it is: a reflection of the clash between the concentrated interests of a small number of downtown constituencies and the diffuse interests of a largely unaware public.
The tragedy is even greater in this case than normal. In the archetype of public choice theory, the small group that gets its way is benefited at the cost of the broader population. But at least someone is better off. As we explained in our earlier column, it is actually quite likely that the split diamond will hurt all those lobbying for it. They just do not realize it. Thus, unlike in the standard picture of public choice theory, with the split diamond, everyone loses.
Joshua M. Silverstein lives in the River Market Tower at Third and Rock streets, is a former resident of Riverdale, and is a Professor of Law at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, William H. Bowen School of Law. Chris B. Johnson is a Senior Vice President and Principal Financial Officer at Dillard's, works at the Dillard's headquarters on Cantrell Road, and lives in North Little Rock.
Editorial on 10/16/2016