Kendrick Wilson columnist

Creative traffic experiments are always finding themselves in front of Tucson's leaders, one way or another. The latest is actually quite inventive.

Earlier this week, the Arizona Daily Star reported that Hank Savko and Federico Sanchez pitched a proposal to city leaders in January to build two freeways over dry riverbeds, the Pantano Wash and the Rillito River.

Unfortunately, this plan fails to go beyond inventive to feasible and sensible. While Savko and Sanchez must be commended for bringing a new proposal to city leaders, this plan lacks solid benefits and carries with it great costs.

To begin with, anyone who thinks freeways are the answer to Tucson's traffic problems need look no farther than Phoenix or Los Angeles to see what freeways actually do to a city's traffic situation. Instead of sitting in traffic jams on surface streets, drivers wait in traffic jams on concrete roller coasters that carry them to suburbs which grow further and further from the central core of the city. When these monsters are built, they gobble up entire neighborhoods, businesses, and parks ÷ nearly everything in their paths. Proponents, who had the ear of Los Angeles planners for so many years and are now transferring to Phoenix, claim they alleviate congestion and reduce air pollution. As Phoenix is quickly learning and Los Angeles learned way too late, freeways have an unusual phenomenon: the more you build them, the more you need them.

Savko and Sanchez's plan also calls for a light rail system to run along the freeway routes. This idea is also intriguing, but without sufficient park and ride facilities, light rail is not likely to take off in Tucson.

The idea of putting freeways over the banks of riverbeds is noteworthy since there is little room for freeways anywhere else in Tucson. Indeed, established neighborhoods and businesses would have to go in order to make way for any cross-town freeway. Nevertheless, the potential environmental impact on natural washes is tremendous.

As the Star article pointed out, a March 12 report by the City's Department of Transportation engineering staff claimed that environmental regulations would probably prohibit construction in riverbeds beyond standard flood control projects. This plan goes so far as to call for large pipes to replace the sandy riverbeds to carry away floodwaters. The impact on wash-dwelling species aside (which would be monumental), history has shown that engineers in Tucson are less than perfect when it comes to calculating flood potential while designing storm sewers.

The potential for underground water contamination because of water running off the freeway directly into the wash also poses a serious environmental problem. Even if the washes were made concrete for the entire length of the freeways, at some point the water would return to a sandy bottom where it would eventually recharge into the aquifer. All the while, this rainwater would collect motor oil, gasoline, and other contaminants leaked from cars cruising the freeways.

As unique as this plan may be, it is not new. Colorful Libertarian frequent-candidate Ed Kahn proposed something similar when he ran for mayor in 1999, and a number of proposals beginning in the late 1970s have been considered from time to time. The fact is, people in Tucson don't want freeways no matter how they are sold to the public, and they are right to resist them.

In 1986, Tucson voters added the Neighborhood Protection Act to the City's Charter, which requires all grade-separated intersections (also called "over-unders" and "flybys") and freeways to be approved by city voters before they can be built. Voters have repeatedly rejected both when proposals have come before them.

Simply not building roads will not end urban sprawl and will not improve traffic or air quality. Something must be done, but freeways are not the answer for anyone who doesn't want to create another concrete jungle like the smog-laden monster to the north so proudly touts as innovative. A truly innovative solution to traffic must focus on the root of the problem (urban sprawl) and not encourage it further. Promoting urban infill so people don't need to drive so far will not only reduce the need for freeways, but will cause people to spend less time on the road.

Light rail is a workable idea for Tucson, as Savko and Sanchez realize. However, it must be done well, with fast moving trains that connect to convenient park and ride stations.

Freeways are not the answer, and destroying our washes for the sake of the automobile isn't either. Anyone who sits on Euclid Avenue, Speedway Boulevard, Campbell Avenue, or Sixth Street at rush hour understands the dire need to solve Tucson's traffic problems. The time has come, however, to look at solutions that will bring results unlike Los Angeles and Phoenix.