Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Augusta and Savannah have the 2nd and 3rd highest GDP's in the state. The two cities definitely need to be connected to each other. The Knoxville route makes the most sense if the purpose is to alleviate the traffic on I-75.
Last edited by nortonguy; 08-03-2010 at 08:46 PM..
If NC and TN are anti I-3, I propose taking it from Savannah to Augusta, then to Athens, then loop north of Atlanta above Gainesville and over to Rome, sort of like the Northern Arc that was shot down a few years back but a little further out. From there, I know the citizens of Huntsville, AL would love to have a better Interstate connection (they are kind of like the Columbus of AL, no direct interstate and just one spur interstate connection). There it could join proposals to have an interstate on accross Northern Alabama and into southern Tennesse to Memphis.
This would give a much needed east-west connection across North Georgia without having to go thru Atlanta.
If NC and TN are anti I-3, I propose taking it from Savannah to Augusta, then to Athens, then loop north of Atlanta above Gainesville and over to Rome, sort of like the Northern Arc that was shot down a few years back but a little further out. From there, I know the citizens of Huntsville, AL would love to have a better Interstate connection (they are kind of like the Columbus of AL, no direct interstate and just one spur interstate connection). There it could join proposals to have an interstate on accross Northern Alabama and into southern Tennesse to Memphis.
This would give a much needed east-west connection across North Georgia without having to go thru Atlanta.
This is a great idea.
My problem with the whole I-3 proposal is I do NOT want it to cross the mountains between Augusta & Knoxville. Talk about an environmental disaster, and the people of NC & TN would (hopefully) have a complete meltdown over this particular route. Lawsuits would fly fast and furious for years.
But that would not connect the Port of Savannah to Oak Ridge...............
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintmarks
If NC and TN are anti I-3, I propose taking it from Savannah to Augusta, then to Athens, then loop north of Atlanta above Gainesville and over to Rome, sort of like the Northern Arc that was shot down a few years back but a little further out. From there, I know the citizens of Huntsville, AL would love to have a better Interstate connection (they are kind of like the Columbus of AL, no direct interstate and just one spur interstate connection). There it could join proposals to have an interstate on accross Northern Alabama and into southern Tennesse to Memphis.
This would give a much needed east-west connection across North Georgia without having to go thru Atlanta.
Last edited by bgnzsavnh; 08-04-2010 at 12:42 PM..
I really don't understand the rationale for I-14 thru Georgia.
Take the existing highways and, if they're high-volume, widen them to four lanes if we must. But a interstate, in a day and age when there isn't exactly a lot of public funding to go around, would be overkill. That also goes for the misguided idea of I-3. Again, widen a highway between Augusta and Savannah to four lanes if we must, but please no interstate.
Interstates, to be cost-justifiable, need to connect large cities every so often. That's why, for example, I-85 makes sense: It runs from near Richmond to Durham (connected to nearby Raleigh), Charlotte, the ATL, and leads toward New Orleans via I-65 and I-10. By contrast, where are the big cities that I-14 would hit? Augusta? Macon? Montgomery? Somewhere in south-central Mississippi (what exactly is down there anyway? MS already has one excess interstate, I-59)? Alexandria, LA? Yeah, REAL big cities there. And not to mention that at any given time, such a corridor would only be a hundred or so miles from I-20 and sometimes even I-10. It just doesn't make any sense to spend even more tax dollars building even more roads.
As one person said, commuter or even high-speed rail is another, more sensible possibility. The right-of-way is considerably narrower, and I'm pretty sure that the capital costs would be less. That said, if we REALLY do need another east-west interstate in Georgia, then perhaps they should extend I-16 westward from Macon to near the intersection of I-85 and I-185. While somewhat of a bent route, this would give a more nearly direct interstate route from Savannah all the way to Montgomery.
I really don't understand the rationale for I-14 thru Georgia.
Take the existing highways and, if they're high-volume, widen them to four lanes if we must. But a interstate, in a day and age when there isn't exactly a lot of public funding to go around, would be overkill. That also goes for the misguided idea of I-3. Again, widen a highway between Augusta and Savannah to four lanes if we must, but please no interstate.
Interstates, to be cost-justifiable, need to connect large cities every so often. That's why, for example, I-85 makes sense: It runs from near Richmond to Durham (connected to nearby Raleigh), Charlotte, the ATL, and leads toward New Orleans via I-65 and I-10. By contrast, where are the big cities that I-14 would hit? Augusta? Macon? Montgomery? Somewhere in south-central Mississippi (what exactly is down there anyway? MS already has one excess interstate, I-59)? Alexandria, LA? Yeah, REAL big cities there. And not to mention that at any given time, such a corridor would only be a hundred or so miles from I-20 and sometimes even I-10. It just doesn't make any sense to spend even more tax dollars building even more roads.
As one person said, commuter or even high-speed rail is another, more sensible possibility. The right-of-way is considerably narrower, and I'm pretty sure that the capital costs would be less. That said, if we REALLY do need another east-west interstate in Georgia, then perhaps they should extend I-16 westward from Macon to near the intersection of I-85 and I-185. While somewhat of a bent route, this would give a more nearly direct interstate route from Savannah all the way to Montgomery.
Are you kidding that high speed rail costs less than any kind of road? Who would ride this rail and for what purpose?
What is so daunting about an interstate over a four lane road? An interstate is a four lane road with limited access, meaning there are no level crossings with intersecting roads. Instead, those intersections are built as interchanges with one road going over the other and exit/entrance ramps built to transition from one to another. This is the primary cost difference. The safety and reduced time travel of having limited access is what makes an interstate more appealing. Amount of land taken up over a four lane is negligible.
One of the primary reasons for the proposals for I-14 is to increase movement in the gulf coast states for hurricane evacuations as well as the aforementioned need for moving goods thru the region via trucking. Rail doesn't help in these areas at all.
Rail is not even a cost efficient proposition in built up areas, much less in a sparsely populated areas like the coastal plain of the southern states.
Are you kidding that high speed rail costs less than any kind of road? Who would ride this rail and for what purpose?
Why the dislike for high-speed rail? Do we really need to build more and more roads?
Quote:
What is so daunting about an interstate over a four lane road? An interstate is a four lane road with limited access, meaning there are no level crossings with intersecting roads. Instead, those intersections are built as interchanges with one road going over the other and exit/entrance ramps built to transition from one to another. This is the primary cost difference. The safety and reduced time travel of having limited access is what makes an interstate more appealing. Amount of land taken up over a four lane is negligible.
It's not just as simple as adding on-ramps and bridges. Interstates have set minimum rights-of-way that can eat up more space than a four-lane road. Again, why do we need to keep building roads and highways everywhere? Georgia already has enough of them already, why do we need more? Look at a map of the southeast. There's already an interstate pathway that leads to eastern Tennessee, via I-95 and I-26. Building an interstate up the Georgia-SC border would create an entirely new interstate just for two rather small cities that is parallel to a fairly close interstate, I-26.
Quote:
One of the primary reasons for the proposals for I-14 is to increase movement in the gulf coast states for hurricane evacuations as well as the aforementioned need for moving goods thru the region via trucking. Rail doesn't help in these areas at all.
If it's hurricane evactuation that needs to improve, then what's wrong with widening I-16? That could be done on the existing right-of-way, as all interstates are built on a minimum right-of-way that allows expansion well beyond two lanes in each direction. Also note the I-95/26 route mentioned above.
Quote:
Rail is not even a cost efficient proposition in built up areas, much less in a sparsely populated areas like the coastal plain of the southern states.
No, that's not true, as long as you get the rail network big enough to build economies of scale. And they can:
Keep in mind that this is a starter set. Hypothetically, if every one of these corridors is developed, then certain connection points, such Orlando-Jacksonville, Kansas City-Tulsa, Atlanta-Louisville, etc. will likely be added on.
Here's what I think they ought to do. You ever been on that four-lane highway that extends off of 575 and goes into the north Georgia mountains? It is THE best way to get up there from metro Atlanta, and there aren't a lot of traffic lights most of the way. Eastern Georgia, if it doesn't already have something like that, needs one. Connect Savannah to Augusta in the straightest path possible that doesn't cause too much destruction--i.e., widen existing roads wherever possible--and continue it up toward, say, Greenville. Less costs, less political justification, and more sense. Win-win all around.
Why the dislike for high-speed rail? Do we really need to build more and more roads?
It's not just as simple as adding on-ramps and bridges. Interstates have set minimum rights-of-way that can eat up more space than a four-lane road. Again, why do we need to keep building roads and highways everywhere? Georgia already has enough of them already, why do we need more? Look at a map of the southeast. There's already an interstate pathway that leads to eastern Tennessee, via I-95 and I-26. Building an interstate up the Georgia-SC border would create an entirely new interstate just for two rather small cities that is parallel to a fairly close interstate, I-26.
If it's hurricane evactuation that needs to improve, then what's wrong with widening I-16? That could be done on the existing right-of-way, as all interstates are built on a minimum right-of-way that allows expansion well beyond two lanes in each direction. Also note the I-95/26 route mentioned above.
No, that's not true, as long as you get the rail network big enough to build economies of scale. And they can:
Keep in mind that this is a starter set. Hypothetically, if every one of these corridors is developed, then certain connection points, such Orlando-Jacksonville, Kansas City-Tulsa, Atlanta-Louisville, etc. will likely be added on.
Here's what I think they ought to do. You ever been on that four-lane highway that extends off of 575 and goes into the north Georgia mountains? It is THE best way to get up there from metro Atlanta, and there aren't a lot of traffic lights most of the way. Eastern Georgia, if it doesn't already have something like that, needs one. Connect Savannah to Augusta in the straightest path possible that doesn't cause too much destruction--i.e., widen existing roads wherever possible--and continue it up toward, say, Greenville. Less costs, less political justification, and more sense. Win-win all around.
I lived in England for two years and love the ability to get around by train, you don't have to convince me that a train network would be fantastic.
However, a train network is exponentially more expensive to build and upkeep than a highway system. Have you seen the economy lately? Have you seen the huge deficits that the government is racking up on the national level? Have you seen the empty state coffers and cutbacks in schools and services all over the country? Who is going to pay for this?
If a highspeed rail network was established to some of the major population points on this map and it first proved economically viable, then yes, let's expand this to the fall line route instead of I-14.
But until that day happens (and sad to say, as much as I would like it, it is pie in the sky) I-14 and I-3 (and other interstate expansions) are much more viable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
