Is Interstate 14 Dead? (Atlanta, Columbus, Savannah: how much, high school, moving)

[nortonguy]

The top counties for exports and imports during the fiscal year 2010 were Fulton, followed by Cobb, Gwinnett, Chatham, Dekalb and then Richmond.

I-3 makes the most sense economically...

[Stars&StripesForever]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

The east to west and north to south numbering system is primarily set up for roads ending in '0' and '5,' respectively.

Not true.

Where your idea is likely coming from is that when the interstate system was initially being constructed, interstates ending in zeros and fives were the first to be constructed. Those that later followed had ones, threes, sevens, nines, twos, fours, sixes, and eights. Even most of these follow the alignment of interstates from single digits to nineties from west to east and from north to south.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

Not true.

Where your idea is likely coming from is that when the interstate system was initially being constructed, interstates ending in zeros and fives were the first to be constructed. Those that later followed had ones, threes, sevens, nines, twos, fours, sixes, and eights. Even most of these follow the alignment of interstates from single digits to nineties from west to east and from north to south.

I was talking about I-3 needing to be in California instead of the east coast.

I-4 is in Florida.

The cross-country routes going north-south, and east-west by definition ending in '0' and '5' are lined up going from south to north (ending in '0') and west to east (ending in '5'). Going south to north.. you have I-10, I-20, and so on. Going East to west you have I-95, I-85, I-75 and so on... outside that... There is no reason I-3 or I-4, etc.. has to be lines up in a certain order west-east.

Also, more frequently than not... if it ends in anything other than a '0' or '5' it isn't a long cross-country route (not including the 3-digit route numbers of course), but more of a regional connecting route or a regional bypass (not the traditional city bypass like 285). It isn't just the age of the freeway... but how the freeway is designated. There is a correlation, however. They did build the cross-country routes first.

[outsideperspective]

both interstate 20 and 16 east west interstate highways are greatly under used in most of the state with the exception of the metro areas they pass thru outside of that they are mostly empty but all three north south interstates 95 85 and 75 are exceeding capacity in most of the state even in the rural areas they pass thru judging by that I would say that interstate 3 would be of greater use on the numbering issue just number it 375 as a spur to Savannah thru Athens and Augusta and name it the Third Infantry Expressway throughout the state in Honor of the soldiers that should solve that other state do it why not Georgia look at Connecticut they have a 395 that runs thru the state to Worcester MA and it sits on interstate 90.

[southgeorgia]

Originally Posted by 912

You do understand the purpose of an interstate highway, don't you? It's to move commercial & MILITARY vehicles rapidly from one point to another.

no, that's not true at all.

Originally Posted by 912

Casual, civilian transport is an afterthought.

Military transport is the afterthought.

The interstate system was designed and built for civilian, and economic development purposes.

The interstate does serve a militaristic purpose, but that wasn't the original intent. It was authorized by the "Federal-Aid Highway Act" of 1944. The interstate system was conceived in the late '30's, before we even entered WWII. It wasn't until the '50's that the word "Defense" was added to the official title of the interstate system.

[tckr83]

Original Intent: Purpose of the Interstate System - Highway History - FHWA

The rapid movement of the military was part of the reasoning for the interstate system... as was moving civilians and safety on the roads. Both are correct. Hitler embraced the Autobahn and not only boosted Germany's economy by providing jobs during construction, in his eyes it was needed for rapidly moving his military through Germany during WWII.

Should war ever unfortunately come to the United States' homeland... the interstates would be heavily used by the military in the transporting of troops and light/heavy equipment.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by tckr83

Original Intent: Purpose of the Interstate System - Highway History - FHWA

The rapid movement of the military was part of the reasoning for the interstate system... as was moving civilians and safety on the roads. Both are correct. Hitler embraced the Autobahn and not only boosted Germany's economy by providing jobs during construction, in his eyes it was needed for rapidly moving his military through Germany during WWII.

Should war ever unfortunately come to the United States' homeland... the interstates would be heavily used by the military in the transporting of troops and light/heavy equipment.

I have three major problems... for reusing this purpose/argument for future interstate expansions

1) It isn't the only reason we have the interstate system
2) We already have what is needed to move equipment quickly for the purposes of our nation's homeland defense. Most of the interstate route growth now has more to do with fighting congestion. In a time of war/attack we can mitigate the effects of congestion by making some routes military only in a time of need.
3) At this point (perhaps outside a few relatively small exceptions). We don't need to link any more military bases to the interstate system. If we did... it would be much cheaper to relocate facilities to an existing route.

Even for purposes of defense what is most important is we keep our industrial production up and keep raw materials and goods moving efficiently and that is usually the driving force behind expansions.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by outsideperspective

both interstate 20 and 16 east west interstate highways are greatly under used in most of the state with the exception of the metro areas they pass thru outside of that they are mostly empty but all three north south interstates 95 85 and 75 are exceeding capacity in most of the state even in the rural areas they pass thru judging by that I would say that interstate 3 would be of greater use on the numbering issue just number it 375 as a spur to Savannah thru Athens and Augusta and name it the Third Infantry Expressway throughout the state in Honor of the soldiers that should solve that other state do it why not Georgia look at Connecticut they have a 395 that runs thru the state to Worcester MA and it sits on interstate 90.

Check your sources--I-395 directly connects to I-95 in Connecticut.

If a Savannah-Augusta-Knoxville interstate were to be built, it should be something like I-89 or I-91, which are used for relatively short interstates in the Northeast. (It isn't unprecedented for interstates to be disjointed; look at I-76 and I-88, for example.) Now, if they were to build the highway and call it the "3rd Infantry Division Highway" or something similar, I would be okay with that name. Just don't call it I-3. That's like when the Braves were in the Western division of the NL.

Originally Posted by tckr83

Original Intent: Purpose of the Interstate System - Highway History - FHWA

The rapid movement of the military was part of the reasoning for the interstate system... as was moving civilians and safety on the roads. Both are correct. Hitler embraced the Autobahn and not only boosted Germany's economy by providing jobs during construction, in his eyes it was needed for rapidly moving his military through Germany during WWII.

Should war ever unfortunately come to the United States' homeland... the interstates would be heavily used by the military in the transporting of troops and light/heavy equipment.

We already spend way, way too much on the military-industrial complex. The last thing we need to do is drain a couple billion dollars in the name of making that complex that much more efficient.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

We already spend way, way too much on the military-industrial complex. The last thing we need to do is drain a couple billion dollars in the name of making that complex that much more efficient.

Wouldn't expending more now to make it more efficient reduce its operational expenses in the future? Or are you talking about its efficiency in sucking up funds?

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Wouldn't expending more now to make it more efficient reduce its operational expenses in the future? Or are you talking about its efficiency in sucking up funds?

Definitely the latter!