Jump to content


Why haven't you registered yet?

Registration is quick, easy and completely FREE! Click the Create Account button located at the top-right to sign-up and receive additional benefits that existing members are already receiving!

Photo
- - - - -

New Highways: Outer Loop and Northern Arc?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
23 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you think it would be a good idea to add these elements to our infrastructure in the future? (15 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you think it would be a good idea to add these elements to our infrastructure in the future?

  1. Yes (6 votes [40.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.00%

  2. No (7 votes [46.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 46.67%

  3. Unsure (2 votes [13.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.33%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Hybrid0NE

Hybrid0NE

    Hamlet

  • Editor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 607 posts

Posted 01 April 2005 - 10:25 AM

Posted Image

There's a graphic that I created for potential interstate highways in the Columbia area. I'm not suggesting this should be built within this decade or even this century but as the Columbia Riverbanks area continues to boom it could be a good assest for the region.

The first route (726 or something); designated by the letter A, represents a Northern Arc (Yes, I stole the name from Atlanta but they aren't gonna need it) that would connect the northern fringes of Columbia's suburban areas together. It would begin at 1-26 between Chapin and Irmo, cross the Broad River arching through North Richland (and above Blythewood) before coming to an end at I-20. Broad River Road, Monticello Road, Winnsboro Road, Wilson Boulevard, an extension of Hard Scrabble Road and Two Notch Road would be obvious exit/entry points. This route would potentially spur development in the North Richland area (between the Broad River and Wilson Blvd) that is primarily rural at this time. I think this could be implentmented within 25-50 years, if not sooner.

The second route (326 or 320, somthing with 3, as in Three Rivers); designated by the letter B, represents an Outer Loop around Columbia. This would be many decades in the future, after tons of growth but it would loop around and connect many of our outlying suburban towns (Newberry, Peak, Winnsboro, Camden, Eastover, Gaston, Batesburg-Leesville and Saluda [and whatever that dot between Newberry and Saluda is) as well as Lake Murray, Lake Monticello, Parr Reservior, Fort Jackson, Shaw AFB, Columbia Airport and trap them in the Columbia Metro perimeter. It would also give fast access to the Congaree National Park and Lake Wateree areas. If development occurs on it like in Atlanta, it would shot our metro population potentially into the millions. Watch out Charlotte!

Any those are my thoughts/fantasies, share yours (maps too please) :D

 

#2 emerging.me

emerging.me

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,223 posts

Posted 01 April 2005 - 10:41 AM

I think both of these are good ideas. Well done.

I think having that kind of connectivity between the outlying areas would be awesome. My only fear being that it might encourage sprawl.

The Northern Arc idea is actually in the DOT plan.

Additionally, I'd like to see 77 extended on the south side, from I-26, over to South Congaree and up to South Lake Drive in Lexington.

Edited by emerging.me, 01 April 2005 - 10:42 AM.


#3 Spartan

Spartan

    Gigalopolis

  • Global Moderators
  • 17,184 posts

Posted 01 April 2005 - 03:39 PM

The only problem I have with the outer loop is that all the growth it creates would be sprawl like Atlanta, which is something I don't want to see duplicated.

The Northern Arc is something I believe is necessary. There are only 2 crossings of the Broad River, and I believe a 3rd one is necessary.

#4 krazeeboi

krazeeboi

    Gigalopolis

  • Moderators
  • 16,662 posts

Posted 01 April 2005 - 05:27 PM

I was thinking the same thing about the outer loop. Don't want to see Columbia wind up like some cities and just have suburbs revolving around a lifeless core, or actually have folks commuting from suburb to suburb for jobs, entertainment, etc. and not into downtown.

#5 UrbanSoutherner

UrbanSoutherner

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 264 posts

Posted 01 April 2005 - 05:52 PM

The only problem I have with the outer loop is that all the growth it creates would be sprawl like Atlanta, which is something I don't want to see duplicated.

The Northern Arc is something I believe is necessary. There are only 2 crossings of the Broad River, and I believe a 3rd one is necessary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I agree. Even Atlanta and Georgia killed an outer loop that was being pushed by DOT. A nothern arc section will probably be built eventually, though. The other thing about loops is that a lot of times, it seems like traffic actually is worse on the loop. Atlanta's Perimeter has some of the area's worst traffic. Many times, you are better off just going straight through. You do get the truck traffic diverted, though, which is a good thing. Overall, I think loops just increase sprawl and ultimately benefit DOT and their cronies who buy up the land along the route for development.

#6 waccamatt

waccamatt

    Town

  • Members+
  • 3,808 posts

Posted 01 April 2005 - 09:01 PM

I would really rather see the same amount of money spent on Light Rail. Oslo, Norway is about the same size as Columbia and they have a full scale subway system.

#7 Spartan

Spartan

    Gigalopolis

  • Global Moderators
  • 17,184 posts

Posted 02 April 2005 - 12:28 AM

Olso is much more compact, and they are fored to have more density since they are in a mountinous area.

#8 95-Souf

95-Souf

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 217 posts

Posted 02 April 2005 - 01:45 AM

Posted Image

I think having a Beltway that far from the central population of the city would be
unnecessary. To just place Extentions and Sprur routes along existing highways would benifit the region.

I propose the extension of I-77 from where it ends on I-26 west until it reaches I-20 westbound. -It would allow the continuation of I-77 traffic that would be bound for I-20 and points west (Atlanta).

Secondly,.. I would build I-177 from I-26 to I-77. The connection would allow Northbound I-26 traffic to connect to I-77 and points north (Charlotte) with out the few inconvenient miles that you now have to drive to get to the present day I-26/77 interchange.

I know its not the most appealing of the two theories,.. but its the most feasible...

#9 waccamatt

waccamatt

    Town

  • Members+
  • 3,808 posts

Posted 02 April 2005 - 02:33 AM

Olso is much more compact, and they are fored to have more density since they are in a mountinous area.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I can still dream, can't I?

#10 Hybrid0NE

Hybrid0NE

    Hamlet

  • Editor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 607 posts

Posted 02 April 2005 - 09:01 AM

95-Souf, I like your idea but wouldn't extending I-77 to form a tighter outerloop suggest building a bridge over Lake Murray? For some reason, I don't think that would fly (cost, droves of residents and enviromentalists banding against it). That's why I was thinking an outerloop that serviced the far-flung suburban towns would be a better concept.

I think, a smaller outerloop that completes the circle I drew with the Northern Arc would work well. I'd have it circle the city and end the South Shore of Lake Murray (between Lexington and Batesburg/Leesville).

#11 vicupstate

vicupstate

    City

  • Members+
  • 4,548 posts

Posted 02 April 2005 - 09:34 AM

The Route labeled "B' should have been labeled 'A', as in Atlanta. No thank you, instead lets spend the 3 trillion it would take to build that highway, on a light rail system like Charlotte. That would densify the already developed areas rather than destroy vast areas of forest and farmland. I thought the name of this forum was Urban Planet, not Suburban Sprawl Planet.

As for the route marked "a", why not make it a straight line from Irmo to I-20 (just below the "12" hwy marker). That would still give a second Broad River crossing without destroying totally undeveloped areas. Just the same, I'd rather spend the money on mass transit and upgrading existing highways.

#12 The_sandlapper

The_sandlapper

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,176 posts

Posted 02 April 2005 - 05:49 PM

I'm a day late and a dollar short with my opinion but I think the arc idea is a good one, it would connect the cities fastest growing areas (lexingto - camden) and would help fill in north richland county with growth. The only down side with that growth of course is that it would be sprawl and not quality. I think LRT in columbia will be cool, and that's just the problem I think it would be just a novelty. I'm sure on the numbers but not very many cities can pull of the whole rail thing. I've said before that I would be very surprised to see it prosper in CLT. But I'm just basing my opionion on ATL & all the sprawl and highway traffic it has there despite it's rail system. I think if columbia did the rail thing they should start out small first, taking care of DT attractions and stops (5points, vista, main st./ capital, USC, Richland Mall, Columbia Place, palmetto baptist hospital, west cola, cayce, s. beltline area, etc.) these are probablly the most dense areas of the city and these areas are probablly use public transportaion on a regular basis. I don't have the numbers so this is just a guess.

#13 waccamatt

waccamatt

    Town

  • Members+
  • 3,808 posts

Posted 02 April 2005 - 07:57 PM

I'm a day late and a dollar short with my opinion but I think the arc idea is a good one, it would connect the cities fastest growing areas (lexingto - camden) and would help fill in north richland county with growth. The only down side with that growth of course is that it would be sprawl and not quality. I think LRT in columbia will be cool, and that's just the problem I think it would be just a novelty. I'm sure on the numbers but not very many cities can pull of the whole rail thing. I've said before that I would be very surprised to see it prosper in CLT. But I'm just basing my opionion on ATL & all the sprawl and highway traffic it has there despite it's rail system. I think if columbia did the rail thing they should start out small first, taking care of DT attractions and stops (5points, vista, main st./ capital, USC, Richland Mall, Columbia Place, palmetto baptist hospital, west cola, cayce, s. beltline area, etc.) these are probablly the most dense areas of the city and these areas are probablly use public transportaion on a regular basis. I don't have the numbers so this is just a guess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Sandlapper, you're certainly correct. The thing about mass transit is that people won't use it unless it's convenient and fast, which will require large governmental expenditures. The large upfront expense will help to save our country and the planet in the long run, however. It works in Europe; it can work here too. The main problem is that elected officials are more concerned with money, power and being reelected than what would really help the state and country. They're more interested in disrespecting people (detect anger and sarcasm about the upcoming vote on the anti-gay marriage amendment in SC) than they are with solving real problems like suburban sprawl, underemployment and a high poverty level.

#14 95-Souf

95-Souf

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 217 posts

Posted 03 April 2005 - 01:27 PM

95-Souf, I like your idea but wouldn't extending I-77 to form a tighter outerloop suggest building a bridge over Lake Murray? For some reason, I don't think that would fly (cost, droves of residents and enviromentalists banding against it). That's why I was thinking an outerloop that serviced the far-flung suburban towns would be a better concept.



No,.. you're right...
But my proposal wouldnt include a Northern extention of I-77 beyond I-20.
I-20 in its self acts as a Northern arc of a beltway, given that it skirts the city to the north and west.

As seen here from my rendition of I-177 & the I-77 Extention.....

Posted Image

Edited by 95-Souf, 03 April 2005 - 01:30 PM.


#15 waccamatt

waccamatt

    Town

  • Members+
  • 3,808 posts

Posted 03 April 2005 - 05:25 PM

No,.. you're right...
But my proposal wouldnt include a Northern extention of I-77 beyond I-20.
I-20 in its self acts as a Northern arc of a beltway, given that it skirts the city to the north and west.

As seen here from my rendition of I-177 & the I-77 Extention.....

Posted Image

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


he I-77 extension is somewhat close to the partially completed John Hardee Expressway. It is open from Airport Blvd to Platt Springs Road and provides access to the Columbia airport. Eventually, it will connect the end of I-77 with Columia Metropolitan Airport and continue on to Lexington.

#16 Hybrid0NE

Hybrid0NE

    Hamlet

  • Editor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 607 posts

Posted 04 April 2005 - 08:12 AM

No,.. you're right...
But my proposal wouldnt include a Northern extention of I-77 beyond I-20.
I-20 in its self acts as a Northern arc of a beltway, given that it skirts the city to the north and west.

As seen here from my rendition of I-177 & the I-77 Extention.....

Posted Image

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Okay, I see now. That's actually a good proposal also. I can see that 77 extension getting heavy use, since it passes the airport.

Waccamatt, will the John Hardee Expressway be labeled as I-77 once it's linked to the interstate?

#17 teshadoh

teshadoh

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,349 posts

Posted 04 April 2005 - 08:59 AM

I can understand the link connecting Lexington to I 77 to the south, but Columbia is very fortunate to have already an excellent freeway system. Far better than Greenville & Charleston, and better than many other similar sized cities. Unfortunately that system has already promoted early stages of sprawl - commuting area that stretches to Camden, Newberry & remote St Matthews.

I could only imagine what would occur with a belt way - certainly, you don't want to follow Atlanta's & now Charlotte's lead.

#18 Jerseyman4

Jerseyman4

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 04 April 2005 - 08:56 PM

I can only say that whether it should be built or not, i think ROW acquistion should be pursued just incase Columbia sees a major economic boom in the future. This way, the ROW costs can be avoided and all you gotta do is just build the road. This saves time and money too.

#19 Spartan

Spartan

    Gigalopolis

  • Global Moderators
  • 17,184 posts

Posted 04 April 2005 - 09:09 PM

In that case, they should go ahead and buy ROWs for a fixes route mass transit system

#20 The_sandlapper

The_sandlapper

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,176 posts

Posted 05 April 2005 - 12:57 AM

If the research campus does what its supposed to do I can see mass transit in Columbia for the forseeable future.