70 replies to this topic

[aboutmetro]

The U.S. Census bureau projects that by 2030, the Southeastern U.S. will be home to 40% of the entire United States' population.  There is a need to plan now for all types of transportation options from new airports, high-speed rail to better Interstate highways.  When the Intestate system was envisioned, the Southeast was minimally developed because of the sparse population.  Now, there are many metro areas that aren't even connected to the highway system.  Many others have had their growth potential stunted while some areas (read as Atlanta) have been overly developed inpart because that's where the roads lead.

Standby for the formation of I-DOTS. A new non-profit for the promotion of new interstates around the Southeast.  Many independent non-profits, along with economic development arms of local Chambers of Commerce, exist to promote very specific Interestate development. I-DOTS' mission is to link these organizations, and perhaps form I-DOTS 'chapters' in other areas to combine efforts to lend and exchange support for Interestate development.

States currently included in the I-DOTS plan: Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, (north) Florida. Along with hundreds of counties, cities and metro areas.

New Interstates and extensions include: I-30 (replace I-3 proposal), I-14 (proposed), I-22 extension, I-77 extension, I-81 extension, I-16 extension, I-7, I-49 extension, I-11, I-69 (under development), I-59 extension.

A big new vision, similar to the origial big idea of the Eisenhower Interstate System, is needed now. These new freeways contemplate skirting (for the most part) urban areas - perhaps leaving room for local commuter rails to connect inevitable new suburban/exurban developments to urban core employment centers. Other considerations include economic enhancement feasibility, connecting military installations, creating coastal evacuation routes, and using existing non-Interstate freeways and Interstate spurs. The last consideration combined with an effort to avoid urban centers will diminish land acquisition costs and adverse impacts on populations.

If you have an interest in working with I-DOTS, e-mail here.  Watch here for future website development and other announcements. For now, please make comments regarding the map below. Especially send suggestions for new I-DOTS chapters and information regarding existing non-profits, or quasi-governmental entities, promoting an Interstate projects. Links to new articles are welcome too.

[ATLman1]

Columbus looks to benefit more than any other major southeastern metro! Columbus would have just as many interstates going through it as Atlanta!

[johnnydr87]

Interesting.  The Mississippi-Arkansas region sure has a lot of green [lines].

I don't like the proposed interstate North of Little Rock, right through the Buffalo National River and Ozarks.

Edited by johnnydr87, 01 August 2007 - 11:37 AM.

[Rardy]

Memphis would benefit from this as well.

But many of those routes seem redundant - particularly those in southern Arkansas and northern Mississippi.  Why interstates?  Why not 4-lane divided highways?  Most of the areas are very rural and sparsely populated.

And why not some sort of rail proposal?

[aboutmetro]

Rardy, on Aug 1 2007, 01:53 PM, said:

Memphis would benefit from this as well.

But many of those routes seem redundant - particularly those in southern Arkansas and northern Mississippi.  Why interstates?  Why not 4-lane divided highways?  Most of the areas are very rural and sparsely populated.

And why not some sort of rail proposal?

I've seen this for rail...

You would think there would be a connection between B'ham and Memphis to tie the two networks together.

Edited by aboutmetro, 01 August 2007 - 03:29 PM.

[byrde]

A route connecting Baton Rouge to Little Rock will be nice, but I'd love to see more High Speed Rail vs. Interstates.

[aboutmetro]

Rardy, on Aug 1 2007, 01:53 PM, said:

Memphis would benefit from this as well.

But many of those routes seem redundant - particularly those in southern Arkansas and northern Mississippi.  Why interstates?  Why not 4-lane divided highways?  Most of the areas are very rural and sparsely populated.

And why not some sort of rail proposal?

I think what states are finding is that 4-lane divided is good for regional travels. Like close metro to metro, or event within a metro.  But eventually, 4-lanes get choked off by curb cuts and traffic lights and ultimately become 'local' roads.  Look at what's going on with the US280 in Birmingham.

But, if built as originally designed - going around instead of directly thru cities (and then use 4-lanes to connect city centers to Interstates), Interstates are best for true inter-state travel to connect populations. And for economic development, Interstates are best for bringing populations as well as connecting.  Look at Alabama and Georgia for expample. A dirth of Interstates in SE AL, and SW GA, and these are the least populated areas of the states.  Population in Alabama pretty much has followed 65 & 85, and 20 to a lesser extent. In GA, it's all about 85 and 75.  If you're not on one of those, it's near impossible to get a major employer or retailer to look at your town.

[aboutmetro]

byrde, on Aug 1 2007, 05:29 PM, said:

A route connecting Baton Rouge to Little Rock will be nice, but I'd love to see more High Speed Rail vs. Interstates.

You know Byrde makes a good point.  But maybe it's not an either or proposition.  Commuter rail is limited to carrying people. And it isn't as flexible as Interstates and roads. There are no diversions when you're on the train to see the in-laws or take in attractions 50 miles off of the track. And Interstates are as much about carrying goods as much as people, not to mention their original purpose as connecting major military installations for moving troops and munitions. Plus, commuter rails in the South must be proven first, and like any new product, it's best to go where the bigges market is - Atlanta, Dallas, Jacksonville, etc.  Montgomery, Columbus, Jackson, etc wouldn't make the cut.

But still, it's a good idea.  Why not while right-of-way for new Interstates, the Feds or states go ahead and purchase ROW for future rapid and commuter rail line expansion, for between B'ham and Memphis along I-22 for example.  Can you imagine sitting in a traffic jam on I-75 in suburban Atlanta and seeing the train go whizing by in the direction you're going - or rather trying to go?  Would there be a better advertisement for mass transit?

Edited by aboutmetro, 01 August 2007 - 03:51 PM.

[Rural King]

What are the sources the information are these maps based on? Some of it is familar to me, some of it is not. For example I recognize the midwestern inter-city rail proposal -which is now be reworked as a much more modest proposal-, but have never seen or heard of any of these proposed southern rail plans.

[aboutmetro]

Rural King, on Aug 1 2007, 05:57 PM, said:

What are the sources the information are these maps based on? Some of it is familar to me, some of it is not. For example I recognize the midwestern inter-city rail proposal -which is now be reworked as a much more modest proposal-, but have never seen or heard of any of these proposed southern rail plans.

I'm not really sure either.  I saw a map at a Georgia economic summit last year where the speaker (a UGA dean that went to one of the Carolinas, I can't remember his name), talked about a 'Southern Cross' between B'ham and Charlotte, and Atlanta and, I think, Tampa. I don't think it was Jax. And he may have mentioned the tying into Richmond.

[Justiceham]

It will be interesting to see how Chattanooga plans development and handles the completion of it's loop with the proposed I-59. I think Chattanooga can propel it's redevelopment and attract new business along this corridor, but the city must come up with a plan to control growth and not choke it's interstate with mediocre cookie cutter development that's happening where I live. It will be tough cutting this one through those mountains, however, those beautiful, beautiful mountains. In addition, Cookeville will likely benefit the most from this interstate extension being at a crossroads between East and Middle Tennessee and having superb routes to both Birmingham and Atlanta. Cookeville will continue to take advantage of its central location and college town environment.

[seicer]

While not in the extreme southeast, I posted about how the London-Somerset Interstate 66 alignment was approved by the state of Kentucky. It's a waste of money, IMO.

[aboutmetro]

Rural King, on Aug 1 2007, 05:57 PM, said:

What are the sources the information are these maps based on? Some of it is familar to me, some of it is not. For example I recognize the midwestern inter-city rail proposal -which is now be reworked as a much more modest proposal-, but have never seen or heard of any of these proposed southern rail plans.

As I understand it, a southern state DOT planner consulted with the group to pull together several existing proposals, and local/state gov't and business (CoC) wish lists and combined those with a map like this one... May this is what looks familiar.


I've seen a better image of it somewhere, but I can't find it in my favs...  I also have a list of independent orgs that have formed in different locales to promote one Interstate or another. I'll post those links as soon as I get a chance and ask anyone else out there to do the same...

[johnnydr87]

aboutmetro, on Aug 1 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

I've seen this for rail...

You would think there would be a connection between B'ham and Memphis to tie the two networks together.

Interesting map.  Yeah, it seems that these networks a fairly isolated from each other...

Edited by johnnydr87, 02 August 2007 - 11:19 AM.

[Rardy]

^Why is it that every state in the South, and every major metro in the South, is on that map for high speed rail EXCEPT Tennessee and Memphis and Nashville???

[gsupstate]

That first proposed interstate highway map is horrible!      Too, too many ideas for new interstates that will eat up beautiful undeveloped land.  When is the US going to wise up and put money into high speed rail?  Take the money these proposed interstates would cost and put it toward rail.

[Kamuda_Train]

aboutmetro, on Aug 1 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

I've seen this for rail...

Hmm, this map plan looks retarded.  Why are there no lines going throug tennessee.  A line connecting birming ham to Memphis, Little rock to memphis, and memphis to nashville, and nashville to louisville woudl joing three major networks together!!!  There needs to be a line between houston and dallas as well, and orlando to jacksonville.  Wierd!!

[bighardrivesrule]

I don't like the I-81 extension that ends in Apalachicola via Panama City and Dothan. Here in Tallahassee our North South highway system sucks. In order to go North into Georiga or Alabama its on smaller roads with lots of red lights until you reach an Interstate grade road. Looking at this map and other sources this Interstate would miss Tallahassee by at least an hours drive to the west. I think the Capital of Florida deserves better road access than some small fishing village on the coast.  

[Alabadrock]

bighardrivesrule, on Aug 2 2007, 10:42 PM, said:

I don't like the I-81 extension that ends in Apalachicola via Panama City and Dothan. Here in Tallahassee our North South highway system sucks. In order to go North into Georiga or Alabama its on smaller roads with lots of red lights until you reach an Interstate grade road. Looking at this map and other sources this Interstate would miss Tallahassee by at least an hours drive to the west. I think the Capital of Florida deserves better road access than some small fishing village on the coast.  

Well, I think it'd be pretty useless to send that interstate Tallahassee's way.  Though, I know you didn't mean that, that interstate should be extended over there.  Yes, Tallahassee does deserve better, but, so do many many other cities.

[monsoon]

Rural King, on Aug 1 2007, 04:57 PM, said:

What are the sources the information are these maps based on? Some of it is familar to me, some of it is not. For example I recognize the midwestern inter-city rail proposal -which is now be reworked as a much more modest proposal-, but have never seen or heard of any of these proposed southern rail plans.

The high speed rail map was from federal plan to designate high speed rail corridors in the United States.  It was mostly developed during the Clinton/Gore years.  In the last 6 years, the Bush Administration has pretty much killed any Federal assistance and the plans only exist on paper.  It's being worked on in a few places, most notably between Charlotte and DC, but that is only because NC has already established it's own rail service for this route and NC and Virginia are funding the engineering studies.   Even with that, HSPR means trains that only run 110 mph.   (barely the speeds that regular trains ran in the USA in the early part of the 20th century)  

The United States can't afford to build HSPR because we are spending too much money on war and all discretionary resources of the country are being diverted to that effort.   It's my conclusion the above map will not be seen anytime in the next 50 years.

In any case, you can read about the South East High Speed Rail effort here.