Interstate 73

"I-73" redirects here. For the Kadai class submarine of the Japanese Imperial Navy, see Japanese submarine I-73.

Interstate 73 marker

Interstate 73
Route information
Length: 82.4 mi[1][2] (132.6 km)
Existed: 1997 – present
Major junctions
South end: US 220 near Ellerbe, NC
  US 64 / NC 49 in Asheboro, NC
I‑85 / US 220 / US 421 in Greensboro, NC
I‑40 / I‑840 / US 421 in Greensboro, NC
North end: I‑840 / Bryan Boulevard in Greensboro, NC
Highway system

Interstate 73 (I-73) is an intrastate Interstate Highway, located within the U.S. state of North Carolina. It is part of a longer planned corridor, defined by various federal laws to run from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, but only the part south of West Virginia is under study as of 2012. The corridor passes through the states of South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan. Ohio and Michigan do not plan to build any part of the highway, as the I-73 corridor in both of these states is already served by existing freeways or 4-lane highways that will eventually be upgraded to freeways. West Virginia is building its section, mostly along U.S. Highway 52, as a four-lane divided highway, but not meeting the Interstate Highway standards. On the other hand, North Carolina and South Carolina have built sections and Virginia plans to build its part. Thus Interstate 73 will, once scheduled projects are completed, run from South Carolina to Roanoke, Virginia, where it will end at Interstate 81. Associated with these plans are those for the extension of Interstate 74 from Cincinnati to Myrtle Beach, with several highway overlaps contemplated.

Currently, there is one continuous section of Interstate 73, traversing 82.4 miles (132.6 km) from Ellerbe, NC to Greensboro, NC.[3][4][5][6][7]

Route description

Lengths
  mikm
SC
NC 82.40 132.61
VA
WV
OH
MI
Total 82.40 132.61
Future I-73 and I-74 (US 220) northbound near Asheboro, NC

South Carolina

Future Interstate 73 will traverse northeastern South Carolina, from the Grand Strand to Bennettsville. The current alignment will replace South Carolina Highway 22 and parallel north of U.S. Route 501 and South Carolina Highway 38.

North Carolina

North Carolina is the only state that has a finished section of Interstate 73, as of 2015. It traverses from Ellerbe, through Asheboro, to Greensboro; all within the central Piedmont. When completed, it will also connect the cities of Rockingham and Madison.

Virginia

Future Interstate 73 is planned to connect Martinsville and Roanoke, then head west to Blacksburg before entering West Virginia.

West Virginia

Future Interstate 73 is planned to enter, from Virginia, near Bluefield and then go northwest along the King Coal Highway to Huntington.

Ohio

Future Interstate 73 is planned to parallel US 52 to Portsmouth, then north with US 23 through Columbus and Toledo.

Michigan

Future Interstate 73 is planned to go northwesterly to Jackson then go north with US 127 to Grayling. From there, the corridor continues along Interstate 75 to Sault Ste. Marie.

History

In 1979, K.A. Ammar, a Bluefield, West Virginia businessman, started the Bluefield-to-Huntington Highway Association in order to widen US 52, a very dangerous two-lane road used to transport coal from mines to barges on the Ohio River. With coal employment in decline and the desire to bring in other businesses, Ammar worked to get the road improved. In 1989, Bluefield State College Professor John Sage learned of plans to add more Interstate Highways. Ammar and Sage came up with the idea for a road that would be called I-73, to run from Detroit to Charleston, South Carolina. Ammar and others promoted the idea to the people of Portsmouth, Ohio, and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.[8]

In 1991, as Congress worked on reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act, the people from West Virginia worked to get I-73 approved; the highway would run alongside US 52. The influential Robert Byrd, at the time West Virginia's senior senator, chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee, but even Byrd said funding for such a highway would be hard to find. In North Carolina, Marc Bush of the Greensboro Area Chamber of Commerce admitted the plan would benefit his area, but said it was not a priority.[9]

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) defined High Priority Corridor 5, the "I-73/74 North–South Corridor" from Charleston, South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, and Detroit, Michigan." This would provide for a single corridor from Charleston, splitting at Portsmouth, with I-74 turning west to its current east end in Cincinnati, and I-73 continuing north to Detroit.[10]

In North Carolina, any new construction would require more money than the state had available, but Walter C. Sprouse Jr., executive director of the Randolph County Economic Development Corporation pointed out that most of the route of I-73 included roads already scheduled for improvements that would make them good enough for interstate designation. A connector between I-77 and US 52 at Mt. Airy was planned, and US 52 from Mt. Airy to Winston-Salem and US 311 from Winston-Salem to High Point were four-lane divided highways. A US 311 bypass of High Point was planned, which would eventually connect to US 220 at Randleman. I-73 would follow US 220 to Rockingham. Another possibility was following I-40 from Winston-Salem to Greensboro. In Winston-Salem, congestion on US 52 was expected to be a problem.[11] The route through High Point was approved in May 1993.[12]

However, by November of that year, an organization called Job Link, made up of business leaders from northern North Carolina and southern Virginia, wanted a major highway to connect Roanoke with the Greensboro area. It could be I-73, the group said, but did not have to be.[13] In April 1995, John Warner, who chaired the Senate subcommittee that would select the route of I-73, announced his support for the Job Link proposal. This distressed Winston-Salem officials who were counting on I-73, though Greensboro had never publicly sought the road. But an aide to US Senator Lauch Faircloth said the 1991 law authorizing I-73 required the road to go through Winston-Salem. Faircloth got around this requirement, though, by asking Warner to call the highway to Winston-Salem I-74.[14] In May, Warner announced plans to propose legislation that made the plan for two Interstates official.[15]

The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 added a branch from Toledo, Ohio, to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, via the US 223 and US 127 corridors. (At the time, US 127 north of Lansing was part of US 27.) It also gave details for the alignments in West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. I-73 and I-74 were to split near Bluefield, West Virginia, joining again between Randleman and Rockingham, North Carolina; both would end at Charleston. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) approved the sections of I-73 and I-74 south of I-81 in Virginia (with I-74 ending at I-73 near Myrtle Beach) on July 25, 1996, allowing for them to be marked once built to Interstate standards and connected to other Interstate highways. The final major change came with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998 (TEA-21), when both routes were truncated to Georgetown, South Carolina.

North Carolina took the lead in signing highways as I-73 following AASHTO's approval and since has finished and approved construction projects to build new sections of the Interstate Highway. As of 2015, the route is signed along 82.4 miles (132.6 km) of freeway from the southwestern part of the Greensboro Urban Loop around Greensboro, North Carolina to just south of Ellerbe, North Carolina and an additional 15.0 miles (24.1 km) is under construction.[2] The only other progress in building I-73 can be seen in Virginia and South Carolina. In 2005 Virginia completed an environmental impact statement for its recommended route for I-73 from I-81 in Roanoke to the North Carolina border. FHWA approved the EIS report in April 2007. Virginia can now go ahead to draw up plans to construct the highway and proceed to build it once funds are obtained. South Carolina also has shown recent interest in building its section of I-73 with a corridor selected for the route from I-95 to Myrtle Beach in 2006 and a final decision on how the highway should be routed north of I-95 to the North Carolina border in July 2007. In January 2006, the South Carolina state legislature introduced bills to construct I-73 as a toll highway. It is hoped a guaranteed stream of revenue will allow it to build its section of I-73 within 10 years. FHWA approved South Carolina's proposal on August 10, 2007.[16]

Ohio and Michigan both abandoned further environmental studies on their portions of I-73. It is important to note that most of the I-73 corridor in both of these states follows existing freeways or highways scheduled to be upgraded to freeways under plans that predate I-73.

Future

South Carolina

I-73 and I-74 both begin at Georgetown, South Carolina, and run to Myrtle Beach. I-73 splits to the northwest to Rockingham, North Carolina.

On May 30, 2006, SCDOT announced its preferred routing of I-73 between Myrtle Beach and I-95.[17] I-73 will begin where South Carolina Highway 22 (SC 22) starts at US 17 near Briarcliffe Acres. It will then proceed northwest crossing the proposed routing of I-74 (currently SC 31, the Carolina Bays Parkway). After passing Conway, I-73 will leave SC 22 at a new interchange to be constructed two miles (3.2 km) west of US 701, and will then use a new highway to be built between SC 22 and SC 917 north of Cool Spring. I-73 will then use an upgraded SC 917 to cross the Little Pee Dee River. It will then proceed on a new freeway alignment between SC 917 and I-95[18] that would have an interchange with US 76 west of Mullins and then would proceed northwest to an exit with US 501 near Latta, passing that city to the south before intersecting I-95 near SC 38. After crossing I-95, I-73 will use the chosen middle route, one of six potential alternative corridors that were studied all of which roughly paralleling SC 38 to proceed further north to the North Carolina state line. These alternative corridors were formally announced to the public on September 7, 2006, at a meeting in Bennettsville, South Carolina. The number of possible routes was reduced to three, and a final decision on the preferred northern route was announced on July 19, 2007. The central route caused the least disruption to homes, farms and wetlands.[19] The North and South Carolina departments of transportation previously agreed to an I-73 corridor crossing the state line along SC  and NC 38 near Hamlet, North Carolina, on February 11, 2005. Previously I-73 had been planned to cross the state line further west, near US 1 south of Rockingham, North Carolina.

In February 2008, the Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the section of I-73 from I-95 to SC 22 was signed. An October 22, 2008 ceremony marked the signing of the Record of Decision for the section from near Hamlet to I-95.[20]

On November 7, 2011, Myrtle Beach city council member Wayne Gray asked area elected officials to consider using Road Improvement and Development Effort (RIDE) funds to pay for a portion of I-73.[21]

In June 2012, Miley and Associates of Columbia, South Carolina, recommended improvements to SC 38 and US 501 to create the Grand Strand Expressway (GSX), a position long held by the Coastal Conservation League, which asked for the study. SC Representative Alan Clemmons, head of the National I-73 Corridor Association, said such a plan had been considered but was not likely.[22] Nancy Cave of the Coastal Conservation League reiterated support for upgrading SC 38 and US 501, along with US 521 and SC 9, after results of a new study were presented at an August 1, 2012, meeting of the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. The study claimed that 90,000 people could leave the area 10 hours faster in an evacuation with I-73 and Southern Evacuation Lifeline (SELL) both in place.[23]

Virginia

In Virginia, I-73 will continue north from the state line parallel to the US 220 corridor all the way to Roanoke. US 220 is currently a rural four-lane highway with many safety issues. As such, Virginia has decided to have I-73 immediately diverge from US 220 upon entering the state from North Carolina and travel around the east side of Martinsville, with US 220 as a freeway around the west side of Martinsville. The two will meet briefly south of Rocky Mount. I-73 will continue its northbound journey paralleling US 220 to the east until they converge south of Roanoke. At that point, I-73 and US 220 will run concurrent to I-581, which I-73 will follow to I-81.[24]

If I-73 is extended northward, from Roanoke, it will turn southwest on I-81, running concurrently to east of Blacksburg, and then using the Smart Road to Blacksburg. The rest of the way to West Virginia will be an upgrade of US 460, Corridor Q of the Appalachian Development Highway System.

West Virginia

I-73 will continue next to US 460 (Corridor Q) from the Virginia state line west to Bluefield. There it will join with I-74, which splits from Interstate 77 just across the border from Virginia. For the rest of its path through West Virginia, from Bluefield to Huntington and Ohio, I-73 will follow US 52, which is currently being upgraded to a four-lane divided highway as the King Coal Highway to Williamson and the Tolsia Highway the rest of the way to Huntington. This section has been sporadically marked as the Future I-73/I-74 Corridor with signs, but is not being built to Interstate standards.

Ohio

In Ohio, I-73 was planned to parallel US 52 to Portsmouth. A four-lane controlled highway known as the Portsmouth Bypass was to be built. This bypass would have run from U.S. Route 52 to US 23, just north of Lucasville. Interstates 73 and 74 would continue north to State Route 32, where I-74 would split from I-73, and I-73 would head north along US 23 the rest of the way through Columbus to Toledo and the Michigan state line. The part from Portsmouth to Columbus is Corridor C of the Appalachian Development Highway System. In Columbus, I-73 would most likely follow State Route 315 through Columbus. In Toledo, I-73 would most likely run where I-280 runs. It would also most likely run with I-475 before branching off with U.S. Route 23 into Michigan. However, routes in the Columbus and Toledo areas have not yet been officially determined. Ohio has abandoned further study of the I-73 corridor, since much of the US 23/US 52 corridor is scheduled to be upgraded to freeway status under separate projects. Nonetheless, the option to designate the corridor as I-73 once all upgrades are complete remains open, contingent upon what happens with the route in West Virginia.

On February 5, 2009, the governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland, proposed allowing tolls to be collected on newly built sections of highway.[25] One of the proposed routes includes the Columbus–Toledo corridor, which is currently served by US 23 as an expressway largely without limited access.

Michigan

The original defined alignment of I-73 would have run along I-75 to Detroit.[26] However, Congress amended that definition in 1995 to have a branch along the US 223 corridor to south of Jackson and the US 127 corridor north to I-75 near Grayling. From Grayling it would use I-75 to Sault Ste. Marie.[27] Except south of Jackson, where the existing highways are two-lane roads and a section of road north of Lansing where the freeway reverts to a divided highway, this corridor is mostly a rural four-lane freeway.[28] MDOT included using the US 223 corridor as one of its three options to build I-73 in 2000. The others included using the US 127 corridor all the way into Ohio with a connection to the Ohio Turnpike or using US 127 south and a new freeway connection to US 223 at Adrian.[29] MDOT abandoned further study of I-73 after June 12, 2001, diverting remaining funding to safety improvement projects along the corridor.[30] The department stated there was a "lack of need" for sections of the proposed freeway, and the project website was closed down in 2002.[31] According to press reports in 2011, a group advocating on behalf of the freeway is working to revive the I-73 project in Michigan. According to an MDOT spokesman, "to my knowledge, we’re not taking that issue up again."[32] The Lenawee County Road Commission is not interested in the freeway, and according to the president of the Adrian Area Chamber of Commerce, "there seems to be little chance of having an I-73 link between Toledo and Jackson built in the foreseeable future."[32]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Google (October 26, 2013). "Interstate 73 in North Carolina" (Map). Google Maps. Google. Retrieved October 26, 2013.
  2. 1 2 Malme, Robert H. (May 30, 2015). "Why I-73/I-74 in North Carolina?". Self-published. Retrieved May 30, 2015.
  3. ↑ Siceloff, Bruce (February 21, 2008). "I-40 Bypass Opens in Greensboro". The News & Observer (Raleigh, NC). p. b5. OCLC 11750106.
  4. ↑ Wireback, Taft (September 16, 2008). "old I- 40 gets back on track". News & Record (Greensboro, NC). p. A1. ISSN 0747-1858.
  5. ↑ Nadolny, Tricia L. (July 31, 2009). "Mapping by car". News & Record (Greensboro, NC). p. A1. ISSN 0747-1858.
  6. ↑ Hall, Tony (March 28, 1997). "State Making Good Progress on Interstates". News & Record (Greensboro, NC). p. B2. ISSN 0747-1858.
  7. ↑ MacCallum, Tom (January 8, 2008). "Ellerbe Bypass Opens After Years of Construction". Richmond County Daily Journal (Rockingham, NC).
  8. ↑ Bartelme, Tony (September 14, 1997). "Birth of an Interstate: How a Savvy Group of West Virginians Dreamed up I-73". Post and Courier (Charleston, SC). p. A1. ISSN 1061-5105.
  9. ↑ Scism, Jack (June 9, 1991). "New Interstates Likely Impossible Dream". News & Record (Greensboro, NC). p. E1. ISSN 0747-1858.
  10. ↑ Natzke, Stefan; Neathery, Mike; Adderly, Kevin (June 18, 2012). "High Priority Corridors". National Highway System. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved August 26, 2012.
  11. ↑ Scism, Jack (January 3, 1993). "Coming Soon—to a Highway Near You—I-73". News & Record (Greensboro, NC). p. E1. ISSN 0747-1858.
  12. ↑ Thompson, Kelly (May 15, 1993). "Interstate to Run Through Triad Detroit to Charleston, SC". News & Record (Greensboro, NC). p. B2. ISSN 0747-1858.
  13. ↑ Lounsbury, Helen (November 11, 1993). "Road to Roanoke Vital, Group Says Lobbying for New Interstate". News & Record (Greensboro, NC). p. B3. ISSN 0747-1858.
  14. ↑ Catanoso, Justin (April 14, 1995). "New Proposal for I-73 Stirs Triad Rivalry". News & Record (Greensboro, NC). p. B1. ISSN 0747-1858.
  15. ↑ Catanoso, Justin (May 2, 1995). "New Interstates May Cross Triad". News & Record (Greensboro, NC). p. A1. ISSN 0747-1858.
  16. ↑ Fuller, Kerry Marshall (August 11, 2007). "Tolling on I-73 Gains Federal Approval". The Sun News (Myrtle Beach, SC ). p. A1.
  17. ↑ "Conservationists find I-73 route acceptable". The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC). May 31, 2006. p. B3. ISSN 1061-5105.
  18. ↑ Wilson, Zane (May 31, 2006). "A Route at Last". The Sun News (Myrtle Beach, SC). p. A1. OCLC 27119790.
  19. ↑ Root, Tonya (July 20, 2007). "Plan for North Leg Revealed". The Sun News (Myrtle Beach, SC). p. A1. OCLC 27119790.
  20. ↑ "Ceremony Marks Step Forward for Northern Route of I-73". The Morning News (Florence, SC). October 20, 2008.
  21. ↑ Anderson, Lorena (November 7, 2011). "Myrtle Beach, Horry County and legislators talk I-73, cell phones, taxes and more at joint meeting". The Sun News (Myrtle Beach, SC). OCLC 27119790. Archived from the original on April 21, 2012. Retrieved November 15, 2011.
  22. ↑ Kelley, Amanda (June 23, 2012). "Study Favors Updating Existing Roads Rather than Building Interstate 73". The Sun News (Myrtle Beach, SC). OCLC 27119790. Retrieved June 26, 2012.
  23. ↑ Jones, Steve; Grooms, Vicki (August 1, 2012). "New Evacuation Study Has Chamber Backing, but Critics Say They Have Better Route". The Sun News (Myrtle Beach, SC). OCLC 27119790. Retrieved August 2, 2012.
  24. ↑ Staff (March 19, 2010). "I-73 Location Study". Virginia Department of Transportation. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
  25. ↑ "Gov Toll Road Proposal May Revive Highway Projects". Columbus, OH: WCMH-TV. Associated Press. February 6, 2009. Retrieved September 19, 2011.
  26. ↑ Staff (December 18, 1991). "Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991". U.S. Congress. Retrieved September 28, 2010. §1105(c)(5) I-73/74 North–South Corridor from Charleston, South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, and Detroit, Michigan.
  27. ↑ Staff (November 28, 1995). "The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995". U.S. Congress. Retrieved September 28, 2010. §1105(c)(5) I-73/74 North–South Corridor from Charleston, South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, to termini at Detroit, Michigan and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The Sault Ste. Marie terminus shall be reached via a corridor connecting Adrian, Jackson, Lansing, Mount Pleasant, and Grayling, Michigan.
  28. ↑ Official Department of Transportation Map (Map). 1 in:15 mi / 1 cm:9 km. Cartography by MDOT. Michigan Department of Transportation. 2010. § N11–N12.
  29. ↑ "Michigan Settles on 3 Options for I-73: State Still May Decide not to Build Highway". Toledo Blade. December 14, 2000. p. B2. Retrieved December 19, 2010.
  30. ↑ Stiles, Linda (June 13, 2001). "Funds for I-73 Instead Will Be Used to Repair Routes 127, 223". Jackson Citizen Patriot. p. A1. OCLC 9939307.
  31. ↑ Hickey, JoAnne (August 22, 2007). "South Takes the Lead: I-73 Will Push from South to North" (PDF). Marion Star & Mullins Enterprise (Marion, SC). p. 5A. OCLC 761993706. Archived from the original on May 8, 2012. Retrieved January 4, 2011.
  32. 1 2 Pelham, Dennis (July 16, 2011). "Group Seeks to Revive I-73 Interest in Michigan". The Daily Telegram (Adrian, MI). p. A8. OCLC 33972687. Archived from the original on May 8, 2012. Retrieved September 6, 2011.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Interstate 73.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, February 05, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.