I-73 & I-74 in S.C.

[WashuOtaku]

I recently noticed that NCDOT updated all their county maps to August, 2015 and they include the proposed route of I-74: Columbus County Map, Brunswick County Map.

Other county maps along the route also shoe routes of future I-74 around Rockingham and US 1, but oddly not future I-73.  Regardless, if you got the time to browse, check'em out:  State Mapping Resources.

While the I-73/I-74 Bypass of Rockingham is not shown on the Richmond County map, the I-73 proposed path to SC is shown mostly paralleling NC 38. The Triad county maps also show the proposed I-73 and I-74 paths.

The I-73/I-74 bypass shows up in the insert maps for Richmond County, as well as future US 1 bypass.

[Mergingtraffic]

Transportation commission approves step towards I-73
http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article47851305.html

[The Ghostbuster]

Does anyone see any Interstate 73 or 74 signs (excluding future signs) going up in South Carolina within the next 20 years? I sure don't.

[wdcrft63]

These statements from politicians that "state money should pay for maintenance of existing highways, not new construction" are disheartening. North Carolina is building close to 100 miles of new highways, mostly freeways.

[Grzrd]

there are a few more steps to clear before dirt will fly.
http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/04/22/2116499/some-money-approved-for-interstate.html#storylink=misearch
"However, the funding still must clear several more hurdles before it becomes final. First, it must gain approval from the state's Joint Bond Review Committee and then it must be approved by the state's Budget and Control Board"

The I-73 project is one of several that SCDOT has approved in anticipation of the joint bond issue, and SCDOT is soliciting comments on these projects until May 26:
http://www.scdot.org/inside/public_comment_statewide_interstate.shtml

it appears that there is no approval to build the five miles of highway that would link I-95 and US 501 via I-73.

Here is SCDOT's pdf of the project, which indicates that I-73 would tie into US 501:
http://www.scdot.org/inside/pdfs/public_comment_dillon_county.pdf
The pdf indicates that the project would need an additional $80.5 million in earmarks to meet its total $185.5 million price tag.

(above quote from Interstate 73/74 thread)

I thought funding was in place to at least build 73 from 95 to the 301/501 split near latta.  I know that the 301/501 split was redesigned and rebuilt as preparation for the 73 project.
Sorry it's been a few years since I followed this.

This article reports that the bond plan was abandoned in 2011 after controversy ensued:

Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler of Gaffney says he doesn't object to a $1.3 billion plan to build Interstate 73 from I-95 to the beach, a project the state's highway commissioners revived last week.
But Peeler said Thursday he does object to funding the project, even if most of the funding comes from federal and local sources, before lawmakers fund improvements to other interstates in South Carolina ....
The state Department of Transportation Commission last week approved a plan to purchase and preserve Gunter's Island in Horry County as mitigation for wetlands that would be destroyed in the project, action designed to advance the necessary environmental permit that must be approved before work can proceed ....
The commission's action is the latest chapter in a years-long and controversial project to build a more direct link for tourists from around the nation to get to the Grand Strand. The highway is designed to run from Michigan to Myrtle Beach ....
In 2011, the DOT board passed a bond proposal that included more than $100 million for an interchange on I-95 that could be used for I-73. But after some controversy ensued, the board abandoned the bond plan.

[WashuOtaku]

This article reports that the bond plan was abandoned in 2011 after controversy ensued:

Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler of Gaffney says he doesn't object to a $1.3 billion plan to build Interstate 73 from I-95 to the beach, a project the state's highway commissioners revived last week.
But Peeler said Thursday he does object to funding the project, even if most of the funding comes from federal and local sources, before lawmakers fund improvements to other interstates in South Carolina ....
The state Department of Transportation Commission last week approved a plan to purchase and preserve Gunter's Island in Horry County as mitigation for wetlands that would be destroyed in the project, action designed to advance the necessary environmental permit that must be approved before work can proceed ....
The commission's action is the latest chapter in a years-long and controversial project to build a more direct link for tourists from around the nation to get to the Grand Strand. The highway is designed to run from Michigan to Myrtle Beach ....
In 2011, the DOT board passed a bond proposal that included more than $100 million for an interchange on I-95 that could be used for I-73. But after some controversy ensued, the board abandoned the bond plan.

It's sad really because they didn't resolve the budget issues with SCDOT and still haven't to this day.  So, they canceled a bond package for a new interstate simply because they wanted to focus on repairing existing roads first and they have yet to do that.   

[Rothman]

These statements from politicians that "state money should pay for maintenance of existing highways, not new construction" are disheartening. North Carolina is building close to 100 miles of new highways, mostly freeways.

This phrase is catching on amongst state officials everywhere.  Shows ignorance on their part as to how much federal funding goes towards maintenance already and the fact that federal funding is a reimbursement program, anyway!

[tomstickler]

This article reports that SCDOT may be soliciting proposals for a new I-73 toll study in the relatively near future:


It appears the state Transportation Commission will again study whether to use tolls to pay for building Interstate 73 through northeastern South Carolina.
Transportation Commissioner Mike Wooten represents the state's 7th Congressional District where the interstate is planned and says he will ask for a study next month. The Department of Transportation staff is preparing a request for proposals for the study expected to cost as much as $200,000.
Wooten said tolls would probably be combined with other funding to pay for the road.
"Tolling is not going to be enough to pay for it," he said.
A smaller, less extensive study of using tolls was done in the last decade.

C&M Associates, Inc. was contracted to do the $200,000 toll study. Wooten must not have been happy.

http://www.myrtlebeachsc.com/nmb-myrtle-beach-battle-is-holding-up-i-73-route/


Did no one other than me check the math on the original Economic Impact of I-73 in South Carolina study done be Chmura Economics & Analytics in March 2011 for the North Eastern Strategic Alliance? Unfortunately, I was not aware of that study until September of 2011, and by then the claims of "29,000" jobs had been spread far and wide. The 18,856 tourism-related jobs could never be more than 1,305 after corecting for aall the erroneous assumptions and faulty calculations made by Chmura.

To make matters worse, C&M accepted these bogus numbers in the draft report and had also hired Chmura to make more projections.

[Grzrd]

I thought funding was in place to at least build 73 from 95 to the 301/501 split near latta.  I know that the 301/501 split was redesigned and rebuilt as preparation for the 73 project.
Sorry it's been a few years since I followed this.

This article reports that federal earmarked funds held by the state for Interstate 73 may possibly now be used on other roads:

A state senator filibustering a roads bill says that federal earmarked funds held by the state for Interstate 73 can now be used on other roads.
Sen. Tom Davis, a Beaufort Republican who for a second day held the Senate podium to talk about accountability at the state Department of Transportation, argued that DOT holds millions of dollars in federal earmarked funds that can be used on highway projects different than those the money was received for if the earmarks are 10 years or older.
Davis said the commission's chairman has said that about $50 million in federal earmarks and grants received for I-73 is escrowed by the state Department of Transportation and can only be used on that project.
"That's not true," Davis told the Senate.
He said because of action by Congress late last year, any earmarks at least 10 years old that do not have significant amounts obligated for construction are freed to be used for other purposes.
That totals $96 million in South Carolina, he said, $36 million of it earmarked for I-73. Davis said he learned of the congressional action through his own research, not from anything DOT had told him ....
DOT Chairman Mike Wooten, who lives in Horry County, told The Greenville News Thursday it was his understanding that the federal legislation passed last year would not impact the I-73 funds.
"Sen. Davis may be right," he said. "I hope that is not the case. We went up there and worked hard for that money. I would hate to think it could be reallocated to anything else."
A spokesman for DOT said the agency is still awaiting guidance on the issue from the Federal Highway Administration. ....
Wooten has said repeatedly that the controversial project, which could cost between $1 billion and $2 billion, would not use any state funds. He said it would be paid for with tolls and money raised by Horry County, in addition to the federal funds already received and possible future federal monies ....
Complicating the debate is about $1.3 billion in new money this year from budget surpluses.

Once again, it may be hurry up and wait .........

[The Ghostbuster]

How long before we see Interstate 73/74 signs in South Carolina (excluding future signs)? It seems like it will be a while.

[WashuOtaku]

How long before we see Interstate 73/74 signs in South Carolina (excluding future signs)? It seems like it will be a while.

You just answered your own question.

[ReeseFerlautoI74/85]

I thought funding was in place to at least build 73 from 95 to the 301/501 split near latta.  I know that the 301/501 split was redesigned and rebuilt as preparation for the 73 project.
Sorry it's been a few years since I followed this.

This article reports that federal earmarked funds held by the state for Interstate 73 may possibly now be used on other roads:

A state senator filibustering a roads bill says that federal earmarked funds held by the state for Interstate 73 can now be used on other roads.
Sen. Tom Davis, a Beaufort Republican who for a second day held the Senate podium to talk about accountability at the state Department of Transportation, argued that DOT holds millions of dollars in federal earmarked funds that can be used on highway projects different than those the money was received for if the earmarks are 10 years or older.
Davis said the commission's chairman has said that about $50 million in federal earmarks and grants received for I-73 is escrowed by the state Department of Transportation and can only be used on that project.
"That's not true," Davis told the Senate.
He said because of action by Congress late last year, any earmarks at least 10 years old that do not have significant amounts obligated for construction are freed to be used for other purposes.
That totals $96 million in South Carolina, he said, $36 million of it earmarked for I-73. Davis said he learned of the congressional action through his own research, not from anything DOT had told him ....
DOT Chairman Mike Wooten, who lives in Horry County, told The Greenville News Thursday it was his understanding that the federal legislation passed last year would not impact the I-73 funds.
"Sen. Davis may be right," he said. "I hope that is not the case. We went up there and worked hard for that money. I would hate to think it could be reallocated to anything else."
A spokesman for DOT said the agency is still awaiting guidance on the issue from the Federal Highway Administration. ....
Wooten has said repeatedly that the controversial project, which could cost between $1 billion and $2 billion, would not use any state funds. He said it would be paid for with tolls and money raised by Horry County, in addition to the federal funds already received and possible future federal monies ....
Complicating the debate is about $1.3 billion in new money this year from budget surpluses.

Once again, it may be hurry up and wait .........

I don't know. this is NC we are talking about.


But, I am glad SCDOT is focusing on I-73 first as they should be doing. I-74 is not going to get extended through southeast NC anytime soon due to its proposed routing goes across awfully a lot of wetlands (as you see on the proposed routing map).


But Myrtle Beach doesn't need 2 interstates going there. I would keep I-73 and forget I-74. I also heard they are planning to have another road built going west of SC 22 and US 501 interchange as "SELL" which it will form a beltway around the Myrtle Beach area.

It is necessary to upgrade Grand Strand Expressway rather than building a new highway! There are more roads that need upgrades!! I-85 in SC should be a 6-8 lane highway!!

[Henry]

It is necessary to upgrade Grand Strand Expressway rather than building a new highway! There are more roads that need upgrades!! I-85 in SC should be a 6-8 lane highway!!

Agreed, because the current setup is an insult to the main route from Charlotte to Atlanta. I-73 and I-74 can wait a bit longer, since those upgrades are long overdue.

[Grzrd]

This article reports that federal earmarked funds held by the state for Interstate 73 may possibly now be used on other roads:

A state senator filibustering a roads bill says that federal earmarked funds held by the state for Interstate 73 can now be used on other roads.
Sen. Tom Davis, a Beaufort Republican who for a second day held the Senate podium to talk about accountability at the state Department of Transportation, argued that DOT holds millions of dollars in federal earmarked funds that can be used on highway projects different than those the money was received for if the earmarks are 10 years or older .... That totals $96 million in South Carolina, he said, $36 million of it earmarked for I-73.

This February 23 article reports that Myrtle Beach's U.S. Representative, Tom Rice, is convinced that I-73 does not qualify for the federal earmark rerouting provision that Congress added to the omnibus spending bill in December:

U.S. Rep. Tom Rice on Tuesday disputed claims by a state lawmaker that congressional earmarks to fund Interstate 73 could be redirected to pay for other road repairs in the state.
State Sen. Tom Davis, a Beaufort Republican, is filibustering a road funding bill in the state legislature and said last week that millions set aside to construct the interstate to connect with Myrtle Beach could be rerouted because it had not been used.
However, Rice, the Republican congressman from Myrtle Beach, said I-73 does not qualify for the rerouting provision that Congress added to the omnibus spending bill in December, to which Davis was referring.
"The provision in the law prevents old earmarks from hanging out there forever, but the key provision is that at least 10 percent of the funds have not been obligated, and here, much more than 10 percent has been obligated,"  Rice said.
Congress created two earmarks for the construction of I-73. The first amounted to more than $10 million, of which all but an estimated $200,000 has been spent. Of the second earmark for $76 million, about $39 million has been spent, Rice said ....
we've been working steadily on I-73, buying right-of-ways, moving utilities, working on mitigation, and that costs money,"  Rice said ....
a significant portion of the remaining funding for I-73 is also obligated to pay for Gunter's Island, mitigation property that is intended to offset the impact of the new highway on wetlands.
The funding to construct I-73, estimated to cost more than $1 billion, would not come from state funding but continued federal funding. Additional revenues could also be raised from a new sales tax or tolls, according to Mike Wooten, chairman of the South Carolina Department of Transportation commission.

[Rothman]

Very interesting.  Never heard the 10% rule invoked before, especially by a politician.

Around these parts, we love being able to sweep up old, useless earmarks -- earmarks far too small to actually fulfill their intended purpose -- and re-purpose them within the legal radius.

[ReeseFerlautoI74/85]

If SC wants I-73, The Grand Strand Expressway is a much better alternative!!

[WashuOtaku]

If SC wants I-73, The Grand Strand Expressway is a much better alternative!!

South Carolina wants "INTERSTATE" 73, they are not going to settle for a super-street design on existing highways nor build a transit line.  The problem is that others in the state want the money to repair existing roads and "maybe" expand them.  The reality is that South Carolina legislators are tight on money spending to a fault.

[wdcrft63]

If SC wants I-73, The Grand Strand Expressway is a much better alternative!!

I think one of the arguments for the GSX is that I-73 is redundant, because it parallels the proposed I-74. This amounts to saying, "SC doesn't have to build a freeway to Myrtle Beach because NC will be generous enough to build one for us." That's not going to happen, folks. If SC backs out of building I-73, you can bet that I-74 is going straight in to Wilmington.

[ReeseFerlautoI74/85]

If SC wants I-73, The Grand Strand Expressway is a much better alternative!!

I think one of the arguments for the GSX is that I-73 is redundant, because it parallels the proposed I-74. This amounts to saying, "SC doesn't have to build a freeway to Myrtle Beach because NC will be generous enough to build one for us." That's not going to happen, folks. If SC backs out of building I-73, you can bet that I-74 is going straight in to Wilmington.

I-73 should end at Wilmington!

SM-G360T1

[roadman65]

If SC wants I-73, The Grand Strand Expressway is a much better alternative!!

I think one of the arguments for the GSX is that I-73 is redundant, because it parallels the proposed I-74. This amounts to saying, "SC doesn't have to build a freeway to Myrtle Beach because NC will be generous enough to build one for us." That's not going to happen, folks. If SC backs out of building I-73, you can bet that I-74 is going straight in to Wilmington.

I-73 should end at Wilmington!

SM-G360T1

Why do you say that if I may ask?

[ReeseFerlautoI74/85]

I-74 was to end at Wilmington, not 73

SM-G360T1

[roadman65]

But why change the numbers though? 

Plus its not official that it will end there as still I-74 is still to go to Myrtle Beach.

[wdcrft63]

But why change the numbers though? 

Plus its not official that it will end there as still I-74 is still to go to Myrtle Beach.

Right. But NCDOT isn't excited about that connection. If SC backs out of the overall I-73/74 plan, I think NC will do the same.

[roadman65]

NC would rather have SC extend I-20 east of Florence so that they could connect it to Wilmington, but SC will not budge on that one.

I-74 will be built in 2020 from Rockingham to the north connecting it to the I-73/I-74 freeway already built northward and upgrade arterial US 74 from Hamlett to Laurinburg to interstate standards. So they do have at least the High Point to Lumberton freeway as part of the interstate network in stone anyway.

[NE2]

NC would rather have SC extend I-20 east of Florence so that they could connect it to Wilmington, but SC will not budge on that one.

Really? That would be a lot of construction for minimal distance savings over 20-95-74.