Skip to main content

SC Officials look at new ways to secure I-73 funding

A conversation last week between S.C. State Representative Alan Clemmons and Horry County Council Chairwoman Liz Gilland may lead to a new avenue for funding for the building of Interstate 73.

At a meeting held at Coastal Carolina University, Clemmons was discussing the six mile stretch of Interstate 73 from I-95 eastwards to US 501 south of Latta. (This will most likely be the first stretch of Interstate 73 constructed.) Clemmons was discussing that the $300 million project will be the only project that SCDOT is asking for $300 million of Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary grants out of the 2008 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The $300 million is the maximum that can be awarded to a project out of the $1.5 billion long-term road project TIGER fund. If approved, construction on this six mile stretch could begin soon.

Gilland asked Clemmons if a Horry County request for $30 million of TIGER Funds for upgrading SC 22 to Interstate grade would be in competition with SCDOT's request.

Clemmons said it would not.

The $30 million upgrade to SC 22 would be for the construction of shoulders that would bring the highway to Interstate standards. The upgrade would run from US 17 in North Myrtle Beach to a point between the SC 22 interchanges with US 501 and SC 319.

The list of projects that will receive TIGER funding will be announced in January 2010.

Story: New Lanes in I-73 Effort ---Myrtle Beach Sun News

Commentary:

Actually it appears that the $30 million Horry County request - if formally requested - would have some impact on SCDOT's request for $300 million for the I-95 to Latta six mile link. Each state is only allowed to be awarded a maximum of $300 million of the $1.5 billion in TIGER grants.

Comments

Anonymous said…
They should go ahead and build I-73 between I-95 and SC 22 first, then widen the shoulders of SC 22 from there to the end at US 17- Then sign it as a Interstate. The only thing is.. SC needs a interstate from I-95 to Myrtle Beach.. badly.
Bob Malme said…
Clemmons not coincidentally is the Chairman of the I-73/74 Association, so he has a reason to support the idea that both projects should get separate grants. From the article:

"Some background here: U.S. 17's intersection with S.C. 22 is the proposed starting point for I-73, which would then travel 20 miles or so to a point between U.S. 501 and U.S. 701, where the new roadway will then branch off to the northwest toward I-95. S.C. 22 was mostly built to federal interstate standards, lacking only 6 feet of shoulder on either side to qualify, and the cost of adding that shoulder space is about $30 million. Thus, Gilland said that the county should seek TIGER money for the upgrade, then rename that stretch of S.C. 22 as I-73, essentially creating an S.C. leg of it at very little cost.

At the summit, Clemmons supported Gilland's idea. Even with the upgrades, the county might not be able to officially name the highway I-73 until it connects to another interstate, but the effort was still worthwhile, he said. Federal officials were unlikely to look upon the county's request as competition with the $300 million the state is asking for."

The first sentence of the last paragraph is right in that the route couldn't be signed as a full interstate after the upgrade until it connected to another interstate, his opinion about the number of grants in the second sentence may not be so cut and dried. IMO it seems more likely that USDOT would see both projects as part of the construction of I-73, and, if so, SCDOT using TIGER grant funds to upgrade SC 22 would mean taking some funds away from the $300 million I-95 interchange/ Latta Connector project.

As an aside, it's interesting to note that the 'Association Summit' where these conversations supposedly took place has not been posted, either as an upcoming event, or news from after the event, on the I-73/74 Association website. Not even a blog article like last year's on the Greensboro summit has appeared there.
Anonymous said…
BUILD I-73!!!!!!!!!!

Popular posts from this blog

The Dummy Lights of New York

  A relic of the early days of motoring, dummy lights were traffic lights  that  were  placed  in the middle of a street intersection. In those early days, traffic shuffled through busy intersections with the help of a police officer who stood on top of a pedestal. As technology improved and electric traffic signals became commonplace, they were also  originally  positioned on a platform at the center of the intersection. Those traffic signals became known as  " dummy lights "  and were common until  traffic lights were moved  onto wires and poles that crossed above the intersection.  In New York State, only a handful of these dummy lights exist. The dummy lights  are found  in the Hudson Valley towns of Beacon and Croton-on-Hudson, plus there is an ongoing tug of war in Canajoharie in the Mohawk Valley, where their dummy light has been knocked down and replaced a few times. The dummy light in Canajoharie is currently out of commission, but popular demand has caused the dummy

Colorado Road (Fresno County)

Colorado Road is a rural highway located in San Joaquin Valley of western Fresno County.  Colorado Road services the city of San Joaquin in addition the unincorporated communities of Helm and Tranquility.  Colorado Road was constructed between 1910 and 1912 as a frontage road of the Hanford & Summit Lake Railway.  The roadway begins at California State Route 145 near Helm and terminates to the west at James Road in Tranquility.   Part 1; the history of Colorado Road Colorado Road was constructed as frontage road connecting the sidings of the Hanford & Summit Lake Railway.  The Hanford & Summit Lake Railway spanned from South Pacific Railroad West Side Line at Ingle junction southeast to the Coalinga Branch at Armona.  The Hanford & Summit Lake Railway broke ground during August 1910 and was complete by April 1912. The Hanford & Summit Lake Railway established numerous new sidings.  From Ingle the sidings of the line were Tranquility, Graham, San Joaquin, Caldwell, H

The Putah Creek Bridge of Monticello (former California State Route 28)

The Putah Creek Bridge was a masonry structure constructed during 1896 by Napa County to serve the community of Monticello.  The Putah Creek Bridge would be annexed into the State Highway System in 1933 when Legislative Route Number 6 was extended from Woodland Junction to Napa.  The Putah Creek Bridge was a component of the original California State Route 28 from 1934-1952.  The span briefly became part of California State Route 128 in 1953 until the highway was relocated as part of the Monticello Dam project in 1955.  Today the Putah Creek Bridge sits at the bottom of the Lake Berryessa reservoir and is accessible to divers.  Pictured as the blog cover is the Putah Creek Bridge as it was featured in the September 1950 California Highways & Public Works.   California State Route 28 can be seen crossing the Putah Creek Bridge near Monticello on the 1943 United States Geological Survey map of Copay.   The history of the Putah Creek Bridge The site of Monticello lies under the waters