The following articles
are from the Smoky Mountain News, July 6:
Interstate 3
Battle lines drawn as Georgia seeks to lighten Atlanta’s load
By Becky Johnson ? Staff
Writer
Residents of far Western North Carolina
have launched the beginnings of what organizers say will be a massive fight to
defeat a proposed new interstate through the mountains — one that would bisect
Clay, Cherokee, Graham and possibly Macon counties en route from Savannah to
Knoxville.
The interstate was proposed by Georgia’s congressmen as a way
to improve commerce of their state and relieve congestion in Atlanta by allowing
cross-country interstate traffic to bypass the metro area.
“The people
in Atlanta are trying to take some of their sprawl and growth and kick it up on
us,” said Buzz Williams, director of the Chattooga Conservancy, a conservation
group for the Chattooga River watershed. “We are going to organize people and we
are going to stop it. We’re going to take this to the mat.”
Word of the
interstate trickled up from North Georgia a few weeks ago following an
anti-interstate rally in Hiawassee — a small North Georgia town. Five hundred
members of a politically active homeowners’ association in Hiawassee turned out
to oppose the interstate and began planning to divert it from their area.
Western North Carolina residents quickly realized unless they took
action, too, opposition in North Georgia could shift the interstate even deeper
into this neck of woods.
“We are afraid that this thing is going to take
the path of least resistance — whoever makes the most noise doesn’t get it,”
Williams said. “We are desperately trying to form a coalition with other groups
to have a common strategy, which is ‘We don’t need it. We don’t want it. It’s
not going anywhere. And we’re sticking together.’”
About 20 Hayesville
residents-turned-activists gathered for a strategy meeting at Hayesville Water
Gardens last Wednesday, where owner Joe Stephens denounced the major selling
point for the interstate — economic development.
“The entire concept of
the interstate struck me as stupid for the mountains,” Stephens said. “To me the
best idea for this area is to protect what it’s got going for it, which is
beautiful mountain valleys. You don’t destroy your main asset to bring economic
prosperity. Besides, fast food restaurants aren’t economic prosperity. That’s
minimum wage.”
But proponents of the interstate say that 80 percent of
jobs in the nation are located within 10 miles of an interstate.
Jan
Unger, president of Zickgraf Enterprises with operations in Macon and Swain
counties, said that an interstate would improve business and industry in the
region.
“It would be a tremendous asset,” Unger said. “I think any
interstate that would come through any region would be a benefit.”
Numerous corporations have come out in favor of the interstate, from
Home Depot to Goody’s Family Clothing, which is based in Knoxville.
Economic development was the main impetus behind Interstate 26 through
Madison County. It, too, was controversial, but has been a positive economic
force since opening two years ago, according to N.C. Rep. Ray Rapp, D-Mars Hill.
Conrad Burrell, the representative for this region of Western North
Carolina on the NC Board of Transportation and a Jackson County commissioner,
said there is a correlation between roads and economic development.
“People have different ideas of road building and whether we need a road
or not. But if they decide to build it, it would definitely open up this end of
the state economically,” Burrell said.
But not all economic development
is good, said Aurelia Stone, a Hayesville resident and chairwoman of the
Tusquitee chapter of WNC Alliance environmental advocacy group.
“I think
it is opening our area up to more summer home development, more low-paying jobs
in industries like hotels and gas stations,” Stone said.
Stone, a health
care worker, moved to the region in 1990 after urban sprawl encroached on her
farm outside Augusta, Ga.
“All the farms around us got sold for
development. We’ve moved two times since coming here for the same reason,” Stone
said. The remaining slice of rural landscape will be further jeopardized by an
interstate with a promulgation of feeder roads and interchanges cropping up
along it, Stone said.
John Clarke, a raspberry farmer and builder in
Hayesville, said the interstate would ruin the region’s best asset and actually
hurt economic development.
“Economic development here is based on
natural beauty, not interstates,” Clarke said
Clarke said everyone
should have a vested interest in defeating the interstate — hunters and hikers,
fishermen and kayakers, newcomers who came here to escape traffic noise and
old-timers who could lose their family farms to right-of-way acquisition,
motorcyclists who could lose the infamous Tail of the Dragon ride and boaters
who could lose tranquility on both Chattooga and Santeetlah lakes.
Where it all started
The idea for a new interstate
across Georgia has been talked about for years but was officially proposed for
the first time in summer 2004. A stand-alone bill calling for a feasibility
study was introduced in both the House and Senate and gained support from most
of Georgia’s congressional delegation. The interstate was called I-3 in honor of
the Third Infantry Division that is based in Georgia.
But in typical
Washington form, it didn’t make it out of committee. So a new strategy was
deployed this year. The Georgia delegation inserted a line item into the massive
Transportation Bill — $400,000 to study an I-3 corridor. The strategy worked.
U.S. Rep. Charlie Norwood, a Republican who represents 23 counties in
northeastern Georgia, is the main driver behind I-3.
“One of the main
things we are looking for is congestion improvement,” said John Stone, aide to
Norwood.
Relieving congestion in Atlanta will improve air quality in the
mountains, he said.
“Atlanta is absolutely bogged down in dead stopped
traffic for hours every day in the morning and afternoon. That leads to maximum
possible air pollution,” Stone said. Stone said that pollution floats up to the
mountains where it hangs on the Smokies and contributes to bad ozone and smog.
But some question whether thru-traffic — which would be removed from
Atlanta’s congestion equation with I-3 — is the real problem.
“Peak hour
traffic is the problem, and that’s locals,” said D.J. Gerken, an attorney out of
Asheville who works for the Southern Environmental Law Center.
Helping Atlanta
Opponents to the Interstate fear
opposition in the rural mountain communities will be no match for the political
clout of Atlanta, and the entire state of Georgia for that matter.
An
article in the Atlanta Business Journal on June 24 stated that I-3 is “gaining
headway at the state and national level.”
Supporters quoted in the
article gushing over the idea of I-3 included Georgia’s Transportation
Commissioner and a spokesperson for the Georgia Ports Authority, who called I-3
an “imperative” transportation link for the port of Savannah.
Both of
Georgia’s U.S. senators and most of its U.S. representatives are behind it. The
Georgia state legislature appears equally gung-ho. They are devoting $100,000 of
state money to establish the Interstate Highway Development Association to
promote the new interstate.
Despite the stacked odds on the surface —
the state of Georgia versus a small group of residents meeting at a garden
center in Hayesville, a town with just two stop lights — some claim help will
pour in from outside the region to defeat the road.
“This is a national
issue,” said Buzz Williams, director of the Chattooga Conservancy, a
conservation group that works to safeguard the Chattooga River and its
watershed.
Williams said the appeal to surrounding regions will be easy:
“Help us stop this thing or you are going to ruin the place where you can come
for recreation,” Williams said.
Striking early
Stone urged concerned residents to
sit tight and wait for the feasibility study to be completed. The project could
be killed or could end up taking an entirely different route, he said.
But Joe Gatins, a Clayton resident who lives just over the Macon County
border, reckons the more momentum the project gains, the harder it gets to stop
it.
“I don’t think it is a fait accompli yet, but it is getting very
close, and if we don’t get it stopped now it will become a fait accompli,”
Gatins said.
Gerken, the attorney for the Southern Environmental Law
Center, agrees. He has spent the past week deciphering the technical ropes of
interstate feasibility studies in hopes of influencing the process early. But
the guidelines are vague, he said.
They call for a steering committee to
be appointed right away and require public comment as part of the study, but
“when you get down to the nuts and bolts of who is going to be on the steering
committee and who appoints them, and where the public hearings will be held,
that’s just not knowable right now,” Gerken said.
Gerken uncovered one
guiding mandate for Interstate feasibility studies.
“You’re supposed to
look at the problems first and kill it early if it doesn’t look like it is going
to work and not spend the full $400,000,” Gerken said. That mandate could put
the route through mountains — clearly the biggest problem area — at the front
end of the feasibility study.
The U.S. Department of Transportation will
likely ask the N.C. DOT for advice when examining potential routes. According to
Burrell, who sits on the state Transportation Board, building an interstate
through the region is possible.
“I am sure it is possible to do. I don’t
know whether it would be feasible or not. I guess that’s why they are doing a
feasibility study,” Burrell said.
It’s going where?
By Becky
Johnson ? Staff Writer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever since rumors of a new interstate through
Western North Carolina began circulating a few weeks ago, curious residents have
spent hours studying maps and debating the optimum route that will likely be
chosen by federal road planners conducting the feasibility study.
The
casual debate over the potential route will likely rage on for months as there
is no obvious “best” choice.
A bill introduced in Congress in 2004
called for an “interstate highway extending from Savannah, Georgia, to
Knoxville, Tennessee, following a route generally defined through Sylvania,
Waynesboro, Augusta, Lincolnton, Elberton, Hartwell, Toccoa, and Young Harris,
Georgia; and Maryville, Tennessee.”
The route in that intial bill is
full of ambiguity between Young Harris and Maryville — avoiding naming a single
town in all of Western North Carolina — perhaps purposely avoided due to the
complexity of routing an interstate through the region.
A potential
route was refined two months ago, however, by U.S. Rep. Charlie Norwood,
R-Georgia, the lead I-3 proponent. Norwood said I-3 will enter WNC south of
Hayesville, then turn west along U.S. 64, turn northeast just before Murphy,
follow U.S. 19 to Andrews, then head northwest toward Robbinsville, and follow
U.S. 129 around Santeetlah Lake into Tennessee. Opponents balk at the zigzag
route not typically seen in interstates.
“It seems consistent with the
politicians sitting down with a highlighter and saying ‘these roads link up,’”
said D.J. Gerken, attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center.
The word “preliminary” cannot be emphasized enough when talking about
the route, said John Stone, spokesman for Norwood.
“Nobody knows what
the final proposed route is going to be,” said Stone. “There are lots of
options.”
Stone said the route could shift to the east and enter WNC
along the U.S. 441 corridor through Franklin, or it could shift west of Murphy
and wind up completely in Tennessee.
The Transportation Bill calls for
the feasibility report to be completed by the end of this year, but it will most
likely be next summer, Stone said.
“We would rather have a good report
with three or four different alternatives than a rushed one,” Stone said.
Some I-3 opponents are cautioning against a potential decoy route, a
bait and switch of sorts. That’s why Joe Gatins, a lead organizer in the
opposition movement, is urging opponents to avoid the “not in my backyard”
mentality.
“Everyone needs to pull together to oppose the road where
ever it might end up. If it is in the Southern Appalachians, it’s a problem,”
Gatins said.
Interstate 3: WNC politicians weigh in
By Becky Johnson ? Staff
Writer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both state and national elected leaders from
Western North Carolina are expressing reservations about building a new
interstate through the mountains.
N.C. Sen. John Snow, D-Murphy, and
N.C. Rep. Roger West, R-Marble, have both questioned the idea of a new
interstate through the counties they represent.
“To be quite honest with
you, I would just as soon it go somewhere else,” Snow said. “I don’t think we
need it.”
Both Snow and West said they don’t think the majority of their
constituents will support it.
“A lot of people are coming here now and
moving here now because we are the way we are,” Snow said. “You think about the
beauty we have here. Then when you open it up, here you have everybody running
up from Atlanta. We’ll be flooded with people. Why should we be overrun with
hordes of people and traffic so they can get to Knoxville quicker?”
Snow
said an interstate — carving a swath the length of a football field across the
mountains — is incongruous with both state and federal initiatives to promote
heritage tourism.
Snow said the economic advantages of the Interstate
could be achieved instead by the completion of Corridor K, a long-standing
proposal that would create a four-lane divided highway running diagonally —
southwest to northeast — through the far western counties.
Only a few
sections of Corridor K are lacking. U.S. 64 from Murphy to Andrews is already a
four-lane. U.S. 74 is already a four-lane from Bryson City to Interstate 40
north of Waynesville. The primary missing section is a twisty, slow two-lane
through the Nantahala Gorge. Corridor K proposes a new route bypassing the
Nantahala Gorge to the west, swinging through Stecoah. The recent widening of
U.S. 28 north of Robbinsville along the eastern shore of Lake Fontana is part of
the Corridor K grand plan.
West agreed.
“My opinion right now is
I don’t think we need the road (I-3). We’ve got Corridor K, which is a vital
link for Western North Carolina,” West said. “Until we do that, I would oppose
any other plans for another four lane.”
West said building a new road
over the mountain between Robbinsville and Andrews for Corridor K is
controversial but necessary.
“I know it would mess up things through
there, but it is a vital link,” West said. “That would be a throughfare from
Atlanta all over Western North Carolina. To me, that’s the greatest need we’ve
got. We don’t need I-3.”
U.S. Rep. Charles Taylor, R-Brevard, has also
expressed reservations.
“Congressman Taylor’s position is that until
that study is done and we get some sort of idea of what the cost might be, it’s
really hard to say whether he will support it or not,” said Deborah Potter, a
spokesperson who works in Taylor’s Asheville office. “The cost of building an
interstate highway is enormous, so that will be a big factor.”
While
early in the process, so far there has not been an outpouring of support
emanating from mountain communities in the vicinity of the proposed route,
Potter said.
“No county commissioners have come to the congressman
saying ‘Hey, we really want this thing,’” said Potter, citing that as a major
factor in Taylor’s ultimate decision. “Most important is for him to get reaction
from people in the far western communities that would be impacted.”
Taylor was even more candid when responding to a Hayesville resident who
sent Taylor an email expressing concern over I-3 two weeks ago. (The Smoky
Mountain News verified with Taylor’s office that the reply email quoted below
originated from the congressman’s office.)
“I always appreciate hearing
from constituents and greatly benefit from knowing their views,” the reply email
began.
“Like you, I am concerned about the route chosen for the study.
While I cannot speak for the route to be used in Georgia or in Tennessee, I do
believe that it would be extremely difficult for such a massive project to be
completed in North Carolina. From a practical standpoint, it would be
exceedingly expensive to build such a route through our mountains and I am
concerned about the environmental effects such a project would carry,” the reply
email stated, citing the path along N.C. 129 as most problematic.
“On
one side of 129 is the Great Smoky Mountains National Park while on the other
side of the road there are often steep drop-offs. I hope that officials at USDOT
will see the difficulty in commencing such a project in our area,”
“As
this process continues I certainly will monitor any changes in proposed routes
and I will also continue to collect input from the citizens of Western North
Carolina,” the email concluded.
For more information see stop1-3.org and
stopinterstate3.com