DOCSLIB.ORG

Economic Impact of I-73 in South Carolina

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Economic Impact of I-73 in South Carolina 5.12.2011 Economic Impact of I-73 in South Carolina The existence of I-73 will inject billions of dollars into the I-73 Corridor and South Carolina, and provide tens of thousands of jobs in tourism, retail, service, and warehouse industries. After road completion, annual economic impacts estimated at $2.0 billion will sustain 22,347 jobs in South Carolina in 2030 and beyond. Prepared Northeastern Strategic Alliance (NESA) for Richmond, Virginia Cleveland, Ohio 1309 East Cary Street 1025 East Huron Road Richmond, Virginia 23219 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 804.649.1107 (phone) 216.357.4730 (phone) 804.644.2828 (fax) 216.357.4730 (fax) www.chmuraecon.com Table of Contents 1. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 2. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 5 3. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 4. Literature Review .................................................................................................................................................. 11 4.1. Aggregate National Studies ............................................................................................................................. 11 4.2. Regional Studies .............................................................................................................................................. 12 4.2.1. Evaluating Post-construction Impact ......................................................................................................... 12 4.2.2. Simulating Potential Impact ....................................................................................................................... 13 4.3.3. Studies Focusing on Business Attraction and Generation ........................................................................ 13 4.3.4. Studies on Tourism Development ............................................................................................................. 14 4.3. Economic Impact Study of I-73 in Other States ............................................................................................... 15 5. Economic Overview of the I-73 Corridor ............................................................................................................ 17 5.1. Population ........................................................................................................................................................ 17 5.2. Employment ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 5.3. Income .............................................................................................................................................................. 18 5.4. Industry Mix ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 6. Location, Access, and Traffic Impact of I-73 ...................................................................................................... 22 6.1. Location of I-73 in South Carolina .................................................................................................................... 22 6.1.1. I-73 North Segment Location ..................................................................................................................... 22 6.1.2. I-73 South Location ................................................................................................................................... 22 6.2. Access Points ................................................................................................................................................... 23 6.3. Traffic Projection .............................................................................................................................................. 24 7. Economic Impact of I-73 ....................................................................................................................................... 25 7.1. Travel Efficiency and Cost Savings .................................................................................................................. 25 7.2. Economic Impact of Service Businesses ......................................................................................................... 26 7.2.1. Job Creation in Service Businesses .......................................................................................................... 26 7.2.2. Economic Impact of Service Businesses .................................................................................................. 28 7.3. Development Potential for Distribution Centers ............................................................................................... 29 7.4. Potential Tourism Impact ................................................................................................................................. 30 7.4.1. Direct Impact on Regional Tourism ........................................................................................................... 30 7.4.2. Economic Impact of Increased Tourism .................................................................................................... 33 7.5. Other Benefits .................................................................................................................................................. 34 8. Fiscal Impact ......................................................................................................................................................... 36 8.1. State Fiscal Impact ........................................................................................................................................... 36 8.2. Local Fiscal Impact ........................................................................................................................................... 37 8.3. Potential Payback Period for Investment ......................................................................................................... 38 9. Assessment of Risks ............................................................................................................................................ 39 9.1. Downside Risks ................................................................................................................................................ 39 9.2. Upside Risks .................................................................................................................................................... 39 References ................................................................................................................................................................. 40 Appendix 1: Glossary ............................................................................................................................................... 42 Appendix 2: Interchange Development Categories .............................................................................................. 43 Appendix 3: Economic Impact of I-73 by Segments ............................................................................................. 44 Travel Efficiency ...................................................................................................................................................... 44 Road-Side Services ................................................................................................................................................. 44 2 Distribution Centers ................................................................................................................................................. 45 Incremental Tourism ................................................................................................................................................ 45 Fiscal Impacts ......................................................................................................................................................... 46 Economic Impacts Summary .................................................................................................................................. 47 3 1. Conclusion The proposed interstate system will inject billions of dollars into South Carolina and create jobs in the retail, service, warehouse, and tourism industries. After the completion of I-73, both existing businesses and potential new businesses can benefit from the interstate. For existing businesses in the I-73 Corridor, the interstate can improve travel efficiency and produce cost savings of $120.8 million in 20301 (Table 1.1). The most immediate new businesses associated with the construction of I-73 are the service businesses clustering around interchanges. These service businesses will serve both motorists on I-73 and local residents. They can generate an economic impact of $401.9 million and support 3,205 jobs per year in South Carolina in 2030, most of them being located in the I-73 Corridor. It is likely that I-73 can support a distribution center in the western rural portion of the I-73 Corridor with an economic impact of $31.1 million and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 1 North
    Interstate 73 FEIS: I-95 to North Carolina The feasibility study recognized that there had been some improvements to roads in the project study area; however, the improved roads were predicted to have capacity problems along some segments by the year 2025, based on traffic modeling. Future traffic projections indicated that I-73 would divert traffic from existing roadways, which would improve capacity and reduce traffic congestion.10 North Carolina completed a feasibility study in 2005 that evaluated alternatives for the proposed I­ 74 in Columbus and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina, located in the southeastern portion of the state. The study was an initial step in the planning and design and described the project, costs, and identified potential problems that required consideration. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was passed by Congress and signed into law on August 10, 2005. SAFETEA-LU acknowledges the prior purpose for, and designation of, I-73 as a High Priority Corridor, along with designating it as a project of “national and regional significance” (23 U.S.C. §101(2005)). In addition, SAFETEA-LU provides earmarks for the I-73 project in South Carolina. At the state level, Concurrent Resolution H 3320 passed by the South Carolina General Assembly in 2003 states “that the members of the General Assembly express their collective belief and desire that the Department of Transportation should consider its next interstate project as one that provides the Pee Dee Region with access to the interstate system.”11 Both Congress and the South Carolina General Assembly have appropriated money to SCDOT to study the potential corridor for the proposed I-73.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate 73/74 Economic Atlas of North Carolina
    Interstate 73/74 Economic Atlas of North Carolina Piedmont Triad Rural Planning Organization Piedmont Triad Council of Governments May 2011 Interstate 73/74 Economic Atlas of North Carolina May 2011 Prepared by Piedmont Triad Rural Planning Organization & Piedmont Triad Council of Governments In partnership with: Cape Fear RPO• Greensboro Urban Area MPO • High Point Urban Area MPO • Lumber River RPO Northwest Piedmont RPO • Winston-Salem Urban Area MPO Staff Hanna Cockburn, AICP, Planning Program Manager Jesse Day, Regional Planner Anne Edwards, Director, Regional Data Center Malinda Ford, GIS Planner Route data courtesy of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and Lead Planning Agencies Table of Contents The Great Lakes Mid-Atlantic Route ........................................................................................................... 1 Interstate Impacts .......................................................................................................................................... 2 The North Carolina Corridor .......................................................................................................................... 3 Surry County .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Stokes County ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Forsyth County ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Committee to Study Interstate 73 November 10, 2014 the Joint
    Joint Committee to Study Interstate 73 November 10, 2014 The Joint Committee of the Senate Committee on Local Government and the Senate Committee on Transportation to study the construction of proposed Interstate 73 met on Monday, November 10, 2014, in Martinsville. Election of Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman The meeting began with the election of Senator William Stanley as Chairman and Senator Stephen Newman as Vice-Chairman. Project Introduction by Virginia Department of Transportation Mr. Richard L. Walton, Jr., Chief of Policy for VDOT, provided an overview of the Interstate 73 proposal. In 1991, the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) identified what is now known as the Interstate 73 corridor as a high-priority corridor. A Virginia feasibility study followed in 1993. The Commonwealth Transportation Board began making location decisions, approving the first alignment in 2001. Other decisions followed, with the fourth and most recent alignment approved during 2011. Portions of the cost of preliminary development of the corridor have been paid with funds from a federal TEA-21 earmark. The earmark totaled about $12.5 million, of which about $3.7 million remains; with funds from the two SAFETEA-LU earmarks, most of which remain unspent, the total earmark funding available is about $14.7 million. The cost to construct Interstate 73 from Roanoke to the North Carolina line alone is expected to be more than $4 billion. Chmura Economics and Analytics Report Dr. Xiaobing Shuai of Chmura Economics and Analytics explained the results of studies of the economic impact of Interstate 73 that the firm had conducted for three areas: Virginia, from Roanoke to the North Carolina line (2007), West Virginia (2009), and South Carolina (2011).
    [Show full text]
  • LCSH Section I
    I(f) inhibitors I-215 (Salt Lake City, Utah) Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie USE If inhibitors USE Interstate 215 (Salt Lake City, Utah) Aktiengesellschaft Trial, Nuremberg, I & M Canal National Heritage Corridor (Ill.) I-225 (Colo.) Germany, 1947-1948 USE Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage USE Interstate 225 (Colo.) Subsequent proceedings, Nuremberg War Corridor (Ill.) I-244 (Tulsa, Okla.) Crime Trials, case no. 6 I & M Canal State Trail (Ill.) USE Interstate 244 (Tulsa, Okla.) BT Nuremberg War Crime Trials, Nuremberg, USE Illinois and Michigan Canal State Trail (Ill.) I-255 (Ill. and Mo.) Germany, 1946-1949 I-5 USE Interstate 255 (Ill. and Mo.) I-H-3 (Hawaii) USE Interstate 5 I-270 (Ill. and Mo. : Proposed) USE Interstate H-3 (Hawaii) I-8 (Ariz. and Calif.) USE Interstate 255 (Ill. and Mo.) I-hadja (African people) USE Interstate 8 (Ariz. and Calif.) I-270 (Md.) USE Kasanga (African people) I-10 USE Interstate 270 (Md.) I Ho Yüan (Beijing, China) USE Interstate 10 I-278 (N.J. and N.Y.) USE Yihe Yuan (Beijing, China) I-15 USE Interstate 278 (N.J. and N.Y.) I Ho Yüan (Peking, China) USE Interstate 15 I-291 (Conn.) USE Yihe Yuan (Beijing, China) I-15 (Fighter plane) USE Interstate 291 (Conn.) I-hsing ware USE Polikarpov I-15 (Fighter plane) I-394 (Minn.) USE Yixing ware I-16 (Fighter plane) USE Interstate 394 (Minn.) I-K'a-wan Hsi (Taiwan) USE Polikarpov I-16 (Fighter plane) I-395 (Baltimore, Md.) USE Qijiawan River (Taiwan) I-17 USE Interstate 395 (Baltimore, Md.) I-Kiribati (May Subd Geog) USE Interstate 17 I-405 (Wash.) UF Gilbertese I-19 (Ariz.) USE Interstate 405 (Wash.) BT Ethnology—Kiribati USE Interstate 19 (Ariz.) I-470 (Ohio and W.
    [Show full text]
  • NACTTI Final Report 0.Pdf
    TABLE OF CONTENTS COVID-19 PANDEMIC ................................................................................................................................ 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 5 THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRAVEL AND TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE ................. 11 THE FIXING AMERICA’S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACT (FAST ACT) ................................................... 12 STATE OF CRITICAL TRAVEL AND TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE: ............................................................. 13 The Economic Impact of Travel and Tourism and the Need for Infrastructure Improvement ....... 13 Opportunities Exist to Improve America’s Travel Infrastructure ....................................................... 14 Tribal Lands and National Parks ........................................................................................................... 16 TRAVEL AND TOURISM STATISTICS BY MODE ........................................................................................ 17 Roads ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 Airports ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Passenger Rail .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Audit Council
    S O U T H C A R O L I N A G E N E R A L A S S E M B L Y Legislative Audit Council L A C May 2016 A REVIEW OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE BANK LAC.SC.GOV LAC/15-3 LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COUNCIL 1331 Elmwood Ave., Suite 315 Columbia, SC 29201 (803) 253-7612 VOICE (803) 253-7639 FAX The Legislative Audit Council performs audits of state agencies and Public Members Philip F. Laughridge, CPA, Chairman programs, in which we identify ways to reduce the cost and improve the Jane P. Miller, Vice Chairman performance of state agencies, and provide information to the General John B. Dangler, JSC (ret) Assembly and the public. We help ensure that operations are efficient and Thomas F. Hartnett Charles L. A. Terreni, Esq. that agencies follow the law to achieve the desired results. We provide information, analysis, and recommendations to help the General Assembly improve state agencies and to help the citizens of South Carolina oversee Members Who Serve Ex Officio state government. The LAC is part of the legislative branch of state Tom Young, Jr. government and, therefore, it is organizationally independent of the Senate Judiciary Committee Michael L. Fair executive branch agencies it audits. Our audits must be requested by the Senate Finance Committee General Assembly, either by statute or on an as-needed basis, Senate Walton J. McLeod Oversight Committee, or House Oversight Committee. House Judiciary Committee Garry R. Smith House Ways & Means Committee The Legislative Audit Council is composed of five public members, one of whom must be a practicing certified or licensed public accountant and one Director of whom must be an attorney.
    [Show full text]
  • Driver Comprehension of Diagrammatic Freeway Guide Signs and Their Text Alternatives
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-07/0-5147-1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date DRIVER COMPREHENSION OF DIAGRAMMATIC FREEWAY October 2006 GUIDE SIGNS Published: February 2007 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Susan T. Chrysler, Alicia A. Williams, Dillon S. Funkhouser, Andrew Report 0-5147-1 J. Holick, Marcus A. Brewer 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project 0-5147 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report: Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2004 – August 2006 P.O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Project Title: Guidelines for the Use of Diagrammatic Guide Signs and Their Alternatives URL: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5147-1.pdf 16. Abstract This report contains the results of a three-phase human factors study which tested driver comprehension of diagrammatic freeway guide signs and their text alternatives. Four different interchange types were tested: left optional exit, left lane drop, freeway to freeway split with optional center lane, and two lane right exits with optional lanes. Three phases of the project tested comprehension by using digitally edited photographs of advance guide signs in freeway scenes.
    [Show full text]
  • Control Cities Request by North Carolina Dot
    NEW CONTROL CITIES REQUEST BY NORTH CAROLINA DOT Neil Boudreau Highway Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering, Vice Chair MassDOT, Assistant Administrator for Traffic and Safety June 19, 2018 Interstate Control Cities Purpose of a control city…. To provide the driver the best orientation of the major destinations and population centers located on or near the Interstate Highway System. Control city legends should be used in the following situations: 1. Interchange between freeways 2. Separation points of overlapping freeways 3. On directional signs on intersecting routes, to guide traffic entering the freeway 4. On pull Thru signs 5. On the bottom line of post interchange distance signs 2 Proposed North Carolina Control Cities Detail I-42 : proposing six cities and towns I-73 (partial complete): proposing five cities and towns I-74 (partial complete): proposing five cities and towns I-87 (partial complete): proposing five cities and towns 3 Interstate 42 (US-70) 142 Miles total length Proposed Interstate Control Cities: City of Raleigh City of Goldsboro City of Kinston City of New Bern City of Havelock Town of Morehead City Poposed Control Cities Interstate: I-42 4 Poposed Control Cities Route: I-42 (Western Portion) City of Raleigh Population (2015): 451,000 Major intersecting routes: I-40, I-87, US-1 Important feature: Capital of NC City of Kinston Population (2015): 21,300 Distance from last control city: 29 miles Important feature: Global Transpark air City of Goldsboro freight facility Population (2015): 35,800 Distance from last control
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate Plan
    INTERSTATE PLAN Prepared for: Prepared by: December 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures ................................................................................... 3 3 Related Studies and Practices .............................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Intermodal Connectivity .............................................................................................................. 7 3.1.1 Port-Related Projects ....................................................................................................... 7 3.1.2 Airport-Related Projects ................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Neighboring Interstate Plans ....................................................................................................... 8 3.2.1 Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Interstate System Plan ......................... 8 3.2.2 North Carolina Strategic Prioritization ............................................................................. 9 3.3 Interstate Feasibility Studies Review ........................................................................................... 9 3.3.1 I-20/I-26/I-126 Plan of Action Study................................................................................. 9 3.3.2 Corridor Studies
    [Show full text]
  • Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transport Equity Act: a Legacy for Users 2005
    PUBLIC LAW 109–59—AUG. 10, 2005 SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS VerDate 14-DEC-2004 12:11 Sep 09, 2005 Jkt 039139 PO 00059 Frm 00001 Fmt 6579 Sfmt 6579 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL059.109 APPS06 PsN: PUBL059 119 STAT. 1144 PUBLIC LAW 109–59—AUG. 10, 2005 Public Law 109–59 109th Congress An Act Aug. 10, 2005 To authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit [H.R. 3] programs, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of Safe, the United States of America in Congress assembled, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. Transportation Equity Act: A (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe, Account- Legacy for Users. able, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Inter- Users’’ or ‘‘SAFETEA–LU’’. governmental (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act relations. 23 USC 101 note. is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 2. General definitions. TITLE I—FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS Subtitle A—Authorization of Programs Sec. 1101. Authorization of appropriations. Sec. 1102. Obligation ceiling. Sec. 1103. Apportionments. Sec. 1104. Equity bonus program. Sec. 1105. Revenue aligned budget authority. Sec. 1106. Future Interstate System routes. Sec. 1107. Metropolitan planning. Sec. 1108. Transfer of highway and transit funds. Sec. 1109. Recreational trails. Sec. 1110. Temporary traffic control devices. Sec. 1111. Set-asides for Interstate discretionary projects. Sec. 1112. Emergency relief. Sec. 1113. Surface transportation program. Sec. 1114. Highway bridge program.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court District of South Carolina Charleston Division
    2:17-cv-03412-PMD Date Filed 12/19/17 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 40 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL ) CONSERVATION LEAGUE, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ) COMPLAINT ENGINEERS, CHARLESTON ) DISTRICT; LTC JEFFREY S. ) C.A. No. ______________2:17-cv-03412-PMD PALAZZINI, in his official capacity as ) Commander of the Charleston District; ) LTG TODD T. SEMONITE, in his ) official capacity as Chief of Engineers; ) MARK T. ESPER, in his official ) capacity as the Secretary of the U.S. ) Army; UNITED STATES ) DEPARTMENT OF ) TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL ) HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; DR. ) WALTER C. WAIDELICH, JR., in his ) official capacity as Executive Director of ) the Federal Highway Administration; ) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL ) PROTECTION AGENCY; E. SCOTT ) PRUITT, in his official capacity as ) Administrator of the U.S. EPA, SOUTH ) CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ) TRANSPORTATION; CHRISTY ) HALL, in her official capacity as South ) Carolina Secretary of Transportation, ) ) Defendants. ) ) INTRODUCTION 1. This action challenges the unlawful approval of federal permits for construction of the South Carolina Department of Transportation’s (“SCDOT”) planned Interstate 73 (“I-73”) project in South Carolina, a proposed new interstate to Myrtle Beach that would cost up to $3.8 2:17-cv-03412-PMD Date Filed 12/19/17 Entry Number 1 Page 2 of 40 billion dollars to construct and unnecessarily destroy hundreds of acres of pristine freshwater wetlands, despite the existence of viable, cheaper, and environmentally-preferable alternatives to this new roadway. 2. The challenged authorizations issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and various Corps officials (collectively hereinafter “the Corps”) allow SCDOT to fill, clear, and otherwise permanently degrade hundreds of acres of wetlands, streams, and other waters of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • King Coal Highway Model Public–Private Partnership U.S
    MAY–JUNE 2014 NUMBERTR 292 NEWS King Coal Highway Model Public–Private Partnership U.S. Energy Outlook: Positive Implications for Transportation Automated Vehicle Technology: Research Areas to Follow Driverless Cars: Promises and Pitfalls Programming Funds for Research Plus: Practical Findings from Cooperative Research Programs TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2014 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* Chair: Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing Vice Chair: Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, National Academy of Sciences Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis National Academy of Engineering Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board Institute of Medicine National Research Council Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center, and Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. The Transportation Research Board is one Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock of six major divisions of the National Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, Virginia (Past Chair, 2013) Research Council, which serves as an James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas independent adviser to the federal gov- Malcolm Dougherty, Director, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento ernment and others on scientific
    [Show full text]