Letters to the Editor

Three strikes against building I-73

Re Aug. 15 letter by Robert G. Stevens, “I-73 needed for evacuation first”

Three “very solid reasons” for constructing I-73? I beg to differ.

Rep. Alan Clemmons’ explanations for building this multi-billion-dollar interstate are superficial. Dig a little deeper and you’ll soon discover I-73 is just over-inflated political gossip. In the game of attempting to get I-73 built, Rep. Clemmons strikes out.

Strike one: job creation. I-73 will create temporary construction jobs and service jobs. But what about local businesses along existing road corridors that depend on travelers for their existence? They will lose business or permanently close when this new interstate directs traffic away.

Strike two: tourism. I-73 would terminate at S.C. 22. It would do nothing for the congestion problems south of Conway, which is where the real issue is. So yes, I-73 might move tourists faster to S.C. 22, but when they exit onto U.S. 17 they will be stuck in traffic, unable to get to their Myrtle Beach destination any quicker.

Strike three: hurricane evacuation. This is the most ridiculous reason of all. We do not need I-73 for hurricane evacuation. If we improve the roads we have, they will be more than adequate for vacating residents and will provide better evacuation faster than waiting for the interstate to be built. That’s three strikes. Rep. Clemmons and I-73, you’re out.

We don’t need I-73. Let’s agree to a cheaper, faster, responsible solution and fix the roads we have.

The writer lives in Pawleys Island.

  Comments