|
December 21, 2005
Stop I-3 partners with SAFC
December 14, 2005
Stop I-3 Petition Drive Underway
September 7, 2005
Stop I-3 Coalition calls on Congress to redirect
highway money to Gulf reconstruction
August 24, 2005
Mountain residents raise common-sense questions
and concerns about Interstate
August 8, 2005
Norwood goes into "neutral" on I-3 for
constituents in Georgia mountains
August 4, 2005
White County Commissioners Take Strong Stand, Oppose
Interstate 3
July 27, 2005
Federal studies cast doubt on economic benefit of
Interstates
July 26, 2005
Mountain communities organize to fight new interstate
highway
July 9, 2005
Rabun commissioners declare unanimous opposition
to Interstate
July 4, 2005
Rabun residents form Stop I-3 chapter,
Urge large turn-out at board meet Thursday
Press Releases 2008
Press Releases 2007
Press Releases 2006
Press Releases 2005
|
For immediate release, July 27,2005
Federal studies cast doubt on economic benefit of Interstates
Stop I-3 Coalition also warns of nuclear transport issues
Running an Interstate highway right through the mountains
of Southern Appalachia will likely not create the economic
benefits that Congressional proponents of this road like to
claim - according to the federal government's own studies.
"Congressmen explain that the proposed Interstate 3
will help us, but the studies suggest the opposite,"
said Elizabeth Wells, spokeswoman of the STOP I-3 coalition.
The group came together to counter efforts to run an Interstate
from Knoxville to Savannah, that inevitably would cut through
the mountains.
"We urge all interested officials and citizens to study
all I-3-related documents and the STOP I-3 'white papers'
that we have produced," Wells said.
A third white paper completed by coalition researchers also
reviewed the likelihood that any such Interstate quickly would
become a transshipment route for deadly nuclear material,
which now is trucked on Interstate 26 and Interstate 40 between
the massive Savannah River Site nuclear complex outside Augusta
and the federal nuclear facilities outside Knoxville.
See:
When it comes to economic development, one recent study for
the Federal Highway Administration concluded that Interstate
highway construction does not guarantee economic development
in rural areas, and, in some cases, might work to depress
economic growth.
Another study cogently made the argument that metropolitan
and "urban spillover areas" are the true beneficiaries
of Interstate construction - not the small, rural mountain
counties that Congressmen want to burden with I-3.
The studies show "the only thing worse than being a
rural county with an Interstate is being a rural county with
an Interstate 10 or 20 miles away," according to Roger
Williams, head of the economic impact research committee for
the White County chapter of the STOP I-3 coalition, and the
author of the economic "white papers."
John Clarke, author of the nuclear "white paper,"
voiced concern over the possibility of Interstate accidents
or spills involving such hazardous material as plutonium,
tritium and both high-level and low-level nuclear wastes.
"This is additional reason for concern, which must
be addressed by the highway proponents," Wells said.
The STOP I-3 coalition was organized in response to congressional
I-3 proposals, on grounds that there are numerous economic,
environmental, and safety concerns that urge against running
such a huge highway (about three and one third football fields
wide right-of-way) through mountain communities that neither
want nor need such an Interstate. Locals residents and local
chapters have banded together under the STOP I-3 coalition
from the following locales: Oconee County, S.C.; Stephens,
Habersham, White, Rabun, Towns, Union and Lumpkin counties,
Georgia; Jackson, Macon, Clay, Cherokee and Graham counties,
North Carolina, as well as residents of the Maryville and
Knoxville, Tennessee, areas.
Contact: Elizabeth Wells, ewells@georgia-research.com
|
