Interstate 3 - Needed Economic Boon or Unnecessary Ecological Burden?

About 44 years ago, a plan for Interstate 3 was drafted. It can be basically summed up as a four lane interstate cutting through a mountainous area in southern Appalachia called Corridor K. Controversies rage over the plans, as current traffic through the area is well handled by existing roads. Proponents claim that it will add almost seven thousand jobs to the area within five years, greatly boosting the economy. Opponents voice other concerns - in this limited economy, the money already badly needed for resurfacing worn, oft-used roads should not be diverted to build a forseeably extraneous new road , especially one that would cut through miles of fragile Appalachian mountain ecosystems.
Local public opposition to the interstate is high. Resolutions against I3 have been passed in seven North Carolina counties, five Georgia counties, and one county in South Carolina . Current traffic between Chattanooga and Asheville is well handled by existing routes (mainly US 64 and US 74), and all possible routes for I3 cut through some portion of either the Nantahala National Forest or the Cherokee National Forest, which is inappropriate for several reasons. Firstly, from personal experience, the economies of most areas in Corridor K depend on tourism, which is high due in great part to the remoteness and general pristine nature of the area. By building an interstate through these areas, rather than open the area to more visitors, fewer tourists will be inclined to visit. Alternately, the influx of too many tourists may lead to “tourist traps,” which further harm the environment and drastically change the character of the small rural towns currently pervasive in the area. Additionally, the national forests that would be disturbed are critical for water quality and species habitat. Several of the areas have large streams and rivers as well as significant annual rainfall, making their water quality a great influence on that of the entire watershed. Were a road to be built through the area, sediment pollution would be a great problem, as would buried streams due to road leveling. Lastly, the expense of such a road is unjustified. Mountainous roads such as the proposed I3 can cost over $25 million per mile, resulting in an almost $4 billion cost total to build I3. The 7000 new jobs promised by the Tennessee DOT sound good, but even if all of them were 30,000 a year only $210 million per year in personal income would be created. At that rate, even with no upkeep costs, it would take over 19 years to pay for itself, assuming that detrimental economic effects are zero. It also doesn’t pay when one realizes that with the end of cheap oil near, increased commercial transport by semi trucks is no longer a future opportunity, and any road created with such a scenario in mind is ignoring the prices at the gas pump. Instead, we should be looking into things like Obama's new high speed rail system for increased transit, but that is a blog for another day.