EV Charging Strategy for the I-75 Corridor: Gaps and Opportunities

Hook: Don’t get stranded while construction snarls I-75 — plan chargers now

Roadwork on I-75 in 2026 will change driving patterns across the Southeast and Midwest. Commuters and long-haul travelers face longer stop-and-go times, reroutes and atypical layovers at rest stops. For electric vehicle drivers, that uncertainty compounds range anxiety and creates new pressure on an already uneven EV charging network along the corridor. This article pinpoints current charging deserts on I-75, explains why highway upgrades (including Georgia’s $1.8B I-75 program announced in January 2026) make the next 24 months critical, and lays out a prioritized, actionable plan for where to place chargers to serve demand reliably and equitably.

Topline: What transportation planners and operators need to know in 2026

Key takeaways up front:

• Construction + EV growth = concentrated demand spikes.
• Charging deserts still exist.
• Prioritize DC fast charging in rest-stop hubs and new interchange nodes.
• Leverage highway work windows.

Why 2026 is a decisive year for I-75’s EV charging network

Two trends in late 2025 and early 2026 make immediate action necessary:

1. Major highway projects are moving forward.
2. Vehicle electrification continues accelerating.

What this means on the ground

When highway bottlenecks cause slowdowns, EV drivers stop more often and longer. That increases the need for reliable, high-capacity chargers at safe, amenitized rest stops instead of only urban retail locations. If planners miss this window, new lanes and interchange patterns will attract drivers to under-resourced nodes and create repeated outages and overcrowding at the limited chargers that exist.

Mapping the charging deserts on I-75 (strategic segments to target)

Below, I identify corridor segments with persistent gaps based on corridor geography, population centers, interchange spacing and existing NEVI-era investment signals. These are priority candidates for new charger deployment to create an end-to-end viable EV route:

1) Southwest Florida / Alligator Alley corridor (I-75 across Collier & Lee Counties)

Why it’s a desert: Long, rural stretches and tourist-driven seasonal peaks stress limited charger supply. Alligator Alley and the gulf-coast stretch between Naples/Fort Myers and the Tampa corridor can exceed 80+ miles without reliable high-power DCFC banking, particularly for drivers bypassing coastal routes.

Recommended sites:

• Major travel plaza near the Naples/Fort Myers interchange — 6+ stalls, solar canopy and energy storage to offset grid constraints.
• Highway rest area mid-point across the Everglades/Alligator Alley to break the long gap — 4 stalls 250 kW min.
• Co-locate chargers with tourist parking and shuttle services during high season to manage demand.

2) Central Georgia: Macon — Perry — Valdosta corridor

Why it’s a desert: Between Atlanta’s dense network and the Florida border, central Georgia has long interchanges and rural counties where DC fast charging is sparse. The planned southern Atlanta construction will re-route and intensify flows through Henry and Clayton counties and push more vehicles through Macon-area interchanges.

Recommended sites:

• Large service hub at the Macon I-75 interchange (Bibb County) — chargers sized for both cars and light commercial EVs.
• Midpoint station near Perry (Houston county line) with restroom and food options for longer layovers during construction.
• Valdosta-area travel plaza to serve southbound traffic to Florida — redundant chargers to prevent single-point failures.

3) Tennessee: Chattanooga — Cleveland — Knoxville approaches

Why it’s a desert: Mountain geography and older rest-area stock produce intermittent grid capacity and fewer DCFC locations in critical stretches that carry both tourist and freight traffic.

Recommended sites:

• Interchange hubs in Cleveland (Bradley County) and near Spring City/Etowah with 4–6 stall arrays and truck-capable EV chargers.
• Park-and-ride style rest area near the I-75/I-24 transition east of Chattanooga for interchange dwell during lane changes and detours.

4) Kentucky & Southern Ohio: Lexington — Cincinnati — Northern Ohio connectors

Why it’s a desert: While metropolitan nodes have chargers, rural stretches and smaller towns between Cincinnati and Lexington and north toward Dayton often lack redundancy — a problem during holiday travel and diversions caused by construction.

Recommended sites:

• Major node near Lexington with 6+ high-power plugs and secure parking.
• Interchange chargers near Richmond/Berea and Newport/Covington to link urban cores.

5) Northern Ohio and Lower Michigan: Dayton — Toledo — Detroit — Flint — Saginaw corridor

Why it’s a desert: Industrial traffic and cross-border flows (to Detroit/Windsor) concentrate demand at a few bridges and crossings; intermediate stretches lack capacity for longer EV trips. Northern Michigan beyond Bay City toward the Mackinac and UP faces even larger deserts.

Recommended sites:

• Large charging hubs near Toledo and Monroe to serve interstate commerce and cross-border travelers.
• Resilient charger clusters north of Bay City and around Saginaw and Flint to bridge to the Mackinac approach.
• Upper Peninsula gateways (St. Ignace, Sault Ste. Marie): build solar + storage-backed DCFC to enable tourism and freight continuity.

Site design and technical standards: what every new I-75 charger should include

When adding capacity on a major interstate, design and reliability matter more than badge or brand. For the I-75 corridor, require the following minimum specs for new public DCFC hubs:

• Power and redundancy: 150–350 kW per dispenser, 4+ simultaneous stalls per site, with N+1 redundancy for critical locations.
• Energy resiliency: On-site battery energy storage (BESS) sized to carry peak loads during outages and to shave peak demand charges—plus solar canopies where feasible.
• Interoperability: Open payment, real-time telemetry (OCPP/OCPI), and network-agnostic roaming to reduce user friction.
• Amenities & safety: 24/7 lighting, restrooms, shaded waiting areas, EV-specific signage on the highway, and security cameras to protect both drivers and equipment.
• Truck-capable options: Dedicated 200–600 kW stalls at freight hubs and key rest areas for commercial electrification use-cases.
• Permits & utilities: Pre-approved trenching corridors, shared conduit with fiber and power lines during highway reconstruction to cut incremental costs.

Operational strategies: avoid the single-point-failure trap

Installing chargers is only the first step. Long-term uptime and fair access require operations planning:

• Load management: Use smart load-balancing to ensure each driver can receive a minimum charge during peak times.
• Active maintenance contracts: Stipulate 24-hour service-level agreements and local technicians for fast swaps.
• Payment and pricing: Transparent pricing, idle fees, and dynamic pricing during high-demand construction windows.
• Data sharing: Operators should feed real-time availability to state DOT traveler-information systems and to apps like highway.live for route planning.

Funding models and cost estimates (2026 context)

Several funding levers are available in 2026: NEVI program grants, state DOT allocations, federal highway dollars tied to construction projects, municipal economic development funds, utility incentives, and private capital. Typical DC fast-charging hub costs vary widely depending on grid upgrades:

• Basic 4-stall DCFC site with minimal grid upgrades: approximate installed cost $300k–$600k.
• High-capacity site with BESS and moderate transformer upgrades: $600k–$1.2M.
• Major freight node with 6–12 ultra-fast ports and full resilience packages: $1M–$3M+.

Strategic note: when highway reconstruction is planned (as with Georgia’s I-75 projects), incremental charging site costs can drop substantially if trenching, conduit, and transformer staging are incorporated into the highway contract.

Equity, land use, and community buy-in

Corridor chargers should not be placed only where profit is highest. Equity considerations improve utilization and reputational outcomes:

• Co-locate chargers at existing rest stops and community centers in underserved counties, ensuring ADA access and multilingual signage.
• Partner with local businesses (convenience stores, diners) to increase amenities and local economic benefits.
• Design truck-friendly charging at logistics hubs while protecting local curb access for residents.

Case study: Leveraging Georgia’s I-75 express-lane investment (2026)

Georgia’s $1.8B plan to build additional tolled express lanes in southern Atlanta (announced January 2026) illustrates how highway capital programs create deployment windows. Actionable steps for Georgia DOT and private partners:

1. Identify interchange nodes where toll construction requires utility relocation — require conduit and substation pads for charger-ready sites.
2. Design pilot DCFC hubs at express-lane entry/exit points with 4–8 stalls and dedicated energy storage to buffer toll-lane dwell peaks.
3. Use toll revenues or public-private partnerships to underwrite operating costs for lower-use rural nodes between Atlanta and the Florida border.

Early coordination can reduce per-site construction costs by 20–40% versus later retrofit work, and ensures charger availability when traffic patterns shift during and after the roadworks.

Data-driven site prioritization: the 6-step blueprint

Deploy this repeatable method on any interstate corridor section to rank sites objectively:

1. Collect traffic volumes, reroute projections from highway construction plans, and existing charger availability.
2. Map demand heatmaps for peak travel (weekday commutes, holiday weekends) and freight flows.
3. Identify gaps where distance between high-confidence DCFC nodes exceeds 50 miles.
4. Overlay grid capacity and identify potential utility upgrade costs.
5. Score candidate sites by user benefit (reduction in range-gap risk), capital cost, and socio-economic impact.
6. Prioritize sites offering the best benefit-to-cost ratio within the construction timeframe.

Quick-win action list for state DOTs and private operators

Immediate steps any agency or operator can take in the next 6–12 months:

• Mandate charger-ready conduit and pads in highway reconstruction contracts.
• Offer temporary mobile fast chargers near construction detour nodes while permanent infrastructure is built.
• Use NEVI and state matching funds to build redundancy at existing high-use rest areas.
• Coordinate with utilities early to forecast transformer upgrades and apply for grid modernization grants.
• Create a corridor-wide real-time data sharing agreement so operators publish availability and maintenance status to traveler information systems.

Monitoring and metrics: how to measure success

Establish these KPIs to evaluate corridor charging performance:

• Average uptime per site (target >95%).
• Average wait time per plug during peak travel (target <10 minutes).
• Number of unique EVs served per day and per season.
• Charger throughput (kWh dispensed) and revenue per site to track ROI.
• Incident reports and repair turnaround times.

Future-proofing: looking past 2026

Expectations for the next 3–5 years:

• Higher power will become standard. As vehicle charging capabilities increase, 350 kW+ stations will be the norm at major interstate hubs.
• More commercial electrification. Electric trucks and delivery fleets will require freight-oriented charging on I-75, especially around logistics clusters.
• Interoperable roaming ecosystems. State-level coordination will favor open APIs for real-time station availability and pricing transparency.

Plan sites now—not only to serve 2026 demand, but to accommodate the 2030 vehicle fleet and charging patterns.

“Build chargers where drivers will realistically stop: safe, amenitized rest hubs at key interchanges and construction nodes. Don’t retrofit – plan into the roadwork.”

Final checklist: what an I-75 charger deployment plan must include

• Corridor heatmap and gap analysis identifying stretches >50 miles without DCFC redundancy.
• Binding utility coordination commitments for transformers and conduit during highway projects.
• Design specs: 4+ stalls, 150–350 kW per stall, BESS, solar where feasible, and 24/7 amenities.
• Operational SLA and maintenance funding path (toll revenues, NEVI, private ops).
• Data-sharing agreement for real-time availability to apps and DOT traveler info systems.

Call to action

If you manage transportation planning, own rest-site real estate, or operate chargers along I-75, now is the moment to coordinate. Use highway construction schedules as leverage: require charger-ready infrastructure in construction contracts, prioritize sites listed here, and commit to open data sharing so drivers can plan without fear. Want help turning this strategy into a deployment plan for your state or company? Reach out to our team at highway.live to run a corridor heatmap, cost model and phased roll-out aligned to the 2026 construction calendar.

Related Reading

• Governance Playbook for Exploding Micro-App Ecosystems
• Hybrid Studio-to-Park Programming: Designing Scalable Micro-Workouts for 2026
• Monetizing Quantum Datasets: Building a Marketplace for Qubit-Ready Training Data
• How to Build a Spillproof Drink Kit for Your Gym Bag (Syrups, Shakers and Leakproof Bottles)
• Where to Score the Best Tech and Audio Accessories for Your Handbags