News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Southern Ohio: SR 823 / Portsmouth Bypass

Started by seicer, June 17, 2013, 02:14:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

GCrites

Quote from: vtk on December 27, 2015, 08:53:10 PM
New Boston is a placename well-known by locals and referred to by area radio ads. it should probably at least be on some auxilliary guide signs.

It's where the Wal-Mart is located which of course is really important.


Buck87

On the topic of control cities, it will be interesting to see what they go with on the bypass and at its start points.

At the start points there are a lot of cities that they could include to clearly indicate that OH 823 is the best option for through regional/long range traffic, and it would be interesting to see which do get mentioned and how. I could see Huntington, Ashland, Ironton & Wheelersburg all getting some sort of mention in the signage for the entrance to the bypass from US 23 south. As for the entrance from 52 west, there are even more possibilities, as Chillicothe and Lucasville would be more local options, Columbus would be the obvious longer range option, and Cincinnati and Dayton could both be worth mentioning in some way as well.

2trailertrucker

Quote from: Buck87 on December 28, 2015, 12:47:15 PM
On the topic of control cities, it will be interesting to see what they go with on the bypass and at its start points.

At the start points there are a lot of cities that they could include to clearly indicate that OH 823 is the best option for through regional/long range traffic, and it would be interesting to see which do get mentioned and how. I could see Huntington, Ashland, Ironton & Wheelersburg all getting some sort of mention in the signage for the entrance to the bypass from US 23 south. As for the entrance from 52 west, there are even more possibilities, as Chillicothe and Lucasville would be more local options, Columbus would be the obvious longer range option, and Cincinnati and Dayton could both be worth mentioning in some way as well.

Seems to me that Chillicothe would be the control city. With 26 & 35 splitting there for either Columbus or Dayton, it would be less confusing for out of the area drivers.

vtk

My guess would be Ironton southbound, and Chillicothe northbound.  My preference would be Huntington and Columbus.
Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.

Buck87

^ You mean for the single control cities that would be used at the interchanges in the middle?

What I'm wondering is what the signage will look like when you're on either US 23 south or US 52 west and approaching the entrance of the bypass. Maybe something like this:

on 23 south:

823 South, To 52
Ironton
Huntington

and then maybe there would be a separate secondary sign: "Ashland, KY, use 823"

on 52 west:

823 North, To 23
Chillicothe
Columbus

and its secondary sign would be "Dayton, Cincinnati, use 823"

GCrites

There's no good way to predict control cities with any certainty unless there are very few towns in the vicinity is there? Who makes the final decision anyway? The DOT region, the main DOT office? Politicians? Engineering consultants?

The Ghostbuster

If it's the politicians, I'm out of here!

GCrites

The control city on Columbus interstates that lead West was changed from Indianapolis to Dayton about 15 years ago in a effort to keep more money in the state.

westerninterloper

Quote from: GCrites80s on January 23, 2016, 08:23:12 PM
The control city on Columbus interstates that lead West was changed from Indianapolis to Dayton about 15 years ago in a effort to keep more money in the state.

I don't think it had anything to do with keeping money in the state; the control city changed from Columbus, O. to Dayton from Indianapolis eastward about the same time; I recall that it was pressure from the Dayton area to get the signs changed, even though I-70 doesn't pass directly through the city.
Nostalgia: Indiana's State Religion

Buck87

I left any mention of Wheelersburg and Lucasville off that last example I gave, but if it were up to me I'd include them on the main signs (giving each 3 cities) so that there would be some local representation on there as well.

Though that begs the question, would an unincorporated place be able to appear on a BGS? Any examples of that in Ohio?

Wheelersburg and Lucasville are both unincorporated despite having 4 figure populations, which is actually a common trend in the area. I've always found it kinda strange how many of the "towns" in Scioto County are actually unincorporated, and here's a list of the bigger ones (with their CDP population from 2010)

Wheelersburg (6,437 - could be a city)
West Portsmouth (3,149)
Lucasville (2,757)
Rosemount (2,112)
Franklin Furnace (1,660)
Sciotodale (1,081)

These are all bigger than the 3 of the actually incorporated villages in the county: South Webster (866), Rarden (159), and Otway (87)

GCrites

That's why there's few speed traps in the county.

Buck87

I see that this project was included in the "Highway Boondoggles 2" report being talked about in this thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17302.0

It's not really surprising to see this project on there, and one thing I found kind of amusing was the difference in the way one particular aspect of the project was reported:

ODOT's version: "The memorial highway, also known as State Route 823 or the Portsmouth Bypass, will be a limited access 16-mile, four-lane highway running from north of Lucasville to Wheelersburg, bypassing 26 miles of U.S. 23 and U.S. 52, avoiding 30 traffic signals, 80 intersections and 500 driveways while containing 21 bridges and five interchanges. "

HB2's version: "The department claims no transportation outcomes or benefits, apart from allowing drivers to avoid several traffic lights, but nevertheless says the project would forestall feared future congestion at several intersections on U.S. 23 by building a road to draw traffic elsewhere"

Buck87

The latest on this project:

http://portsmouth-dailytimes.com/news/5602/bypass-construction-well-underway

Basically, everything is currently on schedule and within the budget. Bridge construction is set to begin in the spring.

seicer

Will the Portsmouth Daily Times finally hire an editor? Like with Frank Lewis, this author relies far too much on quotes to complete basic information and there are run-on sentences and sentences that just end and begin with no reason. And then there is this:

"ODOT in conjunction with PGG have taken the project to social media, Facebook and Instagram accounts have been setup. Though those accounts pictures and information are shared."

Wow! Social media! And there is no link to said social media accounts...

On the subject at hand, the project being on budget and time is great. I am assuming from the article that the roadway will be asphalt?

Buck87


Buck87

I was in the Portsmouth area on Wednesday and stopped to look at some of the construction.
Here's a pic I took showing the progress so far on the bridge that will cross Slocum Ave/Highland Bend Rd in Sciotoville:


Buck87


Avalanchez71

Looks like someone got a nice payoff with this route.  What purpose does this serve?  Looking at the map there were sufficient routes in place.

seicer

Have you not seen the terrain or the development sprawling in the area?

hbelkins

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 28, 2016, 02:26:43 PM
Looks like someone got a nice payoff with this route.  What purpose does this serve?  Looking at the map there were sufficient routes in place.

This has been in the planning stages (as ADHS Corridor B or B-1) since the 1960s.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Avalanchez71

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on July 28, 2016, 03:05:44 PM
Have you not seen the terrain or the development sprawling in the area?

I am familiar with the terrain and have visted the area.

alecscradle

From what I've gathered this bypass is mostly being built to help ease the growing congestion of through traffic in the city.  It isn't so much a bypass to help the city of Portsmouth as much as it is a bypass to forget about the city of Portsmouth.

hbelkins

Quote from: alecscradle on July 29, 2016, 04:00:00 AM
From what I've gathered this bypass is mostly being built to help ease the growing congestion of through traffic in the city.  It isn't so much a bypass to help the city of Portsmouth as much as it is a bypass to forget about the city of Portsmouth.

I'm wondering if there won't be a concerted effort to put through north-south US 23 traffic on the new bypass via the Carl D. Perkins bridge, since that corridor now has to use the streets of downtown Portsmouth.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Buck87

Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2016, 12:32:59 AM
I'm wondering if there won't be a concerted effort to put through north-south US 23 traffic on the new bypass via the Carl D. Perkins bridge, since that corridor now has to use the streets of downtown Portsmouth.

via the Carl D. Perkins Bridge? Did you mean to say the Jesse Stuart (Greenup Dam) Bridge?

The Perkins Bridge isn't anywhere near the route through 23 traffic would take to get to/from the new bypass

GCrites

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on July 28, 2016, 03:05:44 PM
Have you not seen the terrain or the development sprawling in the area?

What development has taken place recently? This is a no-growth area.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.