http://portsmouth-dailytimes.com/bookmark/22845674
ODOT issues RFQ on Portsmouth Bypass
9 days ago
Wayne Allen
On Friday the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) issued a request for qualifications (RFQ) to potential contractors for several aspects of the Portsmouth Bypass.
From the RFQ:
"ODOT intends to enter into a Public Private Agreement for the design, construction, financing, operation and maintenance of the Portsmouth Bypass. The project will be a four-lane, divided, limited-access highway around the city of Portsmouth in Scioto County. The highway designated State Route 823 is comprised of 16 miles of new highway, bypassing approximately 26 miles of U.S. 52 and U.S. 23 through Portsmouth, Ohio. ODOT also proposes the long-term operations and maintenance of the constructed facility."
"The developer will design, construct, finance, operate and maintain the new 16-mile bypass and provide all associated items, including, but not limited to, earthwork, pavements, landscaping, drainage, utilities, guardrail, barrier, retaining and noise abatement walls, bridges, culverts, traffic control, lighting and aesthetic enhancements for to completion of the facility. The developer will enter into an agreement for the project. The term of the agreement will be determined at RFP (Request For Proposals) stage, but is expected to extend up to 40 years from the commencement of the project."
Five interchanges:
US 52, SR 140 (partial), Shumway Hollow Road, Lucasville Minford Road, US 23
This has the makings of a tolled facility.
I'd love to see a map of the proposed routing of this road. Since it carries the 852 designation, I presume it would extend from the Carl D. Perkins bridge?
Quote from: hbelkins on June 17, 2013, 09:23:30 PM
I'd love to see a map of the proposed routing of this road. Since it carries the 852 designation, I presume it would extend from the Carl D. Rogers bridge?
823; the topic was typoed.
http://www.portsmouthbypass.com/MapsDocs.htm
Well, that's just about useless. Does nothing to take through US 23 or US 52 traffic out of downtown Portsmouth.
Through US 23 traffic can hop over to US 52 on the bridge north of Greenup. Through traffic on US 52 is more likely than not heading to Cinci, meaning US 23 to SR 32 is a better route.
Or the AA Highway.
Although US 52 along the river really isn't that bad of a route.
Gov Kasich's magic $3B in new highway funding reportedly includes $440M for the Portsmouth Bypass. How much of the project cost is that? Is a private entity still going to be in charge of the whole thing?
It is being studied for a public-private partnership, which would mean tolls would be levied.
Tolls to save 8 minutes during off-peak hours and 16 minutes during rush hour, while saving at most 1 1/2 miles? Yeah, that'll be a real winner.
^^ It could be shadow tolled instead of an outright toll for a public-private partnership. If so, you'll never see a toll on the bridge, but the state will be paying the builder via taxes instead.
Quote from: jjakucyk on August 07, 2013, 12:10:59 PM
Tolls to save 8 minutes during off-peak hours and 16 minutes during rush hour, while saving at most 1 1/2 miles? Yeah, that'll be a real winner.
how much is the toll? to save 16 minutes, if I'm worth 50 bucks an hour, and I'm not doing anything useful while sitting in traffic, I'd pay about 13 bucks.
I think there's been a bit of confusion about the location of this project, so I've prepared a map:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Foh823map.png&hash=92c85caf7e56606b15d46649ba617d7345008228)
It's designated OH 823, not OH 852. OH 852 extends from the US 52 / OH 73 / OH 104 interchange south to Kentucky. There wasn't quite room to label it on this map.
It may not be strictly a bypass for US 23 or for US 52, but it is suitable as a bypass for general north—south traffic. This may be part of Corridor B or Corridor C, but the map on Wikipedia is kind of hard to read when it comes to details like this.
I don't think there are plans to toll the road.
It's part of Corridor B; B-1 is US 23 through Portsmouth. http://www.arc.gov/noindex/programs/transp/adhs_status_report_2012/ADHSFY2012StatusReportOhio.pdf
Yes, VTK. I got it wrong in the title - OH 852 is basically the Perkins Bridge connector that I drive all the time and had on my mind at the moment of writing.
As for the bypass, it's not intended for Portsmouth residents. US 23 was one of the first corridors in the state to be four-laned very early on, and it served what was a bustling industrial area that's almost all gone. A lot of traffic from US 23 south goes to US 52 east towards Interstate 64 and vice-versa.
Right now, the only "bypass" is through Rosemont Hill, which isn't suitable for trucks.
From an article earlier this year:
"What the discussion was, right now the bypass is estimated to cost $500 million to construct. They (ODOT) have about $120 million in a savings account for construction of this road. They're adding about $20 million a year."
"The idea is that they (ODOT) would hire a construction company to design, build and maintain this road for about a 35-year period,. In return for doing this, the company would receive an annual payment for that service. The bypass is only 16 miles, the thought was that's not going to be enough for a company to set up an operation to maintain 16 miles of roadway. So, what the state is considering, is to give this private company the responsibility of maintaining not only the bypass, but also maintaining all state and U.S. Highways within the county."
The last sentence was something I was not aware of.
"Also on the flyer is a section about the key PPP (Public, Private Partnership) benefits. Those include accelerating delivery of project and benefits by eight years, leveraging $120 million Appalachian Development Highway System funds, deferring project payments until construction is complete, freeing ODOT budget capacity to deliver other near-term projects and maximizing schedule and pricing certainty."
http://tinyurl.com/kymx67g
--
Then this: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/news/JandTPlanDocs/072213-PRESSRELEASE-Cen-SEOhio-Districts569and10.pdf
"Kasich's plan uses money from the Ohio Turnpike to help build many new projects in northern Ohio and will allow many other projects to proceed much earlier than anticipated. Other central and southeast Ohio projects getting Kasich's green light include:
* Building a new highway bypassing the city of Portsmouth in Scioto County ($440 million and project will remain on scheduled to begin as early as 2014)"
I think you can change the title of your own thread.
Ah, gotcha. Thanks!
Quote from: vtk on August 07, 2013, 04:19:16 PM
I think there's been a bit of confusion about the location of this project, so I've prepared a map:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Foh823map.png&hash=92c85caf7e56606b15d46649ba617d7345008228)
It would be so much cheaper to build this if they just went right around the side of Portsmouth.
Quote from: Steve on August 09, 2013, 07:11:25 PM
Quote from: vtk on August 07, 2013, 04:19:16 PM
I think there's been a bit of confusion about the location of this project, so I've prepared a map:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Foh823map.png&hash=92c85caf7e56606b15d46649ba617d7345008228)
It would be so much cheaper to build this if they just went right around the side of Portsmouth.
But then you'd also need to build bypasses at New Boston (if not already bypasses by your idea) and Lucasville, as those are also significant slowdowns. Also, Porsmouth is built right up the hillsides, so you'd be grading on steep slopes or creating significant residential impacts, if not both.
Quote from: vtk on August 10, 2013, 10:45:45 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 09, 2013, 07:11:25 PM
It would be so much cheaper to build this if they just went right around the side of Portsmouth.
But then you'd also need to build bypasses at New Boston (if not already bypasses by your idea) and Lucasville, as those are also significant slowdowns. Also, Porsmouth is built right up the hillsides, so you'd be grading on steep slopes or creating significant residential impacts, if not both.
Agreed. Drawing a short line around the side of Portsmouth/New Boston mike look easier or cheaper on the map, but there are a lot of obstacles in the way. Scioto County is very hilly to begin with, and the parts right around/north of Portsmouth/New Boston have the biggest hills in that area. The hills butt right up against the towns and at times right up against 52 and 23, and all the little valleys between those hills are fairly populated as well. I wouldn't be surprised if going that way ended up being more expensive. And as you hinted at it would be pointless to built a bypass that failed to bypass Lucasville as well.
The planned route, while really long for a bypass, sticks to the outlying areas that aren't as populated, goes through areas with smaller hills, and manages to bypass all the existing slowdowns with an added bonus of giving better access to the county airport. According to ODOT the bypass will avoid 30 traffic signals, 80 intersections and 500 private drives.
Here's another map of the project with satellite view (though it incorrectly labels New Boston as Portsmouth)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dot.state.oh.us%2FDivisions%2FInnovativeDelivery%2FPublishingImages%2FPortsmouth%2520Bypass.jpg&hash=aa49b37ea64ba2f28789cb7f18e873a571006f0a)
And, if I-73/74 is to be extended from NC/VA/WV, I'd bet the interstates will follow the Portsmouth Bypass.
Quote from: Strider on November 05, 2013, 05:42:16 PM
And, if I-73/74 is to be extended from NC/VA/WV, I'd bet the interstates will follow the Portsmouth Bypass.
I believe that was the plan all along, before Ohio lost interest in those larger goals.
The 1962 official map (http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/TechServ/TIM/Pages/OfficialTransportationMaps.aspx) shows this as SR 423, with a more southerly routing.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRThaQER.png&hash=7908af2c0dd011464a5233ddda40aefd53b6329f)
1969 has it again, a bit differently, as well as a spur of Corridor D (now planned as I-74?). It looks like this spur was built as a two-lane road east of Crabtree.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fn1tB1X4.jpg&hash=fea9b700fb4bb5d83011ab8c97bd5fbd96b20cbe)
Yes. I drove on OH 348 a while back as I had come from Lucasville and was going to Cincinnati, and was surprised at the conditions of the road. It is two-lanes on a four-lane ROW (IIRC), partially controlled with no driveways, and then... it ends. It was constructed in 1972.
OH 73 is a great cut through route from Portsmouth to Cincinnati, and the road has quite a bit of traffic. Nothing severe, but the many curves and hills (and humps) really makes it a slow drive, especially if there are trucks. Very limited passing areas.
OH 348 would be a good connector to the new bypass, but it is unlikely that the remainder will be finished.
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D09/NewsReleases/Pages/Portsmouth-Bypass-Update---Meeting-Set-To-Discuss-Proposed-Project.aspx
Public meeting set to discuss this project.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 06, 2013, 09:29:11 PM
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D09/NewsReleases/Pages/Portsmouth-Bypass-Update---Meeting-Set-To-Discuss-Proposed-Project.aspx
Public meeting set to discuss this project.
So did anyone here go?
QuoteAdditional ecological studies became necessary as plans for the bypass were changed from three phases to a single-phase construction project.
Well that's an interesting development.
Construction work has become evident at the north end:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F823-landclearing.jpg&hash=2402517afee4d991fba8b6843469dd8409648847)
(Edit: apparently that's just the land owners taking some logging revenue before they give up the land to the state.)
District 9 seems terrible at providing up to date information about this project. All I can find is stuff about the P3/contract side of it, heavy with business jargon.
When is it supposed to be done, anyway? I thought this P3 stuff was supposed to get the project moving "at the speed of business", but I found an article from a local news article saying it's expected to be finished in 2019. Seriously? They condensed it to one phase instead of three, and it's still going to take five or six years?
The winning bid is currently being reviewed
http://portsmouth-dailytimes.com/news/news/50720246/Timeline-set-for-Portsmouth-Bypass
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/09/29/portsmouth-bypass-project-put-on-fast-track.html
The Portsmouth newspaper really needs to get rid of lazy Frank Lewis, who relies on quotes for much of his articles. Every other paragraph is a quote.
Quote from: vtk on February 04, 2014, 02:57:44 PM
Construction work has become evident at the north end:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F823-landclearing.jpg&hash=2402517afee4d991fba8b6843469dd8409648847)
(Edit: apparently that's just the land owners taking some logging revenue before they give up the land to the state.)
I'm surprised the state didn't want logging rights. Or maybe that's not something they ordinarily ask for?
In just about every highway project in Kentucky that requires substantial tree-cutting, most of it is required to be done during winter months. I'm not sure what the environmental concern is for that. I suspect it has to do with animal habitat. I also hardly ever see any timber being harvested by the state. Some locals will get some of the easy pickins for firewood, but most of the wood is piled up and burned.
So it's possible that what's depicted in that photo is normal clearing and grubbing.
The latest on this is that ODOT has reached "commercial close" with the winning bidder and that financial close is expected in the first quarter of 2015, after which final design and construction will begin.
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/InnovativeDelivery/Pages/PortsmouthDBFOM.aspx
Why is this a PPP again? All this business bullshit doesn't seem to be speeding up the process at all.
Well of course not. They have to figure out a way to make a proper business case for a 500 million dollar road.
This will now be called the "Southern Ohio Veterans Memorial Highway"
http://portsmouth-dailytimes.com/news/news/151852840/Bypass-named-in-house-bill
Quote from: Buck87 on February 18, 2015, 03:20:06 PM
This will now be called the "Southern Ohio Veterans Memorial Highway"
http://portsmouth-dailytimes.com/news/news/151852840/Bypass-named-in-house-bill
That's great, but people will still probably just call it "the bypass".
There are so many veterans highways in the area already. I wish we could just leave roads as-is and stop renaming every sign post, bridge, pavement and lamp post after every and any entity.
You hate the troops!
Fuck the troops.
"Brian Williams lied about his combat zone experiences Highway"
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on March 01, 2015, 10:38:20 PM
"Bill O'Reilly lied about his combat zone experiences Highway"
Fixed for you.
"Mission Accomplished Highway"
Quote from: NE2 on March 02, 2015, 12:21:46 AM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on March 01, 2015, 10:38:20 PM
"Bill O'Reilly lied about his combat zone experiences Highway"
Fixed for you.
Thought we would save that for the Illini
ODOT put out a press release calling this "the state's largest modern earthwork project to date." That's hard to believe.
The release isn't online yet, though. It will be on the ODOT District 9 page once it's posted.
I think the key qualifier there is "modern". How do they define it? I suppose it's possible this project has moved more earth than any other since the Interstates were largely finished, but I'm not terribly familiar with big projects in the hilly parts of Ohio.
Perhaps it's the largest project let as one contract?
Could the interstates have been made up of individual section projects that were all smaller than this one?
Ohio hasn't really moved much dirt in the Appalachian part (the part that requires the most earthwork) in the past 30 years. Some of the 33 bypasses are probably close. A lot of the current Appalachian Ohio work was done by the '60s and '70s -- unlike in neighboring states where major projects are ongoing.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 03, 2015, 04:31:41 PM
ODOT put out a press release calling this "the state's largest modern earthwork project to date." That's hard to believe.
The release isn't online yet, though. It will be on the ODOT District 9 page once it's posted.
Considering that ODOT and (then governor) James Rhodes were regularly describing the I-70/77 interchange the largest in the nation, when it was being built in the 1960s, hyperbole is never far from our politicians' lips.
And Ricart Ford is the world's largest!
Those big claims went a lot further when people couldn't Google things to determine if they're bullshit or not. If you make that sort of claim today you'd better be able to back it up.
Why does this have to be a freeway?
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on March 21, 2015, 04:56:06 PM
Why does this have to be a freeway?
Technically it doesn't. However, projected traffic volume, Appalacian Development Corridor design standards, and functional preservation suggest it should at least be a four lane expressway. Given the hilly terrain and low number of existing roads crossing the route, full grade separation is added value at low marginal cost.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 03, 2014, 09:04:02 PM
In just about every highway project in Kentucky that requires substantial tree-cutting, most of it is required to be done during winter months. I'm not sure what the environmental concern is for that. I suspect it has to do with animal habitat. I also hardly ever see any timber being harvested by the state. Some locals will get some of the easy pickins for firewood, but most of the wood is piled up and burned.
So it's possible that what's depicted in that photo is normal clearing and grubbing.
Long assed time between Q and A here, but it's the Indiana bat. (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/81697184/OHIO-DEPARTMENT-OF-NATURAL-RESOURCES-INDIANA-BAT-MANAGEMENT-STRATEGY-The-Department-of-Natural-Res)
I would think a four lane divided expressway with interchanges only at major roads would work just fine
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on March 23, 2015, 06:46:44 PM
I would think a four lane divided expressway with interchanges only at major roads would work just fine
That's what is being discussed here, thanks for your input.
There is a difference between a four-lane divided highway with at-grade intersections and a full-blown freeway :poke:
It IS a freeway. Nothing else has been discussed. I suspect one of the reasons for the limited access with no intersections is the eventual goal of upgrading US 23-52 into an interstate corridor. The South Bloomfield project further north is fully limited access with no intersections as well.
^Wait what? South Bloomfield interchange? I haven't heard anything new about that one. Googling only produces an UrbanOhio post made by you in 2007.
The bypass will run high through the hills. There are few existing roads crossing the route, and where there is an existing road to cross, it's probably easier to build a bridge than to have the roads meet at the same level.
Quote from: GCrites80s on March 23, 2015, 11:41:57 PM
^Wait what? South Bloomfield interchange? I haven't heard anything new about that one. Googling only produces an UrbanOhio post made by you in 2007.
I need to find the ODOT drawing, but it shows a sweeping bypass of South Bloomfield that's entirely limited access. It would cut to the east of the village.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on March 23, 2015, 11:24:46 PM
I suspect one of the reasons for the limited access with no intersections is the eventual goal of upgrading US 23-52 into an interstate corridor.
While pretty much everything I've read on here suggests I-73/I-74 in Ohio is dead, a Portsmouth bypass was going to be one of the key elements of making that happen. So yeah, I can see that as a possible reason to make this a freeway now, so that it's ready just in case the interstate idea ever comes back to life years from now.
Quote from: vtk on March 24, 2015, 02:18:41 AM
The bypass will run high through the hills. There are few existing roads crossing the route, and where there is an existing road to cross, it's probably easier to build a bridge than to have the roads meet at the same level.
Exactly, there's only like 12-15 roads that cross the route, and most of them would probably have to have their own route significantly altered just to meet this thing at grade. Most of the roads in that area are in valleys and it looks like this thing sticks to the hilltops and ridges.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on March 24, 2015, 06:57:25 AM
Quote from: GCrites80s on March 23, 2015, 11:41:57 PM
^Wait what? South Bloomfield interchange? I haven't heard anything new about that one. Googling only produces an UrbanOhio post made by you in 2007.
I need to find the ODOT drawing, but it shows a sweeping bypass of South Bloomfield that's entirely limited access. It would cut to the east of the village.
I believe I saw that drawing too. It was more then ten years ago, and I hadn't heard anything more about it until you mentioned it. District 6 doesn't have a project / study page abut South Bloomfield, as of the last time I checked. It may be a long-term intention, but I'm not aware of any current movement. Is there any funding for this in the current or next budget cycle? Please don't mistake my cynicism for hostility; I would actually be glad to see this move forward, but I don't think it's happening anytime soon.
Right, it is a long term project, but it is out there and designed. I am assuming that it is funding that is the holdup; it's nowhere on the TARC list for 2015-18 (http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/TRAC%20List/FINAL_2015-2018_MAJOR_NEW_PROGRAM_LIST_2.26.15.pdf).
Ran across this today. I guess it got announced two weeks ago.
http://www.portsmouth-dailytimes.com/news/news/152860472/Highway-Ready-for-construction
Quote from: mvak36 on April 24, 2015, 09:26:39 PM
Ran across this today. I guess it got announced two weeks ago.
http://www.portsmouth-dailytimes.com/news/news/152860472/Highway-Ready-for-construction
Quotethe new highway will complete the Appalachian Development Highway System in Ohio
No, I'm pretty sure the feds still consider Corridor C incomplete at Waverly and South Bloomfield.
Columbus Dispatch: State's share of Portsmouth bypass rises to $1.2 billion over 35 years (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/05/25/states-share-rises-to-1-2b-over-35-years.html)
Will the bypass ever become part of US 23 or US 52? Or will it permanently remain State Route 823?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 29, 2015, 04:39:33 PM
Will the bypass ever become part of US 23 or US 52?
I've never seen such a thing mentioned anywhere.
Wouldn't work well for 52 as the Lucasville end of the bypass would take it way north of its route closely hugging the Ohio River.
Although it would be easy to reroute 23 to the bypass by using the Greenup Dam Bridge (OH 253/KY10) and a short concurrency with 52.
Probably should be signed as Bypass US 23, or Truck US 23.
Quote from: Buck87 on May 29, 2015, 07:31:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 29, 2015, 04:39:33 PM
Will the bypass ever become part of US 23 or US 52?
I've never seen such a thing mentioned anywhere.
Wouldn't work well for 52 as the Lucasville end of the bypass would take it way north of its route closely hugging the Ohio River.
Although it would be easy to reroute 23 to the bypass by using the Greenup Dam Bridge (OH 253/KY10) and a short concurrency with 52.
If you did that then you could extend KY 8 along the current US 23 until the current KY 10 and US 23 intersection.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 29, 2015, 04:39:33 PM
Will the bypass ever become part of US 23 or US 52? Or will it permanently remain State Route 823?
It will be the mainline route of whichever Appalacian Development Highway System corridor mostly follows US 23, but neither Ohio nor Kentucky sign those designations (which is why I can never remember which letter corridor this is).
I've never heard an (non-roadgeek) Ohioan refer to any road in the state as "Corridor __".
Quote from: vtk on May 30, 2015, 06:02:25 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 29, 2015, 04:39:33 PM
Will the bypass ever become part of US 23 or US 52? Or will it permanently remain State Route 823?
It will be the mainline route of whichever Appalachian Development Highway System corridor mostly follows US 23, but neither Ohio nor Kentucky sign those designations (which is why I can never remember which letter corridor this is).
Corridor B. And the Greenup Dam segment to reconnect with 23 north of Portsmouth is B-1.
And I fixed your spelling of Appalachian. Did you at one time work in an ODOT sign shop? :D Because there used to be a bunch of signs along OH 32's eastern portion that spelled it "Appalacian Highway."
The official groundbreaking ceremony took place on June 24 in Minford
http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/209M-in-Federal-Funding-for-Portsmouth-Bypass-Project-297516381.html
I've heard from a railroad employee that some serious excavation has been ongoing along the bypass route near Minford for a couple of months now, but I haven't yet gone to see it in person. I did, however, see today some activity starting on the west side of US 23 within the trumpet interchange footprint at Lucasville. I have photos, but I can't conveniently share them until I get home.
Finally got around to uploading those photos:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fconst-823-lucasville-1509-1.jpeg&hash=87bcc25891bbab9c1f9b4131d1e52e40105362d5)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fconst-823-lucasville-1509-2.jpeg&hash=167bf75fc7aafc74388a5056eea7b5e759817b36)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fconst-823-lucasville-1509-3.jpeg&hash=01ba1beea49d17a818d5486d04396c7a06c4248e)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fconst-823-lucasville-1509-4.jpeg&hash=71ecdff6a681e688aa1c7abc08aaf9e20709f57b)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fconst-823-lucasville-1509-5.jpeg&hash=126337a5aca79c8c8329f3eb22a08ee9dd7b47ae)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fconst-823-lucasville-1509-6.jpeg&hash=476e15e78d74af6745fa371fbaf8935286864c6d)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fconst-823-lucasville-1509-7.jpeg&hash=a7343f70e56094dac80edf71b0310089da22bae4)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fconst-823-lucasville-1509-8.jpeg&hash=8845c9eca73fda554e1183b3887ce047312fa7d2)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fconst-823-lucasville-1509-9.jpeg&hash=2dedfaec98e80f3cf3ffb89cd25d8004f66f47d7)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fconst-823-lucasville-1509-10.jpeg&hash=08794f2b88a7af1e20b55c5ca07deb988ce8a62a)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fconst-823-lucasville-1509-11.jpeg&hash=99046020ccd3c0eeeb381a1777b3c0255fdbf8f7)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fconst-823-lucasville-1509-12.jpeg&hash=c328dbd38fdfd8b7ba054cfa480424facaad749c)
Nice pics, thanks for sharing.
This will be nice for me when I travel Southeast from Cincy. I have been one of those who has been using Rosemount Rd from U23 to OH139 to bypass Portsmouth to get to US52. I pretty much have 3 choices in traveling to Charleston WV and beyond: OH32/US23/Rosemount Rd/OH139/US52/I-64, OH32/US35/I-64, OH32/US68/AA Highway/I-64. I despise the two portion of US35 in WV. The AA is nice, but it's generally a very good 2 lane road.
Video rendering recently posted by ODOT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E05btrM-Ic
Quote from: Buck87 on November 15, 2015, 08:01:40 PM
Video rendering recently posted by ODOT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E05btrM-Ic
Wow, it almost looks like they didn't even try to follow the existing topography.
Also, apparently OH 823 will be signed east—west? Then again, the video seemed to refer to US 52 as north—south, so maybe take that with a grain of salt...
Am I the only one who wonders why Ohio never goes full bench on any cut? Even the tiniest cut has to be extra wide and angled. Crossing over to Kentucky is shocking since you see full bench all the time even today.
Also, remember when projected road videos showed way less traffic than the road would actually carry? Like one or two cars? This one is overly optimistic volume-wise in parts.
Quote from: GCrites80s on November 17, 2015, 12:25:22 AM
Am I the only one who wonders why Ohio never goes full bench on any cut? Even the tiniest cut has to be extra wide and angled. Crossing over to Kentucky is shocking since you see full bench all the time even today.
I'm not familiar with that term. Is that something like, fully vertical cliffs, interrupted by short horizontal runs to limit the distance a rock or animal might fall?
Basically. I've noticed that the term is more popular with the U.S. Forest Service than in highway engineering, though it is used more for sideslopes.
Will the Portsmouth Bypass eventually be a relocation of US 23?
Quote from: GCrites80s on November 17, 2015, 12:25:22 AM
Am I the only one who wonders why Ohio never goes full bench on any cut? Even the tiniest cut has to be extra wide and angled. Crossing over to Kentucky is shocking since you see full bench all the time even today.
Geology could play a role in the different construction styles.
In Wisconsin, large rock cuts for US 151 in the southwest part of the state are benched.
The US 53 freeway in Eau Claire has large rock cuts that are not.
The benched cuts are mostly limestone. The ones for US 53 blast through mostly sandstone. (I say 'mostly' because both are interbedded with thin shale layers.)
I'm not too familiar with the bedrock geology of southern Ohio vs. northern Kentucky other then a general understanding of it being later Paleozoic sedimentary rocks. But that's the first thing I would investigate.
I notice it state-wide in both states, but I've never been west of Bowling Green in Kentucky. Kentucky's Bluegrass geology region actually extends into Ohio in Adams, Brown and Highland Counties. Whereas east of Portsmouth you are in a different geologic region with the southern tip of Ohio, NE Kentucky and western West Virginia sharing the same.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2015, 04:23:07 PM
Will the Portsmouth Bypass eventually be a relocation of US 23?
Probably not. Such a move would require both Ohio and Kentucky to want to do it, and I don't see either wanting to. Ohio has several prior examples of not relocating a major route to a better new road. Kentucky probably wouldn't want to give up the US 23 mileage between Portsmouth and wherever the new US 23 would cross the river.
Quote from: vtk on November 20, 2015, 11:41:33 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2015, 04:23:07 PM
Will the Portsmouth Bypass eventually be a relocation of US 23?
Probably not. Such a move would require both Ohio and Kentucky to want to do it, and I don't see either wanting to. Ohio has several prior examples of not relocating a major route to a better new road. Kentucky probably wouldn't want to give up the US 23 mileage between Portsmouth and wherever the new US 23 would cross the river.
That road is actually ADHS Corridor B-1, which leaves US 23 at the Greenup Dam (KY 10/OH mumble) to join US 52.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 21, 2015, 12:59:06 AM
Quote from: vtk on November 20, 2015, 11:41:33 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2015, 04:23:07 PM
Will the Portsmouth Bypass eventually be a relocation of US 23?
Probably not. Such a move would require both Ohio and Kentucky to want to do it, and I don't see either wanting to. Ohio has several prior examples of not relocating a major route to a better new road. Kentucky probably wouldn't want to give up the US 23 mileage between Portsmouth and wherever the new US 23 would cross the river.
That road is actually ADHS Corridor B-1, which leaves US 23 at the Greenup Dam (KY 10/OH mumble) to join US 52.
I thought the bypass was mainline B, while B-1 is a spur on US 23 into Portsmouth, but as these designations aren't signed or marked on maps, I have trouble retaining them in my mind...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/ADHS_September_30%2C_2005.png)
Judging from that map, B-1 would be US 23, KY 8 and Spur KY 8 (Carl D. Perkins Bridge).
So what's C-1? US 35 between OH 32 and Chillicothe?
I think so. That map was from 2005, so I don't know if 35 was 4-laned yet. I took some pictures of an abandoned primitive rest area that had just closed due to construction work in 2002-2003 near Richmond Dale but I don't remember when the project was finished. I think it was done in 2005 when we went to Martinsville for NASCAR.
Quote from: GCrites80s on November 22, 2015, 10:04:12 PM
I think so. That map was from 2005, so I don't know if 35 was 4-laned yet. I took some pictures of an abandoned primitive rest area that had just closed due to construction work in 2002-2003 near Richmond Dale but I don't remember when the project was finished. I think it was done in 2005 when we went to Martinsville for NASCAR.
According to USDA Farm Service Agency imagery via Google Earth, the US 50 to Richmond Dale section was still under construction in summer 2004, open to traffic by late June 2005.
Makes sense, the race was in October.
I was in Scioto County visiting family this past weekend and had a chance to drive by some of the construction areas. Here are some pics I took Sunday morning:
The site of the future half interchange with OH 140. Taken from the park and ride lot, looking north.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5774/23354622091_53d137b678_b.jpg)
The next 2 are looking south across Lucasville-Minford Rd at the future interchange site there
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5623/23411001276_f8d98cb5d0_c.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5726/23437146555_e7428af7f4_c.jpg)
I noticed a lot of earthwork when I was by there a few days ago. The US 52/bypass tie-in is coming along nicely, too. Did the old school on OH 140 get torn down?
If I could afford gas for a few scouting trips, I'd put together a meet to view that project. But as it stands, I probably couldn't even afford to attend a meet there even if someone else hosted it, which is sad since I'm only around 2 hours and change from Portsmouth.
2 main points of interest from this local article, the project is currently 15% completed, and the projected completion date is December of 2018:
http://communitycommon.com/news/1092/bypass-is-15-percent-constructed
--
Also, looking closer at that 3D animation video posted above, I just noticed that the first little section of the bypass between 52 and 140 is only 2 lanes. It's almost like the 140 and 52 partial interchanges are together one big interchange with 2 regular length ramps to 140 and 2 really long ones that go through a cut to 52.
So the southbound right lane of the bypass will become an exit only lane to 140. I suppose it will be signed something like "140, To 52 west, Portsmouth, South Webster"
More likely Portsmouth and New Boston.
Quote from: vtk on December 24, 2015, 09:58:51 AM
More likely Portsmouth and New Boston.
South Webster is the control city for 140 off 52, not sure why they wouldn't include it for the bypass' exit with 140. It would be there to tell you where a left turn from the ramp onto 140 would lead. The "to 52, Portsmouth" would be there for the right turn.
I don't think I've even seen New Boston referenced on any BGS or even on mileage signs. The fact that Portsmouth completely surrounds it might have something to do with it being completely ignored.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My guess would be Ironton southbound, and Chillicothe northbound. My preference would be Huntington and Columbus.
^ 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"
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?
If it's the politicians, I'm out of here!
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.
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.
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)
That's why there's few speed traps in the county.
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"
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.
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?
On the topic of the social media accounts, here's a link to the Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/Southern-Ohio-Veterans-Memorial-Highway-1697517183812433/?fref=ts
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:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1602/26443567535_31c64a3398_z.jpg)
Open House coming up on August 3rd:
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13658988_1809103859320431_8880826688691286171_n.jpg?oh=bdb564bb613651558371942f3216cc54&oe=58245E11)
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.
Have you not seen the terrain or the development sprawling in the area?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Quote from: Buck87 on July 30, 2016, 10:05:03 AM
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
Yes, I did. The Perkins Bridge is KY 8 Spur, although extending that route north of US 52 along OH 104 and then swinging back over to US 23 would make a nice bypass.
In its current state? Or with what degree of upgrades?
Without going too far into Fictional.
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?
I-73 supporters in the Carolinas.
Greased palms on this one.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 05, 2016, 11:44:48 AM
Greased palms on this one.
Yeah. Just like every other ADHS corridor. :banghead:
To those doubting the utility of this route, I offer some evidence to support it.
Apparently, there's already a noticeable amount of traffic attempting to bypass Portsmouth on existing roads approximating the route of OH 823. Enough that, last year, a VMS was put up on southbound US 23 between Lucasville and Rosemount saying "NO THRU TRUCKS ON ROSEMOUNT ROAD". Now, at Rosemount, there's a little assembly saying [TRUCK] [TO] [US 52] [↑ (up arrow)].
Also, if one were to observe the US 23 / US 52 junction in Portsmouth, one would observe significant turning traffic SB to EB and WB to NB. Much of that turning traffic is trucks.
It's been like that for at least 20 years. Banning commercial truck traffic on the Rosemount Rd. hill is logical. a 10 ft. max clearance except for local traffic would accomplish it. Since there is zero development on the dangerous sections of Rosemount Rd. it will be fine.
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14238221_1831152757115541_2785979405982311646_n.jpg?oh=adc25512b09b75a5bb57451e6e679697&oe=587D9959)
^ Recent pic from the project's FB page (showing part of the US 23 interchange)
more pics from around the project here:
https://www.facebook.com/Southern-Ohio-Veterans-Memorial-Highway-1697517183812433/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1832467776984039
Another pic, this one showing the south end of the project looking north from the tie in to US 52
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14485052_1837765329787617_8074190733380532303_n.jpg?oh=ad3785113d9c976331f7a2026cbca0ee&oe=587666E9)
Some pictures I took Saturday at each end of future OH 823:
From U.S. 23 South:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5557/29790354752_2da9296229_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MotmA5)DSC04450 (https://flic.kr/p/MotmA5) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8393/29820992881_7f73aeca8b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MrboeF)DSC04451 (https://flic.kr/p/MrboeF) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
From U.S. 52 East:
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8482/29821091511_77fb9978eb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MrbTyc)DSC04483 (https://flic.kr/p/MrbTyc) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8339/29277981713_04f1708c62_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LBciWa)DSC04484 (https://flic.kr/p/LBciWa) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
More pictures from yesterday (10/2/16):
From U.S. 23 North:
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8362/30042752476_cf9f50d1e9_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MLLXCY)DSC05374 (https://flic.kr/p/MLLXCY) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8347/30076840185_3a0f356113_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MPMEJ6)DSC05375 (https://flic.kr/p/MPMEJ6) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
From U.S. 52 West (these show just how much of a climb the beginning of OH 823 North will have):
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5142/29993216571_968c3bb5a5_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MGp5kD)DSC05337 (https://flic.kr/p/MGp5kD) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7707/29993222751_002b13ce08_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MGp7bc)DSC05338 (https://flic.kr/p/MGp7bc) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
They're hilltopping this one rather than valleying so they have to get up there. 52 is valleyed or "basined" we'll say.
Some new pics of December progress we posted on the project FB page today. Here's one looking north at the section that crosses the CSX, Slocum Ave/Highland Bend Rd, the Little Scioto River and OH 335
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15894749_1889758124588337_9169496623333782968_n.jpg?oh=aa638db29e65fe3685e014de5edc7cd5&oe=58D9A652)
Today I stumbled across this October 2016 article from the Chillicothe Gazette on potential impacts this Portsmouth bypass could have on US 23 traffic in Ross County: http://www.chillicothegazette.com/story/news/local/2016/10/08/bypass-impact-us-23s-evolution/91664206/
Interesting read...discusses the possibility of the Portsmouth bypass leading to higher traffic volumes on 23 and what that could mean for Ross County, such as more pressure to install traffic signals at intersections south of Chillicothe, and the typical economic development talk.
And for anyone still dreaming of I-73 in Ohio, there's a section stating several reasons why that won't be happening anytime soon.
I don't expect Interstate 73 will penetrate Ohio for at least 100 years, if ever!
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 01, 2017, 03:26:09 PM
I don't expect Interstate 73 will penetrate Ohio for at least 100 years, if ever!
I'll be surprised if I-73 ever extends beyond the borders of North Carolina.
Drove thru the area today and saw that at the US 23 interchange the main bridge that crosses 23 is now in place.
Beams have gone up for the NB to EB bridge over the railroad tracks
Here's the latest pic of the US 23 interchange:
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17952579_1942628092634673_7433358499546760750_n.jpg?oh=5bb99ec53d410d73f54d1002e3f58567&oe=5994BA89)
https://www.facebook.com/1697517183812433/photos/a.1697532240477594.1073741828.1697517183812433/1942628092634673/?type=3&theater¬if_t=notify_me_page¬if_id=1492803997165065
Quote from: Buck87 on April 21, 2017, 10:19:55 PM
Here's the latest pic of the US 23 interchange:
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17952579_1942628092634673_7433358499546760750_n.jpg?oh=5bb99ec53d410d73f54d1002e3f58567&oe=5994BA89)
https://www.facebook.com/1697517183812433/photos/a.1697532240477594.1073741828.1697517183812433/1942628092634673/?type=3&theater¬if_t=notify_me_page¬if_id=1492803997165065
That is coming along rather nicely!
They have recently posted a new flyover video that was taken in late April:
https://www.pgg823.com/fly-through-3d-animation
The video shows a flyover of both directions of the bypass, labeling the interchanges on the southbound pass and labeling the bridges on the northbound pass.
The bypass's construction is still not shown on Google Maps. No wonder everyone hates it!
From the project facebook page:
QuoteWe have pavement! Looking east along the mainline of S.R. 823, the passing lanes are getting their first application of asphalt. Although there is still more asphalt to be placed, the Southern Ohio Veterans Memorial Highway is taking shape.
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18767748_1963308817233267_6200482068134110142_n.jpg?oh=e9f4381aee65384cb0248eb3b6df642a&oe=59DE7997)
https://www.facebook.com/1697517183812433/photos/a.1697532240477594.1073741828.1697517183812433/1963308817233267/?type=3&theater¬if_t=notify_me_page¬if_id=1496434994732075
Drove up there yesterday to scout for a potential meet. The one thing that jumps out at me is just how few exits there are going to be. No exits for OH 335 or 139? I realize the terrain is difficult for 335, but still I'm a bit surprised.
My usual route when I'm traveling north on US 23 is to take I-64 to KY 67 to US 23 and through downtown Portsmouth. I wonder if there will be any mileage or time savings by crossing the river at the Greenup Dam (KY 10) and then US 52 to the new bypass, especially if I don't need to stop for anything in Portsmouth?
Also, I noticed that there's a heavy use of retaining walls near the bridges on this project; moreso than I'm used to seeing.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 11, 2017, 03:50:19 PM
My usual route when I'm traveling north on US 23 is to take I-64 to KY 67 to US 23 and through downtown Portsmouth. I wonder if there will be any mileage or time savings by crossing the river at the Greenup Dam (KY 10) and then US 52 to the new bypass, especially if I don't need to stop for anything in Portsmouth?
Also, I noticed that there's a heavy use of retaining walls near the bridges on this project; moreso than I'm used to seeing.
That will almost certainly be faster. I've recently started driving to Russell for work, and I've gone three different ways which all seem to take about the same amount of time: cross the Scioto at Lucasville, come down 104 to 8 to 23; straight through Portsmouth on 23; Rosemount Rd to 139 into New Boston then 52 and cross the Ohio at 10. I'm pretty sure 823 will be a time saver versus all those options.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 11, 2017, 03:50:19 PM
Drove up there yesterday to scout for a potential meet. The one thing that jumps out at me is just how few exits there are going to be. No exits for OH 335 or 139? I realize the terrain is difficult for 335, but still I'm a bit surprised.
I was a bit surprised at the lack of one at 139 at first, though I suppose they either a) figured it was too close to the Shumway Hollow exit, and/or b) wanted it on Lucasville-Minford Rd because that is the road the nearby state prison is on. Besides, local traffic from 139 wanting to get on the bypass can easily get to Lucasville-Minford Rd.
As for 335, the Shumway-Hollow/Portsmouth Airport interchange is its interchange, as it will be directly adjacent to it. I would imagine that exit will be signed "To 335." And yes, the terrain is difficult for the spot where the bypass crosses 335 and the Little Scioto River, and it would have been an unnecessary expenditure IMO to try putting an interchange there.
Here are a couple recent articles about this project:
http://www.enr.com/articles/42326-ohios-first-p3-is-its-biggest-road-project-ever
http://www.portsmouth-dailytimes.com/news/17424/bypass-hits-two-year-mark
One key point from the 2nd article is that the project is over 75% complete and that they are still planning on a December 2018 opening. And the first article mentions that of the 20 million cu yd of earth that needs to be removed in this project, 17 million is already done.
That first article really oversells the economic benefits if you ask me. Sure there will probably be lots of benefit to the private owners of the 3P...
The latest flyover video of the project (shot on Aug 8, posted on Aug 17):
https://www.facebook.com/1697517183812433/videos/2001908813373267/
Quote from: Buck87 on August 20, 2017, 01:05:01 PM
The latest flyover video of the project (shot on Aug 8, posted on Aug 17):
https://www.facebook.com/1697517183812433/videos/2001908813373267/
Looks like the northern end is farther along toward completion than the southern; but from the photos I'd say that a December 2018 planned opening may find itself "subject to delay", so to speak. I'd venture a guess that late summer to early fall 2019 would be more like it, given that the segment just north of the US 52 interchange still needs to be fully graded!
Here's another flyover video they posted today:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2023314951232653&id=1697517183812433
VS988
Someone is clearly a Tom Petty fan. :)
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 08, 2017, 12:20:48 AM
Someone is clearly a Tom Petty fan. :)
Seeing is how he wrote & recorded so many modern standards in the genre over his career, chances are for at least the next couple of months he'll be memorialized by a deluge of his recordings
and/or covers of his songs. Just as long as the ironically cynical "Into the Great Wide Open" is in the rotation, I for one don't mind it at all!
http://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/OHDOT-1d4712b
From this press release about a temporary local road closure:
"Currently, the project to construct Ohio's single, largest earthwork project and first public-private partnership is nearly 90 percent complete, with pavement and bridges, on average, 67 percent complete"
I've driven past a few of the interchanges this weekend, which are starting to look pretty nice. One thing I've noticed is that all the bridges that the bypass uses to cross existing roads seem to be quite a bit higher than average grade spearation bridges.
VS988
Quote from: Buck87 on February 04, 2018, 12:49:47 PM
I've driven past a few of the interchanges this weekend, which are starting to look pretty nice. One thing I've noticed is that all the bridges that the bypass uses to cross existing roads seem to be quite a bit higher than average grade separation bridges.
To be expected if the surface road is down in a valley and the freeway is crossing said valley. Less elevation change for the freeway.
Lucasville-Minford Road is now open again after being closed for the instalation of bridge beams. This pic was posted on the SOVMH Facebook page:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180209/0e603b697c964c1e3734bdf67f806cf7.jpg)
VS988
Looking at the official Ohio map, it's going to be interesting to see how they incorporate this new bypass into it. The area where it runs is currently pretty cluttered with place names and local roads. The Ohio map generally does not have place names written directly over freeways (with a few exceptions in dense areas that have an insert on the back), so it's likely most of those place names will have to be moved around, and they'll have to get pretty creative to keep everything on there.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dot.state.oh.us%2Fmaps%2FODOT%2520Maps%2Fsci.jpg&hash=ccd13566df3b6ea28c0368bfa1bd5771390a8232)
Clarktown, Rubyville and Twin Valley along SR 139 are pretty much dots on the map and can go away - as is Sciotodale along SR 140.
Quote from: seicer on February 26, 2018, 01:24:35 PM
Clarktown, Rubyville and Twin Valley along SR 139 are pretty much dots on the map and can go away - as is Sciotodale along SR 140.
Rubyville and Twin Valley are not in the way at all and Clarktown is only barely in the way and can easily be moved to the other side of 139.
The things that
are in the way are Sciotodale, Sciotoville, Portsmouth, the OH 335 shield, the 3 mile indicator, Minford, Muletown, Southern Ohio Correctional Institute and the County Fairground symbol.
Are they trying to kill the local economy?
After looking at the map a little more I began thinking of ways if could be rearranged while still keeping everything, and then decided to have a go at it myself by messing around with it in MS Paint. Here's what I came up with:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4622/25633943647_d138c79b18_o.jpg)
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 26, 2018, 04:07:01 PM
Are they trying to kill the local economy?
The loss of Detroit Steel and virtually all of the heavy industry that defined the area helped kill Portsmouth/New Boston's economy in the 1980's. Drugs and hopelessness are helping kill the area today. It's depressing to drive through once stable areas and see what it's all become. (Grew up just outside of Portsmouth.)
It will be nice when it opens will provide a better route from Indianapolis to Charleston without having to go south on I-65 then back track a bit northward on I-64. I wish they would get rid of more traffic lights on OH 32.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 23, 2018, 01:05:18 PM
It will be nice when it opens will provide a better route from Indianapolis to Charleston without having to go south on I-65 then back track a bit northward on I-64. I wish they would get rid of more traffic lights on OH 32.
I can't see any traffic from the Indianapolis area heading to Charleston opting for anything but US 35, once West Virginia finishes four-laning its portion.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 23, 2018, 01:34:57 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 23, 2018, 01:05:18 PM
It will be nice when it opens will provide a better route from Indianapolis to Charleston without having to go south on I-65 then back track a bit northward on I-64. I wish they would get rid of more traffic lights on OH 32.
I can't see any traffic from the Indianapolis area heading to Charleston opting for anything but US 35, once West Virginia finishes four-laning its portion.
Unless pigs sprout wings and the Portsmouth bypass is extended west to OH 32 near Peebles (as per the original I-74 plans), the OH 32 option will never be considered an efficient route to WV from northwest points. Besides, that routing means one has to negotiate Cincinnati, which optimally involves hitting I-275 during non-peak hours. US 35 -- the pending "superstreet" concept east of Dayton notwithstanding -- will be a much better bet if & when the WV segment is fully upgraded.
Quote from: sparker on March 23, 2018, 05:27:58 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 23, 2018, 01:34:57 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 23, 2018, 01:05:18 PM
It will be nice when it opens will provide a better route from Indianapolis to Charleston without having to go south on I-65 then back track a bit northward on I-64. I wish they would get rid of more traffic lights on OH 32.
I can't see any traffic from the Indianapolis area heading to Charleston opting for anything but US 35, once West Virginia finishes four-laning its portion.
Unless pigs sprout wings and the Portsmouth bypass is extended west to OH 32 near Peebles (as per the original I-74 plans), the OH 32 option will never be considered an efficient route to WV from northwest points. Besides, that routing means one has to negotiate Cincinnati, which optimally involves hitting I-275 during non-peak hours. US 35 -- the pending "superstreet" concept east of Dayton notwithstanding -- will be a much better bet if & when the WV segment is fully upgraded.
I agree, I-70-US 35-I-64 will always be the route of choice between Indy and Charleston, because it's the most direct one out there. Even if I-74 were to be extended along OH 32, they'd still use US 35 instead.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 23, 2018, 01:34:57 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 23, 2018, 01:05:18 PM
It will be nice when it opens will provide a better route from Indianapolis to Charleston without having to go south on I-65 then back track a bit northward on I-64. I wish they would get rid of more traffic lights on OH 32.
I can't see any traffic from the Indianapolis area heading to Charleston opting for anything but US 35, once West Virginia finishes four-laning its portion.
I recall US 35 having a lot of wonderful speed and redlight cameras in the Dayton area. Not that I've checked the rest of the US 35 or OH 32 corridors, but I do recall the Cincinnati area generally not having them. Plus I-74 between Cincinnati and Dayton seems to be a bit more pleasant than I-70 from Richmond to Indianapolis.
Not to mention, there's no good route from Portsmouth to I-64 that doesn't involve:
1.) Going through downtown Ashland.
2.) Possible large falling boulders on US 52 and the OHP speed traps between Wheelersburg and South Point.
3.) Backtracking (going west) on KY 67.
Quote from: Henry on March 24, 2018, 01:20:54 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 23, 2018, 05:27:58 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 23, 2018, 01:34:57 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 23, 2018, 01:05:18 PM
It will be nice when it opens will provide a better route from Indianapolis to Charleston without having to go south on I-65 then back track a bit northward on I-64. I wish they would get rid of more traffic lights on OH 32.
I can't see any traffic from the Indianapolis area heading to Charleston opting for anything but US 35, once West Virginia finishes four-laning its portion.
Unless pigs sprout wings and the Portsmouth bypass is extended west to OH 32 near Peebles (as per the original I-74 plans), the OH 32 option will never be considered an efficient route to WV from northwest points. Besides, that routing means one has to negotiate Cincinnati, which optimally involves hitting I-275 during non-peak hours. US 35 -- the pending "superstreet" concept east of Dayton notwithstanding -- will be a much better bet if & when the WV segment is fully upgraded.
I agree, I-70-US 35-I-64 will always be the route of choice between Indy and Charleston, because it's the most direct one out there. Even if I-74 were to be extended along OH 32, they'd still use US 35 instead.
Taking I-74 from Indy to I-275 east to I-71 north to US 35 in Jeffersonville only adds 4 miles to the trip.
I was just having a look at some pics the SOVMH Facebook page posted last month...and this one caught me off gaurd...as I did not know there was going to be a bridge of this culvert/tunnel style on this project. This is bridge 6a over Stout Hollow Rd, which didn't appear at all on the original video animation, and wasn't this far along when the last flyover was shot.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180327/55a80bba3cce586613f90ce9594eeccb.jpg)
VS988
They just posted a new flyover video (https://www.facebook.com/1697517183812433/videos/vb.1697517183812433/2106120786285402/?type=2&theater¬if_t=notify_me_page¬if_id=1522263425409958) today that was shot on March 16
From a couple of months back...
http://www.portsmouth-dailytimes.com/news/25369/bypass-is-ahead-of-schedule (http://www.portsmouth-dailytimes.com/news/25369/bypass-is-ahead-of-schedule)
And a reminder to H.B...
QuoteWhile Fuller declined to give a new completion date, she said an announcement should arrive by early summer. The project had originally been scheduled to open in November 2018.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 10, 2018, 10:10:58 PM
From a couple of months back...
http://www.portsmouth-dailytimes.com/news/25369/bypass-is-ahead-of-schedule (http://www.portsmouth-dailytimes.com/news/25369/bypass-is-ahead-of-schedule)
And a reminder to H.B...
QuoteWhile Fuller declined to give a new completion date, she said an announcement should arrive by early summer. The project had originally been scheduled to open in November 2018.
I'm on Ms. Fuller's mailing list (dating back from the time that I was filling in as PIO for KYTC District 9, which is in northeastern Kentucky and border's ODOT District 9, so I get her weekly construction updates.
Looking impressive. I wonder if it will continue the 70 MPH speed limit set along US 52 east of SR 140 exit?
It's a similar road to the Nelsonville Bypass, which has a 70MPH speed limit.
I'm pretty sure it has been announced that this bypass will have a 70 mph speed limit
Quote from: Buck87 on May 13, 2018, 08:40:32 AM
I'm pretty sure it has been announced that this bypass will have a 70 mph speed limit
ODOT's standard has been to design freeways with a 70mph design speed, even when the highest Ohio would post was 65mph.
A new flyover video has been posted at www.pgg823.com (http://www.pgg823.com), done on July 11th. Project as a whole is %93 complete as of July 1, 2018. Looks like the Minford/Airport Interchange still has a lot of earth work still yet to finish up.
4 Bridges are at less then 100% complete with Bridge 11 at 81% and Bridge 6 at 92%. Bridges 13 and 4 are 60% or less.
Image below linked from www.pgg823.com, as of the time of this post the image had been to date through 7/1/2018:
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/44be7d_f8566dc8351d4fedb47dd8f2f90d547f~mv2_d_3426_4422_s_4_2.jpg/v1/crop/x_0,y_1,w_3426,h_4420/fill/w_660,h_851,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/44be7d_f8566dc8351d4fedb47dd8f2f90d547f~mv2_d_3426_4422_s_4_2.webp)
Looks like a lot of "finish" work (planting of cut hillsides, etc.) needs to be done before the project is indeed complete. Nevertheless, nice video -- can see that an actual plane was involved rather than the drone more commonly employed for this type of work.
Cool choice of music for the video, particularly the first segment. When I was attending UCR in the late '60's, the "surf" musician Dick Dale had a nightclub alongside US 395 near March AFB; used to hang out there in my early years at the university (no cover and they weren't terribly strict or efficient at checking ID's!). Saw Dale himself perform Pipeline a couple of times -- seems that all musicians in that genre freely covered each others' tunes.
That map misspells Rosemount.
Guide signs for the new road are up on US 23. Destination for OH 823 south is Ironton.
Quote from: vtk on August 23, 2018, 09:22:26 PM
Guide signs for the new road are up on US 23. Destination for OH 823 south is Ironton.
Interesting, thanks.
Does it have "To US 52 East" on it?
On the topic of signage, I'm particularly interested in seeing what the signage will be like for the Lucasville-Minford Rd interchange (CR 28)
Scioto County has a pretty unique (for Ohio at least) county road shield and I'd love to see it appear on the signs for this exit along with "Lucasville-Minford Rd" and no control cities listed since the name of the road covers that.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Scioto_County_Route_28_OH.svg)
The Shumway Hollow Rd interchange will be interesting to see as well, as it is CR 234, but the main purpose of the interchange is to serve the adjacent OH 335, which is probably more likely to appear on the signage. Would be cool to see "234" TO "335" though.
And as a side note, I don't think the Scioto County shield appears on any existing BGS.....there are a couple places where they could have done that along US 52, but those exits don't mention roads at all, they just say "Wheelersburg" and "Franklin Furnace"
Quote from: Buck87 on September 21, 2018, 01:07:24 PM
On the topic of signage, I'm particularly interested in seeing what the signage will be like for the Lucasville-Minford Rd interchange (CR 28)
Scioto County has a pretty unique (for Ohio at least) county road shield and I'd love to see it appear on the signs for this exit along with "Lucasville-Minford Rd" and no control cities listed since the name of the road covers that.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Scioto_County_Route_28_OH.svg)
The Shumway Hollow Rd interchange will be interesting to see as well, as it is CR 234, but the main purpose of the interchange is to serve the adjacent OH 335, which is probably more likely to appear on the signage. Would be cool to see "234" TO "335" though.
And as a side note, I don't think the Scioto County shield appears on any existing BGS.....there are a couple places where they could have done that along US 52, but those exits don't mention roads at all, they just say "Wheelersburg" and "Franklin Furnace"
Ohio tends to spell out county road names as text much more frequently than they use shields. I don't see any chance of the actual Scioto County shield appearing on a BGS.
I was through there around the end of August. Got a couple of vids of the signage on my way through both times. I am attaching a couple of screen shots.
As you said SB 23 signage has Ironton. NB is signed Chillicothe.
I may be through there again in October and December.
Quote from: vtk on August 23, 2018, 09:22:26 PM
Guide signs for the new road are up on US 23. Destination for OH 823 south is Ironton.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180922/0a58a0a02663cf4aff7aec8d69148121.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180922/a094ade07a81ba42df4dc2067e37c5b6.jpg)
SM-N950U
Shumway Hollow Road... Is that named after Gordon Shumway, the famous television actor?
Quote from: qguy on September 22, 2018, 08:21:44 PM
Shumway Hollow Road... Is that named after Gordon Shumway, the famous television actor?
You mean the cat-loving (in a comestible sense) overgrown hand puppet? Or possibly the maiden name of
Mary Hartman - Mary Hartman on the late '70's series of that name? Either way, a crazy trip in the wayback machine! :spin:
The bypass can be seen in its entire route from whatever satellite image service Mapper Acme now uses: http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=38.82020,-82.95214&z=12&t=S
The terminuses are probably one good indication regarding how dead I-73 is in Ohio.
New Flyover video has posted at www.pgg823.com flyover occurred Sept., 11th. Project Details shows overall project at 97% complete, indicates bridges at 100%, however a couple of them are at 99% and one at 93% complete.
Interchange next to the airport finally taking shape with asphalt being laid.
Quote from: seicer on October 11, 2018, 02:31:04 PM
The bypass can be seen in its entire route from whatever satellite image service Mapper Acme now uses: http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=38.82020,-82.95214&z=12&t=S
The terminuses are probably one good indication regarding how dead I-73 is in Ohio.
Quote from: JustMePatrick on October 11, 2018, 02:34:51 PM
New Flyover video has posted at www.pgg823.com flyover occurred Sept., 11th. Project Details shows overall project at 97% complete, indicates bridges at 100%, however a couple of them are at 99% and one at 93% complete.
Interchange next to the airport finally taking shape with asphalt being laid.
Nice video as usual. Must be the same plane/pilot; the position of the prop in the upper right frame is consistent with all the past videos. This has to be one of if not
the most overflown road project ever -- at least on a footage per mile basis.
While the I-73 concept is at least dormant if not extinct in Ohio, the trajectory of the northern (US 23) interchange of this bypass, as mentioned previously, is in line with the original plans for the I-74 equivalent (the merge was right in this area near Lucasville). Since the latter corridor made at least some sense as a Cincinnati-WV "shortcut" to easterly I-64 -- and could use the existing OH 32 as much of its alignment, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it revived as an independent concept down the line, utilizing OH 823 to get over to US 52.
They still don't show any of SR-823 on Google Maps. Is anyone surprised?
It's not open yet. There is no reason to list it on the map as that would confuse their primary audience - those navigating.
--
@Sparker: Would the one-lane ramps kill any sort of proposal? Or the sharp curve going west on SR 823 to north US 23? (I'm assuming it's 40-45 MPH.)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 11, 2018, 05:42:22 PM
They still don't show any of SR-823 on Google Maps. Is anyone surprised?
You.
Are.
An.
Idiot.
Quote from: seicer on October 11, 2018, 06:47:45 PM
It's not open yet. There is no reason to list it on the map as that would confuse their primary audience - those navigating.
--
@Sparker: Would the one-lane ramps kill any sort of proposal? Or the sharp curve going west on SR 823 to north US 23? (I'm assuming it's 40-45 MPH.)
Actually, if by some chance I-74 were to find its way to the bypass, it wouldn't use any of the US 23 ramps; its trajectory would be in a straight line extending from the angle of the bypass itself -- i.e., straight ahead from the north end of 823. The original I-74 plans intersected OH 32 near the OH 73 junction, then used the former all the way west to I-275 around Cincinnati. The principal issue regarding that route is an Ohio River crossing; the original plans for a bridge at Kalama were discarded by 2003 (that would have taken it directly to the US 52 corridor alignment through WV). Some sort of arrangement would have to be made to place an Interstate-compatible bridge across the river between the southeast end of OH 823 and the present US 52 crossing to Huntington, WV. At this point, a
very tall order indeed; such would have to be included in any overall Interstate extension plans -- which would (a) be a tough sell in OH, and (b) likely be scheduled for no earlier than 2035 or so. That being said, it's still a hell of lot more likely than anything specifically geared to the I-73 concept.
Quote from: JustMePatrick on October 11, 2018, 02:34:51 PM
New Flyover video has posted at www.pgg823.com flyover occurred Sept., 11th. Project Details shows overall project at 97% complete, indicates bridges at 100%, however a couple of them are at 99% and one at 93% complete.
Interchange next to the airport finally taking shape with asphalt being laid.
Nice. I noticed a BGS or two already up along the bypass approaching US 23.
I was poking around on FB and found this FB post tagging the Southern Ohio Veterans Memorial Highway Facebook page. Several great pictures showing lots of progress. Per the post as of now the scheduled opening is December 14th!
Full disclosure, this is a post by a local politician that is running for re-election. I am neither for nor against this person. If this happens to violate any forum policies I apologize in advance.
https://www.facebook.com/BryanDavisforCommissioner/posts/2161592434093967?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARBJwKQBMCCVwowr4NmKThImm1yeV8s6SsYY_WT8V8__8gfN4FS3pT4070IJbLRNvqjni6E0FITJWbTNXb5-Fm8SmgbbWCgoDwiUF3a2p6x6wYkIWgT45b4zXfMbcAM7Fz2miooRC37c_NV9y7gQKYTNwhWxsqwarnOLkORPGg-m6antK7s99oP3tO7MsqY8bLPODlTM1SRYYito52hIq-DyyfA&__tn__=-R (https://www.facebook.com/BryanDavisforCommissioner/posts/2161592434093967?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARBJwKQBMCCVwowr4NmKThImm1yeV8s6SsYY_WT8V8__8gfN4FS3pT4070IJbLRNvqjni6E0FITJWbTNXb5-Fm8SmgbbWCgoDwiUF3a2p6x6wYkIWgT45b4zXfMbcAM7Fz2miooRC37c_NV9y7gQKYTNwhWxsqwarnOLkORPGg-m6antK7s99oP3tO7MsqY8bLPODlTM1SRYYito52hIq-DyyfA&__tn__=-R)
:colorful: New Flyover video has been posted on the project website at www.pgg823.com, Dated October 30th, 2018.
This video shows the very near completion of this highway. At the Lucasville-Minford Rd Interchage they're doing final tie in of the highway to the bridge. On the Eastern end of the highway striping has begun with a bright yellow strip on the Southbound/Eastbound side of the road along center barrier. Looks like this should make the scheduled opening date of December 14th.
Bonus, shows off peak fall coloring of Southern Ohio, very beautiful!
See also this article from Portsmouth Daily Times from a few day's ago: https://www.portsmouth-dailytimes.com/top-stories/32617/veterans-memorial-highway-to-fully-open-by-dec-14
Looking forward to my Christmas trip to visit family in Lawrence County. :D
Quote from: JustMePatrick on November 08, 2018, 02:25:59 PM
:colorful: New Flyover video has been posted on the project website at www.pgg823.com, Dated October 30th, 2018.
This video shows the very near completion of this highway. At the Lucasville-Minford Rd Interchage they're doing final tie in of the highway to the bridge. On the Eastern end of the highway striping has begun with a bright yellow strip on the Southbound/Eastbound side of the road along center barrier. Looks like this should make the scheduled opening date of December 14th.
Bonus, shows off peak fall coloring of Southern Ohio, very beautiful!
See also this article from Portsmouth Daily Times from a few day's ago: https://www.portsmouth-dailytimes.com/top-stories/32617/veterans-memorial-highway-to-fully-open-by-dec-14
Looking forward to my Christmas trip to visit family in Lawrence County. :D
Nice video as always (same propeller in upper right corner). Loved the music; found it was from a relatively obscure Tom Cruise sci-fi flick from about 5 years ago. Downloaded some sample tracks -- found CD soundtrack on ebay & ordered it. To whoever decided to use
that music in the video, many thanks! Looks like the video captured some median line painting in progress!
I was in the area this weekend and drove by the US 23 and Lucasville-Minford Rd interchanges.
So yeah, the signage for the bypass off of 23 is very basic, as pictured up thread. Just "823 south, Ironton" on all 3 signs. Though they do have a new big brown sign up saying that you need to stay on 23 for Shawnee State University, the Portsmouth Floodwall Murals, and I think Shawnee State Park. North of the interchange on 23 is a new mileage sign showing the distance to Waverly and Columbus.
At Lucasville-Minford Rd the signs are all up and most are bagged. Looks like it will be OH 823 trailblazers marking the entrance ramps and approach to the intersections. One assembly that was unbagged showed the mileages to Ironton and Chillicothe. There were also some new blue pentagon Scioto County 28 reassurance shields near the interchange, which are probably the only ones in the county (which has its own unique county route shield I mentioned previously.)
Ribbon cutting for Portsmouth Bypass is Dec. 13
from Portsmouth Daily Times
An official announcement is said to be coming Friday or Saturday, but speaking to the Daily Times Thursday afternoon, Ohio Department of Transportation District 9 spokeswoman Kathleen Fuller said ODOT tentatively plans a ribbon-cutting for the long talked about Veterans Memorial Highway, or State Route 823, on Dec. 13.
While Fuller said the ribbon-cutting will happen, she also admitted ODOT has not set an exact date for the opening of what was long known as the Portsmouth Bypass. She did say the roadway will reach "substantial completion" by Dec. 14 as required in the agreements with the private contractor building the highway.
Fuller was quick to add the new highway will not open the day of the ribbon-cutting. She did not give a time for that ceremony but stated by the time barricades and such are removed following the ceremony, she did not have confidence the roadway could be opened before dark. For safety reasons, Fuller said officials do not want drivers cruising along an unfamiliar road at night.
Full article:
https://www.portsmouth-dailytimes.com/top-stories/33286/ribbon-cutting-for-portsmouth-bypass-is-dec-13
I have not seen any official announcement from ODOT D9 or from PPG.
I've had some professional dealings with Ms. Fuller before. She's very good at what she does.
I'm hopeful to get to go drive the new road sometime over either Christmas or New Year's weekends. It would give me an excuse to eat at Rax Roast Beef in Ironton and maybe going over to West Huntington to cash in a couple of the free MTO's I got for complaining about something at a Sheetz on one of their online surveys.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 05, 2018, 11:39:32 AM
I've had some professional dealings with Ms. Fuller before. She's very good at what she does.
I'm hopeful to get to go drive the new road sometime over either Christmas or New Year's weekends. It would give me an excuse to eat at Rax Roast Beef in Ironton and maybe going over to West Huntington to cash in a couple of the free MTO's I got for complaining about something at a Sheetz on one of their online surveys.
I also hope, actually expect, to be able to drive :spin: on it by December 21 when my family and I will be going to Chesapeake for the weekend for the annual Christmas reunion.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 11, 2018, 05:42:22 PM
They still don't show any of SR-823 on Google Maps. Is anyone surprised?
It's on Bing Maps, just looked on a whim: https://binged.it/2G3rzqy they even have updated Satellite imagery (granted, it's from around a year and half ago if I had to guess).
ODOT has had it on Ohgo(www.ohgo.com, and the app) for sometime now. Still not on google, but they may not add it until it is officially open or they have a date from ODOT.
Quote from: seicer on October 11, 2018, 06:47:45 PM
It's not open yet. There is no reason to list it on the map as that would confuse their primary audience - those navigating.
Google simply has to mark it closed. It can show on the map, but they mark it closed for navigation purposes. You can also report road/interchanges that need to be marked closed.
https://www.portsmouth-dailytimes.com/top-stories/33422/memorial-highway-ribbon-cutting-is-dec-13-opening-date-still-not-set
Newer article. Ribbon cutting @ 1:30 in the 13th. There will be a classic car ride along with invited veterans groups. Opening date not yet finalized. Once turned over to to ODOT they will have to certify it. More details in article.
SM-N950U
Wonder if they'll commission another flyover around the time of the actual opening of the road. Would be nice to see the "finished product" in full, with or without traffic.
More google foo in action.
Found some more photo's on FB. This time I "Stole" from Matt Bruning, Press Secretary, Ohio Department of Transportation. Posted on his public FB page November 28th. (https://www.facebook.com/mbruningnews/)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4845/45496046154_6ec7505f4d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2cjk8sS)
SR823 Northern Terminus with US 23
------------------------------------------------------------------
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4804/44402849220_13c64934e7_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2aDJd6S)
Main Line, looks like just east of the cut-in-the-hill, east of US23
------------------------------------------------------------------
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4896/45307130815_64f0d238c8_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2c2CTvR)SOVMH_Bruning3 (https://flic.kr/p/2c2CTvR)
Shumway Hollow Interchange, just west of Airport.
------------------------------------------------------------------
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4830/44402849410_9615747159_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2aDJda9)SOVMH_Bruning2 (https://flic.kr/p/2aDJda9)
Southern Terminus with US52
------------------------------------------------------------------
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4845/45307130975_3b6afa92f5_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2c2CTyB)SOVMH_Bruning1 (https://flic.kr/p/2c2CTyB)
Main Line, Looking North toward Highland Bend.
Looks like it has exit numbers.
Officially opens to traffic on Friday per ODOT's Kathleen Fuller.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 11, 2018, 02:16:47 PM
Officially opens to traffic on Friday per ODOT's Kathleen Fuller.
Sweet!
SM-N950U
Official Announcement from SOVMH Facebook page:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4868/44463809810_78b420a8a1_z.jpg) (https://www.facebook.com/Southern-Ohio-Veterans-Memorial-Highway-1697517183812433/?__tn__=kC-R&eid=ARBmmhaT1jln_o9cKEG6g9eaWcf5c-lu0M9wwBti6qdVgLxznu6-acD_MN_8bqn9oDtJ11BxaDBtFbCB&hc_ref=ARQHmdThtpxo_m1hN8_O7Jh-yZML0bShF3vkQQ297PDvCSen--vMdLAD0lFWpiPIQc8&fref=nf&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARAuinx6rskErUCK4BsSLh01WXGh1-foUkMzYXlMAP_cE9-HVhxExhIvOp3cdjTDX4nxtf6BLDmLdS9PsDeE76kcRlKZrkR_pqSAOQcdzkDC5waK6BSd5SGIh5ddXvAVxf6PJbr1a3FHmGOs7-_Z3aBiM0aopMFbgNl7GjB6R_fvVd4553xlZV9rXKZNMMet-zucLZ5yNYirfETy3wy6Rn4mOwKbOZzK8J-8Aatz8tX3nk6B3OWbERk6AAghYlxgwTsx4WCqlbweXd3FDdlRRzarq2GLrO58qjpmru_d8Td27g-2a6E65rshOxsu3_GapDLM5j5zTYekitAT49mlmTObyTgG)
Click Picture to goto Facebook Page
Im gonna leave this right here:
Drone footage (https://www.facebook.com/144697998895613/posts/2178483945516998)
Edited to add: Based off the news release this B roll video for the media.
SM-N950U
I couldn't get it to work, but I assume it's the b-roll footage. It shows all the signs up with exit numbers: https://vimeo.com/ohiotransportation/review/305807374/2f9b004dd8?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Quote from: seicer on December 13, 2018, 09:37:17 AM
I couldn't get it to work, but I assume it's the b-roll footage. It shows all the signs up with exit numbers: https://vimeo.com/ohiotransportation/review/305807374/2f9b004dd8?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Yep, it's on Matt Brunings FB.
SM-N950U
This is going to be one interesting drive!
ODOT's Matt Bruning Twitter has pictures and video of the Ribbon Cutting:
https://twitter.com/mbruning81
Quote from: seicer on December 13, 2018, 09:37:17 AM
I couldn't get it to work, but I assume it's the b-roll footage. It shows all the signs up with exit numbers: https://vimeo.com/ohiotransportation/review/305807374/2f9b004dd8?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Excellent footage there, thanks for posting. A few notes about some of the signage things I had questions about...
Lucasville-Minford Rd got signed as:
Exit 9
Blue Pentagon Scioto County 28 Shield
Lucasville
Minford
and the airport interchange got signed as:
(Airport icon) Exit 7
to OH 335 Shield
Shumway Hollow Rd
For these two I think they made the logical choice about which one to use a county shield for and which one to use the road name for. And while it would have neat to see the orange Scioto County outline sign on there, I understand why they went with the official MUTCD blue pentagons.
I can't make out the 140 exit clearly but it looks like it got:
(assuming exit 1 but can't read it)
OH 140, To US 52 West
S. Webster
Portsmouth
-Exit Only-
with a US 52 East, Ironton pullthru for the left lane
...which is what I expected. There's also a big brown sign for that exit, which I can't make out, but might be a repeat of the one on 23 south approaching 823.
Other notes:
- Looks like there are mileage signs that show the distance to Ironton and US 52 southbound and Chillicothe and US 23 northbound
- there's a "Minford next 2 exits" sign southbound ahead of CR 28. I wonder if there's one northbound ahead of Shumway Hollow, and if there's that says "Lucasville next 2 exits" ahead of CR 28 , since Lucasville is mentioned on both that exit and the US 23 south exit (along with Portsmouth)
Local News report about the opening. WSAZ is reporting the highway will open at 8:30 A.M.
https://www.wsaz.com/content/news/Community-gets-sneak-peek-of-new-Portsmouth-bypass-389133342.html (https://www.wsaz.com/content/news/Community-gets-sneak-peek-of-new-Portsmouth-bypass-389133342.html)
Adding link to ODOT Youtube Channel weekly series "The Loop". I can't imagine what they are featuring. :rolleyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17z-0VOfBfE
Found another FB video from a Scioto County Resident (I presume):
https://www.facebook.com/larryct/videos/10156045068943100/
Adding WOWK TV Video:
https://www.wowktv.com/news/local-news/southern-ohio-veterans-memorial-highway-opens-to-public-friday/1658938438
Found video of a live stream from the local Radio station on the Highway itself.
Linked video starts as they are getting on the highway.
https://www.facebook.com/wnxtwzzznews/videos/301467227378506/?t=371
Update:
Okay, after watching the video they started at the Shumway Hollow Rd on ramp to SR823 South towards Lucasville/US 23. They use the Emergency crossover before the Flatwoods-Fallen Timbers Rd overpass (you can see it in the background). They proceed back, pass the Shumway Hollow interchange, but turn around again before the get to the bridge over the Little Scioto, then return back to Shumway Hollow and exit there.
Thanks for putting up with my incessant finds :paranoid:. I won't get to drive on it until the next Friday after it opens. :spin:
It is open!
http://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/OHDOT-22276bb
SM-N950U
Nice to see they were able to open it on the target date.
I look forward to driving it. It'll probably be another month or two before I get the chance though.
Quote from: Buck87 on December 14, 2018, 02:38:04 PM
Nice to see they were able to open it on the target date.
I look forward to driving it. It'll probably be another month or two before I get the chance though.
I'm going to try to go see it one of the days I'm off over Christmas or New Year's Day.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 14, 2018, 04:04:45 PM
Quote from: Buck87 on December 14, 2018, 02:38:04 PM
Nice to see they were able to open it on the target date.
I look forward to driving it. It'll probably be another month or two before I get the chance though.
I'm going to try to go see it one of the days I'm off over Christmas or New Year's Day.
I'll get to drive it next Friday going to visit family that weekend, and will drive it again on my way back North. I plan on taking video for those interested and posting on Youtube.
Also in my post HERE (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9696.msg2376643#msg2376643) WSAZ has updated their web article with video from this morning when the road was officially opened to traffic.
After seeing the many "flyover" videos posted during the construction process, it's nice to hear that 823's finally open to traffic. It's likely to be the only portion of the original proposed OH I-73/74 corridor that will see the light of day for at least the next decade or two (and it helped that it was on a longstanding ARC corridor, for what that's worth these days -- at least enough history to get the Portsmouth bypass portion on the radar).
South Bloomfield has a limited access bypass proposed, too. I can see that happening before 2030 with all of the tremendous growth occurring south of I-270. And even though there was the I-73 Coalition some years ago, it found that the costs would outweigh the benefits and that there was not as much local support for the project because US 23 generally works very well.
Edit: ODOT has proposed a Waverly bypass but I can't find that plan.
Quote from: JustMePatrick on December 14, 2018, 10:21:57 AM
It is open!
http://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/OHDOT-22276bb
SM-N950U
As of 4:30 Eastern, 12/14
It is NOT on Google Maps
It is on Yahoo Maps
Pieces of it are on Rand McNally maps
A few years ago, when a new ramp was built near me, Rand McNally was first to have it on their site.
Quote from: frankenroad on December 14, 2018, 04:34:47 PM
Quote from: JustMePatrick on December 14, 2018, 10:21:57 AM
It is open!
http://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/OHDOT-22276bb
SM-N950U
As of 4:30 Eastern, 12/14
It is NOT on Google Maps
It is on Yahoo Maps
Pieces of it are on Rand McNally maps
A few years ago, when a new ramp was built near me, Rand McNally was first to have it on their site.
It's on Bing too, but it still shows the route as closed. I suspect that is who ODOT uses for ohgo.com (http://ohgo.com) mapping is bing. Bing even has more updated Sat images than Google.
Quote from: frankenroad on December 14, 2018, 04:34:47 PM
Quote from: JustMePatrick on December 14, 2018, 10:21:57 AM
It is open!
http://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/OHDOT-22276bb
SM-N950U
As of 4:30 Eastern, 12/14
It is NOT on Google Maps
It is on Yahoo Maps
Pieces of it are on Rand McNally maps
A few years ago, when a new ramp was built near me, Rand McNally was first to have it on their site.
It's on OSM.
Quote from: seicer on December 14, 2018, 04:32:20 PM
South Bloomfield has a limited access bypass proposed, too. I can see that happening before 2030 with all of the tremendous growth occurring south of I-270
Do you have a link to that?
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 14, 2018, 05:30:04 PM
Quote from: frankenroad on December 14, 2018, 04:34:47 PM
Quote from: JustMePatrick on December 14, 2018, 10:21:57 AM
It is open!
http://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/OHDOT-22276bb
SM-N950U
As of 4:30 Eastern, 12/14
It is NOT on Google Maps
It is on Yahoo Maps
Pieces of it are on Rand McNally maps
A few years ago, when a new ramp was built near me, Rand McNally was first to have it on their site.
It's on OSM.
It's on Waze... I just checked it to make sure that it was on there...
Quote from: Buck87 on December 14, 2018, 05:39:49 PM
Quote from: seicer on December 14, 2018, 04:32:20 PM
South Bloomfield has a limited access bypass proposed, too. I can see that happening before 2030 with all of the tremendous growth occurring south of I-270
Do you have a link to that?
I can't find it anymore on ODOT's website. It was basically a four-lane bypass to the east with one interchange (IIRC).
--
There is a mention in regards to the OH 762 interchange project: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/SPR/Pic-East-West/Documents/Planning%20Documentation/Planning%20Study%20Report%20-%2006292009.pdf
Quote from: Buck87 on December 14, 2018, 05:39:49 PM
Quote from: seicer on December 14, 2018, 04:32:20 PM
South Bloomfield has a limited access bypass proposed, too. I can see that happening before 2030 with all of the tremendous growth occurring south of I-270
Do you have a link to that?
When I googled 'South Bloomfield bypass' I got 3-4 planning documents (approx 150 pages each) that reference a promised South Bloomfield bypass. Several of these documents connect the proposed 'South Bloomfield bypass' with the extension of Oh 762 that was built to Rickenbacker Airport. They are all from 5-10 years ago.
Yeah, it was from around then. One had a fairly detailed outline of what the highway would look like - the number of lanes, proposed right-of-way, and so on. I see nothing in the STIP.
So, some people really couldn't wait to break the highway in. Sheesh. :banghead:
(https://i.imgur.com/HdGDM6I.png)
Pay attention and no speeding! :pan:
Wow. One day open and an accident already!
If the weather there was anything like it was a few dozen miles to the southwest, it was a crappy evening to be out due to the rain.
I can't wait for Google to route me on the non-existent SR 823 bypass when I'm back down in Appalachia in a few days!
Quote from: seicer on December 19, 2018, 03:40:27 PM
I can't wait for Google to route me on the non-existent SR 823 bypass when I'm back down in Appalachia in a few days!
Well........at least
you know it's there even if
they don't -- and that's what counts when you're out in the field!
Quote from: sparker on December 19, 2018, 04:34:30 PM
Quote from: seicer on December 19, 2018, 03:40:27 PM
I can't wait for Google to route me on the non-existent SR 823 bypass when I'm back down in Appalachia in a few days!
Well........at least you know it's there even if they don't -- and that's what counts when you're out in the field!
Run Waze when you drive it. That might give them the information they need to confirm that it's open now.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 20, 2018, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 19, 2018, 04:34:30 PM
Quote from: seicer on December 19, 2018, 03:40:27 PM
I can't wait for Google to route me on the non-existent SR 823 bypass when I'm back down in Appalachia in a few days!
Well........at least you know it's there even if they don't -- and that's what counts when you're out in the field!
Run Waze when you drive it. That might give them the information they need to confirm that it's open now.
Waze doesn't have a problem wanting to route me on to 823. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181220/b32f2427c5d61559a21d99744439ea4a.jpg)
SM-N950U
OH 823's actual physical format reminds me of I-80 over the Sierras between Colfax and Yuba Gap (but with more generous curvature) or CA 58 west of Tehachapi -- 2+2, K-rail down the middle, etc. Then from other angles it looks a bit European -- like pictures I've seen of the Autobahns and a number of the "A" expressways. Just hope I can get to drive it if I get back that way again!
823 is now on Google Maps
I got to drive on it a little while ago, SB to US 52. Pictures and video doesnt do it justice. The first cut in the hill was massive. I was impressed they had had barrier wall with fencing to catch rock falls. Once I have my video ready I will post a link.
SM-N950U
Looks like we need to submit exit numbers for the new road on Google. Not sure how to do that.
They've posted one final plane flyover video, which was taken 2 days before the bypass opened to traffic. It's currently on the ppg website's front page:
https://www.pgg823.com
VS988
Quote from: seicer on December 21, 2018, 09:14:10 PM
Looks like we need to submit exit numbers for the new road on Google. Not sure how to do that.
You can try going the route of "report a data problem", but they don't seem to care. They used to have a site where you could edit the map yourself, but they closed that down after someone drew an Android logo pissing on an Apple logo somewhere in Pakistan.
My video taken on Friday December, 21 2018.
https://youtu.be/6LEkcJopX3M
Video is running 2x original speed. With text exit description as you are approaching.
SM-N950U
Quote from: Buck87 on December 22, 2018, 12:00:29 AM
They've posted one final plane flyover video, which was taken 2 days before the bypass opened to traffic. It's currently on the ppg website's front page:
https://www.pgg823.com
VS988
Quote from: JustMePatrick on December 22, 2018, 12:50:38 AM
My video taken on Friday December, 21 2018.
https://youtu.be/6LEkcJopX3M
Video is running 2x original speed. With text exit description as you are approaching.
SM-N950U
Thanks, both of you, for supplying such fine videos. Too bad the weather didn't cooperate a little better for Patrick's drive-through for more color contrast -- but hey, it's December in Ohio!
Thanks Patrick. Nice to be able to see all the signage. There were a couple small ones I couldn't quite make out, but I think they must have been township limit signs.
I look forward to the northbound video.
Wonder how long before the speed Nazis at OHP are running radar on it?
There were none yesterday on my first drive on it. 17 miles of very light traffic. Even at 70 MPH, I was passed by just 5 vehicles and I only passed by 3 vehicles. Out of curiosity, I did drive out on the old road over Rosemont Hill (the unofficial bypass) and traffic was nearly deserted unlike in years past.
It's not a video, just me photographing while driving...
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7861/45575927515_c746fd95ab.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4871/31549178747_efeff317e8.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4846/46437554552_6a27758291.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7839/45575926815_60b42f9732.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7825/45575926425_c2a92af4e4.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7897/45575926035_f85549de03.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4808/44671985770_2dc1749dce.jpg)
The feds won't like ODOT leaving only one through lane for I-73/74. :sombrero:
I don't see a good way of widening the south or north ends to two through lanes in each direction because of the topography. The south end is on a steep grade and any modification would require substantial earth cuts and a completely reworked interchange. The north end is a trumpet interchange with one-lane ramps over railroad tracks.
Nice highway, but why such a narrow median? With the cost of that 42-inch high constant slope concrete median barrier, they probably could have acquired 20 more feet of right-of-way, given the rural area.
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 09:06:01 PM
Nice highway, but why such a narrow median? With the cost of that 42-inch high constant slope concrete median barrier, they probably could have acquired 20 more feet of right-of-way, given the rural area.
Given the amount of blasting it took to cut through those hills I couldn't imagine the additional cost that would have added to just add an additional 20 feet. With the up down of the road with the terrain if the roads aren't properly treated before a winter event there will be problems.
SM-N950U
Quote from: JustMePatrick on December 27, 2018, 09:21:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 09:06:01 PM
Nice highway, but why such a narrow median? With the cost of that 42-inch high constant slope concrete median barrier, they probably could have acquired 20 more feet of right-of-way, given the rural area.
Given the amount of blasting it took to cut through those hills I couldn't imagine the additional cost that would have added to just add an additional 20 feet. With the up down of the road with the terrain if the roads aren't properly treated before a winter event there will be problems.
Modern blasting explosives are much less expensive than older designs.
"Bulk explosives range from simple ANFO (ammonium nitrate + fuel oil) to straight emulsions and include a wide variety of ANFO/emulsion blends - each with unique performance/cost characteristics."
Drill, place charges, fire. From there normal excavation techniques (scraper pans, frontend loaders, dump trucks) are utilized to move the soil and rocks to where they need to be moved.
Even still, the 17-mile bypass is one of the most expensive rural highways Ohio has constructed and was built with of cost constraints. As the state couldn't afford the project, it was let to the state's first private-public partnership which incurs higher costs for the state in the long term with the potential trade-off of economic development.
The route's cost was higher because of the mountainous route that was selected, versus the other options that were routed through farmland. There are significant grades and very deep cuts, much more than I would have expected. It's similar to the Knobs of southern Kentucky or the Shawnee region of Ohio - very steep hillsides and deep valleys. The median, while narrow, is nothing out of the ordinary for mountain highways - 4' left shoulders, 12' right shoulders.
Plenty of mountain highways have medians of 40 to 60 feet, sometimes wider.
As a private-public partnership, is this highway tolled?
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 10:59:29 PM
As a private-public partnership, is this highway tolled?
No, it's not tolled.
Some nice roadside geology on display with all those rock cuts.
Late Devonian to Carboniferous age sedimentary layers.
The high overpass in the middle of that one cut is pretty cool.
All I have to say for the Portsmouth Bypass project is.......
Thank goodness it was finished before the New Year came rolling in! Typically I am someone who doesn't care about public-private partnerships, and would not dare to consider it, with examples of the I-69 project in Bloomington, and the I-77 toll mess right here in NC screwing up, but what I have to say is this: The P3 in the Portsmouth Bypass project, was done right, no complicated history whatsoever!
So therefore, the Portsmouth Bypass is an example of a public-private partnership, done right! Take notes, INDOT and NCDOT, learn from the 823 P3, and do better.
This has been my opinion. Now back to the Bypass.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 01, 2019, 01:00:37 PM
Some nice roadside geology on display with all those rock cuts.
Late Devonian to Carboniferous age sedimentary layers.
The high overpass in the middle of that one cut is pretty cool.
I found a link to this study that was done during construction by geologists. Rather fascinating. I was surprised by own son's reaction when he saw the rock layers. I really couldn't as I had to focus on driving, lol.
http://geosurvey.ohiodnr.gov/extra-news-archives/2018-articles/portsmouth-seismites
Quote from: JustMePatrick on January 03, 2019, 01:07:55 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 01, 2019, 01:00:37 PM
Some nice roadside geology on display with all those rock cuts.
Late Devonian to Carboniferous age sedimentary layers.
The high overpass in the middle of that one cut is pretty cool.
I found a link to this study that was done during construction by geologists. Rather fascinating. I was surprised by own son's reaction when he saw the rock layers. I really couldn't as I had to focus on driving, lol.
http://geosurvey.ohiodnr.gov/extra-news-archives/2018-articles/portsmouth-seismites
"...Cowbell member of the Borden formation..."
Sounds like a satire. :-D
Quote from: PiedmontHwys on January 01, 2019, 03:02:21 PM
So therefore, the Portsmouth Bypass is an example of a public-private partnership, done right! Take notes, INDOT and NCDOT, learn from the 823 P3, and do better.
There are no tolls. Was there any private capital included in the funding for the project? Rhetorical question because without tolls there wouldn't be a mechanism for the private investors to recoup their investment.
A public-private partnership in this case is really only a master-contracting process whereby the constructors propose to the state to build an entire highway thereby bypassing the traditional competitive bid process. While there can be major economic efficiencies in this process for a very large highway project, it is a P3 in name only.
Quote from: Beltway on January 03, 2019, 10:03:02 PM
Quote from: PiedmontHwys on January 01, 2019, 03:02:21 PM
So therefore, the Portsmouth Bypass is an example of a public-private partnership, done right! Take notes, INDOT and NCDOT, learn from the 823 P3, and do better.
There are no tolls. Was there any private capital included in the funding for the project? Rhetorical question because without tolls there wouldn't be a mechanism for the private investors to recoup their investment.
A public-private partnership in this case is really only a master-contracting process whereby the constructors propose to the state to build an entire highway thereby bypassing the traditional competitive bid process. While there can be major economic efficiencies in this process for a very large highway project, it is a P3 in name only.
That's a good point. Would it be more accurate to call it a design-build contract?
From https://www.transportation.gov/tifia/financed-projects/portsmouth-bypass:
"The Portsmouth Bypass is a $634 million, 16-mile, four-lane, limited-access highway around the City of Portsmouth in Scioto County in South Central Ohio. The project will also provide a largely access controlled alternative to I-77 and I-75 for motorists making trips between southern Ohio and the Columbus region, saving over 70 miles on some trips. The project is being delivered as an availability payment design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) concession. The term of the concession is expected to extend for 35 years.
The project is the first availability payment P3 concession in Ohio. According to the project, public benefits include: correcting deficiencies in the existing system, improving regional mobility, enhancing the region's competitive advantage for businesses, and decreasing crash rates. Designated as State Route 823, the project will improve regional mobility to provide travel time savings of up to 16 minutes per trip compared to the current route. Given the rural nature of the County, this project and subsequent development could also have a material impact on the County's high unemployment rates. The State estimates the financial structure, including the TIFIA loan, accelerates delivery of the project and benefits by 8 years."
Funding:
"Appalachian Development Highway System Funds: $97M
Other Federal & State Funds: $28M
Private Activity Bonds (PABs): $227M
PABs Premium: $24M
TIFIA Loan: $209.3M
Equity: $49M"
Quote from: seicer on January 04, 2019, 08:19:41 AM
Funding:
"Appalachian Development Highway System Funds: $97M
Other Federal & State Funds: $28M
Private Activity Bonds (PABs): $227M
PABs Premium: $24M
TIFIA Loan: $209.3M
Equity: $49M"
Those are all public sector funding mechanisms, the naming of the PABs notwithstanding. There are no tolls on the highway to service the debt, so it will come out of governmental appropriations.
A "design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) concession" is merely a master contract that covers the entire life cycle of the new highway, and calling it a "concession" blurs the lines about financing.
Quote from: seicer on January 04, 2019, 08:19:41 AM
The project will also provide a largely access controlled alternative to I-77 and I-75 for motorists making trips between southern Ohio and the Columbus region, saving over 70 miles on some trips.
Not sure I get how this is going to be an alternate to I-77 or I-75 for anyone in this region. No one in Huntington/Ashland/Ironton/Portsmouth is going to go to Cincinnati to hit I-75, or Charleston to hit I-77, to go to Columbus. You're going to use US 23. Now, I can see drivers in the Teas Valley area using US 52, the new bypass, and US 23 instead of US 35 until the four-laning is done in West Virginia.
I already use US 23 if I'm heading to the Columbus area. I'd much rather use KY 7, I-64, KY 67, and US 23, as opposed to going west to Lexington and then having to deal with Cincinnati traffic. And that includes taking existing US 23 through downtown Portsmouth. Now, unless I needed to stop in Portsmouth, I'd probably cross the river at the Greenup Dam and use the new route.
Quote from: seicer on January 04, 2019, 08:19:41 AM
The project will also provide a largely access controlled alternative to I-77 and I-75 for motorists making trips between southern Ohio and the Columbus region...
Huh?
I cannot think of any part of "southern Ohio" (which is undefined) for which either I-75 or I-77 would be a logical road to take on a trip to Columbus. Before or after this project.
Quote from: SP Cook on January 04, 2019, 03:43:12 PM
Quote from: seicer on January 04, 2019, 08:19:41 AM
The project will also provide a largely access controlled alternative to I-77 and I-75 for motorists making trips between southern Ohio and the Columbus region...
Huh?
I cannot think of any part of "southern Ohio" (which is undefined) for which either I-75 or I-77 would be a logical road to take on a trip to Columbus. Before or after this project.
Yeah, and the parts of Southern Ohio that would actually use 823 as part of their route to Columbus (Lawrence County and Eastern Scioto County) would make the absolute least sense for using 75 or 77. Whoever wrote that either didn't do much map research or isn't very good at logic.
SR-823 is marked on Google Maps, even if it doesn't show up on the terrain physically.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 04, 2019, 05:09:40 PM
SR-823 is marked on Google Maps, even if it doesn't show up on the terrain physically.
Though for whatever reason it's still not labelled as 823 on the map, or even in directions. Just did a test for the directions and it just says things like "Keep right", "Keep Left" or "Continue Straight" without any road name reference.
I drove 823 each way on a work trip, that rainy first night it was open. Saw that accident in the southbound lanes as I was passing through northbound. I recorded a GPS trace of the whole trip, and had fun correcting the alignment and updating exit info on OSM. Couldn't remember the exit number I'd observed for 140 though, so that still needs to be fixed.
I drove the route today, both ways. Started out heading north, getting off at each exit to get photography of the approaches, then went south on US 23 at Lucasville and U-turned, then drove from end to end to end southbound. The route was lightly traveled and I saw no law enforcement. There are several spots where the pavement has been milled already.
Someone mentioned the concrete barrier walls and protective fencing. I think I know the reason why those were installed, along with "Fallen Rocks" signs at various intervals. The rock cuts are not benched the way they would be in Kentucky or West Virginia. I don't know if this was done to minimize right of way and excavation costs, or they blasted only what they would need for the fill areas, or what the reason is. I suspect they're going to have some real fallen rock issues in some of those cuts in 20 years or so. The lack of benched cuts and the narrow inside shoulders make the project look cheaper than we all know it was.
To get there, I took KY 7 to Grayson, then I-64, KY 67 and US 23 to the Greenup Dam, then crossed over to US 52. Coming back, I stopped at Ironton and ate at one of the few remaining Rax Roast Beef restaurants. I had originally planned to follow OH 93 to Jackson, then US 35 into West Virginia to check out construction on the four-lane (GSV taken along the two-lane portion of US 35 shows "Road Work Ahead" signs on some of the county routes that intersect US 35), but I got a late start this morning and would have run out of daylight. So I opted to come home instead of going farther and spending the night. I crossed the new Ironton-Russell Bridge and followed US 23 and US 460 to Salyersville, but I took KY 168 around downtown Ashland.
There's still a whole lot of button copy left between Wheelersburg and Ironton on US 52.
I took gobs of pictures which I will get uploaded, hopefully, in the next few weeks. I've been working on getting all my pictures from last year online.
Quote from: vtk on January 05, 2019, 07:14:10 PM
Couldn't remember the exit number I'd observed for 140 though, so that still needs to be fixed.
It's exit 1:
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on December 27, 2018, 01:53:52 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4808/44671985770_2dc1749dce.jpg)
My pictures from Saturday are up on my Flickr feed (same username as here) and on the Millennium Highway Facebook page.
I drove the bypass for the first time today, southbound from end to end, and then northbound from OH 140 to CR 28 a bit later. It was nice to finally see it in person, as the pics and videos don't do it justice how much elevation change this freeway has and how massive the cuts are.
One change outside of the bypass itself I noticed is the new exit signs for OH 140 off US 52 east that say:
140, To 823 North
S. Webster
Chillicothe
...with 140 and To 823 trail blazers on top of mileage signs to South Webster and Chillicothe at the bottom of the ramp
VS988
Quote from: Buck87 on February 07, 2019, 07:11:33 PM
I drove the bypass for the first time today, southbound from end to end, and then northbound from OH 140 to CR 28 a bit later. It was nice to finally see it in person, as the pics and videos don't do it justice how much elevation change this freeway has and how massive the cuts are.
One change outside of the bypass itself I noticed is the new exit signs for OH 140 off US 52 east that say:
140, To 823 North
S. Webster
Chillicothe
...with 140 and To 823 trail blazers on top of mileage signs to South Webster and Chillicothe at the bottom of the ramp
I didn't drive far enough west on 52 to turn around and drive eastbound to see the signage for 140, with 823 mentioned since there's no direct connection to 823 from eastbound 52.
I see Google maps is finally labelling the bypass as OH 823 on both the map and in directions.
Quote from: Buck87 on March 25, 2019, 10:23:51 AM
I see Google maps is finally labelling the bypass as OH 823 on both the map and in directions.
Still not a freeway, though. Just reported it; we'll see how many more weeks it takes them to get to this one. :P
Quote from: Roadsguy on March 25, 2019, 10:36:40 AM
Quote from: Buck87 on March 25, 2019, 10:23:51 AM
I see Google maps is finally labelling the bypass as OH 823 on both the map and in directions.
Still not a freeway, though. Just reported it; we'll see how many more weeks it takes them to get to this one. :P
Before or after the Portsmouth roadmeet?
I've been meaning to ask, does this mean Ohio is thinking about building their portion of I-74?
Nope. There is no active or proposed study on either I-73 or I-74, and upgrades to OH 32 and US 23 are entirely separate projects designed to alleviate specific issues (e.g. high accident corridors, congestion).
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2019, 08:32:20 PM
I've been meaning to ask, does this mean Ohio is thinking about building their portion of I-74?
Quote from: seicer on July 25, 2019, 11:22:32 AM
Nope. There is no active or proposed study on either I-73 or I-74, and upgrades to OH 32 and US 23 are entirely separate projects designed to alleviate specific issues (e.g. high accident corridors, congestion).
Ironically, part of the funding for OH 823 came from the ARC pool -- although the alignment
does correspond to the original I-73/74/HPC #5 concept (the northernmost "split" of the combined routes was to have been around Lucasville). Essentially HPC #5 (dating from 1991; the Interstate designations came about 4 years later) was simply, at least in Ohio, an overlay of ARC corridors as far north as Columbus (OH 32, which was to serve as I-74's egress to the Cincinnati area, was also an ARC corridor). But while advantage has been taken in regards to funding availability, the idea of renewing the I-73/74 concept in OH hasn't taken hold; the route north of Roanoke (I-73) and the NC/VA state line (I-74) is essentially in a state of continuing dormancy; the concept still exists on paper, but the execution just isn't forthcoming. Now -- that doesn't mean that localized projects such as the Portsmouth bypass won't crop up from time to time along the various corridor segments (the good old SIU concept come to life!) -- but the prospect of coordinating those back into any semblance of the original plan is highly unlikely!
Even though the bypass is brand new it would be a big project to make it interstate grade.
We can fantasize about bringing I-74 through Cincinnati all we want to connect with the bypass, but the sad reality is, it'll never happen. Plus, the existing I-74 south of Indianapolis is a stupid routing anyway, because that's where it begins to violate the grid. The NC portion is the worst, because it is so far south that it feels out of place in a state whose east-west numbers range from 26 to 40 (soon to be 42), and a backup number should've been used in case the portions north of there are cancelled, which they are. (On a side note, I can live with I-73, despite its equally severe grid violation, being east of I-77, and I-75, for that matter, even in proposed form.)
Quote from: Henry on July 26, 2019, 10:37:47 AM
We can fantasize about bringing I-74 through Cincinnati all we want to connect with the bypass, but the sad reality is, it'll never happen. Plus, the existing I-74 south of Indianapolis is a stupid routing anyway, because that's where it begins to violate the grid. The NC portion is the worst, because it is so far south that it feels out of place in a state whose east-west numbers range from 26 to 40 (soon to be 42), and a backup number should've been used in case the portions north of there are cancelled, which they are. (On a side note, I can live with I-73, despite its equally severe grid violation, being east of I-77, and I-75, for that matter, even in proposed form.)
Diagonal routes do not violate the grid.
I-69 is out of grid in Texas?
Quote from: roadman65 on July 27, 2019, 11:04:49 PM
I-69 is out of grid in Texas?
Until it connects to the original one, then yes. But precedent does exist for many other routes, like I-24, I-26, I-44, I-71 and I-85.
Quote from: Buck87 on February 26, 2018, 04:32:38 PM
After looking at the map a little more I began thinking of ways if could be rearranged while still keeping everything, and then decided to have a go at it myself by messing around with it in MS Paint. Here's what I came up with:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4622/25633943647_d138c79b18_o.jpg)
Here's what it actually ended up looking like. As it turns out they made a lot of changes to the style of the map itself.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200102/c67cd803c486a726dc8bc5cbb97e8492.jpg)
Drove the length of 823 last weekend and noticed some construction work near the Lucasville end of it. There was a section where the shoulder rumble strips had been paved over on both sides of the southbound lanes, for about a half mile stretch or so.
Quote from: Buck87 on November 10, 2020, 10:08:46 AM
Drove the length of 823 last weekend and noticed some construction work near the Lucasville end of it. There was a section where the shoulder rumble strips had been paved over on both sides of the southbound lanes, for about a half mile stretch or so.
ODOT has been doing some smoothing and leveling of pavement in some places. For some reason, I get the Scioto County project updates in my work email.
^and they say states don't communicate well with each other...
Dad was coming back from Columbus tonight and said that another section had lanes closed off for slippage.
Quote from: seicer on November 12, 2020, 10:19:55 PM
Dad was coming back from Columbus tonight and said that another section had lanes closed off for slippage.
Was the slippage due to a cut slope mudslide or a fill collapsing? Since it appears that most of 823 is either cut or fill, that doesn't portend well for the long-term maintenance prospects of the corridor.
I'm not sure - I'll be down that way in the coming days so I can check it out. At the least, I'd like to get some new drone photos of the bypass. I know from my rides on the bypass thus far there seems to be a lot of quality control issues, with numerous dips in the pavement that have been repaired, fill adjacent to the bridges sinking, etc. I suppose it isn't that much different than US 35 north of Scott Depot/I-64 in West Virginia which has a lot of patches for all of the dips.
Quote from: GCrites80s on November 12, 2020, 07:26:53 PM
^and they say states don't communicate well with each other...
Actually, the neighboring Kentucky highway districts communicate very well with their neighbors. I'm probably getting those updates because I filled in for a short time as the PIO in District 9, which borders the river from Maysville to Ashland.
Yeah I guess it is more like offices in Columbus not communicating well with Frankfort or Harrisburg.