AARoads Forum

I just wondered if there are any I-73 updates so far? I know the highway is the most controversal... but I, for me.. would like it to be built.. so any updates?

Quote from: Buummu on April 27, 2011, 12:39:37 AM
I know the highway is the most controversal...

Huh?

Quote from: NE2 on April 27, 2011, 01:00:05 AM

Quote from: Buummu on April 27, 2011, 12:39:37 AM
I know the highway is the most controversal...

Huh?

I for one hate it because it shows up, seemingly randomly, in North Carolina ... but at least it fits the grid there: it is I-74 which to me is the really out-of-sorts one.

Assuming you mean I-73 updates in Ohio or Michigan

All I-73 (in Ohio & Michigan) updates are in the Fictional Highway forum because that is what that project has become in this neck of the woods.

I-73 and 74 are not controvercial in the "real world" sense of environmental extremism and all of that.  They are controvercial in the sense that the routing is a mish-mash of existing US highways that will never be built as interstates north of North Carolina, and in North Carolina, they are a part of the confused and confusing mess of mis-signed roads around the Piedmont Triad.  The whole idea is AASHTO malpractice.

The whole idea is Congressionally driven.  Plus, since they're Interstaes, route numbering must be signed off by FHWA...AASHTO doesn't have final approval authority.

further evidence that congress has no business assigning route numbers. 

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2011, 10:46:22 AM
further evidence that congress has no business assigning route numbers. 

And also that NC is possibly more screwed-up than Bud Shuster!  :ded:

Quote from: SP Cook on April 28, 2011, 06:47:28 AM
I-73 and 74 are not controvercial in the "real world" sense of environmental extremism and all of that.  They are controvercial in the sense that the routing is a mish-mash of existing US highways that will never be built as interstates north of North Carolina, and in North Carolina, they are a part of the confused and confusing mess of mis-signed roads around the Piedmont Triad.  The whole idea is AASHTO malpractice.

Agreed.

The real question isn't necessarily why it was established, but how they are going to route it, especially with I-73 in Ohio.

I think that I-99 was way out of the grid.. so if they can get I-99 signed in PA (and in the future, NY).. then I do not see the problem with signing I-73/I-74.

In Ohio, both routes are going to be west of I-77, then I-75 in Michigan (for I-73)... which means.. both interstates is not out of grid. NC got it going first, so that's why they signed it immediately. I do not know why I-74 comes in handy as well.... If it were me, I would have michigan signed I-73 first before NC does, and it would not have messed up the routing of the interstate.

Here is a link to the National I-73/I-74/I-75 Association's website:

http://www.i73.com/aboutus.html

There is a strong Toledo presence on their Board.  Website also has a basic map of proposed I-73 route through Ohio:

http://www.i73.com/images/OH_sm.jpg

and Michigan:

http://www.i73.com/images/MI_sm.jpg

I think they added I-75 to the mix to try and generate some interest in Ohio & Michigan.

They became very excited about recent I-73 news in South Carolina.

yeah.. and NC is still building its part.... it's getting there...

Quote from: Grzrd on April 28, 2011, 12:21:44 PM
Here is a link to the National I-73/I-74/I-75 Association's website:

http://www.i73.com/aboutus.html

There is a strong Toledo presence on their Board.  Website also has a basic map of proposed I-73 route through Ohio:

http://www.i73.com/images/OH_sm.jpg

and Michigan:

http://www.i73.com/images/MI_sm.jpg

I think they added I-75 to the mix to try and generate some interest in Ohio & Michigan.

They became very excited about recent I-73 news in South Carolina.

The original proclimation (ISTEA - 1991) concerning I-73 was for it's northern terminus to be in Detroit and it's southern end to be in Charleston, SC. TEA-21 (1998) changed the end points for I-73 to Sault Ste Marie and Myrtle Beach. Thus why all the overlap with I-75 through Michigan into NW Ohio (though the original plans, which I can post, have I-73 following US 23 almost it's entire route through Ohio)
https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr05.html - Originally written by Andy Field (co-creator of AARoads), the portion covering Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia is still accurate ten years later becuase nothing has happened.

Quote from: Adam Smith on April 28, 2011, 11:12:50 PM
why all the overlap with I-75 through Michigan into NW Ohio (though the original plans, which I can post, have I-73 following US 23 almost it's entire route through Ohio)
https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr05.html - Originally written by Andy Field (co-creator of AARoads), the portion covering Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia is still accurate ten years later becuase nothing has happened.

I have no idea; however, they are having their annual Road Rally in Washington, D.C. next week ( May 4-5; registration form: http://www.i73.com/docs/spring_2011_road_rally_regis_form.pdf).  Registration closed April 18; price tag $100 for Events Only.  Anyone in D.C. area that could be a forum "mole" for the festivities :hmmm:?

Here's a link to 37 photos from their 2008 Road Rally in Greensboro, in order to give an idea of Road Rally attendees:

http://www.i73.com/images/Greensboro/spring_rally_greenboro.html

That routing for I-73 is absolutely ridiculous.  Interstates (or any routes, for that matter) should not multiplex to a terminus like that.

the 73 routing isn't all that silly.  the 74 is!

US 52 is worse :)

I agree.. 73 isnt bad... but 74? why would they want to try to extend 74 all the way to Myrtle Beach?

Quote from: deanej on April 29, 2011, 10:42:20 AM
That routing for I-73 is absolutely ridiculous.  Interstates (or any routes, for that matter) should not multiplex to a terminus like that.

If you think MDOT would actually sign I-73 on top of I-75 like that, there's some oceanfront property on Omaha for sale. No, the legislative designation includes I-75 in Michigan much the same way that the I-69 corridor definition includes a "spur" along I-94 from Port Huron to Chicago: even if signage doesn't change, the road is eligible for additional funding sources.

I personally think that I-73 should just end at I-75 somewhere in Ohio instead of routing it all together...

It is also important to note that US 74 and I-74 multiplex with one another, something that should never happen. 

Numbering issues asside, a bypass of Rockingham, from the end of US 220 to US 74, and then a four lane upgrade of NC/SC 38 to Bennettsville and you have an all-four lane route from central Appalachia and the eastern Midwest to Myrtle Beach.  Now, while it would be nice for SC to upgrade the current 4 lane SC 38 and US 501 to an interstate standard, the current road is quite adequate, save for heavy summer weekends, which a third lane and a bypass of a couple of little towns like Aynor and Galavant's Ferry would probably be a better solution to that than a total rebuild.

In West Virginia, if US 52 were magically a four lane tommorrow, it would take a whopping 27 miles off the existing I-64 and WV TP from Huntington to Bluefield.  (And if you are talking Myrtle Beach, note that US 23 is now finished, just across the river, all the way into the Tri-Cities, where it becomes I-26, which you can take to to I-20 to US 501.)  It is important to divide the project into two to understand why it will never be built.  The northern half, the Tolsia Highway from Kenova to Williamson is the best two lane road in the state, built on an entirely new path in the 1970s.  The area is developable, with, by WV standards, some flatish land and a good population.   The other half, from Williamson to Bluefield, the King Coal Highway, passes through some of the economic basketcase of southern Mingo, Wyoming and McDowell counties.  Through areas where the terrain is so rugged that there simply is nothing that can be build, and a population (20% of what it was a generation ago) with not much ambition and no skills (those with either moved away).   To this you must add the Coalfield Expressway, US 121, from Beckley to Grundy.  Too many irons in the fire and non of it will ever be finished.  Look for a US 52 4 lane, someday, to US 119 at Williamson and a US 121 that runs about 20 miles west of Beckley and stops.  That is all that will ever be built.

 the point is.. I-73 is going to be built, no matter where it is... because it is a part of Congress designed interstates.

No that is not the point at all.  States, not the federal government, build roads.  All the federal government did was make SOME (not enough) money available for 73 and 74.  WV, OH, and MI, and probably VA are never going to take them up on it.  All US 52 will be in WV is a corridor, with at grade intersections and stop lights, IF it is ever built at all. 

VA is taking a part on it.. only from NC state line towards Roanoke. They are fighting fund problems at this point.

Quote from: SP Cook on May 01, 2011, 02:07:15 PM
No that is not the point at all.  States, not the federal government, build roads.  All the federal government did was make SOME (not enough) money available for 73 and 74.  WV, OH, and MI, and probably VA are never going to take them up on it.  All US 52 will be in WV is a corridor, with at grade intersections and stop lights, IF it is ever built at all. 

Both NC and SC is already planning and building them.. which means it is going to be built.. which brings the point of "it is going to be built regardless of where."

Quote from: Buummu on May 01, 2011, 01:26:51 PM
the point is.. I-73 is going to be built, no matter where it is... because it is a part of Congress designed interstates.

*yawn*
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18.msg99215#msg99215

Quotethe point is.. I-73 is going to be built, no matter where it is... because it is a part of Congress designed interstates.

It's not going to be built if it can't get funding.  And last I checked, the House GOP was proposing CUTTING Federal highway spending over the next 6 years.

Quote from: froggie on May 06, 2011, 08:01:38 AM

Quotethe point is.. I-73 is going to be built, no matter where it is... because it is a part of Congress designed interstates.

It's not going to be built if it can't get funding.  And last I checked, the House GOP was proposing CUTTING Federal highway spending over the next 6 years.

Yeah i heard about that.. that probably mean................Toll roads.

Quote from: Buummu on May 06, 2011, 12:42:42 PM

Quote from: froggie on May 06, 2011, 08:01:38 AM

Quotethe point is.. I-73 is going to be built, no matter where it is... because it is a part of Congress designed interstates.

It's not going to be built if it can't get funding.  And last I checked, the House GOP was proposing CUTTING Federal highway spending over the next 6 years.

Yeah i heard about that.. that probably mean................Toll roads.

No, toll roads are getting sold off to private firms. So, we're going back to the 1800s and private toll roads.

Quote from: Buummu on April 29, 2011, 03:42:19 PM
I agree.. 73 isnt bad... but 74? why would they want to try to extend 74 all the way to Myrtle Beach?

Considering all other numbers between 70 and 79 had already been used up at the time, I have no problem with I-73, but I-74 is another story. They really need to work out a route from Cincinnati to Mt. Airy, and I don't care if it takes 100 years to get it done. Or else, it's a colossal blunder this side of I-99!

Much worse than I-99.  At least I-99 is in an area where all the numbers in the grid have been used (ie: it has an excuse).  There are more than enough proper numbers for the I-74 corridor.

Quote from: Adam Smith on May 06, 2011, 03:22:01 PM

Quote from: Buummu on May 06, 2011, 12:42:42 PM

Quote from: froggie on May 06, 2011, 08:01:38 AM

Quotethe point is.. I-73 is going to be built, no matter where it is... because it is a part of Congress designed interstates.

It's not going to be built if it can't get funding.  And last I checked, the House GOP was proposing CUTTING Federal highway spending over the next 6 years.

Yeah i heard about that.. that probably mean................Toll roads.

No, toll roads are getting sold off to private firms. So, we're going back to the 1800s and private toll roads.

Why is that?

Forgive me for being cynical, but I don't see the need for an I-73 in Ohio, or an I-74 extension southeast of Cincinnati.

For the former, US 23 works just fine; for the latter, the AA Highway (KY 9) is perfectly functional.

Quote from: SP Cook on May 01, 2011, 07:51:37 AM
In West Virginia ... It is important to divide the project into two to understand why it will never be built.  The northern half, the Tolsia Highway from Kenova to Williamson is the best two lane road in the state, built on an entirely new path in the 1970s.  The area is developable, with, by WV standards, some flatish land and a good population.   The other half, from Williamson to Bluefield, the King Coal Highway, passes through some of the economic basketcase of southern Mingo, Wyoming and McDowell counties.  Through areas where the terrain is so rugged that there simply is nothing that can be build ...

Despite the long odds, some West Virginia I-73 advocates recently worked the halls of Congress:

http://bdtonline.com/local/x1440315411/Highway-supporters-rally-for-federal-funding

Quote
Highway supporters from six-different states rallied Thursday in Washington in support of the future Interstate 73/74/75 corridor, but walked away from the two-day gathering without a federal funding commitment from lawmakers.
"We do this national road rally once a year just to continue to stimulate interest in the highway,"  Tom Hall, a member of the local southern West Virginia King Coal Highway delegation in Mercer County, said of the two-day I-73/74/75 Road Rally. "We are trying to keep this in the awareness and in the top of the minds of our members of Congress ... It's a project that affects six states."
The King Coal Highway is the local West Virginia corridor of the future I-73/74/75. It is proposed to extend some 95 miles through Mingo, Wayne, Wyoming, McDowell and Mercer counties with the Tolsia segment from Williamson to Huntington extending another 55 miles.
Local King Coal Highway supporters from Mercer County attending the rally include Hall, Christine West, Marc Meachum, Julie Ball and King Coal Highway Executive Director Mike Mitchem.
Despite a large showing of support Wednesday and Thursday, lawmakers were noncommittal on funding for the I-73/74/75 corridor.
"We didn't get any promises of any funding,"  Hall said. "A lot of that is up in the air. But we really were not expecting any (promises of funding) on these trips. The thrust of these road rallies is to make our congressional members aware of our need, and how important this road can be to our area ... They were cautiously optimistic although they had a good deal of concern about balancing the budget."
West said Thursday's gathering was another way for the local King Coal Highway supporters in Mercer County to show their support for the future four-lane corridor.
Hall said officials still need about $70 million in federal funding to complete a usable segment of the King Coal Highway corridor in Mercer County that would connect with the existing John Nash Boulevard, the new twin interstate bridges above Stoney Ridge and Route 123 near the Mercer County Airport.

Quote from: Buummu on May 06, 2011, 09:17:14 PM

Quote from: Adam Smith on May 06, 2011, 03:22:01 PM

Quote from: Buummu on May 06, 2011, 12:42:42 PM

Quote from: froggie on May 06, 2011, 08:01:38 AM

Quotethe point is.. I-73 is going to be built, no matter where it is... because it is a part of Congress designed interstates.

It's not going to be built if it can't get funding.  And last I checked, the House GOP was proposing CUTTING Federal highway spending over the next 6 years.

Yeah i heard about that.. that probably mean................Toll roads.

No, toll roads are getting sold off to private firms. So, we're going back to the 1800s and private toll roads.

Why is that?

State governments are broke. Ohio has a 8 billion dollar deficit, and unlike the feds, Ohio (and many if not all states) have to produce a balanced budget. So revenue has to be generated and or costs reduced. Ohio's Dept. of Transportation has to slash their budget (they can't build I-73) and the Ohio Turnpike is likely to be sold to private investors. That means no government entity will be able to build I-73 now, or in the considerable future.

There have been links produced in this thread to papers written about I-73 in Ohio and elsewhere. If you (Buummu) have not read those papers, then do so. If you have done so, read them again. 

I am not from Ohio..... so i dont know anything about what's going on out there.. besides a lot of websites have not updated.. hence why i asked for updates back at the first post.

Quote from: Buummu on May 06, 2011, 11:43:38 PM
I am not from Ohio..... so i dont know anything about what's going on out there.. besides a lot of websites have not updated.. hence why i asked for updates back at the first post.

And like I stated when you first asked several weeks ago, nothing has happened that has necessitated updating websites concerning I-73 north of Virginia.

Quote from: Adam Smith on May 07, 2011, 12:09:07 AM

Quote from: Buummu on May 06, 2011, 11:43:38 PM
I am not from Ohio..... so i dont know anything about what's going on out there.. besides a lot of websites have not updated.. hence why i asked for updates back at the first post.

And like I stated when you first asked several weeks ago, nothing has happened that has necessitated updating websites concerning I-73 north of Virginia.

You, for one has answered my question, and I could care less. Probably others will chime in better than you do.

Quote from: Buummu on May 07, 2011, 01:34:44 AM

Quote from: Adam Smith on May 07, 2011, 12:09:07 AM

Quote from: Buummu on May 06, 2011, 11:43:38 PM
I am not from Ohio..... so i dont know anything about what's going on out there.. besides a lot of websites have not updated.. hence why i asked for updates back at the first post.

And like I stated when you first asked several weeks ago, nothing has happened that has necessitated updating websites concerning I-73 north of Virginia.

You, for one has answered my question, and I could care less. Probably others will chime in better than you do.

If you could care less, it means that you care. Which is good, because he has answered your question. No one else is going to chime in because there are no more answers. What makes you think you're entitled to information that doesn't exist?

Quote from: Grzrd on May 06, 2011, 10:10:07 PM
Hall said officials still need about $70 million in federal funding to complete a usable segment of the King Coal Highway corridor in Mercer County that would connect with the existing John Nash Boulevard, the new twin interstate bridges above Stoney Ridge and Route 123 near the Mercer County Airport."

And that is is distance of about 3 miles, and among the most flat three miles of the KCH route.  That would leave them 128 miles short of Kenova.

Quote from: Grzrd on May 06, 2011, 10:10:07 PM
"Highway supporters from six-different states rallied Thursday in Washington in support of the future Interstate 73/74/75 corridor, but walked away from the two-day gathering without a federal funding commitment from lawmakers.

How did I-75 get worked into that mix?

Quote from: hbelkins on May 09, 2011, 12:06:19 AM

Quote from: Grzrd on May 06, 2011, 10:10:07 PM
"Highway supporters from six-different states rallied Thursday in Washington in support of the future Interstate 73/74/75 corridor, but walked away from the two-day gathering without a federal funding commitment from lawmakers.

How did I-75 get worked into that mix?

Michigan/NW Ohio

Quote from: hbelkins on May 09, 2011, 12:06:19 AM

Quote from: Grzrd on May 06, 2011, 10:10:07 PM
"Highway supporters from six-different states rallied Thursday in Washington in support of the future Interstate 73/74/75 corridor, but walked away from the two-day gathering without a federal funding commitment from lawmakers.

How did I-75 get worked into that mix?

The official I-73 corridor runs all the way up to Sault Ste. Marie, MI. I believe that the branch to Detroit is still included in the official definition as well, but that's like I-94 between Chicago and Port Huron being included in the corridor that defines I-69... it's a funding trick but not a requirement to install the signs anywhere.
quoted text goes AT THE END

Quote from: bulldog1979 on May 10, 2011, 02:31:24 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 09, 2011, 12:06:19 AM

Quote from: Grzrd on May 06, 2011, 10:10:07 PM
"Highway supporters from six-different states rallied Thursday in Washington in support of the future Interstate 73/74/75 corridor, but walked away from the two-day gathering without a federal funding commitment from lawmakers.

How did I-75 get worked into that mix?

The official I-73 corridor runs all the way up to Sault Ste. Marie, MI. I believe that the branch to Detroit is still included in the official definition as well, but that's like I-94 between Chicago and Port Huron being included in the corridor that defines I-69... it's a funding trick but not a requirement to install the signs anywhere.
quoted text goes AT THE END

Here's a link to South Carolina news report covering the I-73/74/75 Association meeting: http://www2.scnow.com/news/2011/may/05/economist-estimates-economic-impact-i-73-could-rea-ar-1807867/

The report includes footage of speakers with backdrops of I-73.  At about the 38 second mark, a red line representing I-73 is in the backdrop.  In Michigan, it looks like I-73 terminates at an interchange with I-75, which supports the view that the inclusion of I-75 into the Association is basically a funding trick.

Also, at about 1:14 to 1:21 of the video, a more detailed view of their suggested corridor than the one on their website is shown in the backdrop.

Quote from: SP Cook on May 01, 2011, 07:51:37 AM
...the Tolsia Highway from Kenova to Williamson is the best two lane road in the state, built on an entirely new path in the 1970s

Tolsia Highway will soon be getting a new four-lane bridge.  I mentioned it in this thread because newspaper article references Tolsia Highway as part of the I-73/74 corridor:

http://www.dailymail.com/Business/201106021075

Quote
The long-planned Prichard Intermodal terminal in Wayne County received a boost with the announcement that the state has awarded a $6.5 million contract for construction of a bridge that will improve truck access to the site ... Acting Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin and state Transportation Secretary Paul Mattox announced the Division of Highways awarded a contract to Wayne Concrete Co. Inc. for construction of a bridge to replace the Gragston Creek Bridge on U.S. Route 52, about four miles north of the intermodal terminal site. The new bridge will be a part of the future four-lane Tolsia Highway ... The Prichard terminal would be accessible from the Tolsia Highway Corridor, which is part of the Interstate 73/74 north-south corridor ... "Proximity to the corridor will facilitate interstate truck movement to and from the Prichard site," Tomblin's office noted ...

I've never been able to figure out where the Tolsia name comes from. The earliest references I can find are from 1969, talking about the then-proposed realignment: http://books.google.com/books?id=oUIlMN-RieUC&q=tolsia

Tolsia has always been the name of southwestern Wayne County.  There is a Tolsia Creek.  I assume it is some Indian word, who knows?  The consolidated HS (openned about 88 or so) for southern Wayne is Tolsia.

Short history.  Southwestern WVians always felt short changed (and rightly so, if you look at historical maps) by the various road bonds passed from the 40s to the 60s, and started voting against them.  So the 72 road bond specifically included a set $ amount for US 52, the only time such a thing was done.  It passed, as did the federal appropriation referenced in your post, and work began.  In the north, what is now WV 152 was US 52, and the current route of US 52 was County 9, more or less a dirt road.  The new road followed 9 and the state made a huge mistake in not buying ROW for the other 2 lanes at that time, when the area was undeveloped and poor.  Now it is buying those two lanes at a much higher price.

The new (well new in 1975) US 52 is among the best 2 lane roads in the state, and the goal was to continue south all the way to Bluefield with such a road.  Unfortunatly then came the Stagflation of 1977-81 and the colapse of the coal industry, and south of the JCT between 52 and 152, lesser improvements were done.  The climbs up Horsepen and Johnnycake mountiains were imporoved and some curves were eliminated with some blasting, but it remains true that a person in Kenova, wishing to go to Bluefiled, would make far better time taking I-64 and 77. 

Quote from: SP Cook on June 07, 2011, 07:15:29 AM
The new (well new in 1975) US 52 is among the best 2 lane roads in the state, and the goal was to continue south all the way to Bluefield with such a road.  Unfortunatly then came the Stagflation of 1977-81 and the colapse of the coal industry, and south of the JCT between 52 and 152, lesser improvements were done.  The climbs up Horsepen and Johnnycake mountiains were imporoved and some curves were eliminated with some blasting, but it remains true that a person in Kenova, wishing to go to Bluefiled, would make far better time taking I-64 and 77. 

Except for the pavement condition, I would agree with the assessment that it's one of the best two-lane roads in the state. Last year I drove from Huntington to Paintsville by way of US 52 and crossed the Big Sandy at Fort Gay, and found the surface of US 52 badly in need of a fresh coat of blacktop.

A college friend of mine who lived in the Belfry-South Williamson area found it easier to get from there to Morehead by crossing into WV, taking US 52 north to Fort Gay, then crossing into Kentucky and following US 23 north to I-64.

Realistically, the only way I-73 ever gets assigned north of Roanoke is if it gets appended on the existing US-23 freeway between Flint and Toledo as both Michigan and Ohio are running out of even I-x75s (only I-875 available in either state).

Quote from: ftballfan on August 15, 2011, 10:10:16 PM
Realistically, the only way I-73 ever gets assigned north of Roanoke is if it gets appended on the existing US-23 freeway between Flint and Toledo as both Michigan and Ohio are running out of even I-x75s (only I-875 available in either state).

Realistically, I'd say it never makes it north of Virginia now that Sen Byrd is gone. West Virginia won't build it as a freeway without federal money. Unless or until it's on Ohio's doorstep, they won't consider building it, and Michigan's plans are dead waiting on I-73 to approach its borders.

Quote from: bulldog1979 on August 16, 2011, 07:16:28 PM

Realistically, I'd say it never makes it north of Virginia now that Sen Byrd is gone. West Virginia won't build it as a freeway without federal money. Unless or until it's on Ohio's doorstep, they won't consider building it, and Michigan's plans are dead waiting on I-73 to approach its borders.

West Virginia doesn't need to build it as a freeway. And that lawsuit the unions filed to stop the process whereby the coal miners were leaving their completed operations as a roadbed may kill much of the entire planned "I-73" King Coal Highway route of US 52.

The September issue of Trains magazine has an article on Norfolk Southern's Heartland Corridor. With help from federal and state governments, the railroad improved clearances on an existing two-track main line that parallels I-73/74 through West Virginia to allow double-stacked containers. They now run once-a-day container trains between Chicago and Norfolk, making the run in two days, as well as similarly-scheduled Chicago-Charlotte trains. The entire clearance project, which modified 28 tunnels and 24 other overhead obstructions, cost $191 million. (By comparison, the King Coal Highway apparently costs over $20 million per mile.)

Quote from: bulldog1979 on August 16, 2011, 07:16:28 PM
Michigan's plans are dead waiting on I-73 to approach its borders.

This July 16 article indicates that property owners in Lenawee County, MI are not interested in having I-73 come through their county:
http://www.lenconnect.com/news/x121480165/Group-seeks-to-revive-I-73-interest-in-Michigan

Quote
The idea of an Interstate 73 freeway link through Lenawee County is getting renewed attention, if not traction ... A Michigan I-73 study was canceled in 2001. But an organization has continued working in other states to encourage completion of the proposed route from Myrtle Beach, S.C., through Michigan. Information packets were mailed last week to Lenawee County officials who the organization hopes will join an effort to revive the project in this state ... Lenawee Economic Development Corp. president and CEO James Gartin said he is responding to the corridor association to arrange a meeting and discuss its plans. Gartin said he is aware of public opposition in the past to an I-73 link through Lenawee County. But he said it is an interesting issue from the standpoint of economic development ... Lenawee County's lack of freeway access "has a huge, negative impact"  on attracting the interest of business prospects, Gartin said. "We're one of the few counties in the state of Michigan that don't have it."  ... There seems to be little chance of having an I-73 link between Toledo and Jackson built in the foreseeable future, she said ... The efforts reached the point of a feasibility study being started in 1999 with $3.9 million in federal funds obtained by former U.S. Rep. Nick Smith ... The study was canceled in June 2001 by the Michigan Department of Transportation. The MDOT director at the time, Gregory Rosine, said the project was being shelved "until we believe adequate funding exists to proceed into design, right-of-way acquisition and construction."  ... Nothing has changed since then, said MDOT spokeswoman Kari Arend ... Hughes said she believes loud public opposition in Lenawee County to a freeway was the reason the study was canceled after the feasibility phase ... "You cannot go through the Irish Hills with that thing. There are lakes everywhere,"  said board chairman Robert Emery. "I don't see I-73."  ... Assistant managing director/engineer Scott Merillat said acquiring right of way for a freeway may be nearly impossible if property owners are opposed ...

Quote from: Grzrd on September 05, 2011, 04:15:34 PM

Quote from: bulldog1979 on August 16, 2011, 07:16:28 PM
Michigan's plans are dead waiting on I-73 to approach its borders.

This July 16 article indicates that property owners in Lenawee County, MI are not interested in having I-73 come through their county:
http://www.lenconnect.com/news/x121480165/Group-seeks-to-revive-I-73-interest-in-Michigan

"The idea of an Interstate 73 freeway link through Lenawee County is getting renewed attention, if not traction ... A Michigan I-73 study was canceled in 2001. But an organization has continued working in other states to encourage completion of the proposed route from Myrtle Beach, S.C., through Michigan. Information packets were mailed last week to Lenawee County officials who the organization hopes will join an effort to revive the project in this state ... Lenawee Economic Development Corp. president and CEO James Gartin said he is responding to the corridor association to arrange a meeting and discuss its plans. Gartin said he is aware of public opposition in the past to an I-73 link through Lenawee County. But he said it is an interesting issue from the standpoint of economic development ... Lenawee County's lack of freeway access "has a huge, negative impact” on attracting the interest of business prospects, Gartin said. "We're one of the few counties in the state of Michigan that don't have it.” ... There seems to be little chance of having an I-73 link between Toledo and Jackson built in the foreseeable future, she said ... The efforts reached the point of a feasibility study being started in 1999 with $3.9 million in federal funds obtained by former U.S. Rep. Nick Smith ... The study was canceled in June 2001 by the Michigan Department of Transportation. The MDOT director at the time, Gregory Rosine, said the project was being shelved "until we believe adequate funding exists to proceed into design, right-of-way acquisition and construction.” ... Nothing has changed since then, said MDOT spokeswoman Kari Arend ... Hughes said she believes loud public opposition in Lenawee County to a freeway was the reason the study was canceled after the feasibility phase ... "You cannot go through the Irish Hills with that thing. There are lakes everywhere,” said board chairman Robert Emery. "I don't see I-73.” ... Assistant managing director/engineer Scott Merillat said acquiring right of way for a freeway may be nearly impossible if property owners are opposed ..."

Environmentalists always win :/

If I-73 ever gets into Michigan, I see it using US-23 up to I-75 near Flint. Or I could also see it use US-23 to I-96, a somewhat long concurrency with I-96, and then US-127 from I-96 to I-75 near Grayling.

I wouldn't be upset if there were a "southern" I-73 from Myrtle Beach to Roanoke, and a "northern" I-73 from Jackson to Grayling.  Still, ODOT really should be upgrading the entire Huntington—Toledo corridor to at least expressway grade, whether or not it ever becomes I-73.

Quote from: vtk on September 13, 2011, 11:00:11 AM
I wouldn't be upset if there were a "southern" I-73 from Myrtle Beach to Roanoke

You mean I-99

Quote from: Steve on September 14, 2011, 07:26:44 PM

Quote from: vtk on September 13, 2011, 11:00:11 AM
I wouldn't be upset if there were a "southern" I-73 from Myrtle Beach to Roanoke

You mean I-99

That would make a little more sense, but I don't think it's going to happen.

US-127 from Ithaca to St. Johns, even though not a freeway, has a 65 mph speed limit (one of the only, if not the only, non-freeway(s) in Michigan with a speed limit higher than 55) and an interchange at M-57.

Quote from: ftballfan on September 15, 2011, 09:39:36 PM
US-127 from Ithaca to St. Johns, even though not a freeway, has a 65 mph speed limit (one of the only, if not the only, non-freeway(s) in Michigan with a speed limit higher than 55) and an interchange at M-57.

US 2 between Gladstone and Rapid River has a 65-mph speed limit as well.

Quote from: ftballfan on September 15, 2011, 09:39:36 PM
US-127 from Ithaca to St. Johns, even though not a freeway, has a 65 mph speed limit (one of the only, if not the only, non-freeway(s) in Michigan with a speed limit higher than 55) and an interchange at M-57.

When I was there in 08, it was 55 mph. MIDOT must of done this recently.

Quote from: roadman65 on January 14, 2012, 08:02:18 PM

Quote from: ftballfan on September 15, 2011, 09:39:36 PM
US-127 from Ithaca to St. Johns, even though not a freeway, has a 65 mph speed limit (one of the only, if not the only, non-freeway(s) in Michigan with a speed limit higher than 55) and an interchange at M-57.

When I was there in 08, it was 55 mph. MIDOT must of done this recently.

MDOT and the Michigan State Police made both changes last year. The state has forced the cities and counties to correct their speed limits based on speed studies, and they've followed suit on various highways as well in the last several years.

Nothing will happen until and unless Michigan raises its fuel taxes to a realistic level. That is anaethema to current political dogma, so the underinvestment will continue.

Assuming funding wasn't an issue, MDOT would have a far easier time politically upgrading US-223 to an expressway (divided 4-lane, access limited only to cross-streets), since that doesn't cause the uproar that a freeway would. It would still need to be largely on new alignment - too many homes right up against it, and US-223 is not much straighter or more level than when it was originally built. But it would be more palatable to the locals without the Interstate brand on it.

The traffic load on US-127 and US-223 between Jackson & Toledo would've long ago prompted construction of at least expressway segments had this route been in another state - Wisconsin, for example. Ohio (with it's US-30 and US-24 upgrades), for another.

What may have to happen is for I-73 to be rerouted away from Toledo. I-73 could certainly continue west of Findlay along the OH-15 corridor to Defiance, then northward along the OH-66 and US-127 corridor into Michigan. Adrian can then be served by a east-west expressway roughly following M-34 and US-223, tying into US-127 and US-23, once the locals get sick of the congestion within Lenawee County.

Here is a link to an interesting "construction progress" map of the Michigan I-73 Corridor that the National I-73/I-74/I-75 Corridor Association recently put on their website:
http://www.i73.com/docs/construction_map_michigan.pdf

Looking at this map, a casual observer might conclude that I-73 in Michigan is only a few upgrades away from being completed (no new terrain construction needed).  :meh:

The Ohio construction progress map shows lengthier needed upgrades to US 23, but still no new terrain construction:
http://www.i73.com/docs/i73_map_2011_main_with_construction_ohio.pdf

And the West Virginia construction progress map shows that US 52 needs to be upgraded, but no new terrain construction:
http://www.i73.com/docs/construction_map_westvirginia.pdf

Uh, yeah. Anyone who looks at a map of the US-223 corridor sees it for the joke that it is. You might get away with it east of Blissfield, but west of there to US-127 requires extensive and expensive rebuilding, and taking a large number of residences and businesses.

You could realistically upgrade US-127 in southern Jackson County, as it was built to be the NBD lanes of an eventual freeway, and there's sufficient ROW available.

Quote from: Grzrd on January 15, 2012, 11:52:29 AM
The Ohio construction progress map shows lengthier needed upgrades to US 23, but still no new terrain construction:
http://www.i73.com/docs/i73_map_2011_main_with_construction_ohio.pdf

And the West Virginia construction progress map shows that US 52 needs to be upgraded, but no new terrain construction:
http://www.i73.com/docs/construction_map_westvirginia.pdf

I can't speak to what Ohio will eventually do, but in my not humble at all opinion, an interstate upgrade of US 23 is totally unnecessary. I have driven the existing four-lane from Portsmouth to I-270 on the south side of Columbus, and from I-270 on the north side of Columbus up to OH 15 and then along OH 15 on to I-75, and that corridor is perfectly fine. It doesn't kill anyone to have a few traffic lights between Columbus and Delaware, or in the Piketon/Waverly area.

And West Virginia will never build "I-73." They are building US 52 as a surface route, which is all that is necessary.

I agree that the corridor need not be Interstate standard in Ohio, but I don't think continuous expressway would be an unreasonable goal.

US 23 from I-270 to about Main Rd north of Delaware is a royal pain due to roadside development which should not have been permitted.  And I don't see why at least the inner lanes of the experimental section can't be classified as expressway with a 65 MPH speed limit.  I've seen Delaware County's master plan, and I cringe at the thought of slogging through 25 miles of built-out suburbia on a 45-MPH surface arterial with 1 to 4 traffic lights per mile.  I would hope for an expressway with at least a 60 MPH speed limit and a small number of traffic signals with long green-time.  If this is unrealistic on the current alignment, then a bypass of all of Delaware is called for.

Fortunately, planners are beginning to take access control seriously along the corridor.  MORPC's draft for their updated transportation plan includes "access management" along US 23 in Delaware County, albeit with no target "completion" date.  The website for the US 23 — Rickenbacker Connector actually says US 23 "is and should remain a freeway"; while misinformed, at least the intended result is good.

After 5 years, we have something to talk about concerning I-73 in Ohio. Basically that someone in Toledo is myopic enough to believe our current federal government would want this built.
http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2017/02/12/Toledo-corridor-to-capital-talk-revived-with-Trump.html (http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2017/02/12/Toledo-corridor-to-capital-talk-revived-with-Trump.html)
And they haven't updated their maps in 20 years.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toledoblade.com%2Fimage%2F2017%2F02%2F12%2F600x600%2Fg12NewInterstate-I73MAP.jpg&hash=1b8c3b6a93016c9c741b16dd9f41a634b710589d)
Like I said, their maps haven't been updated in 20 years
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2Fi-73_mich-carey.jpg&hash=ea5f22792caedbd54abd9d3c52701efb5b6b3e51)

If anything, that corridor between Carey and I-280 should be scrapped. There's no need for a parallel interstate 10 to 15 miles east of current I-75. The corridor following OH-15 from Carey to I-75 at Findlay would make the most sense.

Quote from: sandwalk on February 14, 2017, 09:59:53 AM
If anything, that corridor between Carey and I-280 should be scrapped. There's no need for a parallel interstate 10 to 15 miles east of current I-75. The corridor following OH-15 from Carey to I-75 at Findlay would make the most sense.

Agreed on both counts! If one were to create a Toledo-Columbus Interstate, curving through Carey and towards Findlay would be the best way to go. And I'm surprised that they even brought it up years after it was supposedly dead.

Quote from: sandwalk on February 14, 2017, 09:59:53 AM
If anything, that corridor between Carey and I-280 should be scrapped. There's no need for a parallel interstate 10 to 15 miles east of current I-75. The corridor following OH-15 from Carey to I-75 at Findlay would make the most sense.

Yep, especially since 75 is currently being widened from Toledo to Findlay and there are plans to upgrade the I-75-OH 15 interchange

The focus of fixing the Toledo-Columbus corridor should be on Delaware County

Quote

The focus of fixing the Toledo-Columbus corridor should be on Delaware County

I agree 1000%

Quote from: Buck87 on February 14, 2017, 10:52:31 AM

Quote from: sandwalk on February 14, 2017, 09:59:53 AM
If anything, that corridor between Carey and I-280 should be scrapped. There's no need for a parallel interstate 10 to 15 miles east of current I-75. The corridor following OH-15 from Carey to I-75 at Findlay would make the most sense.

Yep, especially since 75 is currently being widened from Toledo to Findlay and there are plans to upgrade the I-75-OH 15 interchange

The focus of fixing the Toledo-Columbus corridor should be on Delaware County

I agree. There is no need for a parallel interstate. If and IF I-73 is ever built in Ohio, it should follow towards the I-75/OH 15 interchange and either end there or multiplex it with I-75 into Michigan... but will I-73 be built in Ohio? I doubt it, but you never know.

Quote from: Strider on February 14, 2017, 01:36:19 PM
I agree. There is no need for a parallel interstate. If and IF I-73 is ever built in Ohio, it should follow towards the I-75/OH 15 interchange and either end there or multiplex it with I-75 into Michigan... but will I-73 be built in Ohio? I doubt it, but you never know.

No and there is no need for it. All the whining about US 23 between Columbus and Delaware notwithstanding, there's an acceptable multi-lane corridor that runs all the way from Toledo to Columbus, and then south. It splits at Chillicothe, where there's another perfectly fine four-lane that runs south all the way to Portsmouth, Ashland, Pikeville, Norton, Kingsport, Johnson City and Asheville. The other branch (US 35) will eventually be completed in West Virginia and then there will be an acceptable four-lane all the way to I-64.

I think Interstate 73 will be lucky if it ever goes even a mile into Virginia or South Carolina. Never mind coming anywhere near West Virginia, Ohio, or Michigan.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 15, 2017, 05:27:16 PM
I think Interstate 73 will be lucky if it ever goes even a mile into Virginia or South Carolina. Never mind coming anywhere near West Virginia, Ohio, or Michigan.

My thoughts as well.

The Portsmouth Bypass is proceeding, which I think would have been part of I-73 in Ohio.

Quote from: vtk on February 23, 2017, 10:41:41 PM
The Portsmouth Bypass is proceeding, which I think would have been part of I-73 in Ohio.

It may have been part of original long-term plans, but the present bypass is a stand-alone project.  Ohio has expressed no interest in planning or developing an I-73 corridor; the cancellation of preliminary planning for an Ohio River bridge near Kenova, WV circa 2002 effectively "iced" any potential connection to the southern part of that corridor.

Quote from: sparker on February 24, 2017, 03:59:32 AM

Quote from: vtk on February 23, 2017, 10:41:41 PM
The Portsmouth Bypass is proceeding, which I think would have been part of I-73 in Ohio.

It may have been part of original long-term plans, but the present bypass is a stand-alone project.  Ohio has expressed no interest in planning or developing an I-73 corridor; the cancellation of preliminary planning for an Ohio River bridge near Kenova, WV circa 2002 effectively "iced" any potential connection to the southern part of that corridor.

Which definitely has the wrong number anyway; it should've been numbered as a southern I-79, as it is completely east of I-77.

Quote from: Henry on February 24, 2017, 09:15:21 AM

Quote from: sparker on February 24, 2017, 03:59:32 AM

Quote from: vtk on February 23, 2017, 10:41:41 PM
The Portsmouth Bypass is proceeding, which I think would have been part of I-73 in Ohio.

It may have been part of original long-term plans, but the present bypass is a stand-alone project.  Ohio has expressed no interest in planning or developing an I-73 corridor; the cancellation of preliminary planning for an Ohio River bridge near Kenova, WV circa 2002 effectively "iced" any potential connection to the southern part of that corridor.

Which definitely has the wrong number anyway; it should've been numbered as a southern I-79, as it is completely east of I-77.

Uh.. Kenova, WV is west of Charleston (where I-77 and I-79 is at), so the route is west of I-77, however it is east of I-75.

Quote from: Strider on February 24, 2017, 03:04:09 PM

Quote from: Henry on February 24, 2017, 09:15:21 AM

Quote from: sparker on February 24, 2017, 03:59:32 AM

Quote from: vtk on February 23, 2017, 10:41:41 PM
The Portsmouth Bypass is proceeding, which I think would have been part of I-73 in Ohio.

It may have been part of original long-term plans, but the present bypass is a stand-alone project.  Ohio has expressed no interest in planning or developing an I-73 corridor; the cancellation of preliminary planning for an Ohio River bridge near Kenova, WV circa 2002 effectively "iced" any potential connection to the southern part of that corridor.

Which definitely has the wrong number anyway; it should've been numbered as a southern I-79, as it is completely east of I-77.

Uh.. Kenova, WV is west of Charleston (where I-77 and I-79 is at), so the route is west of I-77, however it is east of I-75.

When the I-73 corridor was first being proposed back in the '90's, it did include the Michigan segment, which was west of I-75 and thus "grid-correct", even though everything south of Toledo was east of I-75 and even, south of WV, east of I-77.  Likely the number was selected because (a) it was the only N-S designation remaining above 70, and (b) because, as mentioned above, at least one section fit in to the grid (a la I-71). 

Henry was probably talking about the section where I-73 currently is in North Carolina.  However, when this idea was first proposed, the only available N-S numbers were 67, 73, and 99.  73 was chosen because it "fit" closer in the grid than the other two numbers.  If the original Interstate numbering proposal had spread out the N-S numbers more, then we wouldn't be debating about numbers like 73 and 99 "not being where they are supposed to be."

Quote from: amroad17 on February 26, 2017, 12:15:52 AM
Henry was probably talking about the section where I-73 currently is in North Carolina.  However, when this idea was first proposed, the only available N-S numbers were 67, 73, and 99.  73 was chosen because it "fit" closer in the grid than the other two numbers.  If the original Interstate numbering proposal had spread out the N-S numbers more, then we wouldn't be debating about numbers like 73 and 99 "not being where they are supposed to be."

Too true!  Unfortunately, the politics surrounding the placement and designation of the original 1956-58 batch of Interstates, including making sure that the mostly N-S corridors connecting major cities ended in "5" to satisfy the characterization of such corridors as "major" or "primary", overwhelmed any notion of spacing the grid out to accommodate future needs.  It was also probably presumed that the original system would be a "one and done" undertaking.

Quote from: amroad17 on February 26, 2017, 12:15:52 AM
Henry was probably talking about the section where I-73 currently is in North Carolina.  However, when this idea was first proposed, the only available N-S numbers were 67, 73, and 99.  73 was chosen because it "fit" closer in the grid than the other two numbers.  If the original Interstate numbering proposal had spread out the N-S numbers more, then we wouldn't be debating about numbers like 73 and 99 "not being where they are supposed to be."

I am pretty sure he talked about the OH-823 Portsmouth Bypass since the topic of this section talked about the Portsmouth Bypass and the path in Ohio.

Forget about Interstate 73 penetrating this region (Midwest - Great Lakes). A new freeway will be built in San Francisco before that happens.

What's wrong with having a southern I-79 in North Carolina instead of the current I-73?

Quote from: compdude787 on February 28, 2017, 04:46:31 PM
What's wrong with having a southern I-79 in North Carolina instead of the current I-73?

Except for the I-87 brainfreeze, AASHTO & FHWA normally seem to prefer using new/unused numbers for route additions rather than duplicating existing numbers.  And don't forget that despite there being little possibility of a I-73 corridor existing north of Virginia, the concept did, as legislated, extend north into Michigan -- effectively parallel to existing I-79.  And as long as the authorizing HPC 5 language is on the books, anything actually built along the legislatively described corridor will be signed as I-73, for better or worse!

Quote from: sparker on February 28, 2017, 05:01:39 PM

Quote from: compdude787 on February 28, 2017, 04:46:31 PM
What's wrong with having a southern I-79 in North Carolina instead of the current I-73?

Except for the I-87 brainfreeze, AASHTO & FHWA normally seem to prefer using new/unused numbers for route additions rather than duplicating existing numbers.  And don't forget that despite there being little possibility of a I-73 corridor existing north of Virginia, the concept did, as legislated, extend north into Michigan -- effectively parallel to existing I-79.  And as long as the authorizing HPC 5 language is on the books, anything actually built along the legislatively described corridor will be signed as I-73, for better or worse!

The chance that NCDOT would ever renumber I-73 to satisfy us roadgeeks is zero.

I-74 is another matter, because sooner or later somebody (in Shelby, perhaps) is going to start talking about an interstate route along US 74 from I-26 all the way to Wilmington.

Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 28, 2017, 06:39:14 PMI-74 is another matter, because sooner or later somebody (in Shelby, perhaps) is going to start talking about an interstate route along US 74 from I-26 all the way to Wilmington.

Meh...send I-74 to Wilmington, designate the Carolina Bays Parkway to Myrtle Beach as an I-x74, designate US-74 between Rockingham and Charlotte as another I-x74, and designate US-74 between I-26 and I-85 as an I-x26 and call it a day. :coffee:

Quote from: LM117 on February 28, 2017, 06:55:37 PM

Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 28, 2017, 06:39:14 PMI-74 is another matter, because sooner or later somebody (in Shelby, perhaps) is going to start talking about an interstate route along US 74 from I-26 all the way to Wilmington.

Meh...send I-74 to Wilmington, designate the Carolina Bays Parkway to Myrtle Beach as an I-x74, designate US-74 between Rockingham and Charlotte as another I-x74, and designate US-74 between I-26 and I-85 as an I-x26 and call it a day. :coffee:

I'd be willing to bet that NCDOT eventually requests a single 2di number for the entire segment of US 74 west of Rockingham all the way to I-26 at Columbus, given their track record (I'm surprised they didn't request something like I-46 for US 264!).  My money's on 36 or 34 (the former's not being used, and the latter's sequestered as a state route in the northeast corner near Elizabeth City).  Gives Charlotte an east-west trunk of their own. 

Quote from: amroad17 on February 26, 2017, 12:15:52 AM
Henry was probably talking about the section where I-73 currently is in North Carolina.  However, when this idea was first proposed, the only available N-S numbers were 67, 73, and 99.  73 was chosen because it "fit" closer in the grid than the other two numbers.  If the original Interstate numbering proposal had spread out the N-S numbers more, then we wouldn't be debating about numbers like 73 and 99 "not being where they are supposed to be."

Yes, I was. At least I could live with the OH part, and everything else west of I-77.

Interstate 73 likely won't make it out of North Carolina. I'd bet money on it.

As far as I'm concerned, any Interstate-grade facility built in the legislated I-73 corridor is I-73, even if it's not signed as such.

Quote from: vtk on March 06, 2017, 06:18:40 PM
As far as I'm concerned, any Interstate-grade facility built in the legislated I-73 corridor is I-73, even if it's not signed as such.

MDOT disagrees with you.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 03, 2017, 04:33:08 PM
Interstate 73 likely won't make it out of North Carolina. I'd bet money on it.

It will make it out of North Carolina, but I doubt it will make it out of Virginia.

Quote from: Strider on March 06, 2017, 08:41:36 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 03, 2017, 04:33:08 PM
Interstate 73 likely won't make it out of North Carolina. I'd bet money on it.

It will make it out of North Carolina, but I doubt it will make it out of Virginia.

Myrtle Beach to Roanoke -- about as far as it'll get in most of our lifetimes.  It's basically two SIU's: (1) Greensboro-Winston Salem south and SE to the beach recreational/vacation area, and (2) a N-S shunt between the I-85 and I-81 corridors (at least for those who miss I-77 NB at Charlotte or are tired of truck traffic on I-81 SB).  It's serviceable there, but largely duplication north/NW from Roanoke to the Ohio River.  And unless an Interstate-grade facility specifically for traffic for U of M/OSU games is called for, the facilities in Ohio are more than adequate -- although I understand that Delaware (OH) is a bit of a PITA (never been there, but have heard numerous accounts), but not enough to warrant a full Columbus-Findlay Interstate freeway.

Quote from: sparker on March 06, 2017, 09:04:51 PM

Quote from: Strider on March 06, 2017, 08:41:36 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 03, 2017, 04:33:08 PM
Interstate 73 likely won't make it out of North Carolina. I'd bet money on it.

It will make it out of North Carolina, but I doubt it will make it out of Virginia.

Myrtle Beach to Roanoke -- about as far as it'll get in most of our lifetimes.  It's basically two SIU's: (1) Greensboro-Winston Salem south and SE to the beach recreational/vacation area, and (2) a N-S shunt between the I-85 and I-81 corridors (at least for those who miss I-77 NB at Charlotte or are tired of truck traffic on I-81 SB).  It's serviceable there, but largely duplication north/NW from Roanoke to the Ohio River.  And unless an Interstate-grade facility specifically for traffic for U of M/OSU games is called for, the facilities in Ohio are more than adequate -- although I understand that Delaware (OH) is a bit of a PITA (never been there, but have heard numerous accounts), but not enough to warrant a full Columbus-Findlay Interstate freeway.

Yeah, that is the current plan. To have the I-73 freeway between Roanoke and Myrtle Beach, that is it. An extension north of Roanoke.. I don't see it happening.

If I-73 ever goes beyond NC, it will be to SC long before VA. SC definitely wants I-73 built, but they're broke. VA, on the other hand, has very little to zero interest in building I-73.There's support for it at the local level in places like Roanoke and Martinsville, but virtually none at the state level. That part of VA is at the bottom of the political totem pole. There's simply no political muscle for I-73 the way there is in NC that gained them future interstates I-42, I-87, I-587, and I-795's southward extension to I-40, two of which already have projects either underway or in the planning stages (I-42 & I-795).

I don't see VA having a change of heart until NC extends I-73 to the VA state line and even that is a crapshoot.

Quote from: sparker on March 06, 2017, 09:04:51 PMlargely duplication north/NW from Roanoke to the Ohio River.

No, the duplication is between Martinsville and Roanoke, and it's called US 220, which I've said many times here, is perfectly serviceable as a surface four-lane. If a connector between Roanoke and Blacksburg/Christiansburg is ever built, then you have duplication over to the I-77 corridor (US 460), but nothing nearby between the Princeton/Bluefield area and Huntington. Yes, you can get to Huntington from the state line via I-77 and I-64, but nothing direct. Of course, the proposed upgrades to US 52 (King Coal Highway) don't constitute a direct route because the route is going to serve Welch and Williamson, but anything that is built in West Virginia will be a surface route and not a full freeway.

It seems like the Feds do not like the number 220.  :D  Could this possibly be one of the ways to "get rid" of the number?   :hmmm:

In all seriousness, the only updates for I-73 that will happen will occur in North Carolina.  In the future (how close or distant--we don't know), there could be END I-73 signs for a long while at both state lines.

I, personally, wouldn't mind seeing I-73 built in Virginia to I-81 near Roanoke.  There really isn't any need for I-73 to continue further north.  It probably would help Myrtle Beach if I-73 was built from Rockingham to there.  It would make it a little bit easier to travel there from the Ohio Valley.  But, alas, interest and money are the factors on whether I-73 will be extended into both states or not.

US 220 never connected to US 20 (though it did connect with the now decommissioned US 120), so it probably should have had a different number. Back to Interstate 73 talk, I myself don't see it leaving North Carolina anytime soon. If it ever does get built between Martinsville and Roanoke, it should use as much of existing US 220 as possible. As for whether it will ever enter South Carolina, I believe that is up in the air.

We have an update concerning I-73 in Ohio!
The Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments president Tim Brown sent a paper to Gov' DeWine and whomever else, asking them to dust off the "30 year old" plans for I-73 in Ohio.
http://www.tmacog.org/BP_2020/01_2020/Corridor_Columbus.htm

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 20, 2020, 09:02:49 PM
We have an update concerning I-73 in Ohio!
The Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments president Tim Brown sent a paper to Gov' DeWine and whomever else, asking them to dust off the "30 year old" plans for I-73 in Ohio.
http://www.tmacog.org/BP_2020/01_2020/Corridor_Columbus.htm

Kinda scratching my head at the line "By some counts, drivers encounter 40 traffic lights before they reach the I-270 beltway around Columbus."

So are there other counts with a different number? The only difference in the number of traffic lights counted in a study should be based on when they were counted, since more and more keep getting added over time.

For any I-73 idea to have success in Ohio would require new construction from Waldo (along US 23) to I-71 somewhere between Berkshire and Marengo to bypass all the traffic lights along US 23 from Delaware to I-270.  This is the idea that, I believe, vtk had for I-171.

Of course, there would have to be significant upgrades to OH 15 and US 23 from Findlay to at least Upper Sandusky (if this is the planned routing for I-73) as well as for US 23 south of Columbus.  Would I-73 be routed on I-71 and I-270 around Columbus?  Would I-73 use current OH 823 to bypass Portsmouth?  How would I-73 cross the Ohio River from near Chesapeake, OH to Huntington, WV?  Twinning the US 52 Rahal Bridge (with upgrades to the section from the bridge to I-64) or possibly finishing the OH 7 Proctorville bypass to a possible new bridge crossing over to WV 193 with appropriate upgrades to I-64, Exit 18?

Notice that an official from Toledo has requested this.  Possibly to facilitate business from his home area.

I agree that there isn't an unimpeded corridor from Toledo to Columbus.  To help with that would be the suggestion written above (vtk's idea).  That is what is needed the most at this time.  The highways from Toledo to at least Waldo are adequate for the traffic now.  It is the section from Waldo to I-270 that either needs to be upgraded or bypassed.

Quote from: amroad17 on January 21, 2020, 03:20:08 PM
For any I-73 idea to have success in Ohio would require new construction from Waldo (along US 23) to I-71 somewhere between Berkshire and Marengo to bypass all the traffic lights along US 23 from Delaware to I-270.  This is the idea that, I believe, vtk had for I-171.

Indeed, here's vtk's thread on that idea: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4801.0

Ohio should make the proposed corridor completely freeway from the West Virginia/Ohio border to the Ohio/Michigan border first. Then we can talk about giving the corridor an Interstate designation (such as 73).

There are some sections that are set up for a possible I-73 designation--if it ever came to fruition.

     - US 52 freeway from OH 823 Wheelersburg to South Point (the split exit leading to the 12th Street and 13th Street bridges toward Ashland, KY would have to be re-done)
     - US 23 freeway from Waldo to at least Carey (maybe minor upgrades and/or a third lane)

For the other sections of US 23 and, maybe, OH 15--if I-73 were routed that way, this would be a large undertaking and may take at least 30 years to complete (sounds like I-87 in NC, yes?).  However, is this corridor needed? 

Like I mentioned above, the I-171 proposal by vtk is the most important part of an unimpeded Toledo-Columbus corridor.  Going south on I-75 to OH 15 south of Findlay and meeting US 23 in Carey is a good route toward Columbus.  It is the part south of Waldo to I-270 that is the bottleneck. 

Another point about I-73: if someone wants to drive to the Carolinas from Columbus, would US 23-OH 823-US 52-I-64 be the preferred route or would most drivers use US 35 east out of Chillicothe to get to I-64 near Teays Valley, WV--even with the somewhat treacherous two-lane section?  I would use US 35.  The last section of the US 35 expressway may be under construction soon, allowing a complete 4-lane corridor (with no traffic lights) between Chillicothe and Teays Valley.

The only reason the proposed I-73 was routed along US 23 and US 52 was to provide western WV an improved highway to possibly improve their lives.  I-73 would not be a route I would take if I needed to go to the Greensboro, NC area, for example.  From Columbus, it would be US 23-US 35-I-64-I-77-I-74-US 52-I-40 not (proposed I-73) from Huntington to Bluefield.

Quote from: amroad17 on January 22, 2020, 06:59:09 AM
     - US 23 freeway from Waldo to at least Carey (maybe minor upgrades and/or a third lane)

This section is not a full freeway. By my quick count, there are 18 at grade intersections between Waldo and Carey. Most of those are north of Marion, and the longest section of what can be called freeway is roughly 11 miles between the Linn-Hipsher Rd intersection just south of the OH 4 interchange and the Newmans Cardington Rd intersection north of Waldo.

While the seemingly renewed interest in an Ohio section of I-73 is indeed intriguing, if the wheels are indeed set into motion, it would be pointless to designate/sign I-73 anywhere north of Findlay unless Michigan were to be likewise inclined to pursue their section (which at least contains quite a bit of "ready-to-go" mileage, unlike Ohio).  Then again, Ohio could simply sign I-73 up I-75, I-475, and US 23 right to the MI line in a "your move..." type of gesture. 

At the other end of the state, one of the (many) old sticking points to the overall I-73/74 corridor in the area was the need for a new Ohio River Bridge; the current US 52 bridge into Huntington, WV is decidedly inadequate for designation.  At one point there were very preliminary suggestions for a bridge downstream paralleling the NS rail bridge right at the Tug Fork River (KY/WV state line) confluence.  But without a route continuation into WV, such a project would likely be ridiculed as either "pork" or simply a vanity project (a 4-lane structure with adequate clearance for river traffic wouldn't come cheap by any means!).  Also -- since the OH 823/Portsmouth Bypass project was built directly along the proposed path of the original (HPC #5) corridor -- the I-73/74 "split" was to occur at or near the north end of OH 823 at Lucasville -- some facility modifications would be required (the narrow ROW itself could conceivably be granted a terrain waiver), particularly at the US 52 merge. 

Granted, the Columbus-Findlay section would likely see quite a bit of traffic (particularly on OSU-UofM game day; maybe part of it could be called the Hayes-Schembeckler Memorial Freeway!) -- but the traffic levels south of Columbus might not warrant much more than is in place today.  And the concern that a completed-as-at-least-expressway US 35 down to I-64 would siphon off most of the commercial traffic is certainly valid, particularly since the chances of the WV section of I-73/74 being completed in anyone's lifetime are functionally nil.   But it sounds like the full HPC-5 concept, including the extension of I-74 southeast from Cincinnati, is up for consideration.  At the risk of slipping into fictional mode, if the project somehow ended up in my lap, what I'd do is first consult with WVDOT about their schedule for completing US 35, and then cajole the state's congressional delegation into introducing amendments to HPC #5 that would reroute I-73 southeast from Chillicothe over US 35 to a terminus at I-64; then look into the original I-74 extension east over OH 32 and a new-terrain connector to Lucasville, where it would take over OH 823.  At that point, some crossing of the Ohio River -- into either KY or WV, with an extension down to I-64, would be developed (this may entail some funding provisions from OH to effect such a connection).  That would funnel traffic from both Columbus and Cincinnati down to eastward I-64 and thence onward to the Atlantic Seaboard states. 

This would be one huge project to bite off (probably why it was cancelled in the first place); rendering it a bit more feasible in terms of service and expenses ("piggybacking" on US 35 would save a bundle in ROW costs) might be the key to its success this time around.   

Buck87, I stand corrected.  I believed that it was entirely a freeway from Waldo to Carey--didn't really check myself looking at Google maps.

In reality, I cannot see I-73 ever being completed anywhere north of Roanoke, VA.  Michigan has shown absolutely no interest in an I-73 concept and the potential undertaking in Ohio would have astronomical costs.  I do agree with sparker about possible legislation to amend the route of I-73 if, by some miracle, it would come to fruition.  This whole undertaking would have to be coordinated between Ohio and West Virginia.

However, I believe it would be a bit crazy to have I-73 piggyback I-64 and I-77 from Huntington or Teays Valley all the way to Princeton.  To me it would be a useless multiplex.  In fact, the whole original idea of I-73, however noble, has become rather bastardized.

Quote from: sparker on January 22, 2020, 06:14:32 PM
While the seemingly renewed interest in an Ohio section of I-73 is indeed intriguing, if the wheels are indeed set into motion, it would be pointless to designate/sign I-73 anywhere north of Findlay unless Michigan were to be likewise inclined to pursue their section (which at least contains quite a bit of "ready-to-go" mileage, unlike Ohio).  Then again, Ohio could simply sign I-73 up I-75, I-475, and US 23 right to the MI line in a "your move..." type of gesture. 

At the other end of the state, one of the (many) old sticking points to the overall I-73/74 corridor in the area was the need for a new Ohio River Bridge; the current US 52 bridge into Huntington, WV is decidedly inadequate for designation.  At one point there were very preliminary suggestions for a bridge downstream paralleling the NS rail bridge right at the Tug Fork River (KY/WV state line) confluence.  But without a route continuation into WV, such a project would likely be ridiculed as either "pork" or simply a vanity project (a 4-lane structure with adequate clearance for river traffic wouldn't come cheap by any means!).  Also -- since the OH 823/Portsmouth Bypass project was built directly along the proposed path of the original (HPC #5) corridor -- the I-73/74 "split" was to occur at or near the north end of OH 823 at Lucasville -- some facility modifications would be required (the narrow ROW itself could conceivably be granted a terrain waiver), particularly at the US 52 merge. 

Granted, the Columbus-Findlay section would likely see quite a bit of traffic (particularly on OSU-UofM game day; maybe part of it could be called the Hayes-Schembeckler Memorial Freeway!) -- but the traffic levels south of Columbus might not warrant much more than is in place today.  And the concern that a completed-as-at-least-expressway US 35 down to I-64 would siphon off most of the commercial traffic is certainly valid, particularly since the chances of the WV section of I-73/74 being completed in anyone's lifetime are functionally nil.   But it sounds like the full HPC-5 concept, including the extension of I-74 southeast from Cincinnati, is up for consideration.  At the risk of slipping into fictional mode, if the project somehow ended up in my lap, what I'd do is first consult with WVDOT about their schedule for completing US 35, and then cajole the state's congressional delegation into introducing amendments to HPC #5 that would reroute I-73 southeast from Chillicothe over US 35 to a terminus at I-64; then look into the original I-74 extension east over OH 32 and a new-terrain connector to Lucasville, where it would take over OH 823.  At that point, some crossing of the Ohio River -- into either KY or WV, with an extension down to I-64, would be developed (this may entail some funding provisions from OH to effect such a connection).  That would funnel traffic from both Columbus and Cincinnati down to eastward I-64 and thence onward to the Atlantic Seaboard states. 

This would be one huge project to bite off (probably why it was cancelled in the first place); rendering it a bit more feasible in terms of service and expenses ("piggybacking" on US 35 would save a bundle in ROW costs) might be the key to its success this time around.   

The statement about "your move" reminds me of what NC possibly could do to VA with both I-73 and I-87.  :biggrin:

Quote from: amroad17 on January 23, 2020, 07:26:19 AM
Michigan has shown absolutely no interest in an I-73 concept...

I think if MDOT had double the budget it has now, it would look hard at it. There's significant SE-NW traffic that would be pulled off of US-23, I-94, and I-96 with such a route. Michigan International Speedway is a big traffic generator with only 2-lane roads feeding it in any direction. Adrian is one of Michigan's largest cities with no direct freeway access. MDOT would also love to complete freeway conversion between St. Johns and Ithaca. The main issues here are funding and a large backlog of arguably more pressing projects (6-laning I-94, I-96, and US-131, modernizing I-94 in Detroit, etc).

Quote from: amroad17 on January 23, 2020, 07:26:19 AM
However, I believe it would be a bit crazy to have I-73 piggyback I-64 and I-77 from Huntington or Teays Valley all the way to Princeton.  To me it would be a useless multiplex.  In fact, the whole original idea of I-73, however noble, has become rather bastardized.

I agree that a multiplex (triple for part of the run) of I-73 over I-64 and/or 77 would be duplicative although not fully pointless; for navigational purposes it could be an "implied multiplex" from Princeton (or even Wytheville) to Charleston and on to Teays Valley, with signs at either end stating "for continuation of I-73 use I-77 to I-64 west" and vice-versa.  As far as I-74 is concerned, if it were up to me and the plans outlined above actually reached fruition, that route would terminate at I-64 near Huntington, WV or Ashland, KY.   What to re-designate the existing I-74 mileage in NC is a matter to be discussed in that region's threads (not that that hasn't been hashed out repeatedly since this forum's inception!).   

Quote from: amroad17 on January 23, 2020, 07:26:19 AM
The statement about "your move" reminds me of what NC possibly could do to VA with both I-73 and I-87.  :biggrin:

NCDOT is laying off with I-73 north of NC-68 until Virginia begins construction on the Martinsville Southern Connector...if ever funded  :-D..., though they intend to construct I-87 up to the state line. It's only a 12 mile segment in Virginia that's not freeway, and is all limited-access, lacking only a few interchanges. Should be a relatively easy upgrade to extend the designation to I-64 to fully complete the Norfolk-Raleigh interstate as opposed to having a 12 mile gap, and will likely eventually get built once NCDOT begins the northern segment, which could happen as early as 2027 as of now. The project is currently on the HRTPO's (Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization) radar, and is supported by the city of Chesapeake, the FTAC (Freight Transportation Advisory Committee) and various other organizations in the area. It certainly would be much cheaper as opposed to upgrading / relocating nearly 70 miles of non-limited-access US-58 to interstate standards.

Anyone want to help me rewrite the text of my I-171 page to make it sound more professional, with the goal of sending it to Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments and Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission?

By the time Interstate 73 goes beyond Roanoke, VA (even getting that far will be iffy), we'll all probably be six feet under.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 15, 2020, 06:26:44 PM
By the time Interstate 73 goes beyond Roanoke, VA (even getting that far will be iffy), we'll all probably be six feet under.

Not me.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 15, 2020, 06:26:44 PM
By the time Interstate 73 goes beyond Roanoke, VA (even getting that far will be iffy), we'll all probably be six feet under.

I can't see it ever extending beyond Roanoke, and -if- it does, it will likely end at I-77. At that point, a relocated 4 lane 65 mph US-52 expressway with at-grade intersections in West Virginia will continue north. Through traffic will likely continue utilizing the West Virginia Turnpike (I-77) and I-64 between Princeton and Huntington.

I could see construction of an interstate highway or freeway upgrade between Findlay and Parkersburg via Columbus that could be a "northern" I-73 or a duplex along I-77 between Parkersburg and Princeton. Still, this is assuming a lot and may well be fictional. At this rate, the only planned facility for I-73 is Roanoke to Myrtle Beach.

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 15, 2020, 11:47:30 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 15, 2020, 06:26:44 PM
By the time Interstate 73 goes beyond Roanoke, VA (even getting that far will be iffy), we'll all probably be six feet under.

I can't see it ever extending beyond Roanoke, and -if- it does, it will likely end at I-77. At that point, a relocated 4 lane 65 mph US-52 expressway with at-grade intersections in West Virginia will continue north. Through traffic will likely continue utilizing the West Virginia Turnpike (I-77) and I-64 between Princeton and Huntington.

I could see construction of an interstate highway or freeway upgrade between Findlay and Parkersburg via Columbus that could be a "northern" I-73 or a duplex along I-77 between Parkersburg and Princeton. Still, this is assuming a lot and may well be fictional. At this rate, the only planned facility for I-73 is Roanoke to Myrtle Beach.

For Ohio and Michigan, most of the I-73 corridor already exists as either freeways or 4-lane divided highways. Both states abandoned further study of I-73 since Michigan's portion is already served by freeways and interstates, save for the 17-mile section of US-127 north of Lansing that has at-grade intersections. Michigan plans to eventually eliminate these grade crossings and driveway accesses so that US-127 will be a continuous freeway from Lansing to I-75 in Grayling. Similarly in Ohio, ODOT is working to upgrade the 4-lane US-23, Ohio Route 15, and US-68 to a full freeway between I-75 in Findlay and the Ohio River at Portsmouth. Those upgrades, when completed, would effectively complete the I-73 corridor in both states, but neither state seems intent on pursuing the I-73 designation afterward; rather keeping the existing US and state route designations for the corridor.   

Quote from: abqtraveler on February 18, 2021, 11:11:37 AM
Similarly in Ohio, ODOT is working to upgrade the 4-lane US-23, Ohio Route 15, and US-68 to a full freeway between I-75 in Findlay and the Ohio River at Portsmouth. Those upgrades, when completed, would effectively complete the I-73 corridor in both states, but neither state seems intent on pursuing the I-73 designation afterward; rather keeping the existing US and state route designations for the corridor.

I'll be surprised if US 23 gets upgraded into a full freeway in the next 10-15 years. There's still a lot of work to be done. I'll say the highest on the priority list to turn US 23 into a full freeway is a freeway bypass around the northern and eastern sides of Delaware between US 36 and US 23. For numbering choices for a Delaware Bypass freeway, the following 4 unused state route x23 or x36 numbers could work: 223, 623, 436, 836. My preference is 223.
Also a DDI for the I-71/US 36 interchange seems appropriate, as it looks like most of the drivers gets on/off I-71 at that point, with the outlet on the right side and traffic heading towards US 23 on the left.
On the south side of Columbus, US 23 can get a freeway upgrade between I-270 and US 35, as most traffic heading from Columbus to the Carolinas will turn southeast onto US 35 towards Charleston and the WV turnpike. I don't really see a need for US 23 south of US 35 for an upgrade, as most traffic to the southeast would've already got off US 23 to US 35. Thankfully, WV is finally finishing the last 4 lane section of US 35.

If I were Ohio DOT with a pot of gold, I would construct a four lane tie-in from US-23 east to I-71, north of Delaware. Running 4-5 miles north of US-36 from US-23 north of Delaware, then connecting to US-36 later on an eastern alignment. To save money, engineers can use the US-36 four-lane with modest upgrades. The strip before Interstate 71 can be bypassed to the south if upgrades become too expensive.
I haven't traveled this route in years, but I remember using this connection at times to bypass US-23 south of Delaware where the route bog down into heavy commuter traffic. Regardless, I would not have I-73 in Michigan or Ohio either, since current highways work fine today.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 15, 2020, 06:26:44 PM
By the time Interstate 73 goes beyond Roanoke, VA (even getting that far will be iffy) NC, we'll all probably be six feet under.

FTFY.

For all of you who keep dreaming up roads between I-71 & US 23 to build I-73, I offer you the Delaware County Auditor's GIS website. This way you can how many properties you need to take out and how much each property is worth.
https://auditor.delco-gis.org/
P.S. You can't build new roads over gov't property (i.e. Alum Creek & Delaware State Parks)

I can attest that Ohio (ODOT) is not looking to upgrade US Route 23/OH Route 15 to a full freeway between Interstate 75 and Portsmouth. There are no active studies nor are there active projects that specifically note Interstate 73's involvement. Projects that are current or recently completed include:

- A forthcoming study for US Route 23 in Delaware County - that may or may not involve a freeway.
- Bloomfield bypass south of Columbus.
- Portsmouth bypass (recently built but has one-lane ramps at its terminus).

That's... it.

So after 30 years of planning, it's safe to say that I-73 (along with the I-74 extension) was a failed project from the start.

Quote from: Henry on February 19, 2021, 10:50:29 AM
So after 30 years of planning, it's safe to say that I-73 (along with the I-74 extension) was a failed project from the start.

Yes, for travel to the Carolinas, US 35 is just way too convenient compared to the alignment proposed for I-73/74, and even more so once WV finishes the last 4 lane portion.

Without freeway upgrades to US 23, the road can still improve with a bypass around South Bloomfield, and an expressway bypass on the northeast side of Delaware between US 36 and US 23, and traffic can use US 36 to connect to I-71. The in planning Sunbury Pkwy project will reduce the burden on the I-71/US 36 interchange.

Quote from: SkyPesos on February 19, 2021, 01:07:31 PM

Quote from: Henry on February 19, 2021, 10:50:29 AM
So after 30 years of planning, it's safe to say that I-73 (along with the I-74 extension) was a failed project from the start.

Yes, for travel to the Carolinas, US 35 is just way too convenient compared to the alignment proposed for I-73/74, and even more so once WV finishes the last 4 lane portion.

Without freeway upgrades to US 23, the road can still improve with a bypass around South Bloomfield, and an expressway bypass on the northeast side of Delaware between US 36 and US 23, and traffic can use US 36 to connect to I-71. The in planning Sunbury Pkwy project will reduce the burden on the I-71/US 36 interchange.

Back in 1991-95, when the whole corridor concept was in its early stages, MI simply wanted to make sure the US 127 (the north part of which was still US 27 then) corridor was completed as a freeway south to the state line; the then-novel HPC approach was seen as a way to achieve that with maximally available federal fund matching.  Ohio was always lukewarm at best about an additional N-S corridor through Columbus, instead putting their funds toward improving US 35, which they figured was the most optimal way for commercial traffic to access both I-64 and I-77 in neighboring WV.  However, they were somewhat more enthused about a I-74 extension east of Cincinnati, connecting that city with I-64 to the east so commercial traffic could get more directly to VA and NC.  So the congressional "packagers" of HPC #5, centered in NC (of course), cobbled up the multi-faceted corridor cluster, incorporating politically-motivated route additions in WV and VA into the package, and duplicating it in southern OH, positing a Portsmouth-Cincinnati link, largely superimposed on the OH 32 ARC corridor but also including the recently-opened Portsmouth bypass.  In short, ODOT has had no problem expediting portions of the I-73/74 corridor if it had localized value -- its just that they have found the corridor taken as a whole entity to be superfluous and not reflecting state priorities.  But that hasn't stopped them from undertaking individual projects along the corridor's length, such as the I-75/OH 15/US 68 interchange as well as the aforementioned Portsmouth bypass, now signed as OH 823.  Spot freeway upgrades of the OH 32 corridor east of Cincinnati have also taken place, assisted by HPC funds.  But whether any of those will ever be tied together into a cohesive and continuous corridor remains to be seen -- but at present is highly unlikely. 

Nevertheless I'll make a prediction -- Ohio's share of the I-74 segment of HPC #5 will reach fruition before a mile of I-73 (the I-75 Findlay interchange notwithstanding) is constructed north of the Portsmouth bypass.  It's as much a "missing link" in the regional Interstate network as anything -- and the remainder of OH 32 out to where a Portsmouth bypass connector would diverge somewhere around Peebles would be a relatively straightforward upgrade regimen.  The connector over the rolling hills between there and the Scioto Valley would be the principal "heavy" project of the bunch; and as far as Cincinnati is concerned, it's likely that an extended I-74 would simply follow the I-275 beltway around the north side of town rather than try to carve a new-terrain path through highly developed suburbs.  I'd guesstimate a 35-year horizon for that to happen -- but that's a far cry from the infinite "delay" regarding I-73, especially now that MI has in essence lost interest in their share of the corridor.

Quote from: Henry on February 19, 2021, 10:50:29 AM
So after 30 years of planning, it's safe to say that I-73 (along with the I-74 extension) was a failed project from the start.

Nah, it gave NC a couple more 2-di's.

I guess this fact has faded away over the years, ODOT was never involved with I-73/74.

QuoteIn a case of lucky foreshadowing, in 1990 (then) Governor George Voinovich had approved expanding the Ohio Turnpike Commission's authority to allow it to fund other highway projects, other than the current Ohio Turnpike. This gave Ohio a "backdoor" approach for highway funding if the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) did not have enough funds to properly plan or construct any new highways. By the end of 1993 Governor Voinovich had given approval for the Ohio Turnpike Commission (OTC) to do a feasibility study for the proposed I-73 in Ohio. For the next three years I-73 would be an OTC project with ODOT having no part in planning it. This would ultimately affect the future of the project.

Who would write such a thing... (http://www.roadfan.com/i73orig.html)

ODH/ODOT came up with I-75, Oh 15, US 23 for traffic between Toledo and Columbus in the mid 1960s and hasn't felt the need to add to that collection since.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2F1965map.jpg&hash=1021912b643017e67a6365c5d48491354b6c0368)

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on February 19, 2021, 11:31:43 PM
ODH/ODOT came up with I-75, Oh 15, US 23 for traffic between Toledo and Columbus in the mid 1960s and hasn't felt the need to add to that collection since.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2F1965map.jpg&hash=1021912b643017e67a6365c5d48491354b6c0368)

I'm looking at Cincinnati at that map, and there are expressways that doesn't exist currently and apparently were planned back in the 60s
(https://i.imgur.com/wrirTuj.png)
The leftmost N-S dotted line looks to be US 27. The section south of I-275 was part of the Colerain Freeway project, which got cancelled later on. North of I-275, it's an expressway up to OH 128, and two lane the rest of the way north. Would be nice if it's 4 laned all the way to at least Oxford, which is where Miami University is.

The N-S dotted line east of the US 27 one seems to be a combination of US 127, OH 4 and OH 73 between I-275 and I-75 at Franklin, serving Hamilton and Middletown in its route. US 127 between I-275 and Hamilton is not even close to being an expressway at all. I guess they gave up turning US 127 into an expressway through dense suburbs and came up with OH 129 for Hamilton instead.

Also interesting to see that OH 32 wasn't planned as an expressway at all back then, and instead it was proposed to use US 52 eastward of Cincinnati instead.

US 50 in Cincy is currently a combination of freeway, expressway, undivided 4 lane and 2 lane between the two I-275 interchanges. That map shows a full expressway between the I-275s

I'll never understand why either of them (73 and 74) got signed. 74 makes even less sense.

US 23 could still use a bypass of Waverly (and possibly Piketon) and I'm not aware of any plans for that. A bypass of South Bloomfield and an interchange at OH 762 are planned but I'm not aware if they are funded at this time. MORPC has in its long term plans a freeway upgrade for US 23 from the southern extent of its area of interest (the Pickaway—Franklin County line) to I-270.

In Delaware County, there are plans for a northeast bypass of Delaware, but I don't believe it's planned to be a freeway. IMO best case scenario is an at-grade divided road with limited property access and traffic lights appearing as the area develops. I don't know what the time frame is for this project. I don't know if it will be signed as a state route, but if it is, it won't be 223, because US 223 exists elsewhere in the state.

From Waldo north to Findlay, the route is fully expressway grade or better, with no stoplights. I don't believe there is any initiative to eliminate all of the at-grade intersections along the entire corridor, but spot improvements do occur from time to time.

Regarding I-74, I'm going to point out that there's 3 routings from Cincinnati to Charleston depending on where you are in the metro area

From downtown: 32-35
From KY suburbs: AA-64
From most of the northern suburbs (Sharonville, Montgomery, Mason, etc): 71-35

None of these involve US 23 or Portsmouth, which was part of the planned alignment of I-74 east of Cincy.

It really never has been proposed for either Ohio or Kentucky - just proposals from politicians with never any true backing from either ODOT or KYTC.

i-74 doesn't need to exist east of where it ends in Cincy. any idea for it to go further east is absurd. I-73 is also absurd too. the interstate routings in NC are useful, but outside of NC just a giant waste of money. Ohio needs to connect Columbus to I-75 and that's it. Michigan needs to fix all their annoying freeway gaps on their interstate grade us routes. Adding another interstate in WV and that part of kentucky is a waste of time and money. each state has more important transportation needs to tend to.

That 'bypass' of Delaware sounds like it is not worth it if it's not going to be a freeway.  What good is another traffic signal choked corridor lined with strip malls and mcmansions and no room to upgrade?  Because that's what they'll have ~10 years after it's done.

Getting into fictional territory, but I think I-73 in NC should be a southern extension of I-99.

Quote from: Lyon Wonder on February 23, 2021, 01:52:59 AM
Getting into fictional territory, but I think I-73 in NC should be a southern extension of I-99.

I-73 (and I-74 and I-99) could be easily, clearly, and accurately signed using existing US highway numbers, which is what should happen.  Not every freeway has to get a red white and blue sign.

Quote from: silverback1065 on February 22, 2021, 02:07:32 PM
i-74 doesn't need to exist east of where it ends in Cincy. any idea for it to go further east is absurd. I-73 is also absurd too. the interstate routings in NC are useful, but outside of NC just a giant waste of money. Ohio needs to connect Columbus to I-75 and that's it. Michigan needs to fix all their annoying freeway gaps on their interstate grade us routes. Adding another interstate in WV and that part of kentucky is a waste of time and money. each state has more important transportation needs to tend to.

I actually don't mind the US-23 - US-35 routing, plus the four lane US-35 upgrade in WV. I have used this many times and found it a worthwhile routing. I just don't believe it needs to be an Interstate. If a connection around Delaware connecting US-23 to I-71 can be made that's not too costly, this would work out for Ohio. Spot upgrades to the US-23 corridor in Ohio would be all that's needed. I also like OH-823; this is what I mean for that section of the state.

As for MI, upgrading US-23 to modern standards or better yet 6-laning the freeway would work best, since the state has cancelled the US-223 upgrade. The most that will happen to that route may be a bypass of Blissfield or Adrian, MI and some passing lanes. Even that is a long shot. Upgrading the expressway portion of US-127 is in Michigan's long-term plans, but I'd give a full upgrade to freeway standards a 50-50 chance in the next 20 years.

West Virginia is upgrading their ADHS routes, but at a snail's pace. Plus, those routes are not Interstate standard, just 4 lanes. I believe it makes since to extend I-73 to Martinsville, but after that, nada. OH-32 - US-35 or OH-32 - US-23 - OH -823 - US-52 is what you'll get for I-74 for the next several years.

Actually, while replying to this topic about I-73 in MI, I stumbled upon this from earlier in the month: https://www.wlen.com/2021/01/20/virtual-public-meeting-scheduled-for-us-127-us-223-project/

It's a project to repair/rebuild US-127 and US-223 in southern MI. A roundabout will replace the intersection connecting the two routes. But, no four-laning (that I know of), no major upgrades, definitely no Interstate 73 on the table.

I doubt the US 127 freeway will ever be extended south of M-50, nor will there ever be a freeway along US 223. If an Interstate 73 were ever constructed in Ohio and Michigan, I'd have it meet Interstate 75 at Findlay, run it north with 75 to Toledo, run it west along the Interstate 80/90 Ohio Turnpike to US 127, then build an interchange just west of the 127 underpass and run a freeway along 127 into Michigan in-route to the existing southern end of the freeway at M-50, and thus onward to Grayling. That would be your Interstate 73 in Michigan.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 23, 2021, 02:46:40 PM
I doubt the US 127 freeway will ever be extended south of M-50, nor will there ever be a freeway along US 223. If an Interstate 73 were ever constructed in Ohio and Michigan, I'd have it meet Interstate 75 at Findlay, run it north with 75 to Toledo, run it west along the Interstate 80/90 Ohio Turnpike to US 127, then build an interchange just west of the 127 underpass and run a freeway along 127 into Michigan in-route to the existing southern end of the freeway at M-50, and thus onward to Grayling. That would be your Interstate 73 in Michigan.

In a hundred years maybe after the fallout of this current era change ends, our great grandchildren might think it's a great idea then.

I just wanted to add my two cents worth about I-73.

- First of all, the easier and more relevant connect would be using US 33 south of Columbus to I-77. US 35 is a nice stretch of road east of Chillicothe, but it goes to nothing and then there is the gridlock at the West Virginia border. US 33 at least has the destination city of Athens with Ohio University. It also works better northbound as a connection between Charleston and Columbus.

-From Toledo, another option for I-73 would be to take us US 68 from Findlay straight down to US 33, which is freeway all the way from Bellefontaine to Dublin. It's not as clean as using US 23, but it might be cheaper because purchasing right of way wouldn't be as expensive through there.

-My last comment in favor of I-73 is that it is simply easier to follow an interstate highway than it is to follow a series of US and state routes where the numbers change all the time. Think of what a pain it is driving through I-75, Ohio 15, US 23, Ohio 95, I-71, US 23 again, Ohio 823 and US 52 just to get to Ashland/Huntington. Isn't it simpler for all that to be called I-73? (Provided the roads are in place.)

Quote from: TempoNick on March 01, 2021, 04:30:53 PM
I just wanted to add my two cents worth about I-73.

- First of all, the easier and more relevant connect would be using US 33 south of Columbus to I-77. US 35 is a nice stretch of road east of Chillicothe, but it goes to nothing and then there is the gridlock at the West Virginia border. US 33 at least has the destination city of Athens with Ohio University. It also works better northbound as a connection between Charleston and Columbus.

WV is finishing their last 4 lane section of US 35 atm, so the only issue left for Columbus-Charleston with US 35 is US 23 between I-270 and Chillicothe.

Quote from: Ryctor2018 on February 23, 2021, 01:57:39 PM
Actually, while replying to this topic about I-73 in MI, I stumbled upon this from earlier in the month: https://www.wlen.com/2021/01/20/virtual-public-meeting-scheduled-for-us-127-us-223-project/

It's a project to repair/rebuild US-127 and US-223 in southern MI. A roundabout will replace the intersection connecting the two routes. But, no four-laning (that I know of), no major upgrades, definitely no Interstate 73 on the table.

Along with this is a project starting this year to convert the western I-94/US-127 interchange in Jackson from a six-ramp parclo to a diverging diamond -- meaning that when all is said and done, southbound US-127 controlled-access freeway traffic will still need to go through a traffic signal.  That hardly lends itself to a future I-73 status.

Quote from: SkyPesos on March 01, 2021, 04:39:38 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on March 01, 2021, 04:30:53 PM
I just wanted to add my two cents worth about I-73.

- First of all, the easier and more relevant connect would be using US 33 south of Columbus to I-77. US 35 is a nice stretch of road east of Chillicothe, but it goes to nothing and then there is the gridlock at the West Virginia border. US 33 at least has the destination city of Athens with Ohio University. It also works better northbound as a connection between Charleston and Columbus.

WV is finishing their last 4 lane section of US 35 atm, so the only issue left for Columbus-Charleston with US 35 is US 23 between I-270 and Chillicothe.

I drove it two summers ago to Teays Valley from Columbus and I still like US 33 better because it's almost direct to freeway from Columbus (later it isn't, of course), whereas you have to take US 23 which is not freeway up, to Chillicothe. I've gone both ways and I still think US 33 is the better way to Columbus from points South.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 01, 2021, 04:45:19 PM

Quote from: Ryctor2018 on February 23, 2021, 01:57:39 PM
Actually, while replying to this topic about I-73 in MI, I stumbled upon this from earlier in the month: https://www.wlen.com/2021/01/20/virtual-public-meeting-scheduled-for-us-127-us-223-project/

It's a project to repair/rebuild US-127 and US-223 in southern MI. A roundabout will replace the intersection connecting the two routes. But, no four-laning (that I know of), no major upgrades, definitely no Interstate 73 on the table.

Along with this is a project starting this year to convert the western I-94/US-127 interchange in Jackson from a six-ramp parclo to a diverging diamond -- meaning that when all is said and done, southbound US-127 controlled-access freeway traffic will still need to go through a traffic signal.  That hardly lends itself to a future I-73 status.

mdot loves to fuck up their road plans. they fucked up the 94/31 interchange in a similar way

In reality, the furthest north I-73 should go is Roanoke.  US 33, US 35, and OH 32 are more than adequate to handle current and short-future traffic for those traveling from Charleston to Columbus, from Charleston to Dayton, or from Charleston to eastern or northern Cincinnati.  US 23, on the other hand, could use spot (upgrade to freeway) improvements between Chillicothe and Columbus and definitely from I-270 north of Columbus past Delaware, although commercial development will prevent that.

We will not see an I-73 in Ohio (or Michigan) in our lifetimes (most of us over 30).  It really is not needed.

As a response to what TempoNick wrote, and, mind you, it is just a different idea, maybe Ohio could sign the proposed I-73 route as a state route, say OH 473, as a "placeholder".  Therefore, a motorist would need to remember only one number.  Maybe it could have a small banner--GLC*--along with it.  ;-)

*-abbreviation for Great Lakes (to the) Coast

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 23, 2021, 02:46:40 PM
I doubt the US 127 freeway will ever be extended south of M-50, nor will there ever be a freeway along US 223. If an Interstate 73 were ever constructed in Ohio and Michigan, I'd have it meet Interstate 75 at Findlay, run it north with 75 to Toledo, run it west along the Interstate 80/90 Ohio Turnpike to US 127, then build an interchange just west of the 127 underpass and run a freeway along 127 into Michigan in-route to the existing southern end of the freeway at M-50, and thus onward to Grayling. That would be your Interstate 73 in Michigan.

I would route I-73 over US-127 from Grayling to Lansing, I-96 from Lansing to US-23 at Brighton, and then follow US-23 from Brighton to I-475 in Ohio. Save for the 17-mile section of US-127 between St. Johns and Ithaca (which MDOT plans to eventually upgrade to freeway), the entire route through Michigan exists as freeways that would require minimal spot improvements to receive the I-73 designation.

Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2021, 12:29:03 AM

As a response to what TempoNick wrote, and, mind you, it is just a different idea, maybe Ohio could sign the proposed I-73 route as a state route, say OH 473, as a "placeholder".  Therefore, a motorist would need to remember only one number.  Maybe it could have a small banner--GLC*--along with it.  ;-)

*-abbreviation for Great Lakes (to the) Coast

That's not a bad idea, but as you can see, ODOT hasn't exactly been in a hurry to do that to Ohio 161/37/16 East of Columbus. But instead of Ohio 473, let me propose the resurrection of Ohio 1, just for old times sake since it ran concurrent with I-71 while it was being constructed. Ohio 1 could be used to mark the future I-73.

I'm looking at it from the standpoint of the traveling public. Last fall, I drove to Sioux Falls, SD. Normally, I take I-70 to I-74 to get to I-80. this year, I did a little detour and decided to go through Quincy, IL. From there you can get to Des Moines pretty much all the way on four lane US Route divided highway with some freeway segments, but the route numbers change and it kind of makes things confusing. Especially at night.

The other issue is that it's hard for a traveler to know what kind of road they are traveling on. For these secondary roads that are almost freeway quality, I think a different shield is in order. Maybe four lane state/US routes that are divided should have a colored shield.

One more comment for today. Former Franklin County Engineer John Circle proposed an outer outerbelt from West Jefferson to Marysville to Delaware to Newark or something like that.

If I-73 ever attracts interest again, it would be logical to route it through Newark and connect at US 33 instead of using the current proposed route. (I don't think they would want to route it through West Jefferson because of the Big Darby Creek, but that's another possibility. And then you could continue on US 23 I guess.)

I don't want to encourage any more sprawl around here, but it's happening anyway so you might as well have the proper roads in place.

Quote from: TempoNick on March 02, 2021, 05:40:36 PM
Maybe four lane State/US routes that are divided should have a colored shield.

Or be FrizOwl and turn them all into interstates, which comes with a colored shield in the package  :bigass:

Quote from: TempoNick on March 02, 2021, 05:43:31 PM
One more comment for today. Former Franklin County engineer John Circle proposed an outer outerbelt from West Jefferson to Marysville to Delaware to Newark or something like that.

If I-73 ever attracts interest, it would be logical to route that through Newark and connect at US 33 instead of using the current proposed route. I don't think they would want to route it through West Jefferson because of the Big Darby Creek, but that's another possibility.

I doubt that Columbus will get a outer beltway within our lifetimes, considering that there isn't at least an expressway connection that bypass Delaware between I-71 and US 23 yet, let alone a full freeway that serves much more than bypassing Delaware. If somehow an outer beltway is in serious consideration, we'll probably see gradual 4 lane expressway conversion of US 36/OH 37 between Marysville and Granville first before a full freeway loop. There's also that one-off idea of an outer I-875 beltway around Cincinnati with an Ohio River crossing near Marysville, KY; it died pretty quickly after being mentioned once in the 1990s.

Quote from: SkyPesos on March 02, 2021, 05:54:19 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on March 02, 2021, 05:40:36 PM
Maybe four lane State/US routes that are divided should have a colored shield.

Or be FrizOwl and turn them all into interstates, which comes with a colored shield in the package  :bigass:

Quote from: TempoNick on March 02, 2021, 05:43:31 PM
One more comment for today. Former Franklin County engineer John Circle proposed an outer outerbelt from West Jefferson to Marysville to Delaware to Newark or something like that.

If I-73 ever attracts interest, it would be logical to route that through Newark and connect at US 33 instead of using the current proposed route. I don't think they would want to route it through West Jefferson because of the Big Darby Creek, but that's another possibility.

I doubt that Columbus will get a outer beltway within our lifetimes, considering that there isn't at least an expressway connection that bypass Delaware between I-71 and US 23 yet, let alone a full freeway that serves much more than bypassing Delaware. If somehow an outer beltway is in serious consideration, we'll probably see gradual 4 lane expressway conversion of US 36/OH 37 between Marysville and Granville first before a full freeway loop. There's also that one-off idea of an outer I-875 beltway around Cincinnati with an Ohio River crossing near Marysville, KY; it died pretty quickly after being mentioned once in the 1990s.

an outer beltway is absurd for both cities.

Quote from: silverback1065 on March 02, 2021, 07:21:56 PM

an outer beltway is absurd for both cities.

Development in Delaware, Union, Licking and Fairfield Counties is roughly about one third or one half of the distance between I-270 and where an outer outerbelt would be. Development is going out in each direction and it's better to be proactive like they were with I-270. I-270 didn't really have too much going on traffic and development wise until the 1990's either. It's only a matter of time.

Not that anybody cares, but this would be my I-73 or Ohio 473 or whatever you want to call it. It would probably have to be further out due to development, but it's essentially the same idea.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pfVpak2nJb_u5usxQcWdSJv-YzVefjEz/view?usp=sharing

Quote from: TempoNick on March 03, 2021, 12:31:25 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on March 02, 2021, 07:21:56 PM

an outer beltway is absurd for both cities.

Development in Delaware, Union, Licking and Fairfield Counties is roughly about one third or one half of the distance between I-270 and where an outer outerbelt would be. Development is going out in each direction and it's better to be proactive like they were with I-270. I-270 didn't really have too much going on traffic and development wise until the 1990's either. It's only a matter of time.

Eh, Blacklick will get incorporated and Reynoldsburg - New Albany Rd will get designated Oh 605 (or 256) before an outer-outerbelt get built for Columbus.

Now that I'm thinking about it, Columbus already have a 4 lane expressway outer beltway. It's US 35/I-75/US 30/I-77/US 50/OH 32.

Shouldn't this thread belong in the southeast forum?

Quote from: dvferyance on March 04, 2021, 03:49:01 PM
Shouldn't this thread belong in the southeast forum?

It's about the proposed I-73 in Ohio and Michigan... how is that Southeast?

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 04, 2021, 04:01:15 PM

Quote from: dvferyance on March 04, 2021, 03:49:01 PM
Shouldn't this thread belong in the southeast forum?

It's about the proposed I-73 in Ohio and Michigan... how is that Southeast?

I-73 is in NC which is in the Southeast. I thought the OH and MI portion died a long time ago.

Quote from: dvferyance on March 04, 2021, 07:12:37 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 04, 2021, 04:01:15 PM

Quote from: dvferyance on March 04, 2021, 03:49:01 PM
Shouldn't this thread belong in the southeast forum?

It's about the proposed I-73 in Ohio and Michigan... how is that Southeast?

I-73 is in NC which is in the Southeast. I thought the OH and MI portion died a long time ago.

While the likelihood of it happening is low, it's still technically a concept and various aspects of it along the existing highways along the corridor are in discussion here.

Why waste money on this road?  There are so many other routes available already.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 10, 2021, 12:41:58 PM
Why waste money on this road?  There are so many other routes available already.

Columbus is a distribution hub. There are already good roads going northeast, southwest, west and East, but the roads going northwest and southeast should be beefed up a bit. It wouldn't really take that much in the whole scheme of things. Practically everything is in place no matter which route they use.

I personally think there is too much traffic between Findlay and Columbus. It can get hairy with all those at grade intersections, especially if you're tired or if the weather isn't great. You should be able to drive that northern portion between Findlay and Columbus on autopilot instead of having to navigate all those intersections.

Oh, why not...
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/06/odot-others-launching-study-route-23-improvements-delaware-county/7721840002/
(I don't believe this article is behind the Dispatch's paywall)

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 06, 2021, 11:49:52 PM
Oh, why not...
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/06/odot-others-launching-study-route-23-improvements-delaware-county/7721840002/
(I don't believe this article is behind the Dispatch's paywall)

Finally, this project is long overdue. That whole stretch through Delaware needs to be bypassed entirely, most likely through a small cutover between Waldo and I-71 to create at minimum a free-flowing expressway between Columbus and Toledo. Next, will involve converting the limited access portion (with intersections) north of Waldo into a full freeway through gradual interchange and overpass construction.

These projects would be entirely independent of any "I-73" ... but if desired, you could sign I-73 if a full freeway is ultimately converted and is desired for economic growth by communities on the path  :bigass:

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 07, 2021, 12:49:13 AM

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 06, 2021, 11:49:52 PM
Oh, why not...
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/06/odot-others-launching-study-route-23-improvements-delaware-county/7721840002/
(I don't believe this article is behind the Dispatch's paywall)

Finally, this project is long overdue. That whole stretch through Delaware needs to be bypassed entirely, most likely through a small cutover between Waldo and I-71 to create at minimum a free-flowing expressway between Columbus and Toledo. Next, will involve converting the limited access portion (with intersections) north of Waldo into a full freeway through gradual interchange and overpass construction.

These projects would be entirely independent of any "I-73" ... but if desired, you could sign I-73 if a full freeway is ultimately converted and is desired for economic growth by communities on the path  :bigass:

Ohio isn't big on signing Interstates for the sake of being Interstates, hence the existing freeway stretches of many US and state routes.

Quote from: Bitmapped on July 07, 2021, 10:00:53 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 07, 2021, 12:49:13 AM

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 06, 2021, 11:49:52 PM
Oh, why not...
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/06/odot-others-launching-study-route-23-improvements-delaware-county/7721840002/
(I don't believe this article is behind the Dispatch's paywall)

Finally, this project is long overdue. That whole stretch through Delaware needs to be bypassed entirely, most likely through a small cutover between Waldo and I-71 to create at minimum a free-flowing expressway between Columbus and Toledo. Next, will involve converting the limited access portion (with intersections) north of Waldo into a full freeway through gradual interchange and overpass construction.

These projects would be entirely independent of any "I-73" ... but if desired, you could sign I-73 if a full freeway is ultimately converted and is desired for economic growth by communities on the path  :bigass:

Ohio isn't big on signing Interstates for the sake of being Interstates, hence the existing freeway stretches of many US and state routes.

That's pretty much obvious; even without the now-shelved HPC 5/I-73 OH/MI segments, US 35 would have made a reasonable place to put an I-73 (maybe with a Chillicothe-Columbus branch).  But it's functioning well as is; unless a modified multistate regional plan is revisited, there's no need to slap the tri-color shields on existing facilities. 

Quote from: Bitmapped on July 07, 2021, 10:00:53 AM
Ohio isn't big on signing Interstates for the sake of being Interstates, hence the existing freeway stretches of many US and state routes.

Those US routes are expressways (at grade intersections) with freeway (no at-grade) sections. Does Ohio have a non-interstate freeway for more than 100 miles or so, maybe US 35?

Quote from: westerninterloper on July 08, 2021, 04:47:43 PM

Quote from: Bitmapped on July 07, 2021, 10:00:53 AM
Ohio isn't big on signing Interstates for the sake of being Interstates, hence the existing freeway stretches of many US and state routes.

Those US routes are expressways (at grade intersections) with freeway (no at-grade) sections. Does Ohio have a non-interstate freeway for more than 100 miles or so, maybe US 35?

OH 11 is so close, at 99.6 miles long.

Quote from: SkyPesos on July 08, 2021, 06:14:29 PM

Quote from: westerninterloper on July 08, 2021, 04:47:43 PM

Quote from: Bitmapped on July 07, 2021, 10:00:53 AM
Ohio isn't big on signing Interstates for the sake of being Interstates, hence the existing freeway stretches of many US and state routes.

Those US routes are expressways (at grade intersections) with freeway (no at-grade) sections. Does Ohio have a non-interstate freeway for more than 100 miles or so, maybe US 35?

OH 11 is so close, at 99.6 miles long.

Taking the 70 mile section of OH 2 freeway from OH 163 in Port Clinton to OH 254 in Rocky River along with the 33-mile freeway segment from W 25th (US 6 -US 20 exit) to its terminus in Painesville, you get 103 miles of freeway.

So who at ODOT is treating I-73 like Frankenstein?
https://publicinput.com/23connect

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 02, 2021, 12:02:35 AM
So who at ODOT is treating I-73 like Frankenstein?
https://publicinput.com/23connect

I doubt it is related to I-73, but you never know.

Quote from: Strider on October 02, 2021, 01:58:08 AM

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 02, 2021, 12:02:35 AM
So who at ODOT is treating I-73 like Frankenstein?
https://publicinput.com/23connect (https://publicinput.com/23connect)

I doubt it is related to I-73, but you never know.

Yeah, I'm sure we'd hear far more chatter about if if a new Interstate was in the cards. But it's been obvious for decades that this current section of US-23 is overwhelmed with its task of being a suburban commuter corridor and commercial corridor on top of handling regional and inter-state (not Interstate, but state to state) traffic.

TL;DR: The lack of direct freeway connection between Toledo and Columbus is a monumental regional, state, and federal planning f***-up.

US-23 and OH-15 between Findlay and Delaware were built as a higher-speed regional roadway connecting Toledo to Columbus, anticipating that at some point US-23 south of Delaware would be upgraded to freeway. The suburbs came, the commercial retail came, but the upgraded freeway never did. Now they have to figure out how to jam one through suburban sprawl.

It's kind of absurd that two significant metro areas within the state aren't connected by freeway to each other - the Toledo-Findlay-Tiffin CSA is approx. 830,000 residents, the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville CSA is about 2.5 million. The *one* direct road connecting Toledo to Columbus is effectively a surface street for a significant portion of its length, carrying enough traffic for a 6 to 8 lane freeway. 

Just for comparison's sake, in Wisconsin, the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha CSA has about 2 million residents and the Madison-Janesville-Beloit CSA has about 900,000 residents. There are 8 lanes of Interstate highway directly connecting the two areas - I-43 and I-94 - and long-term could end up being 10 to 12 lanes.

Now let's take the absurdity further. There's the Chicago metro area that has about 10 million residents connected to both. It has no fewer than 14 lanes of freeway connecting Madison and Milwaukee to Chicago. Even taking Madison out of the picture, there's 8 lanes of freeway connection minimum, and much of that is 10 or 12 lanes. At no point has anyone ever complained of I-94 between Milwaukee and Chicago being overbuilt. Did I mention there's also significant passenger rail connecting the two areas?

Southern Michigan has roughly 8 to 9 million residents, 5.3 million of them in the greater Detroit metro area. All of them realistically have to go through Toledo and follow I-75 south to get to Columbus, so it's a reasonable comparison. Even in the best-case scenario, if ODOT magically makes a Toledo-Columbus freeway connection happen in the next 20 years, it will be at minimum only 4 lanes of freeway (exactly half of Milwaukee-Chicago).

OK, so why the hell isn't there a I-73 connecting at least Columbus to Toledo (if not to Ann Arbor or Flint)? In 1950, the Columbus metro area was only about 500,000 to Cleveland's 1.7 million and Cincinnati's 1.25 million, so possibly there's room for forgiveness. Nobody was expecting Columbus to become the second-largest metro area in Ohio by 2020. But even by 1960, Columbus' leap to over 1 million should've been a clue it was going to grow fast. It's population doubled again in the following 50 years (1960-2010), and maintained that growth rate into the 2020s.

Columbus does have a healthy 6 lane I-71 corridor connecting it to the other two major metros in Ohio, and the 4 to 6 lane I-70 corridor connecting it to the rest of the Midwest and the East Coast. One could argue this freeway investment exists less because of the importance of the Columbus metro itself (at least in the 1950s), and more the fact that's it's strategically located between larger metro areas. It's only in the last 30-40 years that the Columbus metro has become nationally significant (like Cleveland and Cincinnati), and at a time that highway growth has been comparatively glacial.

Columbus' highway connectivity to the north and northwest as a result is quite poor. There is no direct 4-lane highway connectivity between Columbus and the Fort Wayne metro (similar size to Toledo metro), freeway or otherwise. You have to take the overwhelmed US-23 to connect to US-30, or take the mostly 2-lane US-33. The aforementioned connection to Toledo (and on to Michigan) may be more direct, but doesn't even merit one highway designation - you have to cycle through at least 3, and you partially share the I-75 portion with Dayton and Cincinnati.

It's connectivity to Chicago (to its northwest) is also quite poor - it doesn't enjoy the direct routing Cleveland and Cincinnati enjoy. Columbus either has to share I-80/90 with Cleveland and Toledo, or I-65 with Indianapolis and Cincinnati, with a jog to connect to either path. Or, you're stuck on the stoplight-infested US-23, with a brief no-stoplight run on US-30 to Fort Wayne, and then another stoplight-infested slog on US-30 through Indiana to the Toll Road.

The highway network south and southeast of Columbus, by comparison, is punching above its weight. US-23 south of Columbus may be an older stoplight-infested 4-lane, but it's at least mostly divided highway south to Portsmouth and (eventually) Huntington. You have a mostly 4-lane US-35 branching off to Point Pleasant to Charleston. You also have 4-lane expressway US-33 connecting to Athens and I-77, with a branch of 4-lane expressway US-50 to Parkersburg. You have ADHS funding to thank for much of this.

There was nothing similar to the Interstate Highway Act or even a ADHS helping with north and northwest connectivity to Columbus. So while there's a longish section of freeway/expressway US-33, it peters out to 2-lane well before reaching I-75, let alone Fort Wayne. And while much of the Toledo-Columbus trip is on freeway or 4-lane expressway, the section between I-270 and Delaware - the section most in need of being a freeway, is a suburban surface street.

Speaking of Fort Wayne, did I mention it has a 4-lane expressway/freeway connection to Toledo (US-24)? That's better than Columbus - and both metros are less than half the size!

Nobody in charge of regional, state, or national-level planning ever envisioned Columbus to become a major metro area on the same level as Cleveland or Cincinnati. US-23 north of I-270 was 4-laned relatively early on - I'm guessing late 1940s or early 1950s - and the planners never envisioned it would need to become a freeway facility. By the time the planners started waking up,  they didn't have the cash cow of the Interstate Highway Act to properly address it. To be blunt, they f***ed up. And nowhere else is that f*** up more evident than trying to get from I-270 to Delaware on US-23.

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 02, 2021, 01:13:56 PM

Quote from: Strider on October 02, 2021, 01:58:08 AM

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 02, 2021, 12:02:35 AM
So who at ODOT is treating I-73 like Frankenstein?
https://publicinput.com/23connect (https://publicinput.com/23connect)

I doubt it is related to I-73, but you never know.

Yeah, I'm sure we'd hear far more chatter about if if a new Interstate was in the cards. But it's been obvious for decades that this current section of US-23 is overwhelmed with its task of being a suburban commuter corridor and commercial corridor on top of handling regional and inter-state (not Interstate, but state to state) traffic.

TL;DR: The lack of direct freeway connection between Toledo and Columbus is a monumental regional, state, and federal planning f***-up.

US-23 and OH-15 between Findlay and Delaware were built as a higher-speed regional roadway connecting Toledo to Columbus, anticipating that at some point US-23 south of Delaware would be upgraded to freeway. The suburbs came, the commercial retail came, but the upgraded freeway never did. Now they have to figure out how to jam one through suburban sprawl.

It's kind of absurd that two significant metro areas within the state aren't connected by freeway to each other - the Toledo-Findlay-Tiffin CSA is approx. 830,000 residents, the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville CSA is about 2.5 million. The *one* direct road connecting Toledo to Columbus is effectively a surface street for a significant portion of its length, carrying enough traffic for a 6 to 8 lane freeway. 

Just for comparison's sake, in Wisconsin, the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha CSA has about 2 million residents and the Madison-Janesville-Beloit CSA has about 900,000 residents. There are 8 lanes of Interstate highway directly connecting the two areas - I-43 and I-94 - and long-term could end up being 10 to 12 lanes.

Now let's take the absurdity further. There's the Chicago metro area that has about 10 million residents connected to both. It has no fewer than 14 lanes of freeway connecting Madison and Milwaukee to Chicago. Even taking Madison out of the picture, there's 8 lanes of freeway connection minimum, and much of that is 10 or 12 lanes. At no point has anyone ever complained of I-94 between Milwaukee and Chicago being overbuilt. Did I mention there's also significant passenger rail connecting the two areas?

Southern Michigan has roughly 8 to 9 million residents, 5.3 million of them in the greater Detroit metro area. All of them realistically have to go through Toledo and follow I-75 south to get to Columbus, so it's a reasonable comparison. Even in the best-case scenario, if ODOT magically makes a Toledo-Columbus freeway connection happen in the next 20 years, it will be at minimum only 4 lanes of freeway (exactly half of Milwaukee-Chicago).

OK, so why the hell isn't there a I-73 connecting at least Columbus to Toledo (if not to Ann Arbor or Flint)? In 1950, the Columbus metro area was only about 500,000 to Cleveland's 1.7 million and Cincinnati's 1.25 million, so possibly there's room for forgiveness. Nobody was expecting Columbus to become the second-largest metro area in Ohio by 2020. But even by 1960, Columbus' leap to over 1 million should've been a clue it was going to grow fast. It's population doubled again in the following 50 years (1960-2010), and maintained that growth rate into the 2020s.

Columbus does have a healthy 6 lane I-71 corridor connecting it to the other two major metros in Ohio, and the 4 to 6 lane I-70 corridor connecting it to the rest of the Midwest and the East Coast. One could argue this freeway investment exists less because of the importance of the Columbus metro itself (at least in the 1950s), and more the fact that's it's strategically located between larger metro areas. It's only in the last 30-40 years that the Columbus metro has become nationally significant (like Cleveland and Cincinnati), and at a time that highway growth has been comparatively glacial.

Columbus' highway connectivity to the north and northwest as a result is quite poor. There is no direct 4-lane highway connectivity between Columbus and the Fort Wayne metro (similar size to Toledo metro), freeway or otherwise. You have to take the overwhelmed US-23 to connect to US-30, or take the mostly 2-lane US-33. The aforementioned connection to Toledo (and on to Michigan) may be more direct, but doesn't even merit one highway designation - you have to cycle through at least 3, and you partially share the I-75 portion with Dayton and Cincinnati.

It's connectivity to Chicago (to its northwest) is also quite poor - it doesn't enjoy the direct routing Cleveland and Cincinnati enjoy. Columbus either has to share I-80/90 with Cleveland and Toledo, or I-65 with Indianapolis and Cincinnati, with a jog to connect to either path. Or, you're stuck on the stoplight-infested US-23, with a brief no-stoplight run on US-30 to Fort Wayne, and then another stoplight-infested slog on US-30 through Indiana to the Toll Road.

The highway network south and southeast of Columbus, by comparison, is punching above its weight. US-23 south of Columbus may be an older stoplight-infested 4-lane, but it's at least mostly divided highway south to Portsmouth and (eventually) Huntington. You have a mostly 4-lane US-35 branching off to Point Pleasant to Charleston. You also have 4-lane expressway US-33 connecting to Athens and I-77, with a branch of 4-lane expressway US-50 to Parkersburg. You have ADHS funding to thank for much of this.

There was nothing similar to the Interstate Highway Act or even a ADHS helping with north and northwest connectivity to Columbus. So while there's a longish section of freeway/expressway US-33, it peters out to 2-lane well before reaching I-75, let alone Fort Wayne. And while much of the Toledo-Columbus trip is on freeway or 4-lane expressway, the section between I-270 and Delaware - the section most in need of being a freeway, is a suburban surface street.

Speaking of Fort Wayne, did I mention it has a 4-lane expressway/freeway connection to Toledo (US-24)? That's better than Columbus - and both metros are less than half the size!

Nobody in charge of regional, state, or national-level planning ever envisioned Columbus to become a major metro area on the same level as Cleveland or Cincinnati. US-23 north of I-270 was 4-laned relatively early on - I'm guessing late 1940s or early 1950s - and the planners never envisioned it would need to become a freeway facility. By the time the planners started waking up,  they didn't have the cash cow of the Interstate Highway Act to properly address it. To be blunt, they f***ed up. And nowhere else is that f*** up more evident than trying to get from I-270 to Delaware on US-23.

I agree. they f*** up. No question about it.

For Columbus-Chicago, I suggested an expressway US 33/US 30 corridor via Fort Wayne in fictional before, as most of the road is already 4 laned, except for US 33 between Decatur and St Marys, and between Wapokoneta and Bellefontaine. Bypasses around towns will be necessary, especially around Russels Point:
(https://i.imgur.com/dXQuQvj.png?1)

But in general, for such a centrally located large city in the state, Columbus's freeway connections are a disappointment, compared to peer cities like Indianapolis, which have interstates radiating out of the city in 7 directions (8 in the near future), as well as an expressway heading due north. Columbus have 4 interstates radiating out of the metro area, 2 traffic light infested 4 lane expressways US 23  heading towards pretty important points on both ends, a second freeway complimenting I-70 going due east, 2 freeway segments that dead end in Athens and Bellefontaine (imo, the 4 lane section of US 33 southeast of Cbus should really continue all the way to I-77, if nothing is to be done with improving US 23 on the US 23/35 routing to Charleston WV).

Columbus to Chicago is covered by I-65/70. The direct route via Lima and Ft Wayne is 326 miles. It's only 30 miles longer via I-65/70. That's more than adequate for most purposes. As the Stones sang:
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need

I do agree that there should be a full freeway connection between Columbus and Toledo (and by extension, to Detroit and the rest of Michigan). A short freeway connecting US 23 to I-71 north of Delaware or a freeway connecting US 23 to US 33 north and parallel to US 42 would both work as would upgrading US 68 to freeway between Findlay and Bellefontaine.

Quote from: skluth on October 03, 2021, 02:31:42 PM
I do agree that there should be a full freeway connection between Columbus and Toledo (and by extension, to Detroit and the rest of Michigan). A short freeway connecting US 23 to I-71 north of Delaware or a freeway connecting US 23 to US 33 north and parallel to US 42 would both work as would upgrading US 68 to freeway between Findlay and Bellefontaine.

AFAIK, ODOT is studying both alternatives to the west and east of US 23 for a better connection between I-270 and Waldo, with the western routing heading towards US 33, and the eastern routing towards I-71.

US 24, the Fort-to-Port (Ft Wayne to Toledo) expressway replaced a 2-lane road that was completely inadequate for the traffic it generated, and also connected Ft Wayne much better to Detroit and Cleveland, not just Toledo. It's not comparable to the US 23 segment in Delaware County.

More comparable is what Indiana is doing with US 31 north of Indianapolis. It had similar characteristics - connecting the state capital with a top-5 metro at the edge of the state that originally did not have deep economic connections to each other - South Bend is much closer to Chicago; Toledo to Detroit -- but now Indiana has rebuilt 31 on the northside of the metro area, but much of the rural areas remain a limited access expressway, like US 23, 24, and 41.

Toledo doesn't necessarily need a freeway to Columbus, it can do with an expressway. SR 15 and US 23 between Findlay and Upper Sandusky are lightly traveled.

Delaware County's section of US 23 most certainly needs to be rebuilt as a 4-6 lane freeway, but the rest of the highway can get by on small improvements, and capacity upgrades like the recently completed 6-laning of I 75 between Findlay and Perrysburg.

Without Toledo and Columbus both pushing for I-73, it will not progress; and as an interstate, it's going to take multi-state cooperation to develop a new interstate. There is not the political will right now for that in Michigan or Kentucky that I can see -- Michigan is trying to keep up the roads they have, and Kentucky is preoccupied with Ohio River bridges. I-73 proponents have a hard case to make.

Quote from: westerninterloper on October 03, 2021, 03:27:15 PM
US 24, the Fort-to-Port (Ft Wayne to Toledo) expressway replaced a 2-lane road that was completely inadequate for the traffic it generated, and also connected Ft Wayne much better to Detroit and Cleveland, not just Toledo. It's not comparable to the US 23 segment in Delaware County.

But they are comparable! In fact, Fort to Port is probably the best comparison here. Perhaps this is accidental - neither Fort Wayne nor Toledo had the meteoric growth Columbus has. Perhaps it's because they saw what happened with routes like US-23 when development made freeway upgrades economically not feasible. But with Fort to Port they didn't allow development to prevent straightforward construction of a 4-lane expressway/freeway facility, unlike with the Toledo-Columbus connection south of Waldo.

US-24 and US-30 west of Mansfield are evidence that ODOT learned that lesson, and belatedly they appear to be addressing the problem with the corridor study. But waiting until now to address the problem means the solutions are going to be far more expensive than they would have otherwise been.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 03, 2021, 02:37:23 PM

Quote from: skluth on October 03, 2021, 02:31:42 PM
I do agree that there should be a full freeway connection between Columbus and Toledo (and by extension, to Detroit and the rest of Michigan). A short freeway connecting US 23 to I-71 north of Delaware or a freeway connecting US 23 to US 33 north and parallel to US 42 would both work as would upgrading US 68 to freeway between Findlay and Bellefontaine.

AFAIK, ODOT is studying both alternatives to the west and east of US 23 for a better connection between I-270 and Waldo, with the western routing heading towards US 33, and the eastern routing towards I-71.

Best option: US-23 upgrade.

Not a bad option: US-33 to either Ohio-235 or US-68 > and then to US-30/I-75.

Ohio should consider using the same method Texas and Florida use for their highways. Just jam a freeway through there and build frontage roads for access to the existing businesses.

Quote from: TempoNick on October 07, 2021, 12:16:33 AM
Best option: US-23 upgrade.

Not a bad option: US-33 to either Ohio-235 or US-68 > and then to US-30/I-75.

Ohio should consider using the same method Texas and Florida use for their highways. Just jam a freeway through there and build frontage roads for access to the existing businesses.

It comes down to cost. It would be significantly cheaper, and less disruptful, to use the existing, parallel I-71 freeway, then construct a new east-west connector to the existing, limited access portion of US-23 north of Waldo.

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 07, 2021, 12:58:31 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on October 07, 2021, 12:16:33 AM
Best option: US-23 upgrade.

Not a bad option: US-33 to either Ohio-235 or US-68 > and then to US-30/I-75.

Ohio should consider using the same method Texas and Florida use for their highways. Just jam a freeway through there and build frontage roads for access to the existing businesses.

It comes down to cost. It would be significantly cheaper, and less disruptful, to use the existing, parallel I-71 freeway, then construct a new east-west connector to the existing, limited access portion of US-23 north of Waldo.

I would prefer it to be more SE-NW than straight E-W, somewhat like the "I-171 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4801)" vtk proposed in fictional a while ago, but same idea with same end goal.

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 07, 2021, 12:58:31 AM

It comes down to cost. It would be significantly cheaper, and less disruptful, to use the existing, parallel I-71 freeway, then construct a new east-west connector to the existing, limited access portion of US-23 north of Waldo.

The cost of 30 miles of freeway through Virgin farmland, versus 15 or 20 miles of freeway through wealthy enclaves which will eventually be turned into expensive homes. The cost could be comparable.

It's too bad that there isn't a good way to connect to 315. That would be perfect. It's too bad nobody had the foresight to think of that. Good for Powell though. I bet they're glad not to have a freeway running through there.

Quote from: TempoNick on October 07, 2021, 12:16:33 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 03, 2021, 02:37:23 PM

Quote from: skluth on October 03, 2021, 02:31:42 PM
I do agree that there should be a full freeway connection between Columbus and Toledo (and by extension, to Detroit and the rest of Michigan). A short freeway connecting US 23 to I-71 north of Delaware or a freeway connecting US 23 to US 33 north and parallel to US 42 would both work as would upgrading US 68 to freeway between Findlay and Bellefontaine.

AFAIK, ODOT is studying both alternatives to the west and east of US 23 for a better connection between I-270 and Waldo, with the western routing heading towards US 33, and the eastern routing towards I-71.

Best option: US-23 upgrade.

Not a bad option: US-33 to either Ohio-235 or US-68 > and then to US-30/I-75.

Ohio should consider using the same method Texas and Florida use for their highways. Just jam a freeway through there and build frontage roads for access to the existing businesses.

even if they did do that, they already made that impossible at 270 they recently rebuilt that area with a weird tunnel.

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 07, 2021, 08:33:07 AM

even if they did do that, they already made that impossible at 270 they recently rebuilt that area with a weird tunnel.

Yeah, 23 is gone. They're going to have to reroute it somewhere around Delaware to get to i-71. I hope they are smarter with the numbering system. Since US 23 is such an important route, maybe enough people will complain so that it gets a single number.

If it doesn't get an interstate number, they should simply call it OH 15 multiplexed with US 23 until it splits off in Delaware. Or maybe they can resurrect OH 1.

Quote from: skluth on October 03, 2021, 02:31:42 PM
Columbus to Chicago is covered by I-65/70.

I-65 between Indianapolis and Chicago can be very congested. Likewise, I-80 / I-90. An alternate route into Chicagoland takes some traffic and pressure away from those roadways. Besides, you guys say that Indiana is upgrading US 30.

Chicago is the unofficial capital of the Midwest and it needs a good access to its provincial capitals.

Quote from: TempoNick on October 07, 2021, 10:36:25 AM

Quote from: skluth on October 03, 2021, 02:31:42 PM
Columbus to Chicago is covered by I-65/70.

I-65 between Indianapolis and Chicago can be very congested. Likewise, I-80 / I-90. An alternate route into Chicagoland takes some traffic and pressure away from those roadways. Besides, you guys say that Indiana is upgrading US 30.

Chicago is the unofficial capital of the Midwest and it needs a good access to its provincial capitals.

everyone outside of chicago in the mid west would beg to differ with that designation  :-D

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 02, 2021, 02:33:39 PM
For Columbus-Chicago, I suggested an expressway US 33/US 30 corridor via Fort Wayne in fictional before, as most of the road is already 4 laned, except for US 33 between Decatur and St Marys, and between Wapokoneta and Bellefontaine. Bypasses around towns will be necessary, especially around Russels Point:
(https://i.imgur.com/dXQuQvj.png?1)

But in general, for such a centrally located large city in the state, Columbus's freeway connections are a disappointment, compared to peer cities like Indianapolis, which have interstates radiating out of the city in 7 directions (8 in the near future), as well as an expressway heading due north. Columbus have 4 interstates radiating out of the metro area, 2 traffic light infested 4 lane expressways US 23  heading towards pretty important points on both ends, a second freeway complimenting I-70 going due east, 2 freeway segments that dead end in Athens and Bellefontaine (imo, the 4 lane section of US 33 southeast of Cbus should really continue all the way to I-77, if nothing is to be done with improving US 23 on the US 23/35 routing to Charleston WV).

This fantasy map makes no sense because of the 15 mile jog to the west taken by I-75. It makes no sense to go 15 miles west (going southbound) to pick up US-33 just to go 15 miles east again. Likewise, nobody northbound is going to take it into Columbus either because you effectively have to go north and backtrack to go south into Columbus.

Virtually no population west of there, so it doesn't make sense into Fort Wayne, either. What makes most sense is to take it north from Marysville or Indian Lake into Findlay/Lima/US-30. (Then US-30 can become US-30/US-33 to Fort Wayne - give the old route some other number.) I personally like US-68 because I could envision it going all the way to Springfield and/or I-675.

Quote from: TempoNick on October 07, 2021, 12:08:29 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 02, 2021, 02:33:39 PM
For Columbus-Chicago, I suggested an expressway US 33/US 30 corridor via Fort Wayne in fictional before, as most of the road is already 4 laned, except for US 33 between Decatur and St Marys, and between Wapokoneta and Bellefontaine. Bypasses around towns will be necessary, especially around Russels Point:
(https://i.imgur.com/dXQuQvj.png?1)

But in general, for such a centrally located large city in the state, Columbus's freeway connections are a disappointment, compared to peer cities like Indianapolis, which have interstates radiating out of the city in 7 directions (8 in the near future), as well as an expressway heading due north. Columbus have 4 interstates radiating out of the metro area, 2 traffic light infested 4 lane expressways US 23  heading towards pretty important points on both ends, a second freeway complimenting I-70 going due east, 2 freeway segments that dead end in Athens and Bellefontaine (imo, the 4 lane section of US 33 southeast of Cbus should really continue all the way to I-77, if nothing is to be done with improving US 23 on the US 23/35 routing to Charleston WV).

This fantasy map makes no sense because of the 15 mile jog to the west taken by I-75. It makes no sense to go 15 miles west (going southbound) to pick up US-33 just to go 15 miles east again. Likewise, nobody northbound is going to take it into Columbus either because you effectively have to go north and backtrack to go south into Columbus.

Go 15 miles east on I-75 to where? I was talking about a routing to Ft Wayne and Chicago, not Toledo. Another possibility is to connect US 33 to US 30 at around Lima for Ft Wayne bound traffic. Your OH 235/117 idea works too. Or maybe a western bypass around Lima between I-75 and US 30, which would use part of I-75 to connect to US 33 down south.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 07, 2021, 12:13:36 PM

Go 15 miles east on I-75 to where? I was talking about a routing to Ft Wayne and Chicago, not Toledo. Another possibility is to connect US 33 to US 30 at around Lima for Ft Wayne bound traffic. Your OH 235/117 idea works too.

Yes, it technically works to Fort Wayne and Chicago, but that 15 miles to the west bugs me. To Fort Wayne, going through Lima is the best way, IMO. But if you do that, then you probably have to use US-23 to and from Columbus. Confusing.

I was just playing around with Google Maps this afternoon. Do you know how much to the west I-75 swings between Findlay and Wapak (as the crow flies)? 26 Miles!

That means you have up to an extra 52 miles to drive if you use US-33 from I-75 to get to Columbus. Yikes! That's a lot!

So, here are the options I propose, in order of preference.

1. US-23 upgrade Waldo thru Kilbourne - requires 13 miles of freeway without having to go too far east. This is actually quite reasonable.

2. US-23 upgrade Waldo to Marengo - also requires 13 miles of freeway, 10 miles of which are wasted because you have to go 5 miles too far east.

3. US 33 upgrade thru Ada - US-33 becomes a far more useful "inter-state" route if it's continued up through Ada, 32 miles of freeway required. Depending on traffic patterns, it could also take pressure off of I-71 with US-23 accessing the east side of Columbus and US-33 giving access to Dublin and the west side.

(Remember, this is also about distribution and there is tons of it on the west side of Columbus.)

4. US-68 upgrade from Findlay to Bellefontaine - requires 33 miles of freeway but swings to the west roughly 5 miles following the existing right-of-way. But it makes a nice connection between Findlay and Springfield in the long run. Lots of distribution in West Jefferson. perhaps you need something to serve those facilities?

5. Findlay to Marysville - requires 55 miles of freeway from Findlay to Marysville. (Straight-line calculation)


A US-23 upgrade still seems to be the best option.

...and this thread has become completely fictional.

Quote from: Rothman on October 10, 2021, 12:16:52 AM
...and this thread has become completely fictional.

A high-quality connection between US 23 in Waldo to I-71 in the east or to US 33 in the west is being studied by ODOT currently. Though nothing have been released about where and how the connections will be.

Actually, the number "I-73" for Ohio and Michigan is fictional at this point as well.

And West Virginia since it's only being planned and built as a corridor-style highway, with interchanges at major intersections and intersections elsewhere.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 10, 2021, 12:27:00 AM

Actually, the number "I-73" for Ohio and Michigan is fictional at this point as well.

You never know. If we ever get a governor who's a road geek, I-73 could be back in the picture.

Quote from: seicer on October 10, 2021, 12:10:18 PM
And West Virginia since it's only being planned and built as a corridor-style highway, with interchanges at major intersections and intersections elsewhere.

The section in West Virginia is still designated as a Future I-73/I-74 route, so it isn't fictional yet.

Quote from: Strider on October 11, 2021, 01:05:48 PM

Quote from: seicer on October 10, 2021, 12:10:18 PM
And West Virginia since it's only being planned and built as a corridor-style highway, with interchanges at major intersections and intersections elsewhere.

The section in West Virginia is still designated as a Future I-73/I-74 route, so it isn't fictional yet.

And even if they don't upgrade it in the near future, it wouldn't be the first time a freeway was built with disconnected segments. There's no law that says everything has to be contiguous.

Quote from: Rothman on October 10, 2021, 12:16:52 AM
...and this thread has become completely fictional.

What did you expect from a Midwest board thread that has I-73 in the title?

Quote from: thspfc on October 11, 2021, 07:06:21 PM

Quote from: Rothman on October 10, 2021, 12:16:52 AM
...and this thread has become completely fictional.

What did you expect from a Midwest board thread that has I-73 in the title?

Right.  Move it to Fictional.

Except the concept for I-73 in Ohio is not fictional... it may be dead, but it stems from an official proposal and discussion.

And things relevant to the I-73 corridor still are around... such as the Columbus to Toledo corridor.

Well, I don't know what their traffic counts or their metrics are, all I know is that a that free-flowing connection between Columbus, Findlay, Toledo, Fort Wayne and Michigan is long overdue. US-23 is busy enough at peak times that it deserves to be turned into freeway.

Quote from: TempoNick on October 11, 2021, 09:42:53 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 10, 2021, 12:27:00 AM

Actually, the number "I-73" for Ohio and Michigan is fictional at this point as well.

You never know. If we ever get a governor who's a road geek, I-73 could be back in the picture.

A road geek guv could as easily loathe the entire I-73/I-74 concept much like many road geeks can't stand I-99.

ODOT, 2021
(https://publicinput.com/img/dq7tt2tkhzjqmxnltj8y_1000_1000.PNG)
Ohio Turnpike Commission, 1995
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51683947929_269a819b03_w.jpg)
Any difference between the two?

My personal pick is C1 even though it is going to cost a lot more $$ to upgrade 23 through the northern suburbs of Columbus, but it's not impossible. ODOT, go over to Indiana and drive along the US 31 corridor in Hamilton County (which used to be filled with stoplights and traffic prior to the upgrade to a freeway).

E1 is definitely my preferred option, and it looks similar to what vtk suggested in fictional before. Since I-71 is parallel with US 23 in this area for a bit, it's a good idea to start with it into on the southern end of this new connector imo. W1 would be my second choice, though it's more out of the way than E1. E2 sounds ok too, except US 36 can get messy at around the I-71 interchange. E3 seems like a freeway to nowhere, as it doesn't mention anything about upgrading OH 229 between US 23 and the new freeway, so you'll be dumped onto a 2-lane at the northern end. And I could tell C1 will have lots of issues with acquiring ROW, as it's pretty developed on both sides for most of the way.

Is there a no-build option?

I would be happy with W1, C1, or E1.

W1: easiest to build, relatively direct to my house west of Columbus

C1: most direct to Columbus

E1: easy to build, reasonably direct to most of Columbus, and I've already made a fictional design for it

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on November 16, 2021, 12:39:19 AM
My personal pick is C1 even though it is going to cost a lot more $$ to upgrade 23 through the northern suburbs of Columbus, but it's not impossible. ODOT, go over to Indiana and drive along the US 31 corridor in Hamilton County (which used to be filled with stoplights and traffic prior to the upgrade to a freeway).

Agreed. Nice to see it's actually an option listed, and I would think/hope that the US 31 example you are talking about is the inspiration for its inclusion.

2nd choice would be E1. They could pretty much use vtk's exact plans for that.

A more perfect, albeit fictional option, would be a version of C1 that curves over to the west somewhere south of OH 750 to line up with the OH 315 freeway directly. The hurdle with that is that it would have to cross metro park land. 

In the following order of high to low, my preferences are: E1, W1 and C1.

One of the western ones could add the benefit that you could simply re-route US 23 over there and around the western side of 270. Then 23 is consistently a high-speed roadway until Carey. If you do this and re-route 23 on OH 15, I-75, and I-475, US 23 would either be an expressway or a freeway throughout Ohio. US 223 could then take over "old"  23.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 16, 2021, 08:59:00 AM
Is there a no-build option?

That's standard on any project, even non-freeway construction.
I like E1 as well. With the Infrastructure plan, Ohio can move on this.

Quote from: Ryctor2018 on November 16, 2021, 03:21:00 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 16, 2021, 08:59:00 AM
Is there a no-build option?

That's standard on any project, even non-freeway construction.
I like E1 as well. With the Infrastructure plan, Ohio can move on this.

Just letting you know here first, Avalanchez is against pretty much all highway projects that aren't part of the 1956 or 1968 interstate highway additions. He calls everything a "pork project", check his post history.

I've taken the US 23 to the rural OH 315 route to the freeway OH 315 many times over the years and always wished there was a freeway connection from US 23 to the freeway portion of OH 315. That does not seem to be in the cards (which makes sense from environmental concerns, etc.).

I guess I prefer the Central option, with E1 being a close second. I'd like the eastern one more with the freeway connection to I-71 if there's an expansion between US 36 and I-270. I've heard about the congestion that already extends past Polaris, and we don't want to completely overload I-71.

The west options all would go too far west for people heading from the north through Columbus in my view.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 16, 2021, 08:59:00 AM
Is there a no-build option?

Been on 'no build' since 1967, when the Delaware bypass (for US 23) was completed.

Quote from: zzcarp on November 16, 2021, 06:41:01 PM
I've taken the US 23 to the rural OH 315 route to the freeway OH 315 many times over the years and always wished there was a freeway connection from US 23 to the freeway portion of OH 315. That does not seem to be in the cards (which makes sense from environmental concerns, etc.).

Any sort of connector between Oh 315 & US 23, between Oh 750 (Powell Rd) and I-270 will not happen due to the 3 primary land owners in that quadrangle. Columbus City of Parks (Highbanks Metro park takes up the majority of the land in this location), the Godman Guild (Catholic charity based in Columbus that owns some woodlands (including Camp Mary Orton) south of Highbanks Park), and the Vatican. Yes, that Vatican. They operate the Pontifical College Josephinum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_College_Josephinum), off of US 23 (High St), north of I-270.

The Central Option is complicated by the recent rebuild of US 23 just north of I-270. You would need a parallel southbound component to be built either underground (unlikely as it would require the northbound component to be rebuilt), aboveground, or at-grade. ODOT really boxed itself in on future upgrades with its northbound undergrounding project several years ago.

I think for cost, a west-to-US 33 or an east-to-I-71 alternative will be considered.

Quote from: seicer on November 17, 2021, 12:36:13 PM
The Central Option is complicated by the recent rebuild of US 23 just north of I-270. You would need a parallel southbound component to be built either underground (unlikely as it would require the northbound component to be rebuilt), aboveground, or at-grade. ODOT really boxed itself in on future upgrades with its northbound undergrounding project several years ago.

I can think of any number of possibilities. One simple starting point is to dip southbound traffic under Campus View, close southbound access at Flint, and make the current northbound surface lanes two-way from Flint south to a new crossover near Dimension.

Quote from: zzcarp on November 16, 2021, 06:41:01 PM
I've taken the US 23 to the rural OH 315 route to the freeway OH 315 many times over the years and always wished there was a freeway connection from US 23 to the freeway portion of OH 315.

It's called the I-270 C/D roads :bigass:

Mods: can/should we move the recent posts here to a new thread, or maybe just rename the whole thread, reflecting that this current study technically is independent of I-73?

Quote from: vtk on November 18, 2021, 09:06:04 AM
Mods: can/should we move the recent posts here to a new thread, or maybe just rename the whole thread, reflecting that this current study technically is independent of I-73?

Use the report to moderator function versus clogging up the topic with these kind of requests please.

I choose E1. It still makes most sense to bypass Delaware, and cut over to I-71 with freeway. I like the approach from the West, but it adds 10 to 14 miles to your trip if you use US-23. Freeway the rest of US-23 and then call it I-375 (it's confuse people on the way to or from Michigan since they have an I-375, but SR-175 is already taken). Or, God forbid, I-73!

This conversation about US 23 didn't just start out of the blue. They had our Senators and Reps working on the infrastructure bill and they must have given state officials the heads up that a pile of money was coming their way. Remember, Trump got infrastructure going so this has been talked about for a while. The Brent Spence Bridge is going to get done with Uncle Sam picking up at least half the tab, so you gotta think this is also going to get done.

Remember, the last time infrastructure money was thrown at us, we got US-33 completed. I think US-35 was completed with that money as well. This is going to get done.

Quote from: Buck87 on November 16, 2021, 10:19:26 AM

Agreed. Nice to see it's actually an option listed, and I would think/hope that the US 31 example you are talking about is the inspiration for its inclusion.

I don't trust them enough to eliminate all the at-grade intersections. The at-grade intersection they left for River Road on OH 16/37/161 near Granville bugs me every time I drive through there. Do things the right way and close it off!!! The purpose of this exercise is to create a free flowing route between Columbus and Toledo/Detroit. I don't trust them to do it the right way.

Quote from: TempoNick on November 18, 2021, 08:43:17 PM

Quote from: Buck87 on November 16, 2021, 10:19:26 AM

Agreed. Nice to see it's actually an option listed, and I would think/hope that the US 31 example you are talking about is the inspiration for its inclusion.

I don't trust them enough to eliminate all the at-grade intersections. The at-grade intersection they left for River Road on OH 16/37/161 near Granville bugs me every time I drive through there. Do things the right way and close it off!!! The purpose of this exercise is to create a free flowing route between Columbus and Toledo/Detroit. I don't trust them to do it the right way.

It's an RIRO, almost like an exit/entrance ramp. I don't see the issue with it affecting free-flow traffic that much, if the traffic count on River Road is very low anyways.

Quote from: vtk on November 18, 2021, 09:06:04 AM
Mods: can/should we move the recent posts here to a new thread, or maybe just rename the whole thread, reflecting that this current study technically is independent of I-73?

NO!

Quote from: SkyPesos on November 18, 2021, 08:47:17 PM
It's an RIRO, almost like an exit/entrance ramp. I don't see the issue with it affecting free-flow traffic that much, if the traffic count on River Road is very low anyways.

Yes and no. They cut the speed limit to 55 there creating a speed trap. If it wasn't for River Rd., they might not have to lower the speed until you get closer to Nerk. They put all that time and effort into that road. It should be all freeway straight through.

I've had to drive the corridor twice during the fall sports season, and I don't see how they can fit the central option. There is very little available right of way to be had. 23 north of Delaware is 5 lane (center turn) with buildings against the road. While I would like to see this happen, the E1 and W1 concepts are the ones that make the most sense financially.

Quote from: SkyPesos on November 18, 2021, 08:47:17 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on November 18, 2021, 08:43:17 PM

I don't trust them enough to eliminate all the at-grade intersections. The at-grade intersection they left for River Road on OH 16/37/161 near Granville bugs me every time I drive through there. Do things the right way and close it off!!! The purpose of this exercise is to create a free flowing route between Columbus and Toledo/Detroit. I don't trust them to do it the right way.

It's an RIRO, almost like an exit/entrance ramp. I don't see the issue with it affecting free-flow traffic that much, if the traffic count on River Road is very low anyways.
[/quote]

The RIRO going westbound on 16 will close at the end of the bridge replacement project for the 37/661 interchange. I have not seen anything specifying whether the RIRO going eastbound on 16 will also close. I had always thought that ODOT should have found the money to build an overpass for River Rd when they first made the two RIROs.

Quote from: carbaugh2 on November 19, 2021, 08:06:17 AM
I've had to drive the corridor twice during the fall sports season, and I don't see how they can fit the central option. There is very little available right of way to be had. 23 north of Delaware is 5 lane (center turn) with buildings against the road.

If you go to some other states, you would be amazed at how they are able to jam expressways through places like that. Although US 19 in the Tampa Bay area isn't freeway, they just built overpasses and frontage roads at most of the main intersections. Texas does this as well.

I personally don't like it, but it is one way to get the job done.

I still don't see it happening here because of all the money they spent trying to untangle all of those exits. And if they did, I doubt it would end up being frictionless which is the goal.

What does RIRO stand for? I'm guessing right in, right out?

Quote from: TempoNick on November 19, 2021, 11:27:53 AM
What does RIRO stand for? I'm guessing right in, right out?

That is correct.

And just like 25 years ago, Northern Delaware County has become NIMBY central for Ohio...
https://www.delgazette.com/news/94203/opposition-mounts-to-route-23-plans

I'm at an ODOT meeting in Delaware right now, and I'm surprised how many people are expressing that the west and east options would be not good enough at best, atrocities at worst. Support for the central option ranges from considering it the least bad solution, to outright enthusiasm.

It seems like most of the people here are rural residents and farmers. The voices of the Delaware business community and suburban residents along 23 are apparently not present tonight. I still fear those voices could kill a central proposal.

Quote from: vtk on January 19, 2022, 07:53:50 PM
I'm at an ODOT meeting in Delaware right now, and I'm surprised how many people are expressing that the west and east options would be not good enough at best, atrocities at worst. Support for the central option ranges from considering it the least bad solution, to outright enthusiasm.

It seems like most of the people here are rural residents and farmers. The voices of the Delaware business community and suburban residents along 23 are apparently not present tonight. I still fear those voices could kill a central proposal.

I sat 5 feet to right of vtk at the meeting. I'd say 600 people attended the meeting. About 30-40 (including vtk) took the opportunity to address the crowd & ODOT reps in attendance. The most vocal are going to be those directly affected by a new road, and right now that's going to be folks living in Northern Delaware County. Business interests in Delaware and along US 23 south are staying mum till something is concrete.
On the other hand, whomever owns the land around the I-71 interchange with US 36/Oh 37, will be applying pressure for an "eastern" route that directs more traffic to their development. All the "soon-to-be-retired" farmers won't be able to match that financial might. 

Well, many of those farms are now owned by larger interests and those farmers are merely leasing the land. With a massive semi-conductor chip factory coming to New Albany, there will be intense pressure to get that land developed since it's relatively close by.

South of Columbus, I am curious as to when the improvements to the I-270 interchange and Rathmell Road will start. I can't recall what is being done, but it looks like some ramps will be reconfigured at I-270 to still provide free-flowing options for an eventual freeway conversation southward. The long-term goal is still to convert the highway south of Columbus toward South Bloomfield into a freeway.

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 19, 2022, 09:44:55 PM

Quote from: vtk on January 19, 2022, 07:53:50 PM
I'm at an ODOT meeting in Delaware right now, and I'm surprised how many people are expressing that the west and east options would be not good enough at best, atrocities at worst. Support for the central option ranges from considering it the least bad solution, to outright enthusiasm.

It seems like most of the people here are rural residents and farmers. The voices of the Delaware business community and suburban residents along 23 are apparently not present tonight. I still fear those voices could kill a central proposal.

I sat 5 feet to right of vtk at the meeting. I'd say 600 people attended the meeting. About 30-40 (including vtk) took the opportunity to address the crowd & ODOT reps in attendance. The most vocal are going to be those directly affected by a new road, and right now that's going to be folks living in Northern Delaware County. Business interests in Delaware and along US 23 south are staying mum till something is concrete.
On the other hand, whomever owns the land around the I-71 interchange with US 36/Oh 37, will be applying pressure for an "eastern" route that directs more traffic to their development. All the "soon-to-be-retired" farmers won't be able to match that financial might.

What was your take on the meeting? Was it positive or negative or...?

I don't think any of us will live to see Interstate 73 go very far into Virginia, let alone West Virginia, Ohio or Michigan. It seems more likely we will see Interstate 73 in South Carolina, but how soon is anyone's guess.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 20, 2022, 04:54:50 PM
I don't think any of us will live to see Interstate 73 go very far into Virginia, let alone West Virginia, Ohio or Michigan. It seems more likely we will see Interstate 73 in South Carolina, but how soon is anyone's guess.

I would say so. Ohio and Michigan are done building any Interstates period, end of story. I think it may eventually reach Virginia and South Carolina, but West Virginia is broke and can't afford to plow an Interstate through the mountains.

Quote from: Strider on January 20, 2022, 11:51:01 AM

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 19, 2022, 09:44:55 PM

Quote from: vtk on January 19, 2022, 07:53:50 PM
I'm at an ODOT meeting in Delaware right now, and I'm surprised how many people are expressing that the west and east options would be not good enough at best, atrocities at worst. Support for the central option ranges from considering it the least bad solution, to outright enthusiasm.

It seems like most of the people here are rural residents and farmers. The voices of the Delaware business community and suburban residents along 23 are apparently not present tonight. I still fear those voices could kill a central proposal.

I sat 5 feet to right of vtk at the meeting. I'd say 600 people attended the meeting. About 30-40 (including vtk) took the opportunity to address the crowd & ODOT reps in attendance. The most vocal are going to be those directly affected by a new road, and right now that's going to be folks living in Northern Delaware County. Business interests in Delaware and along US 23 south are staying mum till something is concrete.
On the other hand, whomever owns the land around the I-71 interchange with US 36/Oh 37, will be applying pressure for an "eastern" route that directs more traffic to their development. All the "soon-to-be-retired" farmers won't be able to match that financial might.

What was your take on the meeting? Was it positive or negative or...?

Neither.
It felt more like ODOT was letting the speakers vent. They had graphics showing how much traffic uses US 23 through Delaware County. They showed how much traffic stays on US 23 versus looking for alternative routes between Delaware and I-270. But no spaghetti diagrams showing any inkling of actual routes. Just several broad regions of possibility to either side of Delaware/US 23.

Columbus Dispatch's paywall account of last night gathering (minus pictures)

---

DELAWARE – People in northern Delaware County are worried that changes to Route 23 could cost them farmland and their rural way of life.

The Ohio Department of Transportation is studying options for clearing congestion on Rt. 23 and creating a more direct route between Columbus and Toledo. Right now, they are looking at six options, including turning the highway into a freeway.

On Wednesday, around 400 people showed up at the Delaware County Fairgrounds to weigh in on the project for the second of four scheduled public meetings.

Many residents said they have watched construction projects in central Ohio expand beyond Columbus into outlying rural areas and take over farmland before.

"We've seen this," said Mark Hope, a grain farmer whose family has several hundred acres of land across the county. "Eminent domain is no good."


Some Delaware County residents oppose Rt. 23 upgrade
Residents created a website, No Route 23 Connect at nohwy.com, to implore people to oppose a freeway through rural Delaware County.

Rt. 23, which runs in Ohio from Portsmouth to Sylvania, is especially congested from Interstate 270 to Waldo in Marion County. As Columbus grows, transportation officials worry that will only get worse. There are 38 traffic lights between Waldo and I-270 alone, and anywhere from 30,000 to 80,000 vehicles drive through Rt. 23 daily.

ODOT began studying the options for clearing congestion last spring.

Project managers from the Ohio Department of Transportation held a public meeting Wednesday to seek input on potential plans to decrease congestion on Route 23.
Breanna Badanes, ODOT's spokesperson for central Ohio, said the study, Route 23 Connect, is still in preliminary planning stages. So far there are six renovation options the department is considering in collaboration with the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission and Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments.

"It will take several years before we get close to construction," she said. "But everyone agrees something needs to be done about traffic on 23."

What are options to fix Route 23 congestion?
Two of those concepts would connect Rt. 23 to U.S. Route 33, Interstate 270 and/or U.S. Route 42 on the western side of Delaware County. Three concepts would connect Rt. 23 to I-71, I-270 and/or U.S. Route 36/State Route 37 on the eastern side of the county.

A sixth option would upgrade the existing Rt. 23 into a freeway by adding through lanes and replacing interchanges.

Thom Slack, an ODOT manager for the Route 23 Connect project, explained that the department will use a variety of factors to determine which concept deserves further study.

Those factors include anything from potential travel time, residential displacement, endangered species and estimated costs.


Fears over rural Delaware County's future
More than two dozen residents spoke up during the public comment portion of the meeting.

Molly Queen read from a prepared statement during her comment, as she furiously raised concerns about the impact any of the proposed concepts would have on Delaware County's environment.

"We cannot destroy what's left of our natural habitat," she said. "This poses a level of environmental disregard that's shameful."

Other farmers defended their way of life.

"This work is sunup to sundown, I'm not sure if you know that," one woman said to the project managers. "We can rebuild our homes, but we can't get our farmland back."

Susan Barr stepped up to the microphone to pose a question to the crowd assembled.

"How many of you feel this would impact your property?" she asked, gesturing to ODOT's presentation up front.

Hundreds of hands shot up.

"We have in no way figured this out yet," Slack said Wednesday. "That's why we're here tonight to get more feedback."

"We do not seek to come in and break up every farm," he added.

The Route 23 project managers reiterated throughout the meeting that their efforts will improve the overall safety of the region, reduce congestion and align with the community's goals.

"This is the moment, if we all decide to grab it," Chris Hermann said, "to make real change."

Hermann, an urban planner and public engagement manager on ODOT's team, explained that by 2040, Delaware County is expected to add more than 85,000 new residents and Columbus is projected to add a million.

"In 20 years, it's going to be much worse," he added.

The department wants to hear from everyone impacted, so they can factor in all feedback before deciding which concept to further study and evaluate.

People have until Feb. 28 to issue a public comment to the ODOT:

By email at d06.pio@dot.ohio.gov
By telephone at 740-833-8268       
Online at transportation.ohio.gov/23connect
The next meeting will be a virtual public comment session at 12 p.m. on Thursday, Jan. 27, which anyone can register for at publicinput.com/23connect.

Céilí Doyle is a Report for America corps member and covers rural issues in Ohio for The Dispatch. Your donation to match our RFA grant helps keep her writing stories like this one. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation at https://bit.ly/3fNsGaZ.

cdoyle@dispatch.com

@cadoyle_18

And a non-paywall account of the meeting that all should be able to see...
https://www.10tv.com/article/news/local/homeowners-voice-concerns-us-23-expansion-cutting-through-farmland/530-86f16479-c16c-478e-ab30-800fbf42772b

Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 20, 2022, 05:01:31 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 20, 2022, 04:54:50 PM
I don't think any of us will live to see Interstate 73 go very far into Virginia, let alone West Virginia, Ohio or Michigan. It seems more likely we will see Interstate 73 in South Carolina, but how soon is anyone's guess.

I would say so. Ohio and Michigan are done building any Interstates period, end of story. I think it may eventually reach Virginia and South Carolina, but West Virginia is broke and can't afford to plow an Interstate through the mountains.

The I-73 number is long dead in Ohio. But as you can see in the thread right now, ODOT still wants to upgrade the portion of US 23 between I-270 and Waldo, either with a direct upgrade, or a new parallel freeway. So while it will most likely never carry the I-73 number, it's part of what used to be Ohio's I-73 plans.

Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 20, 2022, 05:01:31 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 20, 2022, 04:54:50 PM
I don't think any of us will live to see Interstate 73 go very far into Virginia, let alone West Virginia, Ohio or Michigan. It seems more likely we will see Interstate 73 in South Carolina, but how soon is anyone's guess.

I would say so. Ohio and Michigan are done building any Interstates period, end of story. I think it may eventually reach Virginia and South Carolina, but West Virginia is broke and can't afford to plow an Interstate through the mountains.

Interstate 73 will eventually go between Roanoke and Myrtle Beach, that is it. I don't think we are going to see I-73 past Roanoke. Can't see it happening either.

I find the TV news outlets oversimplify the matter in their reporting. The Dispatch article is better, but still doesn't quite capture the full spectrum of sentiments voiced at the meeting, in my opinion. Also, all the the outlets are parroting complaints that seem to be based on the misconception that the entire swath of land indicated in each concept map would be taken by eminent domain should that concept be advanced. That misconception was addressed at the meeting, but many people still seemed to imagine dozens of entire farms being wiped out.

Quote from: Henry on November 16, 2021, 10:24:33 AM
In the following order of high to low, my preferences are: E1, W1 and C1.

Aargh!  You sunk my battleship!

I wouldn't use the western option if built. I usually going to I-70 east towards Wheeling. For years I've been taking 36/37 to I-71 to I-270.

ODOT needs to factor in, if they can, where the traffic is going after it gets to Columbus.

Quote from: tigerwings on January 21, 2022, 05:31:40 PM
I wouldn't use the western option if built. I usually going to I-70 east towards Wheeling. For years I've been taking 36/37 to I-71 to I-270.

ODOT needs to factor in, if they can, where the traffic is going after it gets to Columbus.

I'm guessing to the southeast, via US 33 or US 23/35.

The new Intel plant is going to dictate the eastern option. Part of the reason Intel is building here is because of car manufacturing. Route 23 needs to be fixed for that purpose.

Maybe I-73 is dead, but that doesn't mean there can't be an I-175 or whatever number might be available. The interstate shield is very important if you are from out of the area. It tells you if a road is going to be all freeway instead of a mishmash of roads.

Quote from: TempoNick on January 22, 2022, 12:56:45 AM
The interstate shield is very important if you are from out of the area.

ODOT doesn't think so. It seems like that they're done with new interstates.

Quote from: SkyPesos on January 22, 2022, 01:00:49 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on January 22, 2022, 12:56:45 AM
The interstate shield is very important if you are from out of the area.

ODOT doesn't think so. It seems like that they're done with new interstates.

ODOT needs to put itself in the position of travelers who aren't local to the area.

This is approaching fictional, but...

All concepts of I-73 aside, the US-23 corridor between Columbus and I-75, at roughly 83 miles (give or take depending where Waldo to Columbus is constructed), is a reasonable I-x75 candidate IMO.

It would provide an interstate highway connection between Columbus and Toledo, and further to Detroit and the rest of Michigan.

Quote from: TempoNick on January 22, 2022, 03:03:54 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on January 22, 2022, 01:00:49 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on January 22, 2022, 12:56:45 AM
The interstate shield is very important if you are from out of the area.

ODOT doesn't think so. It seems like that they're done with new interstates.

ODOT needs to put itself in the position of travelers who aren't local to the area.

A decade ago, Akron/Summit county attempted to convince ODOT to renumber Oh 8, between I-271 & I-76/77 as an interstate spur. ODOT did nothing. 

I think OH 8 was supposed to be I-380 IIRC. The county should have went for an x77 number instead.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2022, 03:22:25 AM
This is approaching fictional, but...

All concepts of I-73 aside, the US-23 corridor between Columbus and I-75, at roughly 83 miles (give or take depending where Waldo to Columbus is constructed), is a reasonable I-x75 candidate IMO.

It would provide an interstate highway connection between Columbus and Toledo, and further to Detroit and the rest of Michigan.

Imo if US 23/OH 15 between Columbus and Findlay becomes an interstate, I would call it a northern I-73. Yes, it will never connect to the segment(s) in the Carolinas, but neither will I-74, or I-69 between Memphis and Tenaha..

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 22, 2022, 12:34:44 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on January 22, 2022, 03:03:54 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on January 22, 2022, 01:00:49 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on January 22, 2022, 12:56:45 AM
The interstate shield is very important if you are from out of the area.

ODOT doesn't think so. It seems like that they're done with new interstates.

ODOT needs to put itself in the position of travelers who aren't local to the area.

A decade ago, Akron/Summit county attempted to convince ODOT to renumber Oh 8, between I-271 & I-76/77 as an interstate spur. ODOT did nothing.

Ohio seems to care more that a route is four lanes and free flowing, rather than interstate standard. Not just US-23, but US-30, US-33, US-35, US-20, and OH-32. As long as the route is four-laned and free flowing, Ohio won't be concerned if it is interstate standard.

I like the eastern alignments. However, I am not from the area and haven't traveled that section of US-23 in years so I'm not up on the various alignments being planned.

Quote from: SkyPesos on January 22, 2022, 01:38:47 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2022, 03:22:25 AM
This is approaching fictional, but...

All concepts of I-73 aside, the US-23 corridor between Columbus and I-75, at roughly 83 miles (give or take depending where Waldo to Columbus is constructed), is a reasonable I-x75 candidate IMO.

It would provide an interstate highway connection between Columbus and Toledo, and further to Detroit and the rest of Michigan.

Imo if US 23/OH 15 between Columbus and Findlay becomes an interstate, I would call it a northern I-73. Yes, it will never connect to the segment(s) in the Carolinas, but neither will I-74, or I-69 between Memphis and Tenaha..

I have such a thing as I-171, but that's more of a fictional topic.

Quote from: BlueOutback7

I have such a thing as I-171, but that's more of a fictional topic.
/quote]

I don't think it works as Interstate 171 because nobody would take it to get to i-71 to go to Cleveland or Cincinnati because you're going too far out of your way. Only an x75 number works because it is conceivable that you would take it to get to i-75 and continue on to Michigan.

Quote from: TempoNick on January 22, 2022, 04:26:09 PM

Quote from: BlueOutback7

I have such a thing as I-171, but that's more of a fictional topic.

I don't think it works as Interstate 171 because nobody would take it to get to i-71 to go to Cleveland or Cincinnati because you're going too far out of your way. Only an x75 number works because it is conceivable that you would take it to get to i-75 and continue on to Michigan.

As long as people are taking it for travel to and from I-71, it works as an I-X71. Most SB traffic would even be taking the I-X71 to get to Columbus and environs meaning its purpose would be exactly what drivers want from an I-X71.

^ But unlike I-75, most traffic wouldn't be continuing onto I-71 for a long period of time.

It's truly a split for I-75 south traffic, for some to continue into OH-15, long distance I-71 north or south traffic from outside of Columbus isn't "splitting"  onto US-23 north.

I suspect ODOT would move the US 23 numbering to the bypass, and extend the OH 423 numbering on the old route from Marion to Columbus.

Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 22, 2022, 01:58:49 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on January 22, 2022, 01:38:47 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2022, 03:22:25 AM
This is approaching fictional, but...

All concepts of I-73 aside, the US-23 corridor between Columbus and I-75, at roughly 83 miles (give or take depending where Waldo to Columbus is constructed), is a reasonable I-x75 candidate IMO.

It would provide an interstate highway connection between Columbus and Toledo, and further to Detroit and the rest of Michigan.

Imo if US 23/OH 15 between Columbus and Findlay becomes an interstate, I would call it a northern I-73. Yes, it will never connect to the segment(s) in the Carolinas, but neither will I-74, or I-69 between Memphis and Tenaha..

I have such a thing as I-171, but that's more of a fictional topic.

I'll give credit where credit is due, VTK had the original I-171 here from a decade ago.

Dispatch article from this morning...

Tensions between Delaware County's rural residents and the Ohio Department of Transportation over the future of U.S. Route 23 are running high.

Last month, residents opposed to ODOT constructing a freeway through rural Delaware County to solve traffic congestion on Route 23 released a draft document from ODOT that suggested the agency was finalizing a study that favored upgrading the current route over building a new highway, according to the "No Route 23 Connect" website at nohwy.com.

That option, known as the "C1 concept," would add additional through lanes and modify or create 11 new interchanges on existing Route 23.

But Breanna Badanes, ODOT spokesperson for central Ohio, denied that ODOT was anywhere close to making a decision on a favored option, and insisted this is still an ongoing process.

"Information was released indicating that ODOT was finalizing a recommendation for the C1 concept [the no highway option] and we're just not to that point yet," she said. "The document referred to was in draft form."

The Dispatch attempted to reach the administrator of the nohwy.com website, which features video of farmland and a tractor working in a field, but did not receive a response.

The advocacy group released another statement last week, refuting the transportation agency's attempts to downplay the likelihood ODOT would choose the C1 concept for further study and eventually act upon.

"I would ask folks be patient," ODOT's Badanes said in response. "You see those colored swaths on the page, and I think your first reaction is, 'That could impact me,' and we're just not to that point where we know which concept we're choosing, let alone which areas are going to be impacted."

U.S. Route 23: The document in question
Nohwy.com published a 19-page draft of a preliminary feasibility study prepared by the consulting group, ms consultants, inc., in November 2021 on its website on Jan. 31, 2022.

The document, labeled a draft, recommended ODOT pursue the C1 concept for "further study," stating that the proposed option would provide the greatest benefit to the region and would eliminate congestion on Route 23.

But Badanes said the draft only represented the consulting team's technical analysis with the information it had back in November.

"That document prematurely included a conclusion, but it hadn't been reviewed or commented on by ODOT," she added. "It was a draft – it was all the information we had at that time, but that's going to change multiple times as this process continues and as we continue to get more information."

Hundreds of Delaware County residents attended an Ohio Department of Transportation meeting on a Route 23 Connector project under consideration to connect Waldo with U.S. 270 on Columbus' northern outerbelt in order to reduce congestion on Route 23 through Delaware County.
There are five other concepts that ODOT is pursuing, according to the Route 23 Connect website.

The first two of those concepts would connect Route 23 to U.S. Route 33, Interstate 270 and/or U.S. Route 42 on the western side of Delaware County. Three concepts would connect Route 23 to Interstate 71, Interstate 270 and/or U.S. Route 36/State Route 37 on the eastern side of the county.

All five options, outside of the C1 concept, would affect some contingent of Delaware County's largely rural population, a good portion of whom are farmers.

What would be a potential highway's impact on Delaware County?
Project managers from the Ohio Department of Transportation held a public meeting last month at the Delaware County Fairgrounds Exposition Center to discuss ways to decrease congestion on U.S. Route 23 by potentially building a new highway between Waldo and Interstate 270 or Interstate 71 or U.S. Route 33.
Christy Lehner has had a really tough year.

The 45-year-old married into a farming family 18 years ago, the Lehners, who have operated a popular pumpkin farm for 30 years, a wedding venue for another 20 years and still farm field corn and soybeans across nearly 500 acres of land in Radnor Township, Delaware County.

Her husband died last fall, but in her grief the mother of three took solace in the fact that her family's business, and financial security, was assured – until Lehner learned ODOT was proposing two options to improve Route 23 by constructing a freeway in western Delaware County.

"Basically if a highway came right through our property we wouldn't just lose our home, but also our businesses," she said.

The possibility has been a constant stressor in the back of Lehner's mind, but she tries not to dwell too much on the uncertain future.

"There are too many things to worry about right now," Lehner said. "We pray, and we're trying to not worry about it as much as possible, but I'm hoping that people speaking out will help."

From ODOT's perspective, Badanes wants Delaware County residents to know that this will be a lengthy process, and while the draft recommending the C1 concept was published by nohwy.com, it is still subject to change.

"It's like serving a cake before you mix in all the ingredients," she said.

The Ohio Department of Transportation held a public meeting last month at the Delaware County Fairgrounds Exposition Center to present plans to potentially build a new connector highway between Waldo and Interstate 270 or Interstate 71 or U,S. Route 33 to relieve congestion on U.S. Route 23.
The transportation agency recognizes that residents are anxious to hear what the final decision will be, but Badanes stressed it will be several more months, if not a year, before ODOT reaches that point.

"We want to make sure we do it it right, get all the information we need and hear from the public," she said. "We're still in the middle of a public comment period – and that feedback is going to be really important." 

Public comments can be submitted to ODOT through their Route 23 Connect website at:publicinput.com/23connect, through Feb. 28.
---
"The leaked document" that my "no-hwy neighbors" posted for fixing US 23...
https://www.nohwy.com/_files/ugd/8fcddb_2df554cdfc414565852c126af83d109d.pdf

After looking over the different alternatives, and considering the opposition, I'd be shocked if they pick any alternative other than No-Build. However, if I had to choose an alternative, I'd choose Alternative C1.

The last time around it was rural. This time around it's necessary and half of Delaware County is gone. They're going to tell the residents to pound salt.

75-15 vote in the House means it's a done deal.

Trump pushed this through. He promised it when he was running for office. If I read this correctly, the money is earmarked for i-73. That means use it or lose it.

Well, except there is no I-73 proposal. It's either a connector from I-71 to US 23 (and not a replacement for US 23, so it would be given a new designation similar to the Portsmouth bypass), or it will be an upgrade of the US 23 connector.

Quote from: TempoNick on February 21, 2022, 06:55:02 PM
The last time around it was rural. This time around it's necessary and half of Delaware County is gone. They're going to tell the residents to pound salt.

75-15 vote in the House means it's a done deal.

Trump pushed this through. He promised it when he was running for office. If I read this correctly, the money is earmarked for i-73. That means use it or lose it.

Do you have some documentation and/or can you clarify what you are talking about here?  Trump is no longer in office and candidates say a lot of things they have absolutely no intention of following through on prior to being elected...or after being elected for that matter.  The 75-15 vote you referred to would have to be in the state house (not the House of Representatives), but you mentioned nothing about if the state senate, the governor and/or if ODOT has given its approval, nor if any funding has been earmarked, nor if environmental surveys and concerns have been addressed.  And what is the specific piece of legislation this 75-15 vote covers?

Quote from: seicer on February 26, 2022, 10:02:02 AM
Well, except there is no I-73 proposal. It's either a connector from I-71 to US 23 (and not a replacement for US 23, so it would be given a new designation similar to the Portsmouth bypass), or it will be an upgrade of the US 23 connector.

Besides, if there was an I-73 proposal, it would have to be in conjunction with an I-74 extension. And given how built-up the eastern parts of Cincinnati are, there really is no good way to route it through them.

^ Not saying I-74 happens, but if it were to, it could realistically follow the southern part of I-275.

Designate the existing part inside I-275 as I-x74.

Even if Interstate 74 isn't extended east of Cincinatti for god-knows-when, how likely would upgrading OH 32 to full freeway standards from Interstate 275 to US 23 be?

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 28, 2022, 05:01:54 PM
Even if Interstate 74 isn't extended east of Cincinatti for god-knows-when, how likely would upgrading OH 32 to full freeway standards from Interstate 275 to US 23 be?

My guess is that it's very unlikely. I traveled the length between I-275 and US 35 on a trip to the Carolinas last summer, and traffic east of around US 68 is pretty light. Plenty of times past that where it felt like I was the only car on the road. Imo the most important freeway upgrade for OH 32 currently is the removal of the 3 traffic signals between the I-275 interchange and Batavia. They make the traffic on this road pretty awful, even outside rush hours. Especially in the WB direction, where there's only 2 lanes compared to 3 in the EB direction. Had to wait 3 cycles at the lights at Glen Este-Withamsville Rd before being able to pass through on a green.

Quote from: Terry Shea on February 28, 2022, 11:07:57 AM
Do you have some documentation and/or can you clarify what you are talking about here?  Trump is no longer in office and candidates say a lot of things they have absolutely no intention of following through on prior to being elected...or after being elected for that matter.  The 75-15 vote you referred to would have to be in the state house (not the House of Representatives), but you mentioned nothing about if the state senate, the governor and/or if ODOT has given its approval, nor if any funding has been earmarked, nor if environmental surveys and concerns have been addressed.  And what is the specific piece of legislation this 75-15 vote covers?

They don't just come up with bills like that on the fly. Trump got all the talk about infrastructure started. Congress has been working on the final bill for several years.

For some history on I-73:  http://www.roadfan.com/i73orig.html

Quote from: TempoNick on March 01, 2022, 11:51:07 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on February 28, 2022, 11:07:57 AM
Do you have some documentation and/or can you clarify what you are talking about here?  Trump is no longer in office and candidates say a lot of things they have absolutely no intention of following through on prior to being elected...or after being elected for that matter.  The 75-15 vote you referred to would have to be in the state house (not the House of Representatives), but you mentioned nothing about if the state senate, the governor and/or if ODOT has given its approval, nor if any funding has been earmarked, nor if environmental surveys and concerns have been addressed.  And what is the specific piece of legislation this 75-15 vote covers?

They don't just come up with bills like that on the fly. Trump got all the talk about infrastructure started. Congress has been working on the final bill for several years.

For some history on I-73:  http://www.roadfan.com/i73orig.html

This is absolute nonsense.  This was a state bill and has absolutely nothing to do with congress.  I'm pretty sure Trump had nothing to do with it and he's no longer president.  And it also has absolutely nothing to do with Delaware County.  Please stop spamming every thread with your nonsense.
https://www.wsaz.com/2022/01/27/ohio-house-passes-resolution-urging-i-73-i-74-extension/

Quote from: TempoNick on March 01, 2022, 11:51:07 PM
They don't just come up with bills like that on the fly.

You have way more faith in legislatures than they deserve.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 28, 2022, 03:15:33 PM
^ Not saying I-74 happens, but if it were to, it could realistically follow the southern part of I-275.

Designate the existing part inside I-275 as I-x74.

If I-74 were to be extended, the routing more than likely will follow I-75 South from its present terminus, follow I-71 North through Ft. Washington Way, follow I-471 South, then follow I-275 East in Highland Heights, KY to the vicinity of the OH 32 interchange (63) in Eastgate.

Even though this thread is about I-73, I-74 from the Cincinnati area to the Portsmouth, OH area is intertwined with it.  If there was not an over-abundance of opposition, I-74 could use an upgraded Milford, OH interchange (59), with new construction east of US 50 to the Owensville area, then follow OH 276 to connect with OH 32 east of the Williamsburg area.  I-74 would then be re-routed over the top part of I-275 with the existing I-74 from I-275 to I-75 designated as an I-x74.

Not saying any of this is going to occur.  In reality, I cannot see I-73 signed anywhere north of the current I-81/I-581 interchange in the Roanoke area.  If the necessary upgrades are ever made, then there could be an I-87 situation, in which there would be a northern section and a southern section of I-73 since the route is Congressionally designated.

The Creek Turnpike is a congressionally designated interstate too. The signs along it clearly identify it as... Oklahoma 364.

Quote from: TempoNick on March 01, 2022, 11:51:07 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on February 28, 2022, 11:07:57 AM
Do you have some documentation and/or can you clarify what you are talking about here?  Trump is no longer in office and candidates say a lot of things they have absolutely no intention of following through on prior to being elected...or after being elected for that matter.  The 75-15 vote you referred to would have to be in the state house (not the House of Representatives), but you mentioned nothing about if the state senate, the governor and/or if ODOT has given its approval, nor if any funding has been earmarked, nor if environmental surveys and concerns have been addressed.  And what is the specific piece of legislation this 75-15 vote covers?

They don't just come up with bills like that on the fly. Trump got all the talk about infrastructure started. Congress has been working on the final bill for several years.

For some history on I-73:  http://www.roadfan.com/i73orig.html

Well, I-73/74 is a Congressionally designated "High Priority Corridor" and Michigan and Ohio have no plans to build its portion; and West Virginia is building their segments as two- and four-lane expressways with intersections and a few interchanges. So much for that Congressionally designated interstate. It doesn't mean squat if funding isn't attached to it. It's literally people drawing lines on a map and saying "good enough."

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 02, 2022, 01:36:03 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on March 01, 2022, 11:51:07 PM
They don't just come up with bills like that on the fly.

You have way more faith in legislatures than they deserve.

State legislatures come up with resolutions all the time calling for this road or that road to be built. (This is not a bill - an actual proposed law - just a concurrent resolution, saying they think pierogis are great or Hang On Sloopy should be the state rock song.) WV has cranked out a couple over the past few years because of one legislator or another pushing for it. None of them will ever be built.

In Ohio, state law (ORC Chapter 5512) and long-standing ODOT policy says TRAC determines how funding gets allocated for big projects. A resolution from the General Assembly saying to build I-73 doesn't mean diddly squat unless they are willing to change code, and doing that would touch off a political firestorm.

Meanwhile, at my home (and not yours)
https://www.delgazette.com/news/95233/odot-answers-route-23-questions

I will acknowledge that there seems to be some building momentum towards the possible resurrection of I-73 and/or I-74 in Ohio. The inertia of the last twenty years is not insurmountable. But the movement we've seen in recent months doesn't amount to much yet, and it could easily stop again.

Picture this: a car sits on a flat stretch of road near the bottom of a large, steep hill. It hasn't moved, or even run, in quite some time. But now, someone's managed to get it started, and engaged first gear. The engine is sputtering and badly misfiring, and the car weakly begins crawling forward towards the hill, its bearings, suspension, and chassis making awful creaking and groaning noises. At any moment, the engine could stall, the accessory belt could break, the radiator could spring a leak, or a tire could blow out. Maybe the driver will give it some gas, but they're proceeding cautiously for now. The car certainly won't climb the hill on idle. Even if the gas pedal is pressed, on the way up the hill the transmission may begin to slip, or the car might run out of gas. The driver might change their mind and stop. Or maybe, just maybe, everything will go right and the car will make it up and over the hill. It's just too early to tell.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 02, 2022, 01:36:03 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on March 01, 2022, 11:51:07 PM
They don't just come up with bills like that on the fly.

You have way more faith in legislatures than they deserve.

Enough about this - let's keep this thread to actual news and no more conjecture. Thanks.

I-73, not I-73...
https://www.delgazette.com/top-stories/95974/odot-answers-faqs-on-route-23-connect

So as of now, it seems like that the C1 option is the preferred one. Completely fine with it.

By commenters, which is only one part of the puzzle. A more detailed analysis will be conducted which includes the narrowing of the proposals, including C1. C1 will involve a -lot- of property takings which could sour the proposal for business interests.

It's interesting that farmland preservation keeps popping up considering that these same parties are the ones buying up houses in sprawland on former farms.

Quote from: seicer on April 17, 2022, 04:17:43 PM
By commenters, which is only one part of the puzzle. A more detailed analysis will be conducted which includes the narrowing of the proposals, including C1. C1 will involve a -lot- of property takings which could sour the proposal for business interests.

It's interesting that farmland preservation keeps popping up considering that these same parties are the ones buying up houses in sprawland on former farms.

Developers pay more for land than tax payers do.

On initial examination, C1 is going to be the hardest to pull off simply because of the lack of open ROW involved. But in most areas, ODOT can follow the existing alignment and have about 200' of ROW to work with without disturbing buildings. South of Orange Rd is where it will be the tightest squeeze, but even then it's workable.

One challenge will be working out suitable frontage/backage roads to get local traffic around. North of Orange Rd, frontage roads will be workable due to the ROW. South of Orange Rd, and particularly south of Powell Rd it gets difficult, with ODOT having to either raise or lower the mainline to free up space - or take out a bunch of property on one side or the other to get enough room.

They could do something similar to the fly-unders at Flint Rd and Campus View Blvd, but wider and in both directions. ODOT stupidly didn't build the fly-unders at Flint Rd and Campus View Blvd for more than 2 through lanes... in one direction! All of that infrastructure work is basically useless when it comes time for them to punch a 6-lane freeway through. That was insane levels of shortsightedness.

Quote from: JREwing78 on April 24, 2022, 07:14:04 PM
ODOT stupidly didn't build the fly-unders at Flint Rd and Campus View Blvd for more than 2 through lanes... in one direction! All of that infrastructure work is basically useless when it comes time for them to punch a 6-lane freeway through. That was insane levels of shortsightedness.

Indeed. When that was being built I figure that signaled that they had no future plans to ever put in a full freeway along the 23 corridor.

Seems to me even if they go with concept C1, it's going to be a number of years before anything gets built. That "shortsighted" trench will have at least 20 years of life before being torn out, in one of the fastest growing parts of the Midwest.

Also, C1 is not a single alignment alternative. If the concept is advanced, they may very well consider some deviations from 23's current alignment, such as crossing over the Olentangy to tie in with 315 in the last couple of miles.

I just got this update via email:

QuoteODOT would like to thank everyone who provided input about the Route 23 Connect Study during the past year.

Since our most recent round of public engagement, the Preliminary Feasibility Study has been updated with the latest traffic volume forecasts, cost estimates, and expected impacts. Each concept was evaluated using a variety of metrics to analyze travel times, safety benefits, community impacts, environmental impacts, and cost.

After comparison of the expected benefits and costs for each concept, we have determined none of the concepts as presented in the study can be reasonably implemented in the immediate future. Therefore, none of the study concepts previously presented will be advanced. Instead, ODOT will begin developing an action plan to identify a series of future, stand-alone improvement projects along the existing U.S. 23 corridor between Waldo and I-270.

Public feedback has shown that improvements to safety and congestion is a top priority for many who live and travel along the existing route. Additionally, the study clearly indicated that improvements to the U.S. 23 corridor would positively affect tens of thousands of drivers daily. Therefore, this plan for future projects will leverage much of the data, public feedback, and findings from the study.

In the coming months, ODOT will reach out to stakeholders to discuss transportation concerns and priorities along the existing U.S. 23 corridor in more detail. Through this shift in focus, we will prioritize the needs of the existing U.S. 23 corridor and develop individual projects, providing drivers with real benefits sooner rather than later. Moving forward, we will continue to engage the public to get your input and ideas for how to solve some of these problems.

An Executive Summary of the Preliminary Feasibility Study can be found on the project website at www.publicinput.com/23connect under the Documents Section.

Again, ODOT appreciates all the energy and involvement from community members during the past year and will be reaching out soon regarding how you can help to shape the action plan for the existing U.S. 23 corridor.

Someone on Reddit noted they counted... 59 traffic signals on their commute along US 23. That's ridiclious. If a freeway is aborted, would a six-lane superstreet be considered - with consolidated traffic lights, right in-right out intersections, and some interchanges?

Quote from: vtk on May 09, 2022, 02:36:54 PM
I just got this update via email:

QuoteODOT would like to thank everyone who provided input about the Route 23 Connect Study during the past year.

Since our most recent round of public engagement, the Preliminary Feasibility Study has been updated with the latest traffic volume forecasts, cost estimates, and expected impacts. Each concept was evaluated using a variety of metrics to analyze travel times, safety benefits, community impacts, environmental impacts, and cost.

After comparison of the expected benefits and costs for each concept, we have determined none of the concepts as presented in the study can be reasonably implemented in the immediate future. Therefore, none of the study concepts previously presented will be advanced. Instead, ODOT will begin developing an action plan to identify a series of future, stand-alone improvement projects along the existing U.S. 23 corridor between Waldo and I-270.

Public feedback has shown that improvements to safety and congestion is a top priority for many who live and travel along the existing route. Additionally, the study clearly indicated that improvements to the U.S. 23 corridor would positively affect tens of thousands of drivers daily. Therefore, this plan for future projects will leverage much of the data, public feedback, and findings from the study.

In the coming months, ODOT will reach out to stakeholders to discuss transportation concerns and priorities along the existing U.S. 23 corridor in more detail. Through this shift in focus, we will prioritize the needs of the existing U.S. 23 corridor and develop individual projects, providing drivers with real benefits sooner rather than later. Moving forward, we will continue to engage the public to get your input and ideas for how to solve some of these problems.

An Executive Summary of the Preliminary Feasibility Study can be found on the project website at www.publicinput.com/23connect under the Documents Section.

Again, ODOT appreciates all the energy and involvement from community members during the past year and will be reaching out soon regarding how you can help to shape the action plan for the existing U.S. 23 corridor.

Here's my take on this:
"After wasting considerable taxpayer money on this study, we came to the conclusion that nothing needs to be done.  But we know and you know that something needs to be done, so we will continue to waste taxpayer money on further studies.  We will continue to waste taxpayer money on further studies until we get it right, hopefully in the next millennium or 2, at which point it will be necessary to reassess and readdress everything.  At that point, we will again determine that nothing needs to be done, but we all know, and you all know that something needs to be done, so we will be forced to undergo further studies of the area at considerable taxpayer expense.  In the end nothing will get done and traffic will be more of a problem than ever.  But we were able to effectively waste money and kept our people busy doing absolutely nothing.  As always, your input is welcome...even though we'll never act on it."

As long as there is a public faction interested in a road that is low on the priority list, there will be a government willing to spend a lot of money "studying" the route.  See also Rooftop Highway in NY.

Quote from: Rothman on May 09, 2022, 11:56:44 PM
As long as there is a public faction interested in a road that is low on the priority list, there will be a government willing to spend a lot of money "studying" the route.  See also Rooftop Highway in NY.

I just don't buy the argument NY can't do it. They could have absolutely built the tunnel Syracuse. They didn't want to. NYSDOT doesn't want to build new freeways they want to tear existing ones out. New York is a state with one of the richest cities in the world and is amongst the highest taxed state in the country. I don't want to hear how the state can't afford it.

Now in regards to Ohio, I don't know but if they're anything like a lot of other states in this country the residents don't want to pony up the money to build more infrastructure or they already pay a lot in taxes but the DOT is still underfunded. It's too much for a grassroots movement to come out and support a project or a candidate that is willing to dedicated his time towards specific projects if elected.

This type of cycle you mentioned is accepted by the public. At the end of the day the DOT isn't to blame.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2022, 04:18:09 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 09, 2022, 11:56:44 PM
As long as there is a public faction interested in a road that is low on the priority list, there will be a government willing to spend a lot of money "studying" the route.  See also Rooftop Highway in NY.

I just don't buy the argument NY can't do it. They could have absolutely built the tunnel Syracuse. They didn't want to. NYSDOT doesn't want to build new freeways they want to tear existing ones out. New York is a state with one of the richest cities in the world and is amongst the highest taxed state in the country. I don't want to hear how the state can't afford it.

The Rooftop is simply a matter of priorities, even taking into account NY's raiding of gas tax revenues for purposes other than transportation.

That said, since we're talking about wasted money, the large amount of funding that went into studying the tunnel was a shocking waste, since the tunnel was always going to be prohibitively expensive.  To say otherwise is a statement made out of ignorance about how much funding NYSDOT actually has in its transportation budget -- the tunnel would have taken up more than a third of NYSDOT's core transportation funds available over the current six federal fiscal year program period.

NYSDOT's capital program is already buoyed by hundreds of millions in personal income tax (PIT) bonds -- borrowed money -- to boot.

Money does indeed need to come from somewhere.  And spending five billion in Syracuse given other statewide needs was a ridiculous idea.

Quote from: Terry Shea on May 09, 2022, 11:25:43 PM
Here's my take on this:
"After wasting considerable taxpayer money on this study, we came to the conclusion that nothing needs to be done.  But we know and you know that something needs to be done, so we will continue to waste taxpayer money on further studies.  We will continue to waste taxpayer money on further studies until we get it right, hopefully in the next millennium or 2, at which point it will be necessary to reassess and readdress everything.  At that point, we will again determine that nothing needs to be done, but we all know, and you all know that something needs to be done, so we will be forced to undergo further studies of the area at considerable taxpayer expense.  In the end nothing will get done and traffic will be more of a problem than ever.  But we were able to effectively waste money and kept our people busy doing absolutely nothing.  As always, your input is welcome...even though we'll never act on it."

My slightly less cynical take: "After spending a lot of taxpayer money, we have come to the conclusion that whatever needs to be done is not affordable. So we will do nothing for the time being. And as things get worse, we will spend more money on more studies to see if what is needed can somehow become affordable."

Quote from: Rothman on May 10, 2022, 07:05:44 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2022, 04:18:09 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 09, 2022, 11:56:44 PM
As long as there is a public faction interested in a road that is low on the priority list, there will be a government willing to spend a lot of money "studying" the route.  See also Rooftop Highway in NY.

I just don't buy the argument NY can't do it. They could have absolutely built the tunnel Syracuse. They didn't want to. NYSDOT doesn't want to build new freeways they want to tear existing ones out. New York is a state with one of the richest cities in the world and is amongst the highest taxed state in the country. I don't want to hear how the state can't afford it.

The Rooftop is simply a matter of priorities, even taking into account NY's raiding of gas tax revenues for purposes other than transportation.

That said, since we're talking about wasted money, the large amount of funding that went into studying the tunnel was a shocking waste, since the tunnel was always going to be prohibitively expensive.  To say otherwise is a statement made out of ignorance about how much funding NYSDOT actually has in its transportation budget -- the tunnel would have taken up more than a third of NYSDOT's core transportation funds available over the current six federal fiscal year program period.

NYSDOT's capital program is already buoyed by hundreds of millions in personal income tax (PIT) bonds -- borrowed money -- to boot.

Money does indeed need to come from somewhere.  And spending five billion in Syracuse given other statewide needs was a ridiculous idea.

I understand given the current circumstances it didn't make sense to build the tunnel but it shouldn't be this way. New York has tons of high traffic, long distance toll roads, massive tourism industry, some of the richest neighborhoods and families in the world, tolled bridges all around the major city, a transit system that has some of highest amounts of fare revenue in the country, it shouldn't be as dire as it is there with their interstates.

But I don't think Ohio is comparable. If it's anything like Oklahoma or Kansas they're undertaxed or the tax money isn't being allocated right. Maybe Ny needs to take a break and pay down it's debt.

Eh, the lower traffic counts for through traffic on I-81, and the availability of an underused bypass doomed any mega project to tunnel under central Syracuse. A deep bore wasn't also that geotechnically feasible without a lot of costly engineering because of the type of soils in that area, and as already noted, it would have eaten a third of NYSDOT's transportation funding for the entire state for six years.

But getting back to this topic, ODOT could spend money on such a highway but it doesn't seem there was many in favor of the western or eastern routes because of arguably justifiable reasons: prime farmland of statewide importance that's still being farmed, the existence of scenic corridors and parks, and a lack of need by some of the respondents. The central corridor seemed to be the preferred corridor by others because it avoids all of those issues above, but it has the highest cost and the most disruptive.

I wonder if the project were to proceed, how it would score with TRAC. Or how it would compare to an equally pressing project: converting US 23 south of Columbus toward Circleville into a full freeway which has more support from regional governments.

I guess Sherman beat me to it.
ODOT's press release, on US 23, filtered through my local newspaper.
https://www.delgazette.com/news/96439/route-23-corridor-project-takes-detour

Quote from: seicer on May 09, 2022, 06:08:04 PM
Someone on Reddit noted they counted... 59 traffic signals on their commute along US 23. That's ridiclious. If a freeway is aborted, would a six-lane superstreet be considered - with consolidated traffic lights, right in-right out intersections, and some interchanges?

I used to be able to date all the traffic lights along US 23, between Waldo & I-270. Not anymore

Quote from: seicer on May 09, 2022, 06:08:04 PM
Someone on Reddit noted they counted... 59 traffic signals on their commute along US 23. That's ridiclious. If a freeway is aborted, would a six-lane superstreet be considered - with consolidated traffic lights, right in-right out intersections, and some interchanges?

I just counted 39 traffic lights along US 23, via google, between Waldo and I-270 (Wilson Bridge Rd)

More perspective: https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2022/05/10/odot-nixes-proposed-rt-23-changes-delaware-county/9715851002/

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 10, 2022, 01:35:36 PM

Quote from: seicer on May 09, 2022, 06:08:04 PM
Someone on Reddit noted they counted... 59 traffic signals on their commute along US 23. That's ridiclious. If a freeway is aborted, would a six-lane superstreet be considered - with consolidated traffic lights, right in-right out intersections, and some interchanges?

I just counted 39 traffic lights along US 23, via google, between Waldo and I-270 (Wilson Bridge Rd)

I wonder if the poster was counting lights on his entire commute - including through Columbus. But still... that's a lot of lights for a through route. It's not like they are going through Seiverville and Gatlinburg :)

My mom lives off the Sawmill Road extention (sort of a local paralleling artery of US‐23 in Delaware County).  Some of the northernmost sections are only about 5-7 years old, and already that corridor is getting choked up with development (including a Sheetz :-) ) And much of Sawmill is either 2x2 with raised landscaped medians or 2x2 with a center left turn lane.

And yet the general population in Delaware County still believes there are no congestion problems now and there won't be in the near future!?!??  What the hell are they smoking out there??? 

I guess Delaware and it's county wants to become the world's largest Breezewood.

Quote from: GaryV on May 10, 2022, 07:23:19 AM
My slightly less cynical take: "After spending a lot of taxpayer money, we have come to the conclusion that whatever needs to be done is not affordable. So we will do nothing for the time being. And as things get worse, we will spend more money on more studies to see if what is needed can somehow become affordable."

My sightly more generous interpretation:

We understand that this needs to be done, but the cost to do it right is just too high, so we're going to look into how we can half-ass it with bandaid fixes.

I also don't like the "prime farmland" argument. As if their farmland is significantly better than that in Marion, Crawford, Union, Madison, or Wyandot counties. As if a 20-mile highway is going to consume millions of acres of farmland. As if that farmland isn't going to be turned into residential and commercial development anyway, regardless of whether a new highway is built.

If you want to preserve prime farmland, fight developments that bring more people into regions with prime farmland. Don't fight the infrastructure that's needed by the people and industry that are already there.

These people act like their thousand acres of corn and soybean fields is the most important food source in the state when a highway is proposed anywhere nearby, but when M/I Homes, Intel, or Les Wexner come around with a big check, they just take the money and get on with their lives.

Quote from: vtk on May 11, 2022, 09:43:31 AM
I also don't like the "prime farmland" argument. As if their farmland is significantly better than that in Marion, Crawford, Union, Madison, or Wyandot counties. As if a 20-mile highway is going to consume millions of acres of farmland. As if that farmland isn't going to be turned into residential and commercial development anyway, regardless of whether a new highway is built.

If you want to preserve prime farmland, fight developments that bring more people into regions with prime farmland. Don't fight the infrastructure that's needed by the people and industry that are already there.

These people act like their thousand acres of corn and soybean fields is the most important food source in the state when a highway is proposed anywhere nearby, but when M/I Homes, Intel, or Les Wexner come around with a big check, they just take the money and get on with their lives.

We are running out of good farmland. On that point, they are correct. However, you are right that many will sell their land for development as soon as some developer offers them enough cash. I'll say I'll agree with their fighting the highway if they sign a contract that keeps their land farmland for the next 100 years and the owners lose the property if developed. (I.e., they could also allow it to be a wildlife refuge or parkland.)

The argument about prime farmland is valid as it's some of the best soils in the nation - thanks to glacial deposits. But if there are no farmland protection programs in place, either through easements or conservation groups, then the point is moot because it stands to get developed over because of unchecked growth.

Quote from: vtk on May 11, 2022, 09:27:01 AM

Quote from: GaryV on May 10, 2022, 07:23:19 AM
My slightly less cynical take: "After spending a lot of taxpayer money, we have come to the conclusion that whatever needs to be done is not affordable. So we will do nothing for the time being. And as things get worse, we will spend more money on more studies to see if what is needed can somehow become affordable."

My sightly more generous interpretation:

We understand that this needs to be done, but the cost to do it right is just too high, so we're going to look into how we can half-ass it with bandaid fixes.

Two words:  Super-2!

They did that a lot in the 60's in NEOH (US 42, OH 57, OH 44, OH 585 [nee OH 5] and they are STILL Super-2s.  At least for most of these sections:  They are still high speed limited access highways with very little change in the amount of congestion in and around those areas.

Get the ROW before it gets developed and at least 2-lane it with some sort of ramp system at selected intersections.  ANYTHING with limited access will help the problem now and in the future!

A summary of the Route 23 Connect: Delaware Regional Connection Study showed that doing nothing was the second-best option among the seven presented to the public.

https://www.delgazette.com/top-stories/96469/study-summarizes-options-for-us-23-considered-by-odot

Quote from: skluth on May 11, 2022, 10:32:58 AM
We are running out of good farmland.

Quote from: seicer on May 11, 2022, 11:17:53 AM
The argument about prime farmland is valid as it's some of the best soils in the nation - thanks to glacial deposits.

If that's true, then why isn't all the farmable rural land being farmed? Why has some of the land farmed a century ago been allowed to revert to woods? If the demand for food is so much that the farmland we have can't produce enough, then why is the harvested product so cheap that the US government subsidizes its cultivation? It just doesn't make sense, within the framework of my understanding of economics, land use, and US agricultural policy (though I don't claim to be an expert on those subjects).

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 12, 2022, 01:24:59 PM
A summary of the Route 23 Connect: Delaware Regional Connection Study showed that doing nothing was the second-best option among the seven presented to the public.

That's a very misleading statement of ODOT's findings. No-build did have the second-best total of positive scores, but it was followed closely by concept E1 by that measure, and it also had the worst total of negative scores. Taking both the negative and positive, concept C1 is a clear winner, no-build has a much weaker positive score, and the other concepts have neutral to weakly negative scores.

It's like if someone asks about the tallest occupiable structures in the District if Columbia, and you start off by saying "the Capitol is the second tallest", ramble for a few minutes, and then casually mention that the Washington Monument is significantly taller than the Capitol.

Quote from: vtk on May 12, 2022, 11:04:59 PM

Quote from: skluth on May 11, 2022, 10:32:58 AM
We are running out of good farmland.

Quote from: seicer on May 11, 2022, 11:17:53 AM
The argument about prime farmland is valid as it's some of the best soils in the nation - thanks to glacial deposits.

If that's true, then why isn't all the farmable rural land being farmed? Why has some of the land farmed a century ago been allowed to revert to woods? If the demand for food is so much that the farmland we have can't produce enough, then why is the harvested product so cheap that the US government subsidizes its cultivation? It just doesn't make sense, within the framework of my understanding of economics, land use, and US agricultural policy (though I don't claim to be an expert on those subjects).

Strawman argument. Nobody claimed every single acre was prime farmland nor is every landowner required by law to keep land as farmland if they think it is more valuable as forest. Or maybe they just like trees. Most of the woodland north of Columbus is along rivers, probably prone to flooding, and may even be protected wetland. (Farmland is often converted to wetland to replace wetland destroyed elsewhere.) Much of the forested land is adjacent to the Alum Creek Lake reservoir. Undeveloped land along the waterway helps consume much of the excess fertilizer (both from farms and lawns) that might overwhelm the ecosystem further downstream and produces significant problems in the Gulf of Mexico (https://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/index.html).

A quick visual inspection of the area shows most of it not adjacent to water is not woods. The argument about being prime farmland is a valid one. I think seicer's statement about the lack of any farmland protection program in place is the best counterargument as it then forces the current landowners to make a commitment to their land being prime farmland rather than selling it off to developers for profit.

I just drove all of US 23/OH 15 between Portsmouth and Toledo (en route to Michigan) today. Much of the pavement between Chillicothe and Columbus is unbelievably bad with a lot of patching and one segment set for repaving. But a lot of that has tiny shoulders and traffic was backed up because of several breakdowns - vehicles had nowhere to pull off.

The portion north of I-270 into Delaware County was also frustrating and slow around 11:30 AM. It wasn't bumper to bumper but it was essentially stop-and-go for the entire length. The ROW is getting increasingly congested with a lot of new developments in Franklin County, and I'm not sure that there is going to be available ROW for a full freeway conversation at the rate it's being built out. You'd have to tear down a considerable number of buildings.

North of there, the expressway opens up and the speed limit increases to 65 MPH. The further north you go, the more that I noticed that side road connections were being eliminated. A lot of crossovers had been buried over with sod over the years but it looks like this process is increasing as the highway gets ever more busy.

It's an election year and everybody is still mad at DeWine over the lockdowns and the masks. Based on the write up of what happened the last time around, that might have something to do with this. Nevertheless, it needs to be done at least from Columbus to Toledo and if they don't do it now, it will just be more expensive and unaffordable later.

I don't mind C1, but I don't see them tearing through parkland and putting a freeway along a scenic river. The natural connection is to Route 315 and there is a certain beauty about it.

The best/cheapest route is still US 23, with a bypass connecting you to US 36, and then freeway US 36 to I-71.

That said, the rest of Route 315 runs along a river, so what's the difference? Blacklick Woods runs along I-70 and that doesn't bother anybody. It's not that great of a river anyway.

It's a state scenic river and a corridor that has generally been preserved north of I-270: https://ohiodnr.gov/go-and-do/plan-a-visit/find-a-property/olentangy-scenic-river

Quote from: TempoNick on May 15, 2022, 03:10:18 PM
That said, the rest of Route 315 runs along a river, so what's the difference? Blacklick Woods runs along I-70 and that doesn't bother anybody. It's not that great of a river anyway.

Comparing Blacklick Creek and the Olentangy River is like comparing Ohio State and Univ. of Michigan.
Living in Central Ohio, I figured you'd know better than that.

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 16, 2022, 07:39:43 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on May 15, 2022, 03:10:18 PM
That said, the rest of Route 315 runs along a river, so what's the difference? Blacklick Woods runs along I-70 and that doesn't bother anybody. It's not that great of a river anyway.

Comparing Blacklick Creek and the Olentangy River is like comparing Ohio State and Univ. of Michigan.
Living in Central Ohio, I figured you'd know better than that.

I was referring to Highland Metro Park or whatever it's called and how Blacklick Woods has a freeway running along one of its boundaries. Come to think of it, Sharon Woods and Blendon Woods also have freeways abutting them. The rest of 315 also runs along the river.

Now Ohio State versus Michigan? Size? OSU. Football? Again, OSU. Educational quality? Michigan is a better school but not by as much as it used to be. Michigan's gone down a tad, Ohio State has come up quite a bit.

Quote from: TempoNick on May 17, 2022, 02:23:18 AM
I was referring to Highland Metro Park or whatever it's called and how Blacklick Woods has a freeway running along one of its boundaries. Come to think of it, Sharon Woods and Blendon Woods also have freeways abutting them. The rest of 315 also runs along the river.

About Sharon Woods, I-275 crosses it at its narrowest point on a bridge, so it only touches about 800 ft of the park. The rest of the park are a bit away from the freeway.

Regarding all of the parks though, did the freeway or park come first? It's much more difficult to build a freeway next to a park if the park came first, especially nowadays compared to the 1960s, now that the environment is a bigger concern.

Quote from: SkyPesos on May 17, 2022, 10:19:01 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on May 17, 2022, 02:23:18 AM
I was referring to Highland Metro Park or whatever it's called and how Blacklick Woods has a freeway running along one of its boundaries. Come to think of it, Sharon Woods and Blendon Woods also have freeways abutting them. The rest of 315 also runs along the river.

About Sharon Woods, I-275 crosses it at its narrowest point on a bridge, so it only touches about 800 ft of the park. The rest of the park are a bit away from the freeway.

Regarding all of the parks though, did the freeway or park come first? It's much more difficult to build a freeway next to a park if the park came first, especially nowadays compared to the 1960s, now that the environment is a bigger concern.

I believe TempoNick was referring to the Sharon Woods in suburban Columbus, which abuts I-71 and I-270.

In the case of the Sharon Woods in suburban Cincinnati, it was there several decades before I-275 was built.

Since there will be no I-73 (or I-171).
ODOT was talking to Delaware County politicians about what they CAN do, concerning US 23, from Delaware on north.
https://www.delgazette.com/news/98452/delaware-officials-briefed-on-route-23-connect-study

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on September 15, 2022, 01:26:42 PM
Since there will be no I-73 (or I-171).
ODOT was talking to Delaware County politicians about what they CAN do, concerning US 23, from Delaware on north.
https://www.delgazette.com/news/98452/delaware-officials-briefed-on-route-23-connect-study

Wonder if ODOT could do an FU to Delaware (city & county) and propose a Delaware County bypass (I-171 etal) and build it further north via Morrow and Marion County.  Might be a little longer of a freeway connection, but I wonder if a threat of taking potential travel traffic away from Delaware businesses along US-23 could wake them up?

Toledo chimes in

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/transportation/2023/01/11/local-officials-hopeful-u-s-23-corridor-traffic-congestion-to-columbus-generates-slew-of-online-comments/stories/20230111109/

Quote from: ysuindy on January 11, 2023, 05:42:04 PM
Toledo chimes in

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/transportation/2023/01/11/local-officials-hopeful-u-s-23-corridor-traffic-congestion-to-columbus-generates-slew-of-online-comments/stories/20230111109/

It won't cost Toledo or NW Ohio much of anything for US23 to be improved in Delaware County, and it will receive many of the benefits. Like the article argues, Columbus should start thinking of the road as a connection to the nearest large city - Detroit, rather than a local project or connecting NW Ohio to the capital. Those last 20 miles of stoplights are a real headache coming from Toledo, though I can't imagine why it would cost a billion dollars for that little stretch of highway. Saving 15 minutes on 20 miles of road is a significant time difference.

That little stretch of a highway is almost completely built up. Right-of-way is now very expensive and you'll need to relocate countless businesses away from the new road. I can't fathom the phasing of such project while trying to keep four lanes open for US 23 at all times.

^ So why not a connector freeway to I-71?

A connector to I-71 or US 33 is being evaluated, but that is also very costly (land values) and has significant opposition because of farmland protection interests.

^ But it is certainly the most viable option, and without it, just puts a major bottleneck / choke point on a major arterial route, and is honestly a laughing joke for Ohio.

The US-23 bottleneck reminds me of the days when US‐74 was the only direct way to get out of Charlotte if you were headed to Myrtle Beach.

I think that US-74 stretch through Charlotte (Pre-I-285) was far worse than US-23 through Delaware County and that nightmare just north of I-270.

It is too bad that the proposed tollway from northwest of Columbus to Toledo wasn't built as a freeway from the I-270/US 33 interchange in Dublin to the I-75/US 68 interchange south of Findlay.  There is a diagram of where it would have run in the Ohio Turnpike News thread.  It would have followed US 33 to Marysville, OH 31 to Kenton, US 68 to south of Findlay, and connected where US 68 has its northern terminus at Exit 156 on I-75.  This, I believe, would have made a good connection from Toledo to Columbus.

If this was built, it could have lessened that traffic along US 23 north of Columbus, although I could see that how the highway is currently would have been constructed that way even with the Dublin-Findlay freeway existing.

Quote from: thenetwork on January 16, 2023, 08:12:05 PM
The US-23 bottleneck reminds me of the days when US‐74 was the only direct way to get out of Charlotte if you were headed to Myrtle Beach.

I think that US-74 stretch through Charlotte (Pre-I-285) was far worse than US-23 through Delaware County and that nightmare just north of I-270.

I-485 and more recently the US-74 toll road have made a significant difference and huge time savings for the whole Charlotte to Monroe segment.

The US-74 toll road was smartly constructed to upgrade the portion between the toll road and I-485 to urban freeway in order to provide continuous limited access design.

And the Columbus-area NIMBYs are starting to flex their muscles again.  Interesting their concern isn't as much the US-23 North corridor, but of the new Intel chip factory on the Northeast side:

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2023/01/20/columbus-outerbelt-270-highway-ohio/69825539007/

The outer-outerbelt was never that popular from the onset, much like the idea of an outer-beltway of Cincinnati never took off either. There is still much that can be done to Interstate 270 before another beltway should even be considered.

Quote from: thenetwork on January 22, 2023, 05:02:44 PM
And the Columbus-area NIMBYs are starting to flex their muscles again.  Interesting their concern isn't as much the US-23 North corridor, but of the new Intel chip factory on the Northeast side:

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2023/01/20/columbus-outerbelt-270-highway-ohio/69825539007/

<clears throat & taps his shoe>
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=30900.msg2809210#msg2809210

Quote from: seicer on January 22, 2023, 06:12:29 PM
The outer-outerbelt was never that popular from the onset, much like the idea of an outer-beltway of Cincinnati never took off either. There is still much that can be done to Interstate 270 before another beltway should even be considered.

While I don't think a full circular Outer-outerbelt around Columbus is needed,  there should be at least some consideration to now extend a US-23 (I-73) bypass that connects the Delaware area with I-71, the future Intel plant and I-70 East of the current beltway.   

If it went any further, consider extending it only to Marysville/US-33 and if there ever becomes a true border-to-border I-73 through Ohio, then leave room on the southeast side to extend the bypass back to US-23 south of C-bus..   

Around the rest of the Columbus Metro area, I think I-270 handles those areas okay as it is and it has room for expansion if needed.  The north side of 270 is pretty much built out as much as it can be.

Quote from: thenetwork on January 22, 2023, 09:30:20 PM

Quote from: seicer on January 22, 2023, 06:12:29 PM
The outer-outerbelt was never that popular from the onset, much like the idea of an outer-beltway of Cincinnati never took off either. There is still much that can be done to Interstate 270 before another beltway should even be considered.

While I don't think a full circular Outer-outerbelt around Columbus is needed,  there should be at least some consideration to now extend a US-23 (I-73) bypass that connects the Delaware area with I-71, the future Intel plant and I-70 East of the current beltway.   

If it went any further, consider extending it only to Marysville/US-33 and if there ever becomes a true border-to-border I-73 through Ohio, then leave room on the southeast side to extend the bypass back to US-23 south of C-bus..   

Around the rest of the Columbus Metro area, I think I-270 handles those areas okay as it is and it has room for expansion if needed.  The north side of 270 is pretty much built out as much as it can be.

It's time. From West Jefferson to Marysville, to Delaware, to Newark down to US-33 in Lancaster. If you look at some of the state's old maps, it looks like a major road was contemplated between Mansfield and Lancaster anyway.

At the very least US-23 in Waldo to US-33 in Lancaster would be a good route.

https://www.sent-trib.com/2023/03/19/10-million-columbus-bypass-study-finally-moving/

Quote from: vtk on March 20, 2023, 08:58:11 PM
https://www.sent-trib.com/2023/03/19/10-million-columbus-bypass-study-finally-moving/

Good, and good on the legislature / governor overriding ODOT.

Quote
Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments President Tim Brown

:eyebrow:

Was there a bunker blast at the meeting?

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 20, 2023, 09:00:44 PM

Quote from: vtk on March 20, 2023, 08:58:11 PM
https://www.sent-trib.com/2023/03/19/10-million-columbus-bypass-study-finally-moving/

Good, and good on the legislature / governor overriding ODOT.

Laughs. Just more maps.
If ODOT wasn't willing to override a bunch of conservative land owners, masquerading as farmers, to build VTK's I-171 proposal, for the Intel factory, this won't do anything either.

^ So, the existing situation is just an acceptable gateway to Columbus from Toledo and Michigan? Miles of continuous traffic lights, gridlock, no access control, in an era with interstate highways feeding from every other direction?

Something needs to be done.

Quote from: vtk on March 20, 2023, 08:58:11 PM
https://www.sent-trib.com/2023/03/19/10-million-columbus-bypass-study-finally-moving/

While I agree that something needs to be done, this statement from the article makes no sense whatsoever:

"The major issue at play is the expected population increase in Columbus. Over the next decade it could increase by 1 million, and the increased traffic from the soon-to-be opened Gordie Howe International Bridge across the Detroit River."

The current population of Columbus is less than 1,000,000 for the city proper and about 1.8 million for the metro area.  The area is growing, but it certainly isn't going to increase by well over 50% in the next decade!  And I don't see the Gordie Howe Bridge having much, if any impact whatsoever.  It's not like there aren't other border crossings within a few miles of the Howe, and Canadians are waiting until that bridge is built before they venture over to the other side.

Quote from: Terry Shea on March 21, 2023, 02:08:29 AM


The current population of Columbus is less than 1,000,000 for the city proper and about 1.8 million for the metro area. 

2.2 million for the metro area projected to be 3.15 million by 2050. The way this stuff works, you better get the roads in now because once it's built out, no way will you be able to jam a freeway in there

Quote from: TempoNick on March 21, 2023, 02:29:05 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on March 21, 2023, 02:08:29 AM


The current population of Columbus is less than 1,000,000 for the city proper and about 1.8 million for the metro area. 

2.2 million for the metro area projected to be 3.15 million by 2050. The way this stuff works, you better get the roads in now because once it's built out, no way will you be able to jam a freeway in there

Which is exactly why this should have been done 40 years ago. Delaware County has exploded in development in that time, making the upgrades we're talking about now so difficult.

Quote from: TempoNick on March 21, 2023, 02:29:05 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on March 21, 2023, 02:08:29 AM


The current population of Columbus is less than 1,000,000 for the city proper and about 1.8 million for the metro area. 

2.2 million for the metro area projected to be 3.15 million by 2050. The way this stuff works, you better get the roads in now because once it's built out, no way will you be able to jam a freeway in there

The source I looked at actually said less than 1.8 million.  I rounded up.  At any rate, an increase of almost 50% by 2050 seems quite unlikely, but 2050 is still about 3 decades away, not 1.  I agree that something needs to be done and the sooner the better, but there's no need to exaggerate or sensationalize the facts and figures, which this writer seems to have done.  I drove through Delaware County 40 years ago and traffic was terrible then.  I'm thinking this should have been addressed in the 1960's or earlier.

https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22963/columbus/population

Quote from: Terry Shea on March 21, 2023, 03:58:00 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on March 21, 2023, 02:29:05 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on March 21, 2023, 02:08:29 AM


The current population of Columbus is less than 1,000,000 for the city proper and about 1.8 million for the metro area. 

2.2 million for the metro area projected to be 3.15 million by 2050. The way this stuff works, you better get the roads in now because once it's built out, no way will you be able to jam a freeway in there

The source I looked at actually said less than 1.8 million.  I rounded up.  At any rate, an increase of almost 50% by 2050 seems quite unlikely, but 2050 is still about 3 decades away, not 1.  I agree that something needs to be done and the sooner the better, but there's no need to exaggerate or sensationalize the facts and figures, which this writer seems to have done.  I drove through Delaware County 40 years ago and traffic was terrible then.  I'm thinking this should have been addressed in the 1960's or earlier.

https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22963/columbus/population

2.2 million is the latest census for the Columbus MSA. I am also rounding up, it was actually 2,139 or something like that, but that was 3 years ago so 2.2 million is pretty accurate.

We were at just under 1.2 million in 1980, so another million people in 27 years is not that crazy. Their previous population projections have been spot on, so I would take it seriously.

I'm not a big fan of all this growth, but the alternative is not to grow and that's even worse. I prefer the old Columbus where all the farmland started 7 miles outside of downtown.

Quote from: TempoNick on March 21, 2023, 10:58:07 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on March 21, 2023, 03:58:00 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on March 21, 2023, 02:29:05 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on March 21, 2023, 02:08:29 AM


The current population of Columbus is less than 1,000,000 for the city proper and about 1.8 million for the metro area. 

2.2 million for the metro area projected to be 3.15 million by 2050. The way this stuff works, you better get the roads in now because once it's built out, no way will you be able to jam a freeway in there

The source I looked at actually said less than 1.8 million.  I rounded up.  At any rate, an increase of almost 50% by 2050 seems quite unlikely, but 2050 is still about 3 decades away, not 1.  I agree that something needs to be done and the sooner the better, but there's no need to exaggerate or sensationalize the facts and figures, which this writer seems to have done.  I drove through Delaware County 40 years ago and traffic was terrible then.  I'm thinking this should have been addressed in the 1960's or earlier.

https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22963/columbus/population

2.2 million is the latest census for the Columbus MSA. I am also rounding up, it was actually 2,139 or something like that, but that was 3 years ago so 2.2 million is pretty accurate.

We were at just under 1.2 million in 1980, so another million people in 27 years is not that crazy. Their previous population projections have been spot on, so I would take it seriously.

I'm not a big fan of all this growth, but the alternative is not to grow and that's even worse. I prefer the old Columbus where all the farmland started 7 miles outside of downtown.

That may be, but the article referred to another 1 million people in the next decade!  That's a bit on the outlandish side.

Yeah, that's BS. I agree. Sloppy with facts, typo, reporter not questioning what he was told, maybe all of the above.

Quote from: vtk on March 21, 2023, 03:01:03 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on March 21, 2023, 02:29:05 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on March 21, 2023, 02:08:29 AM


The current population of Columbus is less than 1,000,000 for the city proper and about 1.8 million for the metro area. 

2.2 million for the metro area projected to be 3.15 million by 2050. The way this stuff works, you better get the roads in now because once it's built out, no way will you be able to jam a freeway in there

Which is exactly why this should have been done 40 years ago. Delaware County has exploded in development in that time, making the upgrades we're talking about now so difficult.

If you constructed a rural freeway alignment to connect with I-71, you wouldn't be dealing with any major right of way / constraints.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2023, 01:24:42 PM

Quote from: vtk on March 21, 2023, 03:01:03 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on March 21, 2023, 02:29:05 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on March 21, 2023, 02:08:29 AM


The current population of Columbus is less than 1,000,000 for the city proper and about 1.8 million for the metro area. 

2.2 million for the metro area projected to be 3.15 million by 2050. The way this stuff works, you better get the roads in now because once it's built out, no way will you be able to jam a freeway in there

Which is exactly why this should have been done 40 years ago. Delaware County has exploded in development in that time, making the upgrades we're talking about now so difficult.

If you constructed a rural freeway alignment to connect with I-71, you wouldn't be dealing with any major right of way / constraints.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda.
Not going to happen unless you flood the county with money to pay all the landowners off, or murder all the folks who object. I don't see you doing either.

Sure it'll happen. It has to happen.

Yet another reason I-73 is dead: the meteoric growth of Columbus. It's been 30 years now, and still no shovels are turning on any mile of it.

A million more people? In Columbus?  Ohio?  In one decade? Partially because of the Gordie Howe Bridge?
:-D :-D :-D

I'll eat my hat if the entire state of Ohio adds a million people in the next decade!
That Intel plant will at best offset the loss of a few tens of thousands overall. 

Doesn't detract from the fact that a freeway corridor between Columbus and Toledo is one of the greatest oversights in the national network of freeways/interstates.  But still, let's be reasonable.  Existing conditions more than justify such infrastructure investments.  No need to conjure up a doubling of Columbus' population to make it a good idea.

If any improvements were made to the US 23 corridor between Columbus and Toledo, I would prefer to construct them on-alignment than off-alignment (despite the destruction, right-of-way impacts and road changes any improvements would bring to the corridor). As for that prediction of 1 million people would be added in the next decade, I wonder what that reporter was smoking? I want some too!

I wonder how much it would cost to upgrade the Delaware County portion of US 23 in the same way that US 31 was upgraded to a freeway north of Indianapolis from I-465 to Westfield.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 23, 2023, 12:38:08 PM
If any improvements were made to the US 23 corridor between Columbus and Toledo, I would prefer to construct them on-alignment than off-alignment (despite the destruction, right-of-way impacts and road changes any improvements would bring to the corridor). As for that prediction of 1 million people would be added in the next decade, I wonder what that reporter was smoking? I want some too!

Ideally the US-23 corridor would be upgraded, but if right of way constraints and costs skyrocket due to acquisition, I say just head for a new terrain freeway alignment. If land concerns in specific areas arise, just shift the alignment further north. At least allow long haul US-23 traffic to connect into I-71.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2023, 01:11:31 PM

Ideally the US-23 corridor would be upgraded, but if right of way constraints and costs skyrocket due to acquisition, I say just head for a new terrain freeway alignment. If land concerns in specific areas arise, just shift the alignment further north. At least allow long haul US-23 traffic to connect into I-71.

Yeah, and don't give it some goofy number like Ohio Route 1023. If you're going to renumber a road, it should be High Street. The US Route designation is worthless on an urban surface road these days.

Kind of like that Ohio 161/37/16 abomination. Just give Broad Street a new number and turn 161 into the new 16.

Sorry if I'm repeating, I forget if I said this on this site or on another one, but the NIMBYs are missing a huge opportunity. If you build a bypass through there without any interchanges or at grade crossings, and enshrine that into law, it would serve as a buffer effectively cutting off sprawl into the northern part of Delaware County. The Ohio turnpike does that to a great degree so just turn it into a toll road.

^ No toll road, but definitely no interchanges - I could see that. Serve as a direct link for long-haul traffic to I-71.

The proposed Ohio Transportation bill is toying with another study in improving the Toledo-Columbus corridor.

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/transportation/2023/03/23/house-senate-disagree-on-final-13-5-billion-transportation-budget/stories/20230323109

What is more interesting, and what could finally "break" the dam, known as US-23 from Delaware to Columbus, is a second study to improve the corridor between Columbus and Sandusky -- home to Cedar Point, and gateway to the Lake Erie Islands.

Should a four-lane freeway or expressway connection ever be made between Sandusky and central Ohio, that could be even more reason for ODOT to create a better connection to Columbus, bypassing the US-23/Delaware County mess.

Quote from: thenetwork on March 25, 2023, 12:55:24 PM
The proposed Ohio Transportation bill is toying with another study in improving the Toledo-Columbus corridor.

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/transportation/2023/03/23/house-senate-disagree-on-final-13-5-billion-transportation-budget/stories/20230323109

What is more interesting, and what could finally "break" the dam, known as US-23 from Delaware to Columbus, is a second study to improve the corridor between Columbus and Sandusky -- home to Cedar Point, and gateway to the Lake Erie Islands.

Should a four-lane freeway or expressway connection ever be made between Sandusky and central Ohio, that could be even more reason for ODOT to create a better connection to Columbus, bypassing the US-23/Delaware County mess.

Oddly enough, that Columbus-Sandusky expressway would follow the route of one of Ohio's earliest roads, the Kilbourne Road aka the Columbus-Sandusky Turnpike (https://sanduskyhistory.blogspot.com/2007/07/columbus-sandusky-pike.html).

QuoteIn the early days of Ohio statehood, one of the primary missions of the state government was to sponsor the development of transportation systems, such as roads and canals, throughout the state. One of the early highways in Ohio was the Columbus and Sandusky Turnpike, created via legislation of the General Assembly of the State of Ohio in 1826. The road followed a route that is roughly the same as routes 4 and 23 today.

Before US 23 was routed through Ohio, Ohio 4 followed its current route from Sandusky to Bucyrus, current Ohio 98 from Bucyrus to Marion, and current US 23 to Columbus (and to Portsmouth). It would be interesting to see them connect this historic corridor under one route number again.

Around 30 years ago when they were really looking at the I-73 corridor, I remember reading an article in the Norwalk Reflector about local leaders wanting to swing the I-73 corridor from Toledo and Michigan to Sandusky. Obviously that never happened (nor any of Ohio's portion of I-73), but it's interesting to see this idea coming back for study. Route 4 is a busy 2-lane road with heavy interregional truck traffic as well as summer tourist traffic; that corridor is probably due for upgrades in certain areas and maybe a couple bypasses at Bucyrus and Attica.

After reading the other thread about states with best connectivity, you can arguably say that Sandusky/port Clinton vacationland area is about one of the only missing direct‐connection "spokes" from "hub" Columbus.  There is no due north US or I- route from Columbus to Lake Erie.

From Ch 13 in Toledo:

https://www.13abc.com/2023/03/24/routes-nw-ohio-columbus-may-get-second-look/

TOLEDO, Ohio (WTVG) - An easier and cleaner route from Toledo to Columbus might soon be getting a second look.

And in addition, Sandusky will be part of the mix. This study will also include looking at a better route for Columbus to Sandusky, a place known for its tourism, but tourism is also economic development.

The article seems to be a rehash of others. By adding Sandusky are they thinking of upgrading OH 4 and bypassing Delaware county?

It makes the most sense to upgrade the existing US 23 for I-73. However, let me propose an alternate route: US 68 or Ohio 235 down to US 33, and then down 315/71 back down to US 23 as originally conceived.

Alternatively, you can wind it around the east side of Columbus into Newark and down to US 33, which can serve as i-73.

Quote from: TempoNick on March 26, 2023, 12:38:35 PM
It makes the most sense to upgrade the existing US 23 for I-73. However, let me propose an alternate route: US 68 or Ohio 235 down to US 33, and then down 315/71 back down to US 23 as originally conceived.

Alternatively, you can wind it around the east side of Columbus into Newark and down to US 33, which can serve as i-73.

Just after I graduated college (late 80s), I shunpiked Chicago-Pennsylvania via US 30 and I-70. To get from one to the other, I took some back roads to OH 309 and then OH 31 from Kenton to Marysville. It was efficient and easier than continuing east on US 30 from Beaverdam back when it was only two lanes between I-75 and Sandusky. I agree it might be easier to use the US 33 freeway out of Columbus to reach Findlay rather than connect US 23 to I-71.

Quote from: skluth on March 27, 2023, 12:04:06 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on March 26, 2023, 12:38:35 PM
It makes the most sense to upgrade the existing US 23 for I-73. However, let me propose an alternate route: US 68 or Ohio 235 down to US 33, and then down 315/71 back down to US 23 as originally conceived.

Alternatively, you can wind it around the east side of Columbus into Newark and down to US 33, which can serve as i-73.

Just after I graduated college (late 80s), I shunpiked Chicago-Pennsylvania via US 30 and I-70. To get from one to the other, I took some back roads to OH 309 and then OH 31 from Kenton to Marysville. It was efficient and easier than continuing east on US 30 from Beaverdam back when it was only two lanes between I-75 and Sandusky. I agree it might be easier to use the US 33 freeway out of Columbus to reach Findlay rather than connect US 23 to I-71.

I think you mean US 30 goes to "Upper Sandusky" where it connects with US 23 versus "Sandusky" which is 55 miles north on Lake Erie.

Google maps show it is about the same timing for US 23-OH 15 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Columbus,+Ohio/Findlay,+Ohio+45840/@40.5957136,-83.5891773,9.26z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x883889c1b990de71:0xe43266f8cfb1b533!2m2!1d-82.9987942!2d39.9611755!1m5!1m1!1s0x883c0220991f71f9:0x23b5540b6710aed2!2m2!1d-83.6499321!2d41.04422!3e0) and for US 33-OH 31-US 68 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Columbus,+Ohio/Findlay,+Ohio+45840/@40.6322668,-83.7015331,9z/data=!4m19!4m18!1m10!1m1!1s0x883889c1b990de71:0xe43266f8cfb1b533!2m2!1d-82.9987942!2d39.9611755!3m4!1m2!1d-83.5443556!2d40.5627102!3s0x88392c5c7422d77f:0xe16f9e176354a607!1m5!1m1!1s0x883c0220991f71f9:0x23b5540b6710aed2!2m2!1d-83.6499321!2d41.04422!3e0) from Columbus to Findlay.

I went to college in Ada in the 90s and took pretty much all those roads to/from Columbus and north to Findlay. I was a big fan of Ohio 31 to US 33 for our Columbus adventures.

Quote from: skluth on March 27, 2023, 12:04:06 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on March 26, 2023, 12:38:35 PM
It makes the most sense to upgrade the existing US 23 for I-73. However, let me propose an alternate route: US 68 or Ohio 235 down to US 33, and then down 315/71 back down to US 23 as originally conceived.

Alternatively, you can wind it around the east side of Columbus into Newark and down to US 33, which can serve as i-73.

Just after I graduated college (late 80s), I shunpiked Chicago-Pennsylvania via US 30 and I-70. To get from one to the other, I took some back roads to OH 309 and then OH 31 from Kenton to Marysville. It was efficient and easier than continuing east on US 30 from Beaverdam back when it was only two lanes between I-75 and Sandusky. I agree it might be easier to use the US 33 freeway out of Columbus to reach Findlay rather than connect US 23 to I-71.

I used to go to Fort Wayne a lot. I used to take US 33 and then the State Route just to the east of Indian Lake up to Lima, and then up to Thayer Rd., I think it was, to get to US 30. I think that was a pretty good route, but I'm a little hesitant about laying freeway all across Ohio. I'd rather not tear up more of our land, but that's just me.

But then again, US 68 was envisioned as freeway between Springfield and Bellefontaine in some of the old plans.

Quote from: zzcarp on March 27, 2023, 03:49:57 PM

Quote from: skluth on March 27, 2023, 12:04:06 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on March 26, 2023, 12:38:35 PM
It makes the most sense to upgrade the existing US 23 for I-73. However, let me propose an alternate route: US 68 or Ohio 235 down to US 33, and then down 315/71 back down to US 23 as originally conceived.

Alternatively, you can wind it around the east side of Columbus into Newark and down to US 33, which can serve as i-73.

Just after I graduated college (late 80s), I shunpiked Chicago-Pennsylvania via US 30 and I-70. To get from one to the other, I took some back roads to OH 309 and then OH 31 from Kenton to Marysville. It was efficient and easier than continuing east on US 30 from Beaverdam back when it was only two lanes between I-75 and Sandusky. I agree it might be easier to use the US 33 freeway out of Columbus to reach Findlay rather than connect US 23 to I-71.

I think you mean US 30 goes to "Upper Sandusky" where it connects with US 23 versus "Sandusky" which is 55 miles north on Lake Erie.

Whoops. Thanks for the correction. I should know better. Cedar Point is my favorite amusement park. Even more than Disney.

Quote

Google maps show it is about the same timing for US 23-OH 15 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Columbus,+Ohio/Findlay,+Ohio+45840/@40.5957136,-83.5891773,9.26z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x883889c1b990de71:0xe43266f8cfb1b533!2m2!1d-82.9987942!2d39.9611755!1m5!1m1!1s0x883c0220991f71f9:0x23b5540b6710aed2!2m2!1d-83.6499321!2d41.04422!3e0) and for US 33-OH 31-US 68 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Columbus,+Ohio/Findlay,+Ohio+45840/@40.6322668,-83.7015331,9z/data=!4m19!4m18!1m10!1m1!1s0x883889c1b990de71:0xe43266f8cfb1b533!2m2!1d-82.9987942!2d39.9611755!3m4!1m2!1d-83.5443556!2d40.5627102!3s0x88392c5c7422d77f:0xe16f9e176354a607!1m5!1m1!1s0x883c0220991f71f9:0x23b5540b6710aed2!2m2!1d-83.6499321!2d41.04422!3e0) from Columbus to Findlay.

I went to college in Ada in the 90s and took pretty much all those roads to/from Columbus and north to Findlay. I was a big fan of Ohio 31 to US 33 for our Columbus adventures.

The bill passed and was signed by Gov. Dewine. Enjoy the following quote from the Toledo Blade.

Also, amusing that it's called "House Bill 23."

QuoteMr. DeWine said the Toledo area legislative delegation and other elected officials have made it clear that a better connection with Columbus is needed.

"I can attest that they're correct because I've made that trip many times,"  he said after signing House Bill 23 into law. "A trip between Toledo and the state capital is a long trip. It's a tough trip, and it's got a lot of stoplights out there."

The plan would fund a $10 million study looking out 10, 20, and 30 years into the future to project demographic, traffic, and economic development trends statewide and to make specific recommendations to get ahead of any expected issues.

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/transportation/2023/03/31/governor-signs-bill-to-look-at-toledo-to-columbus-connector/stories/20230331145

Quote from: TempoNick on April 02, 2023, 01:10:59 AM
The bill passed and was signed by Gov. Dewine. Enjoy the following quote from the Toledo Blade.

Also, amusing that it's called "House Bill 23."

QuoteMr. DeWine said the Toledo area legislative delegation and other elected officials have made it clear that a better connection with Columbus is needed.

"I can attest that they're correct because I've made that trip many times,"  he said after signing House Bill 23 into law. "A trip between Toledo and the state capital is a long trip. It's a tough trip, and it's got a lot of stoplights out there."

The plan would fund a $10 million study looking out 10, 20, and 30 years into the future to project demographic, traffic, and economic development trends statewide and to make specific recommendations to get ahead of any expected issues.

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/transportation/2023/03/31/governor-signs-bill-to-look-at-toledo-to-columbus-connector/stories/20230331145

Given how much they're paying nowadays for these studies that usually don't go anywhere, I am on the wrong side of this business.

I think one of the problems here in Ohio is that they try to make everything too perfect and that's an excuse to never get anything done. They should just do freeways in Ohio like they do them in Texas. Just jam them through like they do in Texas and run frontage roads along the side.

The bones of that road are already there. Just close off the intersections, build a bypass around Delaware, connect to US 36, close that off too. Or run frontage roads all the way down US 23 until you get to I-270. There, done. If you want it perfect, you can fix the problems this creates later. Same with US 35 in Beavercreek. Just ram it through there, put in a bunch of frontage roads and that's good enough. Fix it later to make it perfect.


Link to Texas Image: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d_J6JYWyq8x2ScAp3qIzd1jc0SZrzkf7/view?usp=sharing

Quote from: TempoNick on April 02, 2023, 05:08:54 PM
I think one of the problems here in Ohio is that they try to make everything too perfect and that's an excuse to never get anything done. They should just do freeways in Ohio like they do them in Texas. Just jam them through like they do in Texas and run frontage roads along the side.

The bones of that road are already there. Just close off the intersections, build a bypass around Delaware, connect to US 36, close that off too. Or run frontage roads all the way down US 23 until you get to I-270. There, done. If you want it perfect, you can fix the problems this creates later. Same with US 35 in Beavercreek. Just ram it through there, put in a bunch of frontage roads and that's good enough. Fix it later to make it perfect.


Link to Texas Image: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d_J6JYWyq8x2ScAp3qIzd1jc0SZrzkf7/view?usp=sharing

Oh, is that all.

Quote from: TempoNick on April 02, 2023, 05:08:54 PM
I think one of the problems here in Ohio is that they try to make everything too perfect and that's an excuse to never get anything done. They should just do freeways in Ohio like they do them in Texas. Just jam them through like they do in Texas and run frontage roads along the side.

The bones of that road are already there. Just close off the intersections, build a bypass around Delaware, connect to US 36, close that off too. Or run frontage roads all the way down US 23 until you get to I-270. There, done. If you want it perfect, you can fix the problems this creates later. Same with US 35 in Beavercreek. Just ram it through there, put in a bunch of frontage roads and that's good enough. Fix it later to make it perfect.


Link to Texas Image: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d_J6JYWyq8x2ScAp3qIzd1jc0SZrzkf7/view?usp=sharing

I think the difference between Texas and this particular US-23 situation is the right of way available. In Texas, there's often a good amount of right of way preserved for frontage roads. Here, running frontage roads may require several takes due to properties being too close to the roadway.

While an urban 60-65 mph freeway down US-23 directly to I-270 would be the most ideal situation, the more realistic way to get it built is to build a rural freeway connection and use I-71 or US-33's existing connections entering the urban area.

^ However, I see your point about US-36 between Delaware and I-71. That could reasonably be upgraded into a limited access facility. I'm not sure why that has not been evaluated as an alternative.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 02, 2023, 10:06:44 PM
^ However, I see your point about US-36 between Delaware and I-71. That could reasonably be upgraded into a limited access facility. I'm not sure why that has not been evaluated as an alternative.

That's what I was getting at more than the US 23 option. US 23 would probably be too disruptive and too expensive at this point. That said, they did do that with US 19 in Pinellas County, FL. Not quite a freeway, but lots of intersections removed by building overpasses.

You could also get away with only building frontage roads in a couple of spots. You run the bypass to just east of Meijers. Use the rest of US 36, maybe an interchange at the Kroger Warehouse and frontage roads built around the gas stations and fast food near the freeway. That is, if you don't condemn some of them. You can make traffic flow there like it would into a rest area or turnpike travel plaza.

That's the way to get this done. Fix the rest of it later.

I don't really like the US 33 option because you end up tearing up more farmland through there. I think it's good that that area should be preserved as farmland. I would hate to have tacky suburban homes all over the place through there.

Here is my proposal. I don't see why they couldn't push this through.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13wk8b7EnuzpGauKosMHCzSO7A0IlpS0p/view?usp=drivesdk

Your routing closer to I-71 is nullified by the Sunbury Parkway: https://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/files/Scroll%20-%20Preferred%20Alternative%20-%202017-07-10.pdf

Otherwise, it would be an easy connector between Delaware and I-71.

Quote from: seicer on April 03, 2023, 12:31:22 PM
Your routing closer to I-71 is nullified by the Sunbury Parkway: https://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/files/Scroll%20-%20Preferred%20Alternative%20-%202017-07-10.pdf

Otherwise, it would be an easy connector between Delaware and I-71.

I would think it can be modified, but yeah, this is the easiest solution and it can get done. The only reason I think they won't do it is because they want that Waldo bypass and are going to make everybody suffer until they get it.

But then again, that goes back to what I was talking about before. Nothing gets done because they're trying to do the perfect when there is a good alternative.

I'm sure at some point someone brought this idea up, but what if ODOT built a WESTERN bypass of Delaware, roughly parallelling US-42 to US-33, then use I-270 around the west side of Columbus to loop around back to US-23 on the south side? Or worst case, just build a full-on freeway interchange at US-23 and US-42 west, then route a freeway down to US-33?

Right now, anyway, it's about 15 miles of new-terrain freeway alignment in favorable terrain  - the sprawl northward from Columbus hasn't *quite* reached US-42 yet. Connecting direct to I-71 would be somewhat shorter, but this might be more politically palatable.

Of course, the knee-jerk reaction would be to just punch new freeway/expressway down the US-68 and OH-292 corridors to East Liberrty, but now we're talking 50 miles of new freeway/expressway v.s. 10-15. At that point, (going really fictional now), I'd supplant all of US-23 north of the I-270 South Outerbelt with a US-223 designation and overlay US-23 on the new routing.

Quote from: JREwing78 on April 17, 2023, 07:53:50 PM
I'm sure at some point someone brought this idea up, but what if ODOT built a WESTERN bypass of Delaware, roughly parallelling US-42 to US-33, then use I-270 around the west side of Columbus to loop around back to US-23 on the south side? Or worst case, just build a full-on freeway interchange at US-23 and US-42 west, then route a freeway down to US-33?

Right now, anyway, it's about 15 miles of new-terrain freeway alignment in favorable terrain  - the sprawl northward from Columbus hasn't *quite* reached US-42 yet. Connecting direct to I-71 would be somewhat shorter, but this might be more politically palatable.

Of course, the knee-jerk reaction would be to just punch new freeway/expressway down the US-68 and OH-292 corridors to East Liberrty, but now we're talking 50 miles of new freeway/expressway v.s. 10-15. At that point, (going really fictional now), I'd supplant all of US-23 north of the I-270 South Outerbelt with a US-223 designation and overlay US-23 on the new routing.

Can't do a US-223 in Central Ohio, as there is that "all important" 1‐2 mile stretch of US-223 in Ohio along the US ‐23 duplex.  :bigass:

I think US 223 should still exist along present-day OH 51 within Toledo. Either that, or it shouldn't enter Ohio at all, and should end at US 23's Exit 5 in Michigan.

Quote from: JREwing78 on April 17, 2023, 07:53:50 PM
I'm sure at some point someone brought this idea up, but what if ODOT built a WESTERN bypass of Delaware, roughly parallelling US-42 to US-33, then use I-270 around the west side of Columbus to loop around back to US-23 on the south side? Or worst case, just build a full-on freeway interchange at US-23 and US-42 west, then route a freeway down to US-33?

Right now, anyway, it's about 15 miles of new-terrain freeway alignment in favorable terrain  - the sprawl northward from Columbus hasn't *quite* reached US-42 yet. Connecting direct to I-71 would be somewhat shorter, but this might be more politically palatable.

Of course, the knee-jerk reaction would be to just punch new freeway/expressway down the US-68 and OH-292 corridors to East Liberrty, but now we're talking 50 miles of new freeway/expressway v.s. 10-15. At that point, (going really fictional now), I'd supplant all of US-23 north of the I-270 South Outerbelt with a US-223 designation and overlay US-23 on the new routing.

I think a very similar plan was once discussed as one of the options. But I think they were going to leave stop lights along us 42, which defeats the purpose. It needs to be freeway all the way.

Quote from: TempoNick on April 18, 2023, 02:34:21 AM

Quote from: JREwing78 on April 17, 2023, 07:53:50 PM
I'm sure at some point someone brought this idea up, but what if ODOT built a WESTERN bypass of Delaware, roughly parallelling US-42 to US-33, then use I-270 around the west side of Columbus to loop around back to US-23 on the south side? Or worst case, just build a full-on freeway interchange at US-23 and US-42 west, then route a freeway down to US-33?

I think a very similar plan was once discussed as one of the options. But I think they were going to leave stop lights along us 42, which defeats the purpose. It needs to be freeway all the way.

Saw that post about 30 seconds after I posted. At any rate, that seems like an easier path to a full-freeway routing of US-23 instead of dealing with the narrow ROW and property acquisition by widening the current alignment south of Delaware.

A western bypass would tie into existing US 23 north of the city of Delaware. Utilizing the short freeway segment in downtown Delaware and upgrading US 42 in-place to get to US 33 has not been a seriously considered option, and in my opinion it would be just as expensive and less functional than a bypass on a new alignment to the west of the city.

By the way, there *was* a fully free-flowing partial interchange at the southern 23/42/Sandusky junction until about 2001. It was strictly northbound-to-northbound and southbound-to-southbound, and (IIRC) lacked connections between 42 and Sandusky St.

Quote from: vtk on April 26, 2023, 06:10:25 AM
A western bypass would tie into existing US 23 north of the city of Delaware. Utilizing the short freeway segment in downtown Delaware and upgrading US 42 in-place to get to US 33 has not been a seriously considered option, and in my opinion it would be just as expensive and less functional than a bypass on a new alignment to the west of the city.

By the way, there *was* a fully free-flowing partial interchange at the southern 23/42/Sandusky junction until about 2001. It was strictly northbound-to-northbound and southbound-to-southbound, and (IIRC) lacked connections between 42 and Sandusky St.

Quote from: JREwing78 on April 19, 2023, 08:20:34 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on April 18, 2023, 02:34:21 AM

Quote from: JREwing78 on April 17, 2023, 07:53:50 PM
I'm sure at some point someone brought this idea up, but what if ODOT built a WESTERN bypass of Delaware, roughly parallelling US-42 to US-33, then use I-270 around the west side of Columbus to loop around back to US-23 on the south side? Or worst case, just build a full-on freeway interchange at US-23 and US-42 west, then route a freeway down to US-33?

I think a very similar plan was once discussed as one of the options. But I think they were going to leave stop lights along us 42, which defeats the purpose. It needs to be freeway all the way.

Saw that post about 30 seconds after I posted. At any rate, that seems like an easier path to a full-freeway routing of US-23 instead of dealing with the narrow ROW and property acquisition by widening the current alignment south of Delaware.

How viable would it be to extend Sawmill Parkway from US-42 to US-23 at a point north of Delaware -- essentially making it a western bypass of Delaware?

I still think a full freeway connection from US-23 to I-71 is the most beneficial as most US-23 traffic is already going from northwest to southeast destinations and vice-versa.  I don't think as much traffic would prefer to double back from US-33.

Sawmill Parkway is planned to extend just a little further from its current end, west to Section Line Rd at the quarry. Improvements to Section Line Rd and a new road from its northern end northeast to 23 could be accomplished with sufficient local political will, I think, but it wouldn't be a freeway.

Quote from: thenetwork on April 17, 2023, 09:57:31 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on April 17, 2023, 07:53:50 PM
I'm sure at some point someone brought this idea up, but what if ODOT built a WESTERN bypass of Delaware, roughly parallelling US-42 to US-33, then use I-270 around the west side of Columbus to loop around back to US-23 on the south side? Or worst case, just build a full-on freeway interchange at US-23 and US-42 west, then route a freeway down to US-33?

Right now, anyway, it's about 15 miles of new-terrain freeway alignment in favorable terrain  - the sprawl northward from Columbus hasn't *quite* reached US-42 yet. Connecting direct to I-71 would be somewhat shorter, but this might be more politically palatable.

Of course, the knee-jerk reaction would be to just punch new freeway/expressway down the US-68 and OH-292 corridors to East Liberrty, but now we're talking 50 miles of new freeway/expressway v.s. 10-15. At that point, (going really fictional now), I'd supplant all of US-23 north of the I-270 South Outerbelt with a US-223 designation and overlay US-23 on the new routing.

Can't do a US-223 in Central Ohio, as there is that "all important" 1‐2 mile stretch of US-223 in Ohio along the US ‐23 duplex.  :bigass:

Move US 23 onto SR 15 and I-75 like they should've done in the first place, then US 223 can just replace it.

Quote from: Molandfreak on December 05, 2022, 12:41:13 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/jLtAyYW.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/ZlZMIMt.png)
Because apparently it's an unpopular opinion here to re-route long-distance highways to expressways where they actually make sense, for some reason...

Shouldn't the Route 23 shield come first?

Also, you have to get rid of these minor control cities that are the habit with the US and State routes. The signs should say Toledo and Columbus only once they become all freeway.

I don't care what people say, US 23 is dangerous the way it is. There are too many trucks and they create too many blind spots at intersections. Add some night time driving, heavy traffic and some rain, and it can become hazardous.

Quote from: TempoNick on May 09, 2023, 03:17:26 AM
Shouldn't the Route 23 shield come first?

No, as US-23 NORTH is the only route on this freeway at this point, unless you kept SR-15.

And since there is an existing  US-223 in Michigan, unless US-223 from Carey is routed all the way through Toledo to the existing 223, it would be better to make it a US-X20 as that's what would ultimately connect to (US-20) at its northern terminus.

Better yet, connect a US-x20 from Carey to the I-280 junction with the Ohio Turnpike, eliminating SR-420...Or just renumbered tat entire stretch US or SR-420.

I have already stated that I think US 223 should end at US 23's Exit 5 in Michigan, or it should have remained along present-day OH 51. If US 223 isn't going to be decommissioned in Ohio, maybe they should have extended it south with 23 to terminate at the interchange with Interstate 475. That would have been a more logical terminus than the present one. Any talk of rerouting US 23 or extending US 223 should be regulated to Fictional Highways, since I don't think either will happen.

Quote from: thenetwork on May 09, 2023, 09:57:04 AM

No, as US-23 NORTH is the only route on this freeway at this point, unless you kept SR-15.

I'm talking about the first graphic from I-75. Shouldn't it read US-23 South TO US-68?

Quote from: TempoNick on May 10, 2023, 12:58:00 AM
I'm talking about the first graphic from I-75. Shouldn't it read US-23 South TO US-68?

No TO, because US-68 south properly begins at the junction with I-75.

I'm hesitant to bring this back to the conversation, but Governor DeWine and ODOT Director Marchbanks have shared their thoughts in the linked Columbus Dispatch article.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2023/09/22/state-transportation-officials-focus-on-route-23-through-delaware/70918206007/

Quote from: carbaugh2 on September 22, 2023, 12:59:28 PM
I'm hesitant to bring this back to the conversation, but Governor DeWine and ODOT Director Marchbanks have shared their thoughts in the linked Columbus Dispatch article.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2023/09/22/state-transportation-officials-focus-on-route-23-through-delaware/70918206007/

QuoteThe state's plans for dealing with U.S. 23 includes several options that focus on safety, said Toni Turowski, ODOT's District 6 deputy director and a traffic engineer. Throughout this and next year, there will be meetings with community and business leaders and the public. Final plans should be decided by the end of 2024, officials say.

QuotePotential upgrades include:

Traditional interchange: Typically used on freeways with high volume, these replace an intersection with a bridge and ramps, eliminating the need for traffic lights. ODOT has not said where one or more might be used.
Connector road interchanges: These are also useful in high-traffic areas, replacing an intersection with a bridge and two-way connector roads, eliminating the need for traffic signals. Unlike traditional interchanges, they minimize impact to adjacent property.
Restricted crossing U-turns: Dubbed "R-turns," these would restrict side street left turns onto U.S. 23. Instead they would direct traffic onto U.S. 23 via a right turn, followed by an immediate U-turn lane which could employ a traffic signal.
Overpasses and underpasses: Allow for nonstop traffic on and off U.S. 23, with use of traffic signals.

This is so stupid. Just build a bypass around delaware, connect it to US 36 / Ohio 37, and make it all freeway until I-71. It may not be the best long-term solution, but compared to what we have, that's good enough for now.

Quote from: TempoNick on September 23, 2023, 02:47:21 AM
This is so stupid. Just build a bypass around delaware, connect it to US 36 / Ohio 37, and make it all freeway until I-71. It may not be the best long-term solution, but compared to what we have, that's good enough for now.

Yeah, you already wrote that 5 pages back, 2 years ago.

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on September 24, 2023, 12:53:05 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on September 23, 2023, 02:47:21 AM
This is so stupid. Just build a bypass around delaware, connect it to US 36 / Ohio 37, and make it all freeway until I-71. It may not be the best long-term solution, but compared to what we have, that's good enough for now.

Yeah, you already wrote that 5 pages back, 2 years ago.

I wonder why they haven't done it. It's a pretty simple solution that would get the job done. Something else must be at play here.

Quote from: TempoNick on September 24, 2023, 03:33:32 AM

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on September 24, 2023, 12:53:05 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on September 23, 2023, 02:47:21 AM
This is so stupid. Just build a bypass around delaware, connect it to US 36 / Ohio 37, and make it all freeway until I-71. It may not be the best long-term solution, but compared to what we have, that's good enough for now.

Yeah, you already wrote that 5 pages back, 2 years ago.

I wonder why they haven't done it. It's a pretty simple solution that would get the job done. Something else must be at play here.

Funding and priorities...

Quote from: Rothman on September 24, 2023, 07:33:49 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on September 24, 2023, 03:33:32 AM
I wonder why they haven't done it. It's a pretty simple solution that would get the job done. Something else must be at play here.

Funding and priorities...

This should be pretty high priority. I would say that it's a higher priority than four lane-ing US 33 and a lot of other things they do

Quote from: TempoNick on September 24, 2023, 12:39:52 PM

Quote from: Rothman on September 24, 2023, 07:33:49 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on September 24, 2023, 03:33:32 AM
I wonder why they haven't done it. It's a pretty simple solution that would get the job done. Something else must be at play here.

Funding and priorities...

This should be pretty high priority. I would say that it's a higher priority than four lane-ing US 33 and a lot of other things they do

You tell 'em.

Quote from: Rothman on September 24, 2023, 02:22:53 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on September 24, 2023, 12:39:52 PM

This should be pretty high priority. I would say that it's a higher priority than four lane-ing US 33 and a lot of other things they do

You tell 'em.

There's always an outside hope that somebody in authority reads these boards.

Quote from: TempoNick on September 24, 2023, 10:44:01 PM

Quote from: Rothman on September 24, 2023, 02:22:53 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on September 24, 2023, 12:39:52 PM

This should be pretty high priority. I would say that it's a higher priority than four lane-ing US 33 and a lot of other things they do

You tell 'em.

There's always an outside hope that somebody in authority reads these boards.

And the idea that an opinion on the board would overrule opinions that person hears from their agency's asset management committees/equivalents is ludicrous.

Best we can do is call up the agency and see where your idea falls on their priority list, if at all.

Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2023, 06:54:14 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on September 24, 2023, 10:44:01 PM

Quote from: Rothman on September 24, 2023, 02:22:53 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on September 24, 2023, 12:39:52 PM

This should be pretty high priority. I would say that it's a higher priority than four lane-ing US 33 and a lot of other things they do

You tell 'em.

There's always an outside hope that somebody in authority reads these boards.

And the idea that an opinion on the board would overrule opinions that person hears from their agency's asset management committees/equivalents is ludicrous.

Best we can do is call up the agency and see where your idea falls on their priority list, if at all.

Who said I expect them to do that? But sometimes opinions can plant a thought in people's minds and they start thinking about things a different way. Ben Franklin wouldn't have written letters to the editor if it wasn't worth his time.

Showing up to the public meetings and responding to opportunities for public comments when made available can only help in that process. Contacting your local politicians to push for the project will also help the process. There are plenty enough NIMBYs out there; the folks who can make a US-23 freeway happen need to hear support for the idea so that it gets bumped up the priority list.

Quote from: TempoNick on September 25, 2023, 04:37:13 PM

Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2023, 06:54:14 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on September 24, 2023, 10:44:01 PM

Quote from: Rothman on September 24, 2023, 02:22:53 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on September 24, 2023, 12:39:52 PM

This should be pretty high priority. I would say that it's a higher priority than four lane-ing US 33 and a lot of other things they do

You tell 'em.

There's always an outside hope that somebody in authority reads these boards.

And the idea that an opinion on the board would overrule opinions that person hears from their agency's asset management committees/equivalents is ludicrous.

Best we can do is call up the agency and see where your idea falls on their priority list, if at all.

Who said I expect them to do that? But sometimes opinions can plant a thought in people's minds and they start thinking about things a different way. Ben Franklin wouldn't have written letters to the editor if it wasn't worth his time.

Little else has been exaggerated as much as the influence of this forum...

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. In one breath you say their priorities aren't what they should be and then you say you don't expect them to change their priorities and then you say they might based upon a reading of your post.

Don't be so scared of just calling them up.  You'd be surprised how open they'll be to responding to you about where their priorities lie.

Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2023, 06:29:04 PM



Little else has been exaggerated as much as the influence of this forum...

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. In one breath you say their priorities aren't what they should be and then you say you don't expect them to change their priorities and then you say they might based upon a reading of your post.

Don't be so scared of just calling them up.  You'd be surprised how open they'll be to responding to you about where their priorities lie.

I'm not scared of calling anybody up and I have contacted them before via email. I think it's silly to have this asset known as US 36 / Ohio 37 and not have it used to alleviate the US 23 traffic situation.

I've been contacted before by officials based on some of the other things I've written online because they liked my thinking and my logic. One time I was contacted by an Ohio State vice president and he wanted me to see if I wanted to get involved in some of the architectural planning for campus. It was because he was getting all kinds of nasty comments about the plans to demolish St John arena and he liked the fact that I was polite, respectful and made thoughtful comments. It happens.

The US 36 corridor has been studied as one of the freeway alternatives to carry through US 23 traffic from Delaware to Columbus, and vice versa. It's one of several options being considered, along with completely upgrading US 23 between I-270 and Delaware to a freeway.

But there is room for more than one project. These types of projects go through TRAC and are reviewed by a board for consideration. US 33's widening is on TRAC's list (line 38) for PE and DD, but anything regarding US 23 north of Columbus is still in the preliminary planning stages. It isn't eligible for TRAC and won't be for a few more years.

So you can write to whoever all you'd like, but it's not going to fundamentally change how ODOT funds its major new projects (using a process that's long been established).

Quote from: seicer on September 25, 2023, 11:40:46 PM
The US 36 corridor has been studied as one of the freeway alternatives to carry through US 23 traffic from Delaware to Columbus, and vice versa. It's one of several options being considered, along with completely upgrading US 23 between I-270 and Delaware to a freeway.

But there is room for more than one project. These types of projects go through TRAC and are reviewed by a board for consideration. US 33's widening is on TRAC's list (line 38) for PE and DD, but anything regarding US 23 north of Columbus is still in the preliminary planning stages. It isn't eligible for TRAC and won't be for a few more years.

So you can write to whoever all you'd like, but it's not going to fundamentally change how ODOT funds its major new projects (using a process that's long been established).

At least he is asserting himself to the right people rather than us who cannot control what Ohio does.  It's better to write with no action than to rant to strangers with absolutely no control.

TRAC was designed to remove the political influence from Major New Capacity Program projects. It's chaired by the director of ODOT and its members consist of six appointed by the Governor and one each by the speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives and the president of the Ohio Senate.

It's better to actually attend these public hearings and meetings, and add public comments when requested. Not enough are engaged in the most basic of processes and then are suddenly outraged when their ideas and thoughts aren't taken into consideration. Much like TempoNick's disengagement with the US 33 project, which received the green light from TRAC in 2023 (after going through the review process, and as a project that was initially proposed when the super-two roads were built), the US 23 project considers alternate alignments - including one that TempoNick proposed. It's Alternate E-2 (https://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/files/Route%2023%20Connect%20-%20Phase%201%20Concepts.pdf).

Both US 33 and US 23 serve different regions with different considerations. Both can be built and both can be funded. No need to pit an us versus them argument.

Quote from: seicer on September 26, 2023, 12:49:20 AM
TRAC was designed to remove the political influence from Major New Capacity Program projects. It's chaired by the director of ODOT and its members consist of six appointed by the Governor and one each by the speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives and the president of the Ohio Senate.

It's better to actually attend these public hearings and meetings, and add public comments when requested. Not enough are engaged in the most basic of processes and then are suddenly outraged when their ideas and thoughts aren't taken into consideration. The US 23 project considers alternate alignments - including one that TempoNick proposed. It's Alternate E-2 (https://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/files/Route%2023%20Connect%20-%20Phase%201%20Concepts.pdf).

Sherman conveniently forgot this, concerning US 23 (aka I-73) through Delaware Co...
from the bottom of page 1 on https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/projects/112768

QuoteAfter comparison of the expected benefits and costs for each Phase 1 concept, we have determined none of the concepts as presented can be reasonably implemented. The concepts presented would cost at least three times more than the benefits it would provide and each of the proposed concepts would substantially impact community and natural resources.

Instead, the study is shifting its focus to planning and implementing a series of stand-alone improvement projects along the existing U.S. 23 corridor between Waldo and I-270. The next phase of the study will inform an action plan that recommends and prioritizes specific projects along U.S. 23 to provide safer and more efficient travel, including increased travel time reliability for through traffic.

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on September 29, 2023, 12:26:12 PM

Quote from: seicer on September 26, 2023, 12:49:20 AM
TRAC was designed to remove the political influence from Major New Capacity Program projects. It's chaired by the director of ODOT and its members consist of six appointed by the Governor and one each by the speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives and the president of the Ohio Senate.

It's better to actually attend these public hearings and meetings, and add public comments when requested. Not enough are engaged in the most basic of processes and then are suddenly outraged when their ideas and thoughts aren't taken into consideration. The US 23 project considers alternate alignments - including one that TempoNick proposed. It's Alternate E-2 (https://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/files/Route%2023%20Connect%20-%20Phase%201%20Concepts.pdf).

Sherman conveniently forgot this, concerning US 23 (aka I-73) through Delaware Co...
from the bottom of page 1 on https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/projects/112768

QuoteAfter comparison of the expected benefits and costs for each Phase 1 concept, we have determined none of the concepts as presented can be reasonably implemented. The concepts presented would cost at least three times more than the benefits it would provide and each of the proposed concepts would substantially impact community and natural resources.

Instead, the study is shifting its focus to planning and implementing a series of stand-alone improvement projects along the existing U.S. 23 corridor between Waldo and I-270. The next phase of the study will inform an action plan that recommends and prioritizes specific projects along U.S. 23 to provide safer and more efficient travel, including increased travel time reliability for through traffic.

I don't keep tabs on all projects across the state all the time, so I don't catch every single update that an agency makes. You can take your snotty and snide attitude elsewhere Sandor.

(And nowhere is this project being proposed as Interstate 73. It's long dead in the water. But if you want to surface anything recent about it, feel free to paste in any citations.)

Would this be a better thread title?

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 29, 2023, 03:03:21 PM
Would this be a better thread title?

Probably, US 23 north of Columbus may fit better.

Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 29, 2023, 03:14:42 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 29, 2023, 03:03:21 PM
Would this be a better thread title?

Probably, US 23 north of Columbus may fit better.

There are projects programmed south of Columbus, too, under TRAC Tier I and II commitments. Notably, there will be an interchange at OH 762 in Pickaway County (design 2024, R/W 2025). At one point, ODOT had also committed to a limited-access South Bloomfield bypass, but I can't find their internal website for that anymore.

There are some intersection improvements here and there, and the conversion of the abandoned weigh stations at Chillicothe to truck parking, but that's about it. The last major project to be built was the OH 823 bypass around Portsmouth - with its one-lane terminus ramps. If ODOT is planning for an interstate, it's doing a fine job of that 😉

The thread could probably just be "US 23 in Ohio" but I've been posting US 23 updates in the general Ohio thread. This could just probably remain as-is to allow for any fantasies to be fulfilled and moved to the fictional category.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 29, 2023, 03:03:21 PM
Would this be a better thread title?

No, because ODOT made the idiotic choice to split the corridor into US 23 and SR 15.

North of Columbus:
Speaking of the new review of US 23 upgrades from Worthington to Waldo, ODOT put out a press release last week (https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/about-us/news/statewide/odot-announces-proposed-us23-corridor-safety-improvements) that included the following fact sheet:

https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/wps/wcm/connect/gov/32d683f7-6370-4a6b-828a-9d436ddd7b48/23+Connect+Fact+Sheet+9-25-23.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE.Z18_M1HGGIK0N0JO00QO9DDDDM3000-32d683f7-6370-4a6b-828a-9d436ddd7b48-oHt1TuA

ODOT is breaking the section of highway into 7 segments and will begin having public input sessions in October and November. My hope is that they will do a piecemeal upgrade to limited access in as many segments as possible.

South of Columbus:
I drove 23 north from Chillicothe to 270 last weekend on a return trip from Jackson (I took the 664 and 93 for the scenic route on the way down). My opinion is that 23 between Columbus and Circleville is going to turn into Worthington-Waldo if ODOT does not become more proactive. The TRAC program includes improvements to the 270-23 south side interchange and 23-Rathmell intersection with construction monies ready to go, but ODOT still does not have a project page (92616) on its website showing the proposed changes. The interchange at 762 is a nice improvement, and I am looking forward to its completion. I believe the truck parking conversion that Sherman referenced has been completed. 

Quote from: Molandfreak on September 29, 2023, 10:41:25 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 29, 2023, 03:03:21 PM
Would this be a better thread title?

No, because ODOT made the idiotic choice to split the corridor into US 23 and SR 15.

US-23 provided a more direct route from Toledo to Columbus back before the Interstate days. As I-75 came into being, it was wisely decided that there was no reason to create a separate nearly parallel freeway along US-23, thus the 75/15/23 routing of today.

Quote from: GaryV on September 30, 2023, 08:11:39 AM

Quote from: Molandfreak on September 29, 2023, 10:41:25 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 29, 2023, 03:03:21 PM
Would this be a better thread title?

No, because ODOT made the idiotic choice to split the corridor into US 23 and SR 15.

US-23 provided a more direct route from Toledo to Columbus back before the Interstate days. As I-75 came into being, it was wisely decided that there was no reason to create a separate nearly parallel freeway along US-23, thus the 75/15/23 routing of today.

Wisely? Not wise at all. I-75 swings too far to the west. (At least 25 miles as the crow flies.) You lose too much mileage coming back east again. It is worthless as a route to Columbus because of this. It also makes us 33 worthless coming in to Columbus from I-75 because of that swing to the west (so that Lima has a freeway running through it).

Interesting that they prioritized giving freeway access to Lima over a free-flowing route to the state capital.

The only realistic answer is some kind of a bypass to connect US-23 to i-71, or to four-lane US 68 / Ohio 31 to connect to US 33.

There are zero issues with I-73 / OH-15 / US-23 as a routing between Toledo and Columbus in terms of distance.

It is faster and less than 10 miles longer than two-lane US-23.

Quote from: TempoNick on September 30, 2023, 08:33:58 AM

Quote from: GaryV on September 30, 2023, 08:11:39 AM

Quote from: Molandfreak on September 29, 2023, 10:41:25 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 29, 2023, 03:03:21 PM
Would this be a better thread title?

No, because ODOT made the idiotic choice to split the corridor into US 23 and SR 15.

US-23 provided a more direct route from Toledo to Columbus back before the Interstate days. As I-75 came into being, it was wisely decided that there was no reason to create a separate nearly parallel freeway along US-23, thus the 75/15/23 routing of today.

Wisely? Not wise at all. I-75 swings too far to the west. (At least 25 miles as the crow flies.) You lose too much mileage coming back east again. It is worthless as a route to Columbus because of this. It also makes us 33 worthless coming in to Columbus from I-75 because of that swing to the west (so that Lima has a freeway running through it).

Interesting that they prioritized giving freeway access to Lima over a free-flowing route to the state capital.

The only realistic answer is some kind of a bypass to connect US-23 to i-71, or to four-lane US 68 / Ohio 31 to connect to US 33.

I-75 doesn't bend west until you get south of Findlay. From Findlay to Carey (where 15 meets 23) is less than 20 miles. From Toledo directly to Carey is over 50 miles.

You don't even need to go near to Lima. (I-75 doesn't bend west to get to Lima, it bends west to eventually get to Cincinnati.)

Or are you thinking that you have to stay on an Interstate to get from Toledo to Columbus, so you go all the way down to Dayton?

Quote from: GaryV on September 30, 2023, 08:42:03 AM

I-75 doesn't bend west until you get south of Findlay. From Findlay to Carey (where 15 meets 23) is less than 20 miles. From Toledo directly to Carey is over 50 miles.

You don't even need to go near to Lima. (I-75 doesn't bend west to get to Lima, it bends west to eventually get to Cincinnati.)

Or are you thinking that you have to stay on an Interstate to get from Toledo to Columbus, so you go all the way down to Dayton?

I may not have expressed it well, but my point is that I-75 to either I-70 or US 33 into Columbus is not workable because of that 25 mi swing to the west. If not for that 25 mile swing to the west, US 33 would be perfect as a route into Columbus.

US 23 is fine as a route from Findlay to Delaware, but that last segment is problematic both because of public opposition and it seems like that would be a lot of expensive land to acquire. Now if I were somebody in a position of power, I would ignore the public opposition. They will thank you 30 years from now because gridlock serves nobody well.

If US 23 can't happen, it seems like a four-lane highway between following US 68 and Ohio 31 all the way into Marysville would be a good route. Also can serve as a second way to feed traffic into US 30 into Fort Wayne and Chicago. It's 60 miles worth of freeway though.

Another option is building some kind of a highway between Indian lake and Bluffton which is about 30 miles worth of road, but that adds 15 miles to the trip to Columbus. I don't think that's horrible in the whole scheme of things, but I can see in the whole big picture that might not be very efficient when thinking of thousands of cars taking that extra 15 miles.


Shared route
From Findlay, Ohio 45840 to Worthington, Ohio via US-68 S and OH-31 S.

1 hr 42 min (85 mi)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/nAm2eRRZx1euMwRb6

Quote from: TempoNick on September 30, 2023, 09:40:45 AM
If US 23 can't happen, it seems like a four-lane highway between Findlay and Kenton all the way into Marysville would be a good route. In the alternative, you can basically follow Ohio 235 through Ada to get down to Indian lake and US 33.

A bypass of Kenton would be useful and a couple dedicated passing lanes would be nice. I don't see that a four-lane highway is required on for the full US 68/SR 31 corridor. It's flat, straight, and rural and can handle several thousand more vehicles per day before capacity becomes a problem.

Quote from: Bitmapped on September 30, 2023, 11:05:01 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on September 30, 2023, 09:40:45 AM
If US 23 can't happen, it seems like a four-lane highway between Findlay and Kenton all the way into Marysville would be a good route. In the alternative, you can basically follow Ohio 235 through Ada to get down to Indian lake and US 33.

A bypass of Kenton would be useful and a couple dedicated passing lanes would be nice. I don't see that a four-lane highway is required on for the full US 68/SR 31 corridor. It's flat, straight, and rural and can handle several thousand more vehicles per day before capacity becomes a problem.

No, it is not required there. I'm talking about it only as an alternative to US 23 from Toledo into Columbus, a route which is required IMO. It would be a relatively clean way of getting the job done.

Also think of Honda and all its suppliers and connectivity to Michigan. I think freeway is justified.

Quote from: TempoNick on September 30, 2023, 08:33:58 AM

Quote from: GaryV on September 30, 2023, 08:11:39 AM

Quote from: Molandfreak on September 29, 2023, 10:41:25 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 29, 2023, 03:03:21 PM
Would this be a better thread title?

No, because ODOT made the idiotic choice to split the corridor into US 23 and SR 15.

US-23 provided a more direct route from Toledo to Columbus back before the Interstate days. As I-75 came into being, it was wisely decided that there was no reason to create a separate nearly parallel freeway along US-23, thus the 75/15/23 routing of today.

Wisely? Not wise at all. I-75 swings too far to the west. (At least 25 miles as the crow flies.) You lose too much mileage coming back east again. It is worthless as a route to Columbus because of this. It also makes us 33 worthless coming in to Columbus from I-75 because of that swing to the west (so that Lima has a freeway running through it).

Interesting that they prioritized giving freeway access to Lima over a free-flowing route to the state capital.

The only realistic answer is some kind of a bypass to connect US-23 to i-71, or to four-lane US 68 / Ohio 31 to connect to US 33.

It was Roosevelt's fault. From 1946
(https://live.staticflickr.com/3281/4560464623_9104d971e7_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/7WZzfp)

Quote from: GaryV on September 30, 2023, 08:11:39 AM

Quote from: Molandfreak on September 29, 2023, 10:41:25 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 29, 2023, 03:03:21 PM
Would this be a better thread title?

No, because ODOT made the idiotic choice to split the corridor into US 23 and SR 15.

US-23 provided a more direct route from Toledo to Columbus back before the Interstate days. As I-75 came into being, it was wisely decided that there was no reason to create a separate nearly parallel freeway along US-23, thus the 75/15/23 routing of today.

Yes, but preliminary maps showed a plan of moving US 23 onto (current) SR 15 and I-75, which is what they should have done instead of keeping it on a random two-lane road...

Quote from: Molandfreak on September 30, 2023, 01:11:12 PM

Yes, but preliminary maps showed a plan of moving US 23 onto (current) SR 15 and I-75, which is what they should have done instead of keeping it on a random two-lane road...

While I agree with you all about the numbering, I'm not so much concerned with that. I just think it's time for a four-lane (or more) freeway between Columbus and Toledo no matter how it's done.

The OH 15 section of this corridor has recently been seeing improvements to reduce the number of at grade intersections.

Within the past week two new overpasses over 15 have opened, at CR 169 near Vanlue and at CR 180 near Findlay

Another one at CR 193 near Vanlue is scheduled to start construction in 2025:
https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/projects/114008