Ohio

[PColumbus73]

Might be more effective to keep it two lanes and straightening out some of the curves between I-70 and Cadiz. The section at the Ohio River may not be able to come up to Interstate standard due to terrain and sharp curves.

[vtk]

Traffic is minimal on US 22 west of Cadiz. There's no need for a 4-lane connection on this alignment, let alone a full freeway, for a routing that would save a grand total of two miles compared to I-70/I-79.

I'm assuming you measured the distance along US 22, including the 2-lane section, to come to that conclusion? That section is very winding IIRC, so converting it to an expressway or freeway on a new assignment would reduce that distance by several miles. But it would probably also be very expensive to do that, for very little benefit.

I would be satisfied with merely unifying the route number on the Columbus to Pittsburgh corridor through Newark and Uhrichsville (lately I've been thinking US 162) and continuing to make spot improvements and widening/realignment as warranted.

[Bitmapped]

Traffic is minimal on US 22 west of Cadiz. There's no need for a 4-lane connection on this alignment, let alone a full freeway, for a routing that would save a grand total of two miles compared to I-70/I-79.

I'm assuming you measured the distance along US 22, including the 2-lane section, to come to that conclusion? That section is very winding IIRC, so converting it to an expressway or freeway on a new assignment would reduce that distance by several miles. But it would probably also be very expensive to do that, for very little benefit.

I would be satisfied with merely unifying the route number on the Columbus to Pittsburgh corridor through Newark and Uhrichsville (lately I've been thinking US 162) and continuing to make spot improvements and widening/realignment as warranted.

An arrow-straight alignment between US 22's interchanges with I-77 and US 250 would save about 4 miles versus the current road. A new alignment would presumably be less curvy than the current route, but it's also going to have to avoid features like Salt Fork and Piedmont Lakes and will be designed to minimize the earthmoving costs. You'd be doing good to save even half of the 4 miles you would get from going as the crow flies.

Again, on a 185-mile distance between Columbus and Pittsburgh, we're talking about less than 5 miles savings. It's an insignificant benefit compared to a cost that would be easily over $1 billion. Spot improvements as needed are a much more reasonable way to go.

[PColumbus73]

Traffic is minimal on US 22 west of Cadiz. There's no need for a 4-lane connection on this alignment, let alone a full freeway, for a routing that would save a grand total of two miles compared to I-70/I-79.

I'm assuming you measured the distance along US 22, including the 2-lane section, to come to that conclusion? That section is very winding IIRC, so converting it to an expressway or freeway on a new assignment would reduce that distance by several miles. But it would probably also be very expensive to do that, for very little benefit.

I would be satisfied with merely unifying the route number on the Columbus to Pittsburgh corridor through Newark and Uhrichsville (lately I've been thinking US 162) and continuing to make spot improvements and widening/realignment as warranted.

If it were just a state route, I think the simplest thing would be to reroute OH 16 over 161 all the way to OH 29, then renumbering the current section of OH 16 into downtown Columbus.

US 622 would be good for it too.

[TempoNick]

Traffic is minimal on US 22 west of Cadiz. There's no need for a 4-lane connection on this alignment, let alone a full freeway, for a routing that would save a grand total of two miles compared to I-70/I-79.

I'm assuming you measured the distance along US 22, including the 2-lane section, to come to that conclusion? That section is very winding IIRC, so converting it to an expressway or freeway on a new assignment would reduce that distance by several miles. But it would probably also be very expensive to do that, for very little benefit.

I would be satisfied with merely unifying the route number on the Columbus to Pittsburgh corridor through Newark and Uhrichsville (lately I've been thinking US 162) and continuing to make spot improvements and widening/realignment as warranted.

If it were just a state route, I think the simplest thing would be to reroute OH 16 over 161 all the way to OH 29, then renumbering the current section of OH 16 into downtown Columbus.

US 622 would be good for it too.

That's similar to what I'm thinking about Ohio 16. Make everything from Coshocton to Mechanicsburg Ohio 16. The segment from Granville to Downtown Columbus that is the current Ohio 16 should be Ohio 161. It shouldn't be too hard to put decals over the existing signs if ODOT doesn't want to spend the money.

Then we can go through the exercise of calling Broad St. "Old 16." (I'm so old, I remember when they used to call Winchester Pike "Old 33.")

[PColumbus73]

Traffic is minimal on US 22 west of Cadiz. There's no need for a 4-lane connection on this alignment, let alone a full freeway, for a routing that would save a grand total of two miles compared to I-70/I-79.

I'm assuming you measured the distance along US 22, including the 2-lane section, to come to that conclusion? That section is very winding IIRC, so converting it to an expressway or freeway on a new assignment would reduce that distance by several miles. But it would probably also be very expensive to do that, for very little benefit.

I would be satisfied with merely unifying the route number on the Columbus to Pittsburgh corridor through Newark and Uhrichsville (lately I've been thinking US 162) and continuing to make spot improvements and widening/realignment as warranted.

If it were just a state route, I think the simplest thing would be to reroute OH 16 over 161 all the way to OH 29, then renumbering the current section of OH 16 into downtown Columbus.

US 622 would be good for it too.

That's similar to what I'm thinking about Ohio 16. Make everything from Coshocton to Mechanicsburg Ohio 16. The segment from Granville to Downtown Columbus that is the current Ohio 16 should be Ohio 161. It shouldn't be too hard to put decals over the existing signs if ODOT doesn't want to spend the money.

Then we can go through the exercise of calling Broad St. "Old 16." (I'm so old, I remember when they used to call Winchester Pike "Old 33.")

OH 816? Since 8xx is a typical prefix for an old alignment.

[GCrites]

Yo yo yo, I've got the 2006 South Bloomfield bypass proposal! Apparently my dad picked it up at a meeting and I found it while cleaning my mother's house. I've got Circleville Herald clippings about it too. We can't do attachments here, correct?

[74/171FAN]

Yo yo yo, I've got the 2006 South Bloomfield bypass proposal! Apparently my dad picked it up at a meeting and I found it while cleaning my mother's house. I've got Circleville Herald clippings about it too. We can't do attachments here, correct?

No, but you can always take pictures of them and link them here via an image sharing website like Flickr.

[seicer]

Yo yo yo, I've got the 2006 South Bloomfield bypass proposal! Apparently my dad picked it up at a meeting and I found it while cleaning my mother's house. I've got Circleville Herald clippings about it too. We can't do attachments here, correct?

If you want to text them to me, I can host the images. Or put them on Imgur.

[GCrites]

I think I'll do that.

[seicer]

As promised, here are the documents and articles from the South Bloomfield bypass study from 2006, courtesy of GCrites.

[The Ghostbuster]

I clicked on the link, and it said "The requested page could not be found".

[GCrites]

I got redirected to the Imgur homepage.

[seicer]

It seems that the posting functionality of Imgur has been unreliable at best for quite a while (after doing some research on it). Here are the scanned images:

[GCrites]

Alternative (or Concept in this case) #2 is still planned to be done no matter what. The preferred alternative these days is #5 and they are not mutually exclusive. Also note that the buildings affected by #2 have already come down by this point. One burned and the other became structurally unsound IIRC.

[Great Lakes Roads]

As part of the widening project on I-475 between US 23 and Douglas Road, a DDI will be installed at Secor Road.

Construction on the $217 million project will begin in Summer 2027, and it should be completed by Fall 2031.

https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/projects/115418

[Ted$8roadFan]

Good to see it.  I-475 at Secor Road has become one of the worst bottlenecks in Toledo, even at off-peak times.

[The Ghostbuster]

The Secor Rd. DDI will be Interstate 475's second DDI, after the one they're constructing at US 20A. Does anyone know if any other DDI interchanges are being proposed in the Toledo Area?

[tigerwings]

DDI at Dixie Hwy also

[Black-Man]

...routing that would save a grand total of two miles compared to I-70/I-79.

The idea is to take traffic away from already congested highways. Traffic counts on I-79 Bridgeville/Carnegie are 2-3x those around I-79 Morgantown. https://gis.penndot.pa.gov/BPR_PDF_FILES/MAPS/Traffic/Traffic_Volume/Statewide/Statewide_2023_tv.pdf

US22 is already a good highway to Cadiz. I had thought the idea at ODOT was actually a super-2 for US250 to Ulrichsville and onto US 36. The issue always being Tappan Lake.

[PColumbus73]

...routing that would save a grand total of two miles compared to I-70/I-79.

The idea is to take traffic away from already congested highways. Traffic counts on I-79 Bridgeville/Carnegie are 2-3x those around I-79 Morgantown. https://gis.penndot.pa.gov/BPR_PDF_FILES/MAPS/Traffic/Traffic_Volume/Statewide/Statewide_2023_tv.pdf

US22 is already a good highway to Cadiz. I had thought the idea at ODOT was actually a super-2 for US250 to Ulrichsville and onto US 36. The issue always being Tappan Lake.

Comparing Morgantown to the Pittsburgh metro doesn't say much other than pointing out the obvious. What are the counts for traffic from I-70 E to I-79 N / I-79 S to I-70 W? Or a general count west to and from Pittsburgh?

I feel like the hard curve in Stubenville would make it difficult to bring US 22 to an interstate-grade highway without reconstruction, or a new alignment.

[Mr_Northside]

I feel like the hard curve in Stubenville would make it difficult to bring US 22 to an interstate-grade highway without reconstruction, or a new alignment.

At some point after 2015 they also reduced eastbound US-22 to one lane at that curve (and made the local Stubenville ramps to US-22/Ohio River bridge 2 lanes to combine for the 3 EB lanes on the bridge

https://maps.app.goo.gl/o2V1wX4rJNFvdeCC6  (comparing 2015 images with newer ones)

[PColumbus73]

I feel like the hard curve in Stubenville would make it difficult to bring US 22 to an interstate-grade highway without reconstruction, or a new alignment.

At some point after 2015 they also reduced eastbound US-22 to one lane at that curve (and made the local Stubenville ramps to US-22/Ohio River bridge 2 lanes to combine for the 3 EB lanes on the bridge

https://maps.app.goo.gl/o2V1wX4rJNFvdeCC6  (comparing 2015 images with newer ones)

Also, Westbound US 22 narrows to one lane at the merge with OH 7.

[JREwing78]

...routing that would save a grand total of two miles compared to I-70/I-79.

The idea is to take traffic away from already congested highways. Traffic counts on I-79 Bridgeville/Carnegie are 2-3x those around I-79 Morgantown. https://gis.penndot.pa.gov/BPR_PDF_FILES/MAPS/Traffic/Traffic_Volume/Statewide/Statewide_2023_tv.pdf

US22 is already a good highway to Cadiz. I had thought the idea at ODOT was actually a super-2 for US250 to Ulrichsville and onto US 36. The issue always being Tappan Lake.

What does Ohio care about congestion on I-79? I mean, if Pennsylvania's going to foot the buildout for US-22 to I-77, why not? But other than making sense as a line-on-paper path between two points, nobody seems to be clamoring for 40 miles of 4-laning US-22. Pennsylvania will simply use its funds to widen I-79 and modernize I-70 inside its own state. Ohio's going to look at the <3,000 vpd of traffic on the section of US-22 west of Cadiz and conclude the existing 2 lane is plenty adequate.