Ohio

[noelbotevera]

Any reasons why the Morse Road exit off I-270 is segregated from the C/D lanes?

My initial thought was that the C/D lanes are for traffic to prepare to exit for the OH 161 freeway, but wait - there's no way to exit at Morse Road. So now I'm stumped - there's no reason to start filtering traffic three miles in advance, and if I-270 has access to an exit then the C/D lanes should have access. As it stands, exiting at Easton Way requires going onto the C/D lanes, but exiting at Morse requires you stay on I-270. To add to the confusion, the onramps at Easton do not filter into the I-270 main lanes - they dump you into the C/D road. While I don't know if most traffic from Easton wants to stay on I-270, it's inconvenient to funnel all that traffic into a one lane ramp with a merge.

[SkyPesos]

Any reasons why the Morse Road exit off I-270 is segregated from the C/D lanes?

My initial thought was that the C/D lanes are for traffic to prepare to exit for the OH 161 freeway, but wait - there's no way to exit at Morse Road. So now I'm stumped - there's no reason to start filtering traffic three miles in advance, and if I-270 has access to an exit then the C/D lanes should have access. As it stands, exiting at Easton Way requires going onto the C/D lanes, but exiting at Morse requires you stay on I-270. To add to the confusion, the onramps at Easton do not filter into the I-270 main lanes - they dump you into the C/D road. While I don't know if most traffic from Easton wants to stay on I-270, it's inconvenient to funnel all that traffic into a one lane ramp with a merge.

Think it's to reduce weaving and merging on I-270 between I-670 and OH 161. It's the busiest interstate section in the state, according to a recent thread in the general highways section of this forum. The thread had an AADT value of 160k with 2019 data, but it's gotten above 200k in past years before that. Also, the NB C/D lanes to Easton/161 got extended to I-670 recently. It's not updated on GSV yet, but that should help filter the 670-161 traffic from the 270 mainline. Easton to 270 NB traffic is much less than 670-161, that's why it has the single lane onto 270 NB.
As for access to Morse from Easton and 161, there's no reason if you're coming in from Easton to use I-270 to get to Morse. The mall have direct entrances from Morse, and there's also Stelzer Rd. Between 161 and Morse, my guess is that Sunbury Rd and OH 3 provides that access.

Edit: Found the new signage on I-670 from earlier in this thread. Can the state please use APL signage for places like this next time? Whatever this is looks awful.

The opening of the reconfigured exit ramps at I-670 & I-270 has brought about some exit numbering changes:

10A: I-270 N
10B: SR 161/Easton Way
10C: US 62 E
10D: I-270 S

EDIT: APL concept I have for the I-670/I-270 sign in the 'Redesign This' thread

If dancing arrows are still allowed, Ohio definitely would've used that way instead. I have an APL idea that theoretically could work, though I don't know how well it would turn out. Could attempt a sketch of it on paper first. This would use 2 APL signs

| Exit 10A |       | Exit 10B |                                      | Exit 10C |             | Exit 10D |   
|  I-270 North   |         OH 161/Easton Way       |       |  US 62 E   |       I-270 South  |
| LEFT       LEFT/SLIGHT LEFT       SLIGHT LEFT |       | STRAIGHT/RIGHT       RIGHT |       

[GCrites]

Yep, Morse and Easton are too close together for that kind of volume. The private sector paid for a significant portion of the construction costs if I remember right. Or at least pledged to.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Yep, Morse and Easton are too close together for that kind of volume. The private sector paid for a significant portion of the construction costs if I remember right. Or at least pledged to.

I think pledged, or if paid, it wasn't directly into the project. This was part of Les Wexner's Easton/New New Albany development. ODOT ended up changing their process of ranking highway projects after Mr. Wexner got his way.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Any reasons why the Morse Road exit off I-270 is segregated from the C/D lanes?

My initial thought was that the C/D lanes are for traffic to prepare to exit for the OH 161 freeway, but wait - there's no way to exit at Morse Road. So now I'm stumped - there's no reason to start filtering traffic three miles in advance, and if I-270 has access to an exit then the C/D lanes should have access. As it stands, exiting at Easton Way requires going onto the C/D lanes, but exiting at Morse requires you stay on I-270. To add to the confusion, the onramps at Easton do not filter into the I-270 main lanes - they dump you into the C/D road. While I don't know if most traffic from Easton wants to stay on I-270, it's inconvenient to funnel all that traffic into a one lane ramp with a merge.

The c/d lanes along I-270, between I-670 & Oh 161, were constructed specifically for the Easton development project (primarily the southwest corner of I-270 & Morse Rd). The lack of access to Morse Rd, from these c/d lanes was done on purpose by Les Wexner & John Kessler as they, literally, redevloped New Albany from a sleepy little town in the NE corner of Franklin Co, that only had 400 people in 1980 to 1600 in 1990, then 3700 in 2000 to nearly 11,000 (projected) in 2020. Along with that population increase was the creation of exclusivity for New Albany that had previously been *held* previously by the suburbs of Dublin, Upper Arlington, and Bexley (over the previous century).

[6a]

It's the busiest interstate section in the state, according to a recent thread in the general highways section of this forum. The thread had an AADT value of 160k with 2019 data, but it's gotten above 200k in past years before that. Also, the NB C/D lanes to Easton/161 got extended to I-670 recently.

Is that the widest road in Ohio now? By my count it's 14 lanes and I can't think of anything else wider than that.

[SkyPesos]

It's the busiest interstate section in the state, according to a recent thread in the general highways section of this forum. The thread had an AADT value of 160k with 2019 data, but it's gotten above 200k in past years before that. Also, the NB C/D lanes to Easton/161 got extended to I-670 recently.

Is that the widest road in Ohio now? By my count it's 14 lanes and I can't think of anything else wider than that.

Yes. The only other contestant I can think of is I-271 in Cleveland, but that is only 12 lanes at its widest point (4 local and 2 express lanes per direction). And the I-480 Cuyahoga River bridge project will be 12 lanes after completion too. I can't think of any example in Cincinnati with more than 10 lanes.

[6a]

It's the busiest interstate section in the state, according to a recent thread in the general highways section of this forum. The thread had an AADT value of 160k with 2019 data, but it's gotten above 200k in past years before that. Also, the NB C/D lanes to Easton/161 got extended to I-670 recently.

Is that the widest road in Ohio now? By my count it's 14 lanes and I can't think of anything else wider than that.

Yes. The only other contestant I can think of is I-271 in Cleveland, but that is only 12 lanes at its widest point (4 local and 2 express lanes per direction). And the I-480 Cuyahoga River bridge project will be 12 lanes after completion too. I can't think of any example in Cincinnati with more than 10 lanes.

Now that I think about it, I-270 between 71 and 23 is 12 lanes as well.

[noelbotevera]

Any reasons why the Morse Road exit off I-270 is segregated from the C/D lanes?

My initial thought was that the C/D lanes are for traffic to prepare to exit for the OH 161 freeway, but wait - there's no way to exit at Morse Road. So now I'm stumped - there's no reason to start filtering traffic three miles in advance, and if I-270 has access to an exit then the C/D lanes should have access. As it stands, exiting at Easton Way requires going onto the C/D lanes, but exiting at Morse requires you stay on I-270. To add to the confusion, the onramps at Easton do not filter into the I-270 main lanes - they dump you into the C/D road. While I don't know if most traffic from Easton wants to stay on I-270, it's inconvenient to funnel all that traffic into a one lane ramp with a merge.

The c/d lanes along I-270, between I-670 & Oh 161, were constructed specifically for the Easton development project (primarily the southwest corner of I-270 & Morse Rd). The lack of access to Morse Rd, from these c/d lanes was done on purpose by Les Wexner & John Kessler as they, literally, redevloped New Albany from a sleepy little town in the NE corner of Franklin Co, that only had 400 people in 1980 to 1600 in 1990, then 3700 in 2000 to nearly 11,000 (projected) in 2020. Along with that population increase was the creation of exclusivity for New Albany that had previously been *held* previously by the suburbs of Dublin, Upper Arlington, and Bexley (over the previous century).

I don't doubt that this is the truth, but it seems very...petty? Looking at it from a map, reaching Easton Way from Morse Road and vice versa requires driving half a mile down Stelzer or Sunbury Road. It comes off as more of an inconvenience than any sort of exclusivity.

[SkyPesos]

Any reasons why the Morse Road exit off I-270 is segregated from the C/D lanes?

My initial thought was that the C/D lanes are for traffic to prepare to exit for the OH 161 freeway, but wait - there's no way to exit at Morse Road. So now I'm stumped - there's no reason to start filtering traffic three miles in advance, and if I-270 has access to an exit then the C/D lanes should have access. As it stands, exiting at Easton Way requires going onto the C/D lanes, but exiting at Morse requires you stay on I-270. To add to the confusion, the onramps at Easton do not filter into the I-270 main lanes - they dump you into the C/D road. While I don't know if most traffic from Easton wants to stay on I-270, it's inconvenient to funnel all that traffic into a one lane ramp with a merge.

The c/d lanes along I-270, between I-670 & Oh 161, were constructed specifically for the Easton development project (primarily the southwest corner of I-270 & Morse Rd). The lack of access to Morse Rd, from these c/d lanes was done on purpose by Les Wexner & John Kessler as they, literally, redevloped New Albany from a sleepy little town in the NE corner of Franklin Co, that only had 400 people in 1980 to 1600 in 1990, then 3700 in 2000 to nearly 11,000 (projected) in 2020. Along with that population increase was the creation of exclusivity for New Albany that had previously been *held* previously by the suburbs of Dublin, Upper Arlington, and Bexley (over the previous century).

I don't doubt that this is the truth, but it seems very...petty? Looking at it from a map, reaching Easton Way from Morse Road and vice versa requires driving half a mile down Stelzer or Sunbury Road. It comes off as more of an inconvenience than any sort of exclusivity.

How would using Stelzer be some sort of inconvenience? Easton Way is a pretty short road, primarily to serve the mall. The mall has direct access to/from Morse anyways, and for the other businesses on Easton Way, you’re actually going out of your way to use I-270 if that’s an option instead of using Stelzer. Also, both Steltzer Rd and Morse Crossing (the 2 roads that border the mall on the east and west) are divided 4 lane arterials between Easton Way and Morse Rd. Not worth adding more weaving on a short freeway section just for some people to skip 3 sets of traffic signals imo.

[noelbotevera]

Any reasons why the Morse Road exit off I-270 is segregated from the C/D lanes?

My initial thought was that the C/D lanes are for traffic to prepare to exit for the OH 161 freeway, but wait - there's no way to exit at Morse Road. So now I'm stumped - there's no reason to start filtering traffic three miles in advance, and if I-270 has access to an exit then the C/D lanes should have access. As it stands, exiting at Easton Way requires going onto the C/D lanes, but exiting at Morse requires you stay on I-270. To add to the confusion, the onramps at Easton do not filter into the I-270 main lanes - they dump you into the C/D road. While I don't know if most traffic from Easton wants to stay on I-270, it's inconvenient to funnel all that traffic into a one lane ramp with a merge.

The c/d lanes along I-270, between I-670 & Oh 161, were constructed specifically for the Easton development project (primarily the southwest corner of I-270 & Morse Rd). The lack of access to Morse Rd, from these c/d lanes was done on purpose by Les Wexner & John Kessler as they, literally, redevloped New Albany from a sleepy little town in the NE corner of Franklin Co, that only had 400 people in 1980 to 1600 in 1990, then 3700 in 2000 to nearly 11,000 (projected) in 2020. Along with that population increase was the creation of exclusivity for New Albany that had previously been *held* previously by the suburbs of Dublin, Upper Arlington, and Bexley (over the previous century).

I don't doubt that this is the truth, but it seems very...petty? Looking at it from a map, reaching Easton Way from Morse Road and vice versa requires driving half a mile down Stelzer or Sunbury Road. It comes off as more of an inconvenience than any sort of exclusivity.

How would using Stelzer be some sort of inconvenience? Easton Way is a pretty short road, primarily to serve the mall. The mall has direct access to/from Morse anyways, and for the other businesses on Easton Way, you're actually going out of your way to use I-270 if that's an option instead of using Stelzer. Also, both Steltzer Rd and Morse Crossing (the 2 roads that border the mall on the east and west) are divided 4 lane arterials between Easton Way and Morse Rd. Not worth adding more weaving on a short freeway section just for some people to skip 3 sets of traffic signals imo.

I'm referring to the "exclusivity" of New Albany, which by limiting access to/from Morse Road is supposed to accomplish that. Except, the Easton Way exit is close enough to Morse Road that one could easily use a road bordering the mall to reach Morse, defeating the point making New Albany an "exclusive" suburb.

[SkyPesos]

I'm referring to the "exclusivity" of New Albany, which by limiting access to/from Morse Road is supposed to accomplish that. Except, the Easton Way exit is close enough to Morse Road that one could easily use a road bordering the mall to reach Morse, defeating the point making New Albany an "exclusive" suburb.

I've never heard of anything about the "exclusivity" of New Albany before (someone more well-versed in that area can correct me), but the OH 161 freeway cuts through the middle of New Albany with 3 exits, which is a better way to reach most of the suburb than Morse.

[6a]

Any reasons why the Morse Road exit off I-270 is segregated from the C/D lanes?

My initial thought was that the C/D lanes are for traffic to prepare to exit for the OH 161 freeway, but wait - there's no way to exit at Morse Road. So now I'm stumped - there's no reason to start filtering traffic three miles in advance, and if I-270 has access to an exit then the C/D lanes should have access. As it stands, exiting at Easton Way requires going onto the C/D lanes, but exiting at Morse requires you stay on I-270. To add to the confusion, the onramps at Easton do not filter into the I-270 main lanes - they dump you into the C/D road. While I don't know if most traffic from Easton wants to stay on I-270, it's inconvenient to funnel all that traffic into a one lane ramp with a merge.

The c/d lanes along I-270, between I-670 & Oh 161, were constructed specifically for the Easton development project (primarily the southwest corner of I-270 & Morse Rd). The lack of access to Morse Rd, from these c/d lanes was done on purpose by Les Wexner & John Kessler as they, literally, redevloped New Albany from a sleepy little town in the NE corner of Franklin Co, that only had 400 people in 1980 to 1600 in 1990, then 3700 in 2000 to nearly 11,000 (projected) in 2020. Along with that population increase was the creation of exclusivity for New Albany that had previously been *held* previously by the suburbs of Dublin, Upper Arlington, and Bexley (over the previous century).

I don't doubt that this is the truth, but it seems very...petty? Looking at it from a map, reaching Easton Way from Morse Road and vice versa requires driving half a mile down Stelzer or Sunbury Road. It comes off as more of an inconvenience than any sort of exclusivity.

How would using Stelzer be some sort of inconvenience? Easton Way is a pretty short road, primarily to serve the mall. The mall has direct access to/from Morse anyways, and for the other businesses on Easton Way, you're actually going out of your way to use I-270 if that's an option instead of using Stelzer. Also, both Steltzer Rd and Morse Crossing (the 2 roads that border the mall on the east and west) are divided 4 lane arterials between Easton Way and Morse Rd. Not worth adding more weaving on a short freeway section just for some people to skip 3 sets of traffic signals imo.

I'm referring to the "exclusivity" of New Albany, which by limiting access to/from Morse Road is supposed to accomplish that. Except, the Easton Way exit is close enough to Morse Road that one could easily use a road bordering the mall to reach Morse, defeating the point making New Albany an "exclusive" suburb.

That's not why they built it that way. When Easton was built, the 270/161 interchange was a full cloverleaf, not what it is today. Morse Road already had ridiculous traffic counts (I think it's approaching 70,000 now). Having the new Easton exit in such close proximity to the 670, Morse, and 161 exits would have caused a traffic nightmare. As it stands now, the SB c/d section of 270 exiting to Easton backs up for a mile in the morning. The c/d was built solely to ease potential congestion from these exits being so close together.

[cl94]

Any reasons why the Morse Road exit off I-270 is segregated from the C/D lanes?

My initial thought was that the C/D lanes are for traffic to prepare to exit for the OH 161 freeway, but wait - there's no way to exit at Morse Road. So now I'm stumped - there's no reason to start filtering traffic three miles in advance, and if I-270 has access to an exit then the C/D lanes should have access. As it stands, exiting at Easton Way requires going onto the C/D lanes, but exiting at Morse requires you stay on I-270. To add to the confusion, the onramps at Easton do not filter into the I-270 main lanes - they dump you into the C/D road. While I don't know if most traffic from Easton wants to stay on I-270, it's inconvenient to funnel all that traffic into a one lane ramp with a merge.

The c/d lanes along I-270, between I-670 & Oh 161, were constructed specifically for the Easton development project (primarily the southwest corner of I-270 & Morse Rd). The lack of access to Morse Rd, from these c/d lanes was done on purpose by Les Wexner & John Kessler as they, literally, redevloped New Albany from a sleepy little town in the NE corner of Franklin Co, that only had 400 people in 1980 to 1600 in 1990, then 3700 in 2000 to nearly 11,000 (projected) in 2020. Along with that population increase was the creation of exclusivity for New Albany that had previously been *held* previously by the suburbs of Dublin, Upper Arlington, and Bexley (over the previous century).

I don't doubt that this is the truth, but it seems very...petty? Looking at it from a map, reaching Easton Way from Morse Road and vice versa requires driving half a mile down Stelzer or Sunbury Road. It comes off as more of an inconvenience than any sort of exclusivity.

How would using Stelzer be some sort of inconvenience? Easton Way is a pretty short road, primarily to serve the mall. The mall has direct access to/from Morse anyways, and for the other businesses on Easton Way, you're actually going out of your way to use I-270 if that's an option instead of using Stelzer. Also, both Steltzer Rd and Morse Crossing (the 2 roads that border the mall on the east and west) are divided 4 lane arterials between Easton Way and Morse Rd. Not worth adding more weaving on a short freeway section just for some people to skip 3 sets of traffic signals imo.

I'm referring to the "exclusivity" of New Albany, which by limiting access to/from Morse Road is supposed to accomplish that. Except, the Easton Way exit is close enough to Morse Road that one could easily use a road bordering the mall to reach Morse, defeating the point making New Albany an "exclusive" suburb.

That's not why they built it that way. When Easton was built, the 270/161 interchange was a full cloverleaf, not what it is today. Morse Road already had ridiculous traffic counts (I think it's approaching 70,000 now). Having the new Easton exit in such close proximity to the 670, Morse, and 161 exits would have caused a traffic nightmare. As it stands now, the SB c/d section of 270 exiting to Easton backs up for a mile in the morning. The c/d was built solely to ease potential congestion from these exits being so close together.

As far as I can tell, that is correct.

A popular urban legend in Columbus is that the C/D roads were built to give rich people in New Albany a way to Easton from 161 without mingling with other 270 traffic. 32 and 33 would have required braiding anyway and someone had the foresight to realize that, with gore points for 30 and 32 roughly a mile apart, it made sense to just throw in a full C/D system. The consequence of the chosen design, of course, is that there is no direct connection between Morse and 161, but this can be made via Sunbury Road or Exit 33.

[SkyPesos]

I haven't been to the Easton area since 2019 and GSV haven't updated that area yet, but are the NB C/D lanes on I-270 to Easton/161 between I-670 and Easton separated from the mainline 270 traffic? I've seen some not-so-clear diagrams of that redesigned section online, and it seems like they aren't separated. If that's really the case, seems like a missed opportunity and sort of defeats the point of having earlier ramps from both 270 and 670.

[GCrites]

Any reasons why the Morse Road exit off I-270 is segregated from the C/D lanes?

My initial thought was that the C/D lanes are for traffic to prepare to exit for the OH 161 freeway, but wait - there's no way to exit at Morse Road. So now I'm stumped - there's no reason to start filtering traffic three miles in advance, and if I-270 has access to an exit then the C/D lanes should have access. As it stands, exiting at Easton Way requires going onto the C/D lanes, but exiting at Morse requires you stay on I-270. To add to the confusion, the onramps at Easton do not filter into the I-270 main lanes - they dump you into the C/D road. While I don't know if most traffic from Easton wants to stay on I-270, it's inconvenient to funnel all that traffic into a one lane ramp with a merge.

The c/d lanes along I-270, between I-670 & Oh 161, were constructed specifically for the Easton development project (primarily the southwest corner of I-270 & Morse Rd). The lack of access to Morse Rd, from these c/d lanes was done on purpose by Les Wexner & John Kessler as they, literally, redevloped New Albany from a sleepy little town in the NE corner of Franklin Co, that only had 400 people in 1980 to 1600 in 1990, then 3700 in 2000 to nearly 11,000 (projected) in 2020. Along with that population increase was the creation of exclusivity for New Albany that had previously been *held* previously by the suburbs of Dublin, Upper Arlington, and Bexley (over the previous century).

I don't doubt that this is the truth, but it seems very...petty? Looking at it from a map, reaching Easton Way from Morse Road and vice versa requires driving half a mile down Stelzer or Sunbury Road. It comes off as more of an inconvenience than any sort of exclusivity.

How would using Stelzer be some sort of inconvenience? Easton Way is a pretty short road, primarily to serve the mall. The mall has direct access to/from Morse anyways, and for the other businesses on Easton Way, you're actually going out of your way to use I-270 if that's an option instead of using Stelzer. Also, both Steltzer Rd and Morse Crossing (the 2 roads that border the mall on the east and west) are divided 4 lane arterials between Easton Way and Morse Rd. Not worth adding more weaving on a short freeway section just for some people to skip 3 sets of traffic signals imo.

I'm referring to the "exclusivity" of New Albany, which by limiting access to/from Morse Road is supposed to accomplish that. Except, the Easton Way exit is close enough to Morse Road that one could easily use a road bordering the mall to reach Morse, defeating the point making New Albany an "exclusive" suburb.

That's not why they built it that way. When Easton was built, the 270/161 interchange was a full cloverleaf, not what it is today. Morse Road already had ridiculous traffic counts (I think it's approaching 70,000 now). Having the new Easton exit in such close proximity to the 670, Morse, and 161 exits would have caused a traffic nightmare. As it stands now, the SB c/d section of 270 exiting to Easton backs up for a mile in the morning. The c/d was built solely to ease potential congestion from these exits being so close together.

As far as I can tell, that is correct.

A popular urban legend in Columbus is that the C/D roads were built to give rich people in New Albany a way to Easton from 161 without mingling with other 270 traffic. 32 and 33 would have required braiding anyway and someone had the foresight to realize that, with gore points for 30 and 32 roughly a mile apart, it made sense to just throw in a full C/D system. The consequence of the chosen design, of course, is that there is no direct connection between Morse and 161, but this can be made via Sunbury Road or Exit 33.

Aw, they're just too close together. Even when all this was being proposed in the mid-'90s the counts on 270 and Morse were nuts. The average person knows nothing about road and traffic engineering so that's why they say stuff like that urban legend. Back then the local economy was far more balanced rather than being split between Cool and Uncool Crescents. It wasn't so lopsided as it is today where most of the money, white-collar jobs and retail are in the Cool Crescent which is basically everything north of I-70 west of Downtown, everything north of 670 east of Downtown plus German Village but minus Linden. Places like the West and East Sides still had white-collar jobs and adequate retail. So if you were going to build a development that you felt would pull more of the jobs and retail into your orbit (which it certainly did) you were going to need more capacity.

The real problem arises when all that capacity is built and never lives up to the traffic promises (*cough* low-population growth areas *cough*). It happens often but did not happen with Easton.

[6a]

I haven't been to the Easton area since 2019 and GSV haven't updated that area yet, but are the NB C/D lanes on I-270 to Easton/161 between I-670 and Easton separated from the mainline 270 traffic? I've seen some not-so-clear diagrams of that redesigned section online, and it seems like they aren't separated. If that's really the case, seems like a missed opportunity and sort of defeats the point of having earlier ramps from both 270 and 670.

They are not separated; it's just 8 lanes now. The way the exits from 670 are configured puts you in the correct set of lanes for your destination.

[SkyPesos]

I haven’t been to the Easton area since 2019 and GSV haven’t updated that area yet, but are the NB C/D lanes on I-270 to Easton/161 between I-670 and Easton separated from the mainline 270 traffic? I’ve seen some not-so-clear diagrams of that redesigned section online, and it seems like they aren’t separated. If that’s really the case, seems like a missed opportunity and sort of defeats the point of having earlier ramps from both 270 and 670.

They are not separated; it’s just 8 lanes now. The way the exits from 670 are configured puts you in the correct set of lanes for your destination.

I’m guessing the configuration is like US 33 WB between I-270 and Avery-Muirfield in that if you take the wrong ramp to US 33 W or Avery-Muirfield from I-270 W, you can still change lanes because of the dashed lane marking. Unless the I-270 one between I-670 and Easton have a solid white line separating the through lanes and exit lanes instead of a dashed one.

[okroads]

I haven't been to the Easton area since 2019 and GSV haven't updated that area yet, but are the NB C/D lanes on I-270 to Easton/161 between I-670 and Easton separated from the mainline 270 traffic? I've seen some not-so-clear diagrams of that redesigned section online, and it seems like they aren't separated. If that's really the case, seems like a missed opportunity and sort of defeats the point of having earlier ramps from both 270 and 670.

They are not separated; it's just 8 lanes now. The way the exits from 670 are configured puts you in the correct set of lanes for your destination.

I'm guessing the configuration is like US 33 WB between I-270 and Avery-Muirfield in that if you take the wrong ramp to US 33 W or Avery-Muirfield from I-270 W, you can still change lanes because of the dashed lane marking. Unless the I-270 one between I-670 and Easton have a solid white line separating the through lanes and exit lanes instead of a dashed one.

Yes, it is similar to the setup on US 33 WB. These pictures show how it now looks on 270 NB between 670 & the Easton/161 C/D roadway. These were all taken within a couple minutes of each other; there was an accident which blocked the right lanes between the first & second pictures.

DSC03317 by Eric Stuve, on Flickr

DSC03318 by Eric Stuve, on Flickr

DSC03319 by Eric Stuve, on Flickr

[Buck87]

Couple US 20 notes:

There are now blue mile marker signs in the median of the Fremont bypass every 2 tenths of a mile, with green ones for the whole numbers on the side of the road.

The CR 175 intersection east of Clyde received a traffic light fairly recently (past 2-3 years.) It is already being upgraded to include doghouse left turn arrows, with a whole set of new signals mounted on mast arms. The previous lights did not have left turn arrows and were wire mounted. Not sure why they didn't just do it this way from the start.

LM-Q620

[SkyPesos]

Speaking of the enhanced mile markers, I'll paste over a conversation from another thread

* Proposed requirement to have all enhanced mile markers be green

If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.

Ohio's going to have a fun time with that. They recently replaced a lot of the thinner older style mile markers with abbreviated cardinal direction to the full sized ones, both in blue. The state will probably find a way around it, considering Ohio still have a good amount of dancing arrow signage up despite dancing arrows getting disallowed in the 2009 MUTCD. I prefer enhanced mile markers in blue over green, though a lot of people will disagree with me.

Afaik for states that uses blue, KY, IN and TN has been mentioned already, OH just mentioned, and there's also KS and WI.

It is interesting that ODOT went through a phase of the whole number markers being green and the others blue.  Those were put up at the same time, and interestingly, the values changed by 6/10 mile when they did.  (If you move back in time, you can see 22.6 where 22.0 now is.  Also, the old 22.6 was an interesting one with a W direction but both 76 and 77 shields; they all had that along the duplex.)

I think the whole number green enhanced markers might be exclusive to Akron (or ODOT district 4), as I don't see them anywhere else in the state. Also interesting is that the .0 is omitted on the Akron ones you linked. Normally, the state keeps the .0 on whole miles; this one-off in Toledo was the only one I knew about that omitted the .0 before seeing the Akron ones. The other cities (well, Cincy, Columbus, Dayton and Cleveland at least) have the standard vertical number green mile marker on the right side of the road for whole miles in addition to the blue mile marker in the median.

Some of the newest .0 ones show .0; it seems that it is flavor of the month with them.  The recently-completed project on 76/77 includes a new 22.0 marker with Mile 22 traditional markers on the roadside; other whole numbers nearby are missing and possibly because of the 6/10 shift (which itself is odd).  It is almost like they are seeing how many permutations they can come up with.  It was never this way when they were all the old design.

Akron area freeways has always had anomalies, with some ground‐mounted signage looking slightly different...Especially on the older freeway segments that were later rebuilt.   

I would hazard a guess that those simpler replacement signs (Non-overhead BGS) were made by the City of Akron's sign department for quite a few decades.  That might explain the green fractional mile‐markers. 

Another reason why I suspect the city of Akron is that once you are outside of their city limits, the signage looks more uniform.

Couple US 20 notes:

There are now blue mile marker signs in the median of the Fremont bypass every 2 tenths of a mile, with green ones for the whole numbers on the side of the road.

Normally, ODOT doesn't place enhanced mile markers in bypasses of small cities or towns. I mostly only see them in medium-large metro areas, in intervals of 0.2 (0.1 in Cincy). Besides Fremont, the only exception I can think of atm is US 35 in Xenia. So the ones on the Fremont bypass for US 20 is sort of a new concept. Wondering if the state will place enhanced mile markers on other rural bypasses, or just rural freeways in general, after the MUTCD disallows blue enhanced markers. I still doubt Ohio will go out and replace all the current blue ones still. It may take longer to adjust to than the dancing arrows ban.

[I-55]

Speaking of the enhanced mile markers, I'll paste over a conversation from another thread

* Proposed requirement to have all enhanced mile markers be green

If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.

Ohio's going to have a fun time with that. They recently replaced a lot of the thinner older style mile markers with abbreviated cardinal direction to the full sized ones, both in blue. The state will probably find a way around it, considering Ohio still have a good amount of dancing arrow signage up despite dancing arrows getting disallowed in the 2009 MUTCD. I prefer enhanced mile markers in blue over green, though a lot of people will disagree with me.

Afaik for states that uses blue, KY, IN and TN has been mentioned already, OH just mentioned, and there's also KS and WI.

It is interesting that ODOT went through a phase of the whole number markers being green and the others blue.  Those were put up at the same time, and interestingly, the values changed by 6/10 mile when they did.  (If you move back in time, you can see 22.6 where 22.0 now is.  Also, the old 22.6 was an interesting one with a W direction but both 76 and 77 shields; they all had that along the duplex.)

I think the whole number green enhanced markers might be exclusive to Akron (or ODOT district 4), as I don't see them anywhere else in the state. Also interesting is that the .0 is omitted on the Akron ones you linked. Normally, the state keeps the .0 on whole miles; this one-off in Toledo was the only one I knew about that omitted the .0 before seeing the Akron ones. The other cities (well, Cincy, Columbus, Dayton and Cleveland at least) have the standard vertical number green mile marker on the right side of the road for whole miles in addition to the blue mile marker in the median.

Some of the newest .0 ones show .0; it seems that it is flavor of the month with them.  The recently-completed project on 76/77 includes a new 22.0 marker with Mile 22 traditional markers on the roadside; other whole numbers nearby are missing and possibly because of the 6/10 shift (which itself is odd).  It is almost like they are seeing how many permutations they can come up with.  It was never this way when they were all the old design.

Akron area freeways has always had anomalies, with some ground‐mounted signage looking slightly different...Especially on the older freeway segments that were later rebuilt.   

I would hazard a guess that those simpler replacement signs (Non-overhead BGS) were made by the City of Akron's sign department for quite a few decades.  That might explain the green fractional mile‐markers. 

Another reason why I suspect the city of Akron is that once you are outside of their city limits, the signage looks more uniform.

Couple US 20 notes:

There are now blue mile marker signs in the median of the Fremont bypass every 2 tenths of a mile, with green ones for the whole numbers on the side of the road.

Normally, ODOT doesn't place enhanced mile markers in bypasses of small cities or towns. I mostly only see them in medium-large metro areas, in intervals of 0.2 (0.1 in Cincy). Besides Fremont, the only exception I can think of atm is US 35 in Xenia. So the ones on the Fremont bypass for US 20 is sort of a new concept. Wondering if the state will place enhanced mile markers on other rural bypasses, or just rural freeways in general, after the MUTCD disallows blue enhanced markers. I still doubt Ohio will go out and replace all the current blue ones still. It may take longer to adjust to than the dancing arrows ban.

US-35 is the only at grade road (near the car dealerships) that I've ever seen with the blue enhanced markers. My guess is that ODOT wanted to have them on 35 for all of the Dayton-Xenia metro, and a one mile gap would've seemed out of place perhaps. I have to wonder if there are any other at grade enhanced markers around the country.

[cl94]

I have to wonder if there are any other at grade enhanced markers around the country.

Plenty. See: almost every state-maintained road in New Jersey.

[vtk]

I have to wonder if there are any other at grade enhanced markers around the country.

US-33 where it makes its turn at College & Livingston in Columbus

[seicer]

Major rehabilitation project to shut down part of State Route 7

"A major rehabilitation project will close part of State Route 7 at Crown City. The project is set to start on March 22.

[...]

ODOT says the concrete pavement in this section was constructed in 1947 and repaired in 1994 and 2013. Part of the project includes removing the concrete and replacing it will full-depth asphalt pavement. There will also be new culverts, catch basins, new guardrail, new signing and rumble strips."

--

I wouldn't have guessed this pavement was 74 years old! Google streetview: https://goo.gl/maps/88WB1LSyCLPw3F74A