Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[vtk]

- A $14 million update to U.S. Route 23 at the I-270 interchange at Rathmell Road, which will remove two cloverleaf ramps, construct two new signalized ramps and add a third lane to the northbound portion of U.S. Route 23.

(I think this keeps the free-flowing components for US 23 from the south, so you shouldn't encounter a traffic signal. This is in line with the eventual conversation of US 23 south of I-270 into a freeway.

I think they're eliminating the EB→NB and WB→SB loops and replacing those with left turns at signals. But the conversion of 23 to a freeway there is still probably a decade or two off at least, so there won't be much of a case for maintaining a free-flowing WB→SB connection in the near future. Plus, eliminating that loop will allow 3 WB through lanes on 270 without widening the bridge and I'd be surprised if ODOT doesn't do that. My biggest lament about this project is that the current WB→NB ramp is surrounded by thick vegetation, giving it a charming aspect that isn't found on roads of lesser age and will surely be lost in the interchange reconfiguration.

[The Ghostbuster]

Ultimately, US 23 should be completely freeway both north and south of Columbus, even if it is never becomes part of the Interstate System.

[silverback1065]

Ultimately, US 23 should be completely freeway both north and south of Columbus, even if it is never becomes part of the Interstate System.

never heard anyone talking about 23 freeway south of 270. where would it end? 

[SkyPesos]

Ultimately, US 23 should be completely freeway both north and south of Columbus, even if it is never becomes part of the Interstate System.

never heard anyone talking about 23 freeway south of 270. where would it end? 

US 35 in Chillicothe would be a good southern end point for a future new freeway.

[The Ghostbuster]

Likely at the northern terminus of OH 823, but if traffic demands don't warrant it, I could regulate the portion of US 23 south of Columbus to Fictional Highways.

[seicer]

Ultimately, US 23 should be completely freeway both north and south of Columbus, even if it is never becomes part of the Interstate System.

never heard anyone talking about 23 freeway south of 270. where would it end? 

There are a few interchanges planned south of I-270 toward South Bloomfield, and some time back, I found plans online for the east-side South Bloomfield bypass that would be entirely controlled access through a few interchanges. There is nothing planned south of there, although the route could really benefit from additional driveway closures and shoulder additions.

[6a]

- A $14 million update to U.S. Route 23 at the I-270 interchange at Rathmell Road, which will remove two cloverleaf ramps, construct two new signalized ramps and add a third lane to the northbound portion of U.S. Route 23.

(I think this keeps the free-flowing components for US 23 from the south, so you shouldn't encounter a traffic signal. This is in line with the eventual conversation of US 23 south of I-270 into a freeway.

I think they're eliminating the EB→NB and WB→SB loops and replacing those with left turns at signals. But the conversion of 23 to a freeway there is still probably a decade or two off at least, so there won't be much of a case for maintaining a free-flowing WB→SB connection in the near future. Plus, eliminating that loop will allow 3 WB through lanes on 270 without widening the bridge and I'd be surprised if ODOT doesn't do that. My biggest lament about this project is that the current WB→NB ramp is surrounded by thick vegetation, giving it a charming aspect that isn't found on roads of lesser age and will surely be lost in the interchange reconfiguration.

Those are the two ramps that frequently flood, as well.

[vtk]

Ultimately, US 23 should be completely freeway both north and south of Columbus, even if it is never becomes part of the Interstate System.

never heard anyone talking about 23 freeway south of 270. where would it end? 

The freeway upgrade is in MORPC's long-term transportation plan from I-270 to the FRA–PIC border (which is also the MPO's southern boundary). I don't regularly follow the MPOs south of here, but I imagine they aspire to eventually achieve full freeway conditions down to Chillicothe. South of there, the consensus seems to be current conditions are and will remain adequate for the foreseeable future, aside from the occasional Waverly bypass proposal that doesn't get far.

[GCrites80s]

Between the New Boston coke plant and Ashland AK Steel closures, the Piketon A-Plant cutbacks and the two steel mills on US-52 east of Portsmouth that never materialized, interest in Ohio US-23 upgrades seen in the past dried up significantly -- especially south of Circleville.

[SkyPesos]

Between the New Boston coke plant and Ashland AK Steel closures, the Piketon A-Plant cutbacks and the two steel mills on US-52 east of Portsmouth that never materialized, interest in Ohio US-23 upgrades seen in the past dried up significantly -- especially south of Circleville.

And looking at AADT data, it seems like that the most usage for US 23 south of Columbus is to connect to US 35 (for points southeast) at Chillicothe. So I don't really see a need to upgrade US 23 south of Chillicothe anyways.

[TempoNick]

And looking at AADT data, it seems like that the most usage for US 23 south of Columbus is to connect to US 35 (for points southeast) at Chillicothe. So I don't really see a need to upgrade US 23 south of Chillicothe anyways.

You guys here are in love with US 35, and I admit, that's a nice drive. But there is nothing along there. Absolutely nothing. You are capturing a lot more population, not to mention commerce, if you use the original route. US 35 makes sense if you're only concerned about Columbus traffic. But if you want to pick up and serve traffic along the way, the original route is more practical.

The original route picks up Portsmouth, Ashland, Ironton and Huntington and all the business and traffic generated along that route. I think that's a fairly significant reason to go with the original plan. Plus, if the idea is to extend I-74, you lose too much mileage going backward if you have to go back up to us 35 to go south.

[GCrites80s]

I think the increased interest in US-35 was after the 4-lane upgrades that took place in the 2000s which made it more attractive for those driving to Charleston and points further south like Charlotte. Before a lot of that work was done more people were taking I-70 to I-77 then going south from there so that they didn't have to do a bunch of 2-lane on such a long trip even if it still took less time.

[Bitmapped]

And looking at AADT data, it seems like that the most usage for US 23 south of Columbus is to connect to US 35 (for points southeast) at Chillicothe. So I don't really see a need to upgrade US 23 south of Chillicothe anyways.

You guys here are in love with US 35, and I admit, that's a nice drive. But there is nothing along there. Absolutely nothing. You are capturing a lot more population, not to mention commerce, if you use the original route. US 35 makes sense if you're only concerned about Columbus traffic. But if you want to pick up and serve traffic along the way, the original route is more practical.

The original route picks up Portsmouth, Ashland, Ironton and Huntington and all the business and traffic generated along that route. I think that's a fairly significant reason to go with the original plan. Plus, if the idea is to extend I-74, you lose too much mileage going backward if you have to go back up to us 35 to go south.

Traffic splits fairly evenly heading south/east from Chillicothe on US 23 versus US 35.

Portsmouth, Ashland, Ironton, and Huntington already have a four-lane route to Columbus (US 23) that adequate serves its traffic. There's probably a justification to be made for a Waverly bypass, but with traffic counts in the 13K-21K range south of Chillicothe, there's no need for a full freeway in that section.

[SkyPesos]

And looking at AADT data, it seems like that the most usage for US 23 south of Columbus is to connect to US 35 (for points southeast) at Chillicothe. So I don't really see a need to upgrade US 23 south of Chillicothe anyways.

You guys here are in love with US 35, and I admit, that's a nice drive. But there is nothing along there. Absolutely nothing. You are capturing a lot more population, not to mention commerce, if you use the original route. US 35 makes sense if you're only concerned about Columbus traffic. But if you want to pick up and serve traffic along the way, the original route is more practical.

The original route picks up Portsmouth, Ashland, Ironton and Huntington and all the business and traffic generated along that route. I think that's a fairly significant reason to go with the original plan. Plus, if the idea is to extend I-74, you lose too much mileage going backward if you have to go back up to us 35 to go south.

US 35 picks up traffic from Dayton, Cincinnati and Columbus to WV, southern VA and the Carolinas. Dayton is directly on US 35, Columbus via US 23, and Cincinnati via either I-71 (from northern suburbs) or OH 32 (from downtown or eastern suburbs). Not to mention that it's part of the fastest route from other parts of the Midwest to the Carolinas too, like form Detroit, Chicago or Minneapolis for example. And it's an even better route now that WV finished the last 4 lane section a few months ago. This is why I'm more interested in it for long-distance traffic than a route that goes out of the way through small cities in southern Ohio and western WV.

[Buck87]

I've been looking at the STIP for the first time in a while and noticed this:

SAN US 20 20.80 roundabout
Termini: the easterly interchange (US-20/State St.) on the Fremont By-Pass
Description: A safety funded project to reconfigure the easterly interchange (US-20/State St.) on the Fremont By-Pass to a roundabout. The
intersection of CR 198 & CR 199 with US 20 will also be closed.

Did some searching and found this video from 2019 which shows the diagrams of the proposals at time:
https://www.wtol.com/article/news/local/us-20-safety-alternatives/512-1e9bf01a-d3fa-48e6-a440-2a1aabb3f987

...so damn, if the roundabout is really what they are going with, eastbound US 20 will have to go through a roundabout right after the speed limit drops from 65 to 60 (westbound gets lanes to bypass the roundabout)

[seicer]

How is there that many accidents for that interchange set up? The west end - with an intersection thrown into the middle of it, looks more suspect. I don't mind roundabouts, either, but from a 65 MPH freeway? That seems like what is proposed for the Chesapeake bypass - a limited access 55 MPH expressway with a roundabout dead center.

[Buck87]

The accidents occur at the CR 229/198 intersection on US 20 just north of the interchange. Since there is no eastbound State St to westbound US 20 movement, traffic that wants to go that direction must use CR 198/229 and turn left onto 20 (there are trailblazers directing this move.) This project would eliminate that intersection altogether and make it possible to turn left at grade from State to US 20.

Going eastbound on US 20, the speed limit drops from 65 to 60 between the OH 412 exit and the CR 229/198 intersection, as that intersection marks the end of the full freeway portion of the bypass. I wonder if they will move that drop farther back and/or decrease the speed limit to 55 for the stretch approaching the roundabout.

For the record I think this roundabout is a crazy stupid idea.

Edit to add, based on the funding listed in the STIP, this is planned to be a 2024 project.

[wanderer2575]

How is there that many accidents for that interchange set up? The west end - with an intersection thrown into the middle of it, looks more suspect. I don't mind roundabouts, either, but from a 65 MPH freeway? That seems like what is proposed for the Chesapeake bypass - a limited access 55 MPH expressway with a roundabout dead center.

How is that really any different from the current traffic signal another 1/2 mile farther along (at Shock Road/OH-19) from a 65 mph freeway?

Separate note:  The bridge carrying the westbound US-20 exit to State Street over the eastbound lanes looks fairly new.  That's a big waste of money and material.

[GCrites80s]

The roundabouts at US-33 and OH-664 in Logan seem to be working out fine.

[skluth]

How is there that many accidents for that interchange set up? The west end - with an intersection thrown into the middle of it, looks more suspect. I don't mind roundabouts, either, but from a 65 MPH freeway? That seems like what is proposed for the Chesapeake bypass - a limited access 55 MPH expressway with a roundabout dead center.

How is that really any different from the current traffic signal another 1/2 mile farther along (at Shock Road/OH-19) from a 65 mph freeway?

The problem is with EB drivers going from the bypass directly into the roundabout

[seicer]

The roundabouts at US-33 and OH-664 in Logan seem to be working out fine.

Those are on ramps.

[wanderer2575]

How is there that many accidents for that interchange set up? The west end - with an intersection thrown into the middle of it, looks more suspect. I don't mind roundabouts, either, but from a 65 MPH freeway? That seems like what is proposed for the Chesapeake bypass - a limited access 55 MPH expressway with a roundabout dead center.

How is that really any different from the current traffic signal another 1/2 mile farther along (at Shock Road/OH-19) from a 65 mph freeway?

The problem is with EB drivers going from the bypass directly into the roundabout

I understand what you are saying.  My point is that EB drivers currently go from the bypass directly into a traffic signal.  I don't think adding a roundabout only 1/2 mile before the signal adds any additional hazard.

[TempoNick]

Traffic splits fairly evenly heading south/east from Chillicothe on US 23 versus US 35.

Portsmouth, Ashland, Ironton, and Huntington already have a four-lane route to Columbus (US 23) that adequate serves its traffic. There's probably a justification to be made for a Waverly bypass, but with traffic counts in the 13K-21K range south of Chillicothe, there's no need for a full freeway in that section.

If need along any given point is your metric, then you could disqualify any project from being a freeway. The object is connectivity. Where does Columbus and Dayton want to connect in the long run? The several hundred thousand people along the river or Bob Evans in Gallipolis?

[Bitmapped]

Traffic splits fairly evenly heading south/east from Chillicothe on US 23 versus US 35.

Portsmouth, Ashland, Ironton, and Huntington already have a four-lane route to Columbus (US 23) that adequate serves its traffic. There's probably a justification to be made for a Waverly bypass, but with traffic counts in the 13K-21K range south of Chillicothe, there's no need for a full freeway in that section.

If need along any given point is your metric, then you could disqualify any project from being a freeway. The object is connectivity. Where does Columbus and Dayton want to connect in the long run? The several hundred thousand people along the river or Bob Evans in Gallipolis?

Need, largely determined by traffic demand, is how road construction gets prioritized. 4-lane expressways like the existing US 23 and US 52 provide a high level of connectivity. If you're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new facility, you'd better have a pretty good reason why the current one is inadequate.

Considering that Portsmouth, Ironton, Ashland, and Huntington are depopulating and in economic decline, I doubt that freeway access to them is really all that high on the priority list for Dayton or Columbus.

[SkyPesos]

Traffic splits fairly evenly heading south/east from Chillicothe on US 23 versus US 35.

Portsmouth, Ashland, Ironton, and Huntington already have a four-lane route to Columbus (US 23) that adequate serves its traffic. There's probably a justification to be made for a Waverly bypass, but with traffic counts in the 13K-21K range south of Chillicothe, there's no need for a full freeway in that section.

If need along any given point is your metric, then you could disqualify any project from being a freeway. The object is connectivity. Where does Columbus and Dayton want to connect in the long run? The several hundred thousand people along the river or Bob Evans in Gallipolis?

This may sound new to you, but drivers can change from one highway number to another using these things called interchanges, connecting them to places on another highway.

Look at the cities beyond US 35 for why it got upgraded to 4 lanes, not just what’s on it.