I-270 / Roberts is getting a DDI

[6a]

Apparently this is starting in May 2013.  Great stuff, as I'll be moving into that area soon, but I must say that interchange needs all the help it can get.  This interchange is heavy with truck traffic, so I wonder how the new look will do.  Also, there is always a backup on NB Wilson from people trying to get on to Roberts and 270, I wonder if that will be addressed.

Info Page

ODOT will close both bridges on Roberts Road simultaneously, which cuts the construction time in half and saves $1.1 million. All ramps will remain open.

I-270 north to Roberts Road westbound traffic will be detoured. The detour is I-270 north to Cemetery Road to I-270 south to Roberts Road westbound.
I-270 south to Roberts Road eastbound traffic will also be detoured along with Roberts Road eastbound and westbound traffic across the bridge. The detour is Westbelt to Trabue to Wilson or reverse.

[vtk]

I saw the alternative concepts for this: no-build, expanded/modernized diamond, roundabouts, and diverging diamond. None of those appeared to require new bridges, and I supposed that's why a SPUI wasn't considered.

But apparently they're replacing the bridges anyway.  SPUI should have been an option under consideration.

Also, why don't they build the new bridges north and south of the existing bridges, then shift the traffic and demo the old bridges?  A DDI should work fine with a wide median.

It's already hard enough getting in and out of Buckeye Yard on Trabue Rd in the afternoon.  The extra detour traffic will make it an all-day problem.

[6a]

Oh the traffic on Roberts is going to be asinine.  What's that little side road there? Westbelt?  That and Fisher and Rome Hilliard, hoo boy.

I wondered about a SPUI too.  The only thing I can possibly think is it's so tight there with some of the businesses but even that seems dodgy.  Maybe the DDI is better for a lot of truck traffic?

[vtk]

Actually a SPUI would be significantly more expensive than even a DDI with all-new bridges, because it would involve a much wider bridge. And it probably wouldn't be worth it here; the advantage of a SPUI over a DDI is the handling of through traffic on the non-freeway, and Roberts Rd has very little of that.  Yes, it's useful to get between south greater Hilliard and Upper Arlington (or as a back way to Mill Run) but that traffic is absolutely dwarfed by cars and trucks getting on and off I-270 at that interchange.

I don't oppose the DDI, and I guess I can let it go that a SPUI wasn't officially studued, but the bridge closure is going to be a pain.

[6a]

Actually a SPUI would be significantly more expensive than even a DDI with all-new bridges, because it would involve a much wider bridge. And it probably wouldn't be worth it here; the advantage of a SPUI over a DDI is the handling of through traffic on the non-freeway, and Roberts Rd has very little of that. 

There is an old map hanging on my office wall showing a proposed Roberts Rd. extension heading over to Lane Ave.  I guess I imagined that whole quarry as a big chasm, but it doesn't look like that on The Google.  It would be a cool connection to make, especially if this gets done.

[vtk]

There is an old map hanging on my office wall showing a proposed Roberts Rd. extension heading over to Lane Ave.  I guess I imagined that whole quarry as a big chasm, but it doesn't look like that on The Google.  It would be a cool connection to make, especially if this gets done.

That idea was abandoned long ago, as far as I can tell.  I think a truck wash has sprung up in the path of the new Roberts Rd, which would have been realigned in that proposal.

The quarry is indeed deep (about 100ft I think) but I think the road could still go through on fill, possibly including a tunnel connecting the two halves of the quarry if it's still active.  It would probably require some innovative public-private legal agreement, but I think it's possible.

I suspect the real reason this was canceled was Upper Arlington doesn't want more traffic running through it.

Even if it did happen, I don't think it would significantly increase the proportion of traffic on Roberts Rd that's not entering or exiting I-270.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

I'd say the Lane-Roberts connector proposal goes 50 years back.

[6a]

Well, this has been open just under a week.  Maybe some folks don't know it's open, or maybe it's operating as advertised but getting through there is a breeze now.  It's very well marked, the signals seem to be timed nicely and adjust with traffic flow. 

Turns out they only replaced the bridge decks and a SPUI was ruled out for utility concerns. That makes the left turn movements a little tight but all things considered I'd call it a job well done.

[vtk]

Yeah, particularly the left turns off of Roberts seem surprisingly tight.  There will probably be a few truck rollovers before ODOT puts up a bunch more yellow signs.

[6a]

I don't know, the way the lanes are striped across the bridge creates a weave that makes me reduce speed before reaching the end. I can't imagine a truck pulling enough speed to tip and make a turn.