News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-73 updates?

Started by Buummu, April 27, 2011, 12:39:37 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hot Rod Hootenanny

Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above


SkyPesos

So as of now, it seems like that the C1 option is the preferred one. Completely fine with it.

seicer

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.

Hot Rod Hootenanny

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.
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

JREwing78

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.

Buck87

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.

vtk

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.
Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.

vtk

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.
Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.

seicer

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?

Terry Shea

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."

Rothman

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Plutonic Panda

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.

Rothman



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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

GaryV

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."

Plutonic Panda

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.

seicer

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.

Hot Rod Hootenanny

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
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

Hot Rod Hootenanny

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
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

Hot Rod Hootenanny

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)
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

Ryctor2018

2DI's traveled: 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 30, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 49, 55, 57, 59, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 85, 87, 88, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96

seicer

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 :)

thenetwork

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.

vtk

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.
Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.

vtk

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.
Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.

skluth

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.)



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.