Could OH 32 work as an extension of I-74?

[dvferyance]

I always thought OH 32 could be a candidate of an extension of I-74. While I think the WV part of I-74 is completely unnecessary I would like to see I-74 be extended along OH-32 US-23 the Porthsmouth bypass and along US-52 to end at I-64 in Huntington WV. OH 32 already has a fair amount of interchanges and grade seperations as is so upgrading would not be a huge cost.

[iBallasticwolf2]

It's already been proposed, and for right now the traffic need just isn't there (although an upgrade to freeway between I-275 and Batavia as well as some more interchanges would improve the corridor a lot)

[Bitmapped]

It would be enormously expensive to upgrade SR 32, US 23, and US 52 to a full freeway. There are lots of interchanges that would need built. You'd also need to construct a new Ohio River bridge in Huntington since the existing US 52 structure is only 2 lanes.

[iBallasticwolf2]

The only way that it could be upgraded would be over a VERY long period of time where interchange and grade seperation projects happen very slowly.  But honestly it would probably cost as much or more than much more needed projects like the Brent Spence Bridge.

[LM117]

Ohio isn't interested in any new interstates. They wouldn't even request approval to designate OH-8 between I-76/I-77 in Akron and I-271 Macedonia as I-480, despite pressure from local officials.

[dvferyance]

It would be enormously expensive to upgrade SR 32, US 23, and US 52 to a full freeway. There are lots of interchanges that would need built. You'd also need to construct a new Ohio River bridge in Huntington since the existing US 52 structure is only 2 lanes.

That 2 lane bridge is way outdated as is. Should have been replaced years ago interstate or no interstate. Who is incharge here OH or WV? As far as improving the corridor goes they should at least build a few more interchanges like at OH 41 and US 68. It would make a more direct way from Indianapolis to Charleston as taking I-65 to I-64 takes you a bit out of the way.

[dvferyance]

Ohio isn't interested in any new interstates. They wouldn't even request approval to designate OH-8 between I-76/I-77 in Akron and I-271 Macedonia as I-480, despite pressure from local officials.

I-74 already exist in Ohio this would just be extending it.

[SP Cook]

The road from 275 eastward is perfectly adequate for the traffic volumes as exist today or are projected to exist in the future.

A better road from 275 into downtown would be welcome.  32 just dumps you at the beltway and forces you to use surface streets or go north or south on the beltway for many miles to find an appropriate expressway to downtown.

[iBallasticwolf2]

A better road from 275 into downtown would be welcome.  32 just dumps you at the beltway and forces you to use surface streets or go north or south on the beltway for many miles to find an appropriate expressway to downtown.

OHDOT tried that with the Eastern Corridor, and lets just say, Mariemont and Newtown don't want a freeway, period

[hbelkins]

It would be enormously expensive to upgrade SR 32, US 23, and US 52 to a full freeway. There are lots of interchanges that would need built. You'd also need to construct a new Ohio River bridge in Huntington since the existing US 52 structure is only 2 lanes.

That 2 lane bridge is way outdated as is. Should have been replaced years ago interstate or no interstate. Who is incharge here OH or WV? As far as improving the corridor goes they should at least build a few more interchanges like at OH 41 and US 68. It would make a more direct way from Indianapolis to Charleston as taking I-65 to I-64 takes you a bit out of the way.

I've seen nothing wrong with the US 52 bridge or the short two-lane portion of the expressway between the bridge and I-64, and I've been on that road more times than I care to count. As for who is in charge, West Virginia owns the river but bridges are generally a negotiated deal (see, Ohio building the Ironton-Russell Bridge).

The direct route from Indy to Charleston will be I-70 and then US 35 beyond Dayton once the four-laning in WV is complete. Actually, it already is even with the existing two-lane portion of US 35. It's out of the way to take I-74 to Cincinnati, then have to negotiate a beltway to get to OH 32 on the east side of town.

[dvferyance]

It would be enormously expensive to upgrade SR 32, US 23, and US 52 to a full freeway. There are lots of interchanges that would need built. You'd also need to construct a new Ohio River bridge in Huntington since the existing US 52 structure is only 2 lanes.

That 2 lane bridge is way outdated as is. Should have been replaced years ago interstate or no interstate. Who is incharge here OH or WV? As far as improving the corridor goes they should at least build a few more interchanges like at OH 41 and US 68. It would make a more direct way from Indianapolis to Charleston as taking I-65 to I-64 takes you a bit out of the way.

I've seen nothing wrong with the US 52 bridge or the short two-lane portion of the expressway between the bridge and I-64, and I've been on that road more times than I care to count. As for who is in charge, West Virginia owns the river but bridges are generally a negotiated deal (see, Ohio building the Ironton-Russell Bridge).

The direct route from Indy to Charleston will be I-70 and then US 35 beyond Dayton once the four-laning in WV is complete. Actually, it already is even with the existing two-lane portion of US 35. It's out of the way to take I-74 to Cincinnati, then have to negotiate a beltway to get to OH 32 on the east side of town.

A 2 lane bridge dosen't make any sense when it's 4 lanes on both sides of the river. I never thought about the US 35 route although US 52 is getting a bypass around Porthsmouth so that is going to make the route better.

[iBallasticwolf2]

It would be enormously expensive to upgrade SR 32, US 23, and US 52 to a full freeway. There are lots of interchanges that would need built. You'd also need to construct a new Ohio River bridge in Huntington since the existing US 52 structure is only 2 lanes.

That 2 lane bridge is way outdated as is. Should have been replaced years ago interstate or no interstate. Who is incharge here OH or WV? As far as improving the corridor goes they should at least build a few more interchanges like at OH 41 and US 68. It would make a more direct way from Indianapolis to Charleston as taking I-65 to I-64 takes you a bit out of the way.

I've seen nothing wrong with the US 52 bridge or the short two-lane portion of the expressway between the bridge and I-64, and I've been on that road more times than I care to count. As for who is in charge, West Virginia owns the river but bridges are generally a negotiated deal (see, Ohio building the Ironton-Russell Bridge).

The direct route from Indy to Charleston will be I-70 and then US 35 beyond Dayton once the four-laning in WV is complete. Actually, it already is even with the existing two-lane portion of US 35. It's out of the way to take I-74 to Cincinnati, then have to negotiate a beltway to get to OH 32 on the east side of town.

A 2 lane bridge dosen't make any sense when it's 4 lanes on both sides of the river. I never thought about the US 35 route although US 52 is getting a bypass around Porthsmouth so that is going to make the route better.

The bypass only goes between US 23 in Rosemount and US 52 in Sciotiodale

[sparker]

It would be enormously expensive to upgrade SR 32, US 23, and US 52 to a full freeway. There are lots of interchanges that would need built. You'd also need to construct a new Ohio River bridge in Huntington since the existing US 52 structure is only 2 lanes.

That 2 lane bridge is way outdated as is. Should have been replaced years ago interstate or no interstate. Who is incharge here OH or WV? As far as improving the corridor goes they should at least build a few more interchanges like at OH 41 and US 68. It would make a more direct way from Indianapolis to Charleston as taking I-65 to I-64 takes you a bit out of the way.

I've seen nothing wrong with the US 52 bridge or the short two-lane portion of the expressway between the bridge and I-64, and I've been on that road more times than I care to count. As for who is in charge, West Virginia owns the river but bridges are generally a negotiated deal (see, Ohio building the Ironton-Russell Bridge).

The direct route from Indy to Charleston will be I-70 and then US 35 beyond Dayton once the four-laning in WV is complete. Actually, it already is even with the existing two-lane portion of US 35. It's out of the way to take I-74 to Cincinnati, then have to negotiate a beltway to get to OH 32 on the east side of town.

A 2 lane bridge dosen't make any sense when it's 4 lanes on both sides of the river. I never thought about the US 35 route although US 52 is getting a bypass around Porthsmouth so that is going to make the route better.

An Interstate-grade bridge at Kenova (pretty much parallel to the NS RR bridge) was in the initial planning stages in the mid-to-late 1990's (likely an initial I-73/74 conceptualization), but plans were abandoned by the end of 2001, ostensibly due to a lack of identifiable funding in both OH and WV.  Unless something like this is revived between the SE end of the Portsmouth bypass and Huntington, any plans for an eastern extension of I-74, in reality, won't even get off the ground -- despite the obviously attractive presence of the OH 32 facility.  Actually, the original I-74/HPC-5 corridor plans did utilize OH 32 east to about Peebles, where it struck off more or less ESE to where the north end of the Portsmouth bypass begins along US 23 -- so the notion of using OH 32 for at least part of the alignment has been around since 1995! 

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Collecting (cyber)dust...

[Bitmapped]

It would be enormously expensive to upgrade SR 32, US 23, and US 52 to a full freeway. There are lots of interchanges that would need built. You'd also need to construct a new Ohio River bridge in Huntington since the existing US 52 structure is only 2 lanes.

That 2 lane bridge is way outdated as is. Should have been replaced years ago interstate or no interstate. Who is incharge here OH or WV? As far as improving the corridor goes they should at least build a few more interchanges like at OH 41 and US 68. It would make a more direct way from Indianapolis to Charleston as taking I-65 to I-64 takes you a bit out of the way.

I've seen nothing wrong with the US 52 bridge or the short two-lane portion of the expressway between the bridge and I-64, and I've been on that road more times than I care to count. As for who is in charge, West Virginia owns the river but bridges are generally a negotiated deal (see, Ohio building the Ironton-Russell Bridge).

The direct route from Indy to Charleston will be I-70 and then US 35 beyond Dayton once the four-laning in WV is complete. Actually, it already is even with the existing two-lane portion of US 35. It's out of the way to take I-74 to Cincinnati, then have to negotiate a beltway to get to OH 32 on the east side of town.

A 2 lane bridge dosen't make any sense when it's 4 lanes on both sides of the river. I never thought about the US 35 route although US 52 is getting a bypass around Porthsmouth so that is going to make the route better.

An Interstate-grade bridge at Kenova (pretty much parallel to the NS RR bridge) was in the initial planning stages in the mid-to-late 1990's (likely an initial I-73/74 conceptualization), but plans were abandoned by the end of 2001, ostensibly due to a lack of identifiable funding in both OH and WV.  Unless something like this is revived between the SE end of the Portsmouth bypass and Huntington, any plans for an eastern extension of I-74, in reality, won't even get off the ground -- despite the obviously attractive presence of the OH 32 facility.  Actually, the original I-74/HPC-5 corridor plans did utilize OH 32 east to about Peebles, where it struck off more or less ESE to where the north end of the Portsmouth bypass begins along US 23 -- so the notion of using OH 32 for at least part of the alignment has been around since 1995! 

An upgraded SR 73 from SR 32 to Portsmouth has been bandied about for decades.

[Henry]

Wasn't OH 562 going to receive full Interstate upgrades as part of the original I-74 project? I think that would've been the most logical route across town, along with the Eastern Corridor mentioned a few posts back.

[iBallasticwolf2]

Wasn't OH 562 going to receive full Interstate upgrades as part of the original I-74 project? I think that would've been the most logical route across town, along with the Eastern Corridor mentioned a few posts back.

While it would be possible to upgrade OH 562 to interstate standards, considering that an I-74 is basically dead at this point because of the Eastern Corridor's demise, with the expensive costs and very limited ROW that OH 562 has, its very unlikely OHDOT would go to all the trouble and expenses of upgrading the road to interstate standards, especially since it would be near impossible to upgrade it to 6 lanes.

[sparker]

Wasn't OH 562 going to receive full Interstate upgrades as part of the original I-74 project? I think that would've been the most logical route across town, along with the Eastern Corridor mentioned a few posts back.

While it would be possible to upgrade OH 562 to interstate standards, considering that an I-74 is basically dead at this point because of the Eastern Corridor's demise, with the expensive costs and very limited ROW that OH 562 has, its very unlikely OHDOT would go to all the trouble and expenses of upgrading the road to interstate standards, especially since it would be near impossible to upgrade it to 6 lanes.

At present the only potentially feasible (logistically & politically) would be to route any I-74 extension over the I-275 beltway and re-designate the remaining portion of I-74 within the beltway as a x74 or x75.  Anything inside the beltway is a non-starter. 

[Henry]

Wasn't OH 562 going to receive full Interstate upgrades as part of the original I-74 project? I think that would've been the most logical route across town, along with the Eastern Corridor mentioned a few posts back.

While it would be possible to upgrade OH 562 to interstate standards, considering that an I-74 is basically dead at this point because of the Eastern Corridor's demise, with the expensive costs and very limited ROW that OH 562 has, its very unlikely OHDOT would go to all the trouble and expenses of upgrading the road to interstate standards, especially since it would be near impossible to upgrade it to 6 lanes.

At present the only potentially feasible (logistically & politically) would be to route any I-74 extension over the I-275 beltway and re-designate the remaining portion of I-74 within the beltway as a x74 or x75.  Anything inside the beltway is a non-starter. 

Yes, especially with OH 126 being too close to the top portion of the beltway. Just about everything inside the loop is built up to the point where no new highways would be possible. And wouldn't the I-275/OH 32 interchange need to be upgraded to accommodate an I-74 extension in this scenario, namely rebuild it with at least one flyover?

[iBallasticwolf2]

Wasn't OH 562 going to receive full Interstate upgrades as part of the original I-74 project? I think that would've been the most logical route across town, along with the Eastern Corridor mentioned a few posts back.

While it would be possible to upgrade OH 562 to interstate standards, considering that an I-74 is basically dead at this point because of the Eastern Corridor's demise, with the expensive costs and very limited ROW that OH 562 has, its very unlikely OHDOT would go to all the trouble and expenses of upgrading the road to interstate standards, especially since it would be near impossible to upgrade it to 6 lanes.

At present the only potentially feasible (logistically & politically) would be to route any I-74 extension over the I-275 beltway and re-designate the remaining portion of I-74 within the beltway as a x74 or x75.  Anything inside the beltway is a non-starter. 

Yes, especially with OH 126 being too close to the top portion of the beltway. Just about everything inside the loop is built up to the point where no new highways would be possible. And wouldn't the I-275/OH 32 interchange need to be upgraded to accommodate an I-74 extension in this scenario, namely rebuild it with at least one flyover?

Considering the entire interchange was rebuilt just a year ago with traffic lights, a rebuilt for limited access would have to be at least a decade in the future, especially with the interchange appearing to be functioning adequately

[dvferyance]

I am wondering are there at least any plans for any improvements to OH 32? Like additional interchanges or over passes. An improved OH 32 is at least still better though just not as great as an I-74 upgrade.

[SP Cook]

I am wondering are there at least any plans for any improvements to OH 32? Like additional interchanges or over passes. An improved OH 32 is at least still better though just not as great as an I-74 upgrade.

What would you recommend?  32 seems perfectly adequate for the traffic volumes that exist today, with the possible exception of the first 10 to 20 miles east of the beltway, which can get a little congested, but it is too late to do anything about that, due to land values.  Maybe a few of the at-grade intersections east of that could be eliminated, along with their stop lights, but you can say that about most Appalachian Corridors.

[GoBucks1047]

I am wondering are there at least any plans for any improvements to OH 32? Like additional interchanges or over passes. An improved OH 32 is at least still better though just not as great as an I-74 upgrade.

Only between I-275 and the Old State Route 74 intersection is the only area for right now. I could see improvements extended farther east to the 2 Batavia interchanges in the near future (5-10 years), possibly to the Batavia Rd. interchange (10-15 years). Beyond Clermont County, it's not necessary at this time, though Brown County has a thoroughfare to add interchanges to OH-32 when it becomes appropriate, which will be awhile. Only way I could see this is if the Portsmouth Bypass (OH-823) would be extended northwestward with limited access to OH-32 somewhere near Peebles (between OH-41 and OH-73) to create a more direct route to Cincinnati from Huntington-Charleston WV and vice versa.

[amroad17]

It would work--only if there was no NIMBYism present, if ROW was acquired from I-275 to OH 32 north of Eastgate Mall to a point just west of Batavia, if the environmental impact was low, and if Ohio DOT wanted to spend the money to do it.

In reality, I-74 does not need to be extended.  It should end where it does now.  As I have mentioned in a few different posts, the NC I-74 should be renumbered as I-34.  There is a miniscule chance that the two I-74s will ever be connected unless this country experiences a "money boon" as it appeared we did in the 1950's and 1960's.

This is what happens when government becomes involved in what should be the individual states' DOTs decisions to be submitted to AASHTO.  Grand ideas are thrown about without any regard to costs or even logic.

[sparker]

It would work--only if there was no NIMBYism present, if ROW was acquired from I-275 to OH 32 north of Eastgate Mall to a point just west of Batavia, if the environmental impact was low, and if Ohio DOT wanted to spend the money to do it.

In reality, I-74 does not need to be extended.  It should end where it does now.  As I have mentioned in a few different posts, the NC I-74 should be renumbered as I-34.  There is a miniscule chance that the two I-74s will ever be connected unless this country experiences a "money boon" as it appeared we did in the 1950's and 1960's.

This is what happens when government becomes involved in what should be the individual states' DOTs decisions to be submitted to AASHTO.  Grand ideas are thrown about without any regard to costs or even logic.

It's not general "government" that's responsible for overreaching corridor concepts -- rather it's usually a chain of events starting with local interests -- sometimes in concert with an MPO, but just as often not -- pushing for a facility to serve their area.  If the area in question is large enough -- or the original conceivers can add additional regions to the bandwagon, a "steamroller" is formed; at that time, the project backers hit up their congressional rep to arrange for formal recognition of the corridor in question.  The objections to the application of this method are generally that it sometimes bypasses the state's DOT (in some states that's done deliberately!) and its research and vetting process; in states generally receptive to Interstate development, such as NC and TX, the DOT will be more pliable, as long as there's adherence to their internal standards.  Other states' DOT's, particularly those with highly specified STIP's as their marching orders, are understandably reluctant to take part in the process except as "forced labor" once the federal designation process is completed and funding identified.  New high-cost corridors tend to upset in-state planning efforts, especially when there's a publicized push to get a project done; many DOT's have adapted to this by stretching out these "add-on" projects, often splitting them up into several SIU's -- so it always looks like something's advancing within the corridor parameters, even if it progresses at a relatively slow pace.  But it gives the congressperson something to point to during their (seemingly perpetual) re-election campaigns; it allows local pols and leaders to show their faces at segment opening events, and it usually creates an uptick -- although miniscule at times, particularly when an outside contractor gets the bid -- in the localized employment figures.  In today's political world, it's as close to a "win-win" scenario as possible, even if DOT "lifers" are perpetually rolling their eyes!