Ohio

[GCrites]

^It is, and it is old.

[TempoNick]

I don't know if this photo is going to come through because it's on facebook, but this might be a good idea for ODOT to employ like in situations like Ohio 15 where it really should be numbered US 23 but can't be because US 23 goes off into a different direction.

"US 23A LINK" would be a good solution.

https://facebook.com/photo.php/?fbid=10227622680896644

[Molandfreak]

I don't know if this photo is going to come through because it's on facebook, but this might be a good idea for ODOT to employ like in situations like Ohio 15 where it really should be numbered US 23 but can't be because US 23 goes off into a different direction.

"US 23A LINK" would be a good solution.

https://facebook.com/photo.php/?fbid=10227622680896644

Just move US 23 there, then US 223 is right there to take over the old route.

[seicer]

h/t Mark Phillips for the link

Chesapeake Bypass Phase 2 Virtual Public Open House

Map: https://www.publicinput.com/Customer/File/Full/3a17350a-b6a4-4349-86ea-668529c3673b

The Chesapeake Bypass project has been ongoing for twenty years. The ultimate plan for the Chesapeake Bypass project is a 4-lane, limited access highway between SR 527/SR 7 in Chesapeake and existing SR 7 in Rome Township. Right-of-way (R/W) plans have been completed and property acquisition is underway. Due to limited funding,  construction is being completed in phases:

- Phase 1: This phase included construction of a new 4.7-mile, 2-lane limited access highway from SR 775 in Proctorville to existing SR 7 in Rome Township, as well as a connection between the 31st Street Bridge (East Huntington Bridge) and existing 775 in Proctorville.

- Phase 2: This phase involves construction of the western half of the Chesapeake Bypass, which extends 5.2 miles between the SR 527/SR 7 interchange in Chesapeake east to SR 775 in Proctorville. Phase 2 includes construction of a 2-lane, limited access highway, with some 4-lane sections and truck climbing lanes. In addition, a full interchange will be constructed at SR 775. Once funding becomes available, Phase 2 will be constructed in two subphases:

- Phase 2A: This phase includes tree clearing, and construction of earthwork and drainage. This phase is scheduled to begin in 2024 and end in 2025, dependent on funding.

- Phase 2B: This phase includes construction of bridges and roadway pavement. This phase is scheduled to begin in 2028 and end in 2030, dependent on funding. There will be at least 3 years between Phases 2A and 2B to allow for soil settlement.

The construction of the remaining portions of the 4-lane Chesapeake Bypass will occur in phases:

- Phase 3: This phase includes construction of the remaining westbound lanes and completion of the 4-lane highway between the SR 527/SR 7 interchange in Chesapeake east to SR 775 in Proctorville.

- Phase 4: This phase includes construction of two westbound lanes for the length of Phase 1B between SR 775 in Proctorville east to existing SR 7 in Rome Township.
Funding has not been committed for Phases 3 & 4.

--

"There will be at least 3 years between Phases 2A and 2B to allow for soil settlement."

- This is interesting. It will be different than the fast-tracked Portsmouth bypass which has experienced a lot of settling issues throughout its entire length, and much of US 35 through West Virginia, which is nicknamed the "Bump and Dip Freeway" for obvious reasons. I know that I-69 has surcharge dumped on settling segments, and I assume the same will be done for SR 7.

- I didn't anticipate on so many hills requiring truck climbing lanes on the two-lane segments, but it's good that it's being built on it considering that it could be another 20-30 years before the entire route is four-laned.

- The roundabout at SR 243 looks to be temporary. When it's four-laned, I wonder if it will just be a t-intersection?

[Ted$8roadFan]

Story on Columbus's massive growth.

https://www.governing.com/community/america-discovers-columbus-ohio

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Story on Columbus's massive growth.

https://www.governing.com/community/america-discovers-columbus-ohio

Written by Aaron Renn. Maybe the second most famous alum from MTR, after Steve Anderson.

[Rothman]

Story on Columbus's massive growth.

https://www.governing.com/community/america-discovers-columbus-ohio

Written by Aaron Renn. Maybe the second most famous alum from MTR, after Steve Anderson.

*considers how post m.t.r. fame would be measured*

[seicer]

An article out of C-bus that is not paywalled...
https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2021/09/24/future-central-ohio-highway-projects.html
(list of projects that ODOT has promised money for, around Central Ohio, for the next couple of years)

I have no adblocker yet it keeps saying I do. So a little hacking around with coding and I got the list:

- A $38.4 million overhaul at Brice Road and I-270. The project would reconfigure the north half of the Brice Road interchange, construct westbound ramps to I-270 and build the south half of the Brice Road interchange.

- 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.

- An $11.4 million update to U.S. Route 33 and Pickerington Road in Fairfield County.

(Not an interchange?)

- A $6 million project to address congestion and safety on I-71 between I-270 and I-670.

- A $5 million interchange improvement at state Route 256 and Taylor Road in Fairfield County.

- A $4.9 million widening of Alum Creek Drive near state Route 317, which will add a third through lane in each direction to the current road, a sidewalk on one side of the road and a shared-use path on the other.

- A $3 million new interchange at Big Walnut Road in Delaware County to "link the primary local east-west road corridor in the area" to I-71, according to ODOT's website.

- A $2 million corridor study of state Route 23 to identify the best way to improve the link between Toledo and Columbus in Delaware County

[GCrites]

Story on Columbus's massive growth.

https://www.governing.com/community/america-discovers-columbus-ohio

Written by Aaron Renn. Maybe the second most famous alum from MTR, after Steve Anderson.

He is a user on like every urbanist and infrastructure forum/blog.

[GCrites]

- An $11.4 million update to U.S. Route 33 and Pickerington Road in Fairfield County.

(Not an interchange?)

Alternative #2 was chosen by ODOT but its price tag is $40 million (edit: now it's up to $50 million). So I don't know where the other $39 million is coming from or what happened there.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15117.msg2563210#msg2563210

Alternatives that were under consideration including the winner:

https://www.publicinput.com/Customer/File/Full/b9a3f7e6-2cc1-4029-b3a3-2d50d6da8d53

[seicer]

Could be right-of-way purchases. That's a lot of land needed for that setup.

[Tom958]

[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.

[GCrites]

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.

[GCrites]

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.