Very good news! Now only if West Virginia and Virginia can build their highways with them...
https://www.wsaz.com/2022/01/27/ohio-house-passes-resolution-urging-i-73-i-74-extension/
Please read articles before you post them. That was the Ohio House of Representatives passing a bill calling for ODOT to do that. It hasn't passed the Senate nor been signed by the governor. And in most legislatures (don't know about Ohio), a "resolution" is just an unfunded mandate that expresses the opinion of the Legislature and doesn't have any binding power. Even if it passed ODOT could probably just say "No, we don't think we will" absent a direct order from the Governor.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 27, 2022, 05:18:36 AM
Please read articles before you post them. That was the Ohio House of Representatives passing a bill calling for ODOT to do that. It hasn't passed the Senate nor been signed by the governor. And in most legislatures (don't know about Ohio), a "resolution" is just an unfunded mandate that expresses the opinion of the Legislature and doesn't have any binding power. Even if it passed ODOT could probably just say "No, we don't think we will" absent a direct order from the Governor.
You just beat me to it.
Nothing is set in stone for this. I seriously don't see this going far, especially in I-74's case. Whatever routing is being considered for that would be a very difficult one. Lots of $$$ would have to be thrown at this.
It's not April 1st.
Quote from: plain on January 27, 2022, 05:29:48 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 27, 2022, 05:18:36 AM
Please read articles before you post them. That was the Ohio House of Representatives passing a bill calling for ODOT to do that. It hasn't passed the Senate nor been signed by the governor. And in most legislatures (don't know about Ohio), a "resolution" is just an unfunded mandate that expresses the opinion of the Legislature and doesn't have any binding power. Even if it passed ODOT could probably just say "No, we don't think we will" absent a direct order from the Governor.
You just beat me to it.
Nothing is set in stone for this. I seriously don't see this going far, especially in I-74's case. Whatever routing is being considered for that would be a very difficult one. Lots of $$$ would have to be thrown at this.
Like was mentioned above, if the resolution clears the Ohio Senate, it would just state that the Ohio Legislature wants to governor and ODOT to pursue completing I-73 and I-74 through the state. It doesn't direct the state's executive branch to do so, nor does it allocate any funding to build either route.
Both the I-73 and I-74 corridors are currently served by 4-lane divided highways. In the case of US-23 (potential route for I-73), ODOT has been incrementally upgrading sections of the 4-lane highway to freeway by converting certain intersections to interchanges and building bypasses in a few areas where the road goes through more developed areas that can't be upgraded without disrupting the local community. I think you'll see US-23 converted to full freeway, particularly north of Columbus, in the foreseeable future. It might take a bit longer to get US-23 south of Columbus upgraded to full freeway, but ODOT is working in that direction.
Yeah, even so, no funding has yet been allocated and no push from local groups and leaders. The biggest thing that have killed projects is not at a state or federal level, but at a local level.
It matters what those along the route want, plus even if they approve it could take decades for them to move on it. Plus the article says ODOT and not State House, you might want to amend the title so it's more accurate. Speaking from experience you might want to.
Are you sure? Right now it's just a bill. That doesn't mean it's happening. ODOT has said they don't want to add more Interstates.
Ohio and WV already spent a lot of recourses upgrading US 35 (and US 33 to a lesser extent) to 4 lanes, which does what I-73 was supposed to do, but even better: Midwest to Carolinas corridor, via I-77 past US 35's eastern terminus.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 27, 2022, 09:44:31 AM
Ohio and WV already spent a lot of recourses upgrading US 35 (and US 33 to a lesser extent) to 4 lanes, which does what I-73 was supposed to do, but even better: Midwest to Carolinas corridor, via I-77 past US 35's eastern terminus.
That is to show NC that every long distance corridor doesn't need the red white and blue shield. 😁
No Google Street View of the resolution?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2022, 10:17:13 AM
No Google Street View of the resolution?
Here you go! (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9611232,-83.0003946,3a,75y,85.52h,85.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFrHVocd13Qx_9Zsgsygrgw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2022, 10:17:13 AM
No Google Street View of the resolution?
I found one
(https://i.imgur.com/34hMfBw.png)
^^^
I think you missed the joke.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on January 27, 2022, 10:29:10 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2022, 10:17:13 AM
No Google Street View of the resolution?
Here you go! (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9611232,-83.0003946,3a,75y,85.52h,85.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFrHVocd13Qx_9Zsgsygrgw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en)
That scary snek sign isn't on a cantilevered gantry. :-|
Quote from: jmacswimmer on January 27, 2022, 10:29:10 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2022, 10:17:13 AM
No Google Street View of the resolution?
Here you go! (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9611232,-83.0003946,3a,75y,85.52h,85.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFrHVocd13Qx_9Zsgsygrgw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en)
This is the best thing I've seen on GSV so far :-D
There are two good alternatives to an I-74 extension. OH 32 is one; the AA Highway in Kentucky is the other.
And is there really a need to upgrade US 23 to a full freeway? I understand that the section immediately north of I-270 can be problematic, but the portion between Lucasville and Columbus is a breeze. Only a couple of minor slowdowns, and the worst part of the route was skirted by the Portsmouth bypass.
And all of this doesn't even touch on the fact that any improvements West Virginia makes to US 52 won't be to full interstate standards.
It may have seemed like a good idea 30 years ago, but now that ship has sailed. MI has already said that it will not build I-73 at all, and we may never see any further corridor upgrades in WV either, so this would be more of an I-87 situation because of the missing middle link.
In Ohio, it's not really even the governor or ODOT director that provide funding for projects. It's the Transportation Review Advisory Council that allocates ODOT funding for large projects.
Regarding West Virginia, if Ohio actually did move to build I-73 and I-74, I would think it would be logical to just sign them over I-64 and I-77 in West Virginia. They could always be moved in the extremely unlikely event West Virginia not only builds the King Coal Highway in full, but also upgrades it to interstate standards.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 27, 2022, 09:51:13 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 27, 2022, 09:44:31 AM
Ohio and WV already spent a lot of recourses upgrading US 35 (and US 33 to a lesser extent) to 4 lanes, which does what I-73 was supposed to do, but even better: Midwest to Carolinas corridor, via I-77 past US 35's eastern terminus.
That is to show NC that every long distance corridor doesn't need the red white and blue shield. 😁
Those routes are not built to freeway standards - merely divided highways.
The equivalent could be something along the lines of say, US-17, for North Carolina. Not an interstate highway.
73 and 74 really serve no purpose and are very unlikely to ever be needed. In Ohio, the OH 32, US 35, and US 23 (and the AA in Kentucky) do the job. Gradual improvements, particularly stop light removals; and some connection between 32 @ Eastgate and the real 74, which will never happen due to the massive cost and NIMBYs, would be great.
In WV, a 4-lane US 52 would only shave a few miles off the existing 64 and 77 routing, traveling through a part of the country that is beyond economic development and fast (not fast enough) becoming unpopulated. Other than "shunpiking" there would really be no reason to use it as a through route.
These "resolutions" really don't mean anything. Currently the Ohio House is up to #174, which praises the Cincinnati Bearcats for their fine year. Most are that kind of fluff, but about a third request some government do this or that, without funding it.
Quote from: vdeane on January 27, 2022, 01:01:38 PM
Regarding West Virginia, if Ohio actually did move to build I-73 and I-74, I would think it would be logical to just sign them over I-64 and I-77 in West Virginia. They could always be moved in the extremely unlikely event West Virginia not only builds the King Coal Highway in full, but also upgrades it to interstate standards.
That would be a super out of the way routing for I-73 between Columbus and Charleston, since the quickest/shortest routings are either US 23/US 35/I-64 or US 33/I-77 (and it's heavily debated on which of the two routings is better).
Quote from: hbelkins on January 27, 2022, 10:52:16 AM
And is there really a need to upgrade US 23 to a full freeway? I understand that the section immediately north of I-270 can be problematic, but the portion between Lucasville and Columbus is a breeze. Only a couple of minor slowdowns, and the worst part of the route was skirted by the Portsmouth bypass.
Columbus-Chillicothe could be worth an upgrade to remove some signals and at-grade intersections, to feed Columbus traffic to US 35. From what I've heard, this segment is one reason why some people prefer US 33 over the US 23/35 routing.
Also side note, is it worth merging this thread into the general I-73 Ohio thread? The highway number is still considered dead in the state.
By tolbs17 logic, my state planned to ban microwave ovens a decade ago because some weirdo made his state rep file a bill to ban them.
Sorry tolbs17, but I think you jumped the gun, by about a century or two!
The most I can see happening with this for the foreseeable future is "Future I-73 corridor" signage on US-23, US-52, OH-15 and maybe US-35. Like everyone else stated, there are many more projects that need ODOT's attention than this. However, improvements to the affected corridors could be something the DOT and state government could agree on.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 27, 2022, 05:18:36 AM
Please read articles before you post them. That was the Ohio House of Representatives passing a bill calling for ODOT to do that. It hasn't passed the Senate nor been signed by the governor. And in most legislatures (don't know about Ohio), a "resolution" is just an unfunded mandate that expresses the opinion of the Legislature and doesn't have any binding power. Even if it passed ODOT could probably just say "No, we don't think we will" absent a direct order from the Governor.
When I saw this, I was surprised because I did not realize they are still trying to move forward with this proposal!
Does Ohio even have the money or the need to do such a thing? I didn't think it was still on their radar
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 27, 2022, 01:28:29 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 27, 2022, 01:01:38 PM
Regarding West Virginia, if Ohio actually did move to build I-73 and I-74, I would think it would be logical to just sign them over I-64 and I-77 in West Virginia. They could always be moved in the extremely unlikely event West Virginia not only builds the King Coal Highway in full, but also upgrades it to interstate standards.
That would be a super out of the way routing for I-73 between Columbus and Charleston, since the quickest/shortest routings are either US 23/US 35/I-64 or US 33/I-77 (and it's heavily debated on which of the two routings is better).
Quote from: hbelkins on January 27, 2022, 10:52:16 AM
And is there really a need to upgrade US 23 to a full freeway? I understand that the section immediately north of I-270 can be problematic, but the portion between Lucasville and Columbus is a breeze. Only a couple of minor slowdowns, and the worst part of the route was skirted by the Portsmouth bypass.
Columbus-Chillicothe could be worth an upgrade to remove some signals and at-grade intersections, to feed Columbus traffic to US 35. From what I've heard, this segment is one reason why some people prefer US 33 over the US 23/35 routing.
Also side note, is it worth merging this thread into the general I-73 Ohio thread? The highway number is still considered dead in the state.
Going between Charleston and Columbus (having traveled that corridor quite often) Google Maps almost always tells you to take I-77 to US-33. I have taken both ways and it's really close to the same. I think taking I-77 to US-33 and vice versa is slightly faster.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 27, 2022, 05:40:13 PM
Does Ohio even have the money or the need to do such a thing? I didn't think it was still on their radar
It's not. ODOT isn't going to be interested in this I can already pretty much guarantee that.
This thread is a hot mess.
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2022, 08:03:02 PM
This thread is a hot mess.
Do you have a Google Street View of it?
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 27, 2022, 06:07:34 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 27, 2022, 01:28:29 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 27, 2022, 01:01:38 PM
Regarding West Virginia, if Ohio actually did move to build I-73 and I-74, I would think it would be logical to just sign them over I-64 and I-77 in West Virginia. They could always be moved in the extremely unlikely event West Virginia not only builds the King Coal Highway in full, but also upgrades it to interstate standards.
That would be a super out of the way routing for I-73 between Columbus and Charleston, since the quickest/shortest routings are either US 23/US 35/I-64 or US 33/I-77 (and it's heavily debated on which of the two routings is better).
Quote from: hbelkins on January 27, 2022, 10:52:16 AM
And is there really a need to upgrade US 23 to a full freeway? I understand that the section immediately north of I-270 can be problematic, but the portion between Lucasville and Columbus is a breeze. Only a couple of minor slowdowns, and the worst part of the route was skirted by the Portsmouth bypass.
Columbus-Chillicothe could be worth an upgrade to remove some signals and at-grade intersections, to feed Columbus traffic to US 35. From what I've heard, this segment is one reason why some people prefer US 33 over the US 23/35 routing.
Also side note, is it worth merging this thread into the general I-73 Ohio thread? The highway number is still considered dead in the state.
Going between Charleston and Columbus (having traveled that corridor quite often) Google Maps almost always tells you to take I-77 to US-33. I have taken both ways and it's really close to the same. I think taking I-77 to US-33 and vice versa is slightly faster.
With the US 35 gap in WV filled, they're pretty much the same time now, and each have one major downside and upside over the other I can think of. US 23/35 have US 23 just south of I-270, which isn't that great of a quality of a road, though the entire route is 4 laned at least. US 33 have more freeway sections, but it still has a long 2 lane segment (albeit it's of good quality). You can assign each routing to a side of a coin and flip it for which routing to drive. Nice thing about 2 relatively equal choices is that there wouldn't really be a burden on one routing over the other.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 27, 2022, 01:28:29 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 27, 2022, 01:01:38 PM
Regarding West Virginia, if Ohio actually did move to build I-73 and I-74, I would think it would be logical to just sign them over I-64 and I-77 in West Virginia. They could always be moved in the extremely unlikely event West Virginia not only builds the King Coal Highway in full, but also upgrades it to interstate standards.
That would be a super out of the way routing for I-73 between Columbus and Charleston, since the quickest/shortest routings are either US 23/US 35/I-64 or US 33/I-77 (and it's heavily debated on which of the two routings is better).
True, but in a hypothetical world where all of I-73 was built except the King Coal Highway (which, by the way, wouldn't go anywhere near Charleston) and maybe the Michigan part, this would be the difference between having one I-73 and two of them. That said, the scenario is unlikely (not only because of Ohio but because of the part of it in Virginia, especially the piece north of I-81). Also, I came up with the idea more with the hope of unifying the two I-74s should Ohio ever build its part.
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 27, 2022, 05:34:23 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 27, 2022, 05:18:36 AM
Please read articles before you post them. That was the Ohio House of Representatives passing a bill calling for ODOT to do that. It hasn't passed the Senate nor been signed by the governor. And in most legislatures (don't know about Ohio), a "resolution" is just an unfunded mandate that expresses the opinion of the Legislature and doesn't have any binding power. Even if it passed ODOT could probably just say "No, we don't think we will" absent a direct order from the Governor.
When I saw this, I was surprised because I did not realize they are still trying to move forward with this proposal!
They aren't.
Maybe if Interstate 73 ever makes it to Roanoke, Interstate 99 should be extended southward along US 220 from Pennsylvania all the way to Roanoke. Then 99 could replace 73 all the way to South Carolina, and thus finally be more in line with the Interstate grid.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2022, 10:15:01 PM
Maybe if Interstate 73 ever makes it to Roanoke, Interstate 99 should be extended southward along US 220 from Pennsylvania all the way to Roanoke. Then 99 could replace 73 all the way to South Carolina, and thus finally be more in line with the Interstate grid.
Fictional.
I am happy to hear they're still talking about I-73 and I-74 there, but at the same time I am not holding any hopes to see Ohio or even Michigan to build their part. West VA? They're building it as an expressway.
I'd rather I-73 to be a regional interstate connecting Roanoke, VA to Myrtle Beach, SC (I-81 to I-95 and south to MB) as it has been planning for decades since Ohio and Michigan backed out. I just can't see I-73 being extended past Roanoke (I'd be surprised if VDOT do that). As of I-74... don't get me started on that. :biggrin:
I'm happy Michigan backed out. There is no need at all for I-73 in Michigan.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 01, 2022, 06:07:08 AM
I'm happy Michigan backed out. There is no need at all for I-73 in Michigan.
That's the irony. I-73 in Michigan already exists; it's just not
called I-73. It's called US-127! The highway is basically an interstate already. Only the St.Johns to Ithaca section needs upgrading, and that does not need I-73 to improve that section (I'm aware that some upgrades were completed in the last few years). Only, the Toledo-Irish Hills section along US-223 was shot down. I don't believe that needs an interstate along that section, though no-build probably is not an option I would chose either. If I were king, I would make US-223 a 5-lane arterial, bypass Blissfield, improve the Adrian section of US-223, and upgrade the section of US-127 from the US-127/US-223 intersection to the southern end of US-127 freeway to a four lane blvd. Especially since MDOT already has the ROW to accomplish it.
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on February 01, 2022, 02:17:49 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 01, 2022, 06:07:08 AM
I'm happy Michigan backed out. There is no need at all for I-73 in Michigan.
That's the irony. I-73 in Michigan already exists; it's just not called I-73. It's called US-127! The highway is basically an interstate already. Only the St.Johns to Ithaca section needs upgrading, and that does not need I-73 to improve that section (I'm aware that some upgrades were completed in the last few years). Only, the Toledo-Irish Hills section along US-223 was shot down. I don't believe that needs an interstate along that section, though no-build probably is not an option I would chose either. If I were king, I would make US-223 a 5-lane arterial, bypass Blissfield, improve the Adrian section of US-223, and upgrade the section of US-127 from the US-127/US-223 intersection to the southern end of US-127 freeway to a four lane blvd. Especially since MDOT already has the ROW to accomplish it.
South of Jackson US-127 isn't anywhere close to being up to Interstate standards and there and the stretch between St Johns and Ithaca really doesn't need to be upgraded. It has a 65 mph speed limit and is a divided highway. It has one railroad crossing as well (just north of the M-57 interchange) which really doesn't present much of a problem it also features traffic lights so buses and other vehicles that are usually required to stop at railroad crossings don't have to stop at that one.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 02, 2022, 10:39:03 AM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on February 01, 2022, 02:17:49 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 01, 2022, 06:07:08 AM
I'm happy Michigan backed out. There is no need at all for I-73 in Michigan.
That's the irony. I-73 in Michigan already exists; it's just not called I-73. It's called US-127! The highway is basically an interstate already. Only the St.Johns to Ithaca section needs upgrading, and that does not need I-73 to improve that section (I'm aware that some upgrades were completed in the last few years). Only, the Toledo-Irish Hills section along US-223 was shot down. I don't believe that needs an interstate along that section, though no-build probably is not an option I would chose either. If I were king, I would make US-223 a 5-lane arterial, bypass Blissfield, improve the Adrian section of US-223, and upgrade the section of US-127 from the US-127/US-223 intersection to the southern end of US-127 freeway to a four lane blvd. Especially since MDOT already has the ROW to accomplish it.
South of Jackson US-127 isn't anywhere close to being up to Interstate standards and there and the stretch between St Johns and Ithaca really doesn't need to be upgraded. It has a 65 mph speed limit and is a divided highway. It has one railroad crossing as well (just north of the M-57 interchange) which really doesn't present much of a problem it also features traffic lights so buses and other vehicles that are usually required to stop at railroad crossings don't have to stop at that one.
I-73 had a proposed routing of using the US-223 corridor to US-23. Not US-127, which why I stated the part of those upgrades I would perform after the state shot down the plans to bring I-73 to Michigan. I haven't been there in years, but Adrian does not require an interstate highway. The corridor would benefit from an upgraded route where I-73 would have gone. Essentially an "Arkansas Freeway" from just south of Jackson southwest to US-23 north of Toledo.
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on February 02, 2022, 02:29:25 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 02, 2022, 10:39:03 AM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on February 01, 2022, 02:17:49 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 01, 2022, 06:07:08 AM
I'm happy Michigan backed out. There is no need at all for I-73 in Michigan.
That's the irony. I-73 in Michigan already exists; it's just not called I-73. It's called US-127! The highway is basically an interstate already. Only the St.Johns to Ithaca section needs upgrading, and that does not need I-73 to improve that section (I'm aware that some upgrades were completed in the last few years). Only, the Toledo-Irish Hills section along US-223 was shot down. I don't believe that needs an interstate along that section, though no-build probably is not an option I would chose either. If I were king, I would make US-223 a 5-lane arterial, bypass Blissfield, improve the Adrian section of US-223, and upgrade the section of US-127 from the US-127/US-223 intersection to the southern end of US-127 freeway to a four lane blvd. Especially since MDOT already has the ROW to accomplish it.
South of Jackson US-127 isn't anywhere close to being up to Interstate standards and there and the stretch between St Johns and Ithaca really doesn't need to be upgraded. It has a 65 mph speed limit and is a divided highway. It has one railroad crossing as well (just north of the M-57 interchange) which really doesn't present much of a problem it also features traffic lights so buses and other vehicles that are usually required to stop at railroad crossings don't have to stop at that one.
I-73 had a proposed routing of using the US-223 corridor to US-23. Not US-127, which why I stated the part of those upgrades I would perform after the state shot down the plans to bring I-73 to Michigan. I haven't been there in years, but Adrian does not require an interstate highway. The corridor would benefit from an upgraded route where I-73 would have gone. Essentially an "Arkansas Freeway" from just south of Jackson southwest to US-23 north of Toledo.
If they followed I-96 from Lansing to Brighton, then US-23 from Brighton to the Ohio line, then I-73 would almost completely be routed over existing freeways, save for the 17-mile stretch of US-127 from Ithaca to St. Johns that will need to be upgraded to interstate standards. The I-96/US-23 interchange would require some work to allow a high-speed movement from I-96 to/from points west to US-23 to/from points south. Likewise the I-96/US-127 interchange in Lansing would require modification to allow high-speed movement from I-96 to/from points east to US-127 to/from points north. Outside of the aforementioned stretch and two interchanges, the amount of work required to install I-73 signs along the route would be minimal.
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on February 02, 2022, 02:29:25 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 02, 2022, 10:39:03 AM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on February 01, 2022, 02:17:49 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 01, 2022, 06:07:08 AM
I'm happy Michigan backed out. There is no need at all for I-73 in Michigan.
That's the irony. I-73 in Michigan already exists; it's just not called I-73. It's called US-127! The highway is basically an interstate already. Only the St.Johns to Ithaca section needs upgrading, and that does not need I-73 to improve that section (I'm aware that some upgrades were completed in the last few years). Only, the Toledo-Irish Hills section along US-223 was shot down. I don't believe that needs an interstate along that section, though no-build probably is not an option I would chose either. If I were king, I would make US-223 a 5-lane arterial, bypass Blissfield, improve the Adrian section of US-223, and upgrade the section of US-127 from the US-127/US-223 intersection to the southern end of US-127 freeway to a four lane blvd. Especially since MDOT already has the ROW to accomplish it.
South of Jackson US-127 isn't anywhere close to being up to Interstate standards and there and the stretch between St Johns and Ithaca really doesn't need to be upgraded. It has a 65 mph speed limit and is a divided highway. It has one railroad crossing as well (just north of the M-57 interchange) which really doesn't present much of a problem it also features traffic lights so buses and other vehicles that are usually required to stop at railroad crossings don't have to stop at that one.
I-73 had a proposed routing of using the US-223 corridor to US-23. Not US-127, which why I stated the part of those upgrades I would perform after the state shot down the plans to bring I-73 to Michigan. I haven't been there in years, but Adrian does not require an interstate highway. The corridor would benefit from an upgraded route where I-73 would have gone. Essentially an "Arkansas Freeway" from just south of Jackson southwest to US-23 north of Toledo.
Well US-127 and US-23 don't meet so yes the US-223 corridor would have been used and would have eliminated US-223 all together most likely since MDOT doesn't keep the US highway around after an Interstate is built but I-73 isn't going to happen as there is no need for it and MDOT doesn't seem to be in too much of a hurry to upgrade either corridor.
If I-73 WAS built in Michigan it'd be the only stretch of I-73 that would fit within the grid, the rest of it would be east of I-75.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 02, 2022, 08:04:45 PM
If I-73 WAS built in Michigan it'd be the only stretch of I-73 that would fit within the grid, the rest of it would be east of I-75.
Don't forget I-71 being mostly east of I-75 in Ohio.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 02, 2022, 08:33:52 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 02, 2022, 08:04:45 PM
If I-73 WAS built in Michigan it'd be the only stretch of I-73 that would fit within the grid, the rest of it would be east of I-75.
Don't forget I-71 being mostly east of I-75 in Ohio.
Right the only part of I-71 in the grid is the stretch between Walton and Louisville.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 03, 2022, 07:13:12 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 02, 2022, 08:33:52 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 02, 2022, 08:04:45 PM
If I-73 WAS built in Michigan it'd be the only stretch of I-73 that would fit within the grid, the rest of it would be east of I-75.
Don't forget I-71 being mostly east of I-75 in Ohio.
Right the only part of I-71 in the grid is the stretch between Walton and Louisville.
They're diagonal routes which don't adhere to the grid. There are plenty of them: I-81, I-85, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. The grid just gives some semblance of order to the system.
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 02, 2022, 02:46:43 PM
If they followed I-96 from Lansing to Brighton, then US-23 from Brighton to the Ohio line, then I-73 would almost completely be routed over existing freeways, save for the 17-mile stretch of US-127 from Ithaca to St. Johns that will need to be upgraded to interstate standards. The I-96/US-23 interchange would require some work to allow a high-speed movement from I-96 to/from points west to US-23 to/from points south. Likewise the I-96/US-127 interchange in Lansing would require modification to allow high-speed movement from I-96 to/from points east to US-127 to/from points north. Outside of the aforementioned stretch and two interchanges, the amount of work required to install I-73 signs along the route would be minimal.
What would be the point? Putting a new route over existing freeways does nothing to address any design and capacity deficiencies of those freeways, and fixing those needs to be a priority over slapping up new route markers. Plus the stretch of US-127 between St. Johns and Ithaca actually does not need to be one of those priorities -- it is currently four-lane divided, has a surprisingly small amount of truck traffic, and has no traffic signals.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on February 03, 2022, 12:07:09 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 02, 2022, 02:46:43 PM
If they followed I-96 from Lansing to Brighton, then US-23 from Brighton to the Ohio line, then I-73 would almost completely be routed over existing freeways, save for the 17-mile stretch of US-127 from Ithaca to St. Johns that will need to be upgraded to interstate standards. The I-96/US-23 interchange would require some work to allow a high-speed movement from I-96 to/from points west to US-23 to/from points south. Likewise the I-96/US-127 interchange in Lansing would require modification to allow high-speed movement from I-96 to/from points east to US-127 to/from points north. Outside of the aforementioned stretch and two interchanges, the amount of work required to install I-73 signs along the route would be minimal.
What would be the point? Putting a new route over existing freeways does nothing to address any design and capacity deficiencies of those freeways, and fixing those needs to be a priority over slapping up new route markers. Plus the stretch of US-127 between St. Johns and Ithaca actually does not need to be one of those priorities -- it is currently four-lane divided, has a surprisingly small amount of truck traffic, and has no traffic signals.
Which is exactly why Michigan abandoned further study of I-73 years ago. The proposed corridor is served by existing freeways, save for the St. Johns to Ithaca section of US-127, and the folks at MDOT are satisfied with leaving the route designations as they are now. What I'm saying is that if...at some point in the future...someone gets a hare-brained idea to resurrect I-73 in Michigan, it would not be that hard to implement.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 27, 2022, 10:52:16 AM
And is there really a need to upgrade US 23 to a full freeway?
No. Removing driveway access and stoplights should be sufficient. I would also like to see the US-23 routing corrected to follow I-75 and OH-15, with US-223 taking its place between Toledo and Carey (or, hell, an extended OH-420 or something).
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 03, 2022, 02:00:42 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 27, 2022, 10:52:16 AM
And is there really a need to upgrade US 23 to a full freeway?
No. Removing driveway access and stoplights should be sufficient. I would also like to see the US-23 routing corrected to follow I-75 and OH-15, with US-223 taking its place between Toledo and Carey (or, hell, an extended OH-420 or something).
I second that emotion. I never understood why ODOT routed US-23 off near Carey for OH-15. The traveling public would be served better with US-23 going to I-75 then concurrent up to I-475. Seems as if US-23 is only there to serve some political interest or ODOT being bound by some legacy reason why the route is the way it is now.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on February 03, 2022, 12:07:09 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 02, 2022, 02:46:43 PM
If they followed I-96 from Lansing to Brighton, then US-23 from Brighton to the Ohio line, then I-73 would almost completely be routed over existing freeways, save for the 17-mile stretch of US-127 from Ithaca to St. Johns that will need to be upgraded to interstate standards. The I-96/US-23 interchange would require some work to allow a high-speed movement from I-96 to/from points west to US-23 to/from points south. Likewise the I-96/US-127 interchange in Lansing would require modification to allow high-speed movement from I-96 to/from points east to US-127 to/from points north. Outside of the aforementioned stretch and two interchanges, the amount of work required to install I-73 signs along the route would be minimal.
What would be the point? Putting a new route over existing freeways does nothing to address any design and capacity deficiencies of those freeways, and fixing those needs to be a priority over slapping up new route markers. Plus the stretch of US-127 between St. Johns and Ithaca actually does not need to be one of those priorities -- it is currently four-lane divided, has a surprisingly small amount of truck traffic, and has no traffic signals.
It has one traffic signal at the railroad crossing just north of the M-57 interchange but that's all it has so in reality it doesn't but it does have a traffic signal. The signal is just there so buses and other vehicles that are required to stop at railroad crossings don't have to stop on a green light.
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on February 03, 2022, 02:35:17 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 03, 2022, 02:00:42 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 27, 2022, 10:52:16 AM
And is there really a need to upgrade US 23 to a full freeway?
No. Removing driveway access and stoplights should be sufficient. I would also like to see the US-23 routing corrected to follow I-75 and OH-15, with US-223 taking its place between Toledo and Carey (or, hell, an extended OH-420 or something).
I second that emotion. I never understood why ODOT routed US-23 off near Carey for OH-15. The traveling public would be served better with US-23 going to I-75 then concurrent up to I-475. Seems as if US-23 is only there to serve some political interest or ODOT being bound by some legacy reason why the route is the way it is now.
I agree with that and it would eliminate the wrong way concurrency with I-75 between US-20 and I-475 too.
Another thing is that US-23 was originally on what is today OH-199. It has no interchange with I-75 though, get off at exit 2 on I-475 and take OH-25 south to Roachton Road east to access OH-199.
I figure a politician in Fostoria didn't want to lose their US highway.
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on February 03, 2022, 02:35:17 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 03, 2022, 02:00:42 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 27, 2022, 10:52:16 AM
And is there really a need to upgrade US 23 to a full freeway?
No. Removing driveway access and stoplights should be sufficient. I would also like to see the US-23 routing corrected to follow I-75 and OH-15, with US-223 taking its place between Toledo and Carey (or, hell, an extended OH-420 or something).
I second that emotion. I never understood why ODOT routed US-23 off near Carey for OH-15. The traveling public would be served better with US-23 going to I-75 then concurrent up to I-475. Seems as if US-23 is only there to serve some political interest or ODOT being bound by some legacy reason why the route is the way it is now.
Fair enough.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51861636085_c30845b18b_w.jpg)
1962 ODOT Road map
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 27, 2022, 06:07:34 PM
Columbus-Chillicothe could be worth an upgrade to remove some signals and at-grade intersections, to feed Columbus traffic to US 35. From what I've heard, this segment is one reason why some people prefer US 33 over the US 23/35 routing.
Also side note, is it worth merging this thread into the general I-73 Ohio thread? The highway number is still considered dead in the state.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 27, 2022, 01:28:29 PM
Going between Charleston and Columbus (having traveled that corridor quite often) Google Maps almost always tells you to take I-77 to US-33. I have taken both ways and it's really close to the same. I think taking I-77 to US-33 and vice versa is slightly faster.
Yeah... I dunno. Columbus to Chillicothe via US23 has turned into a grind, especially around Circleville. Development along US23 has pretty much made any upgrade to this highway almost cost-prohibitive at this point. Dwindling highway dollars better spent on the last 2 interchanges on US33 to Lancaster rather than US23. I assume the super-2 US33 widening in 10+ years will have to be looked at. Just a matter of time w/ all the growth in the Columbus metro area.
Quote from: Black-Man on February 19, 2022, 03:10:14 PM
Yeah... I dunno. Columbus to Chillicothe via US23 has turned into a grind, especially around Circleville. Development along US23 has pretty much made any upgrade to this highway almost cost-prohibitive at this point. Dwindling highway dollars better spent on the last 2 interchanges on US33 to Lancaster rather than US23. I assume the super-2 US33 widening in 10+ years will have to be looked at. Just a matter of time w/ all the growth in the Columbus metro area.
Traffic counts on the 2-lane part of US 33 between Athens and Darwin are around 9200 AADT nearest Athens, dropping to about 7500 further south. There are plenty of other two-lane corridors in the state with similar or higher traffic counts.
Pomeroy to the WV line is only about 5000 AADT. It won't need any work for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 27, 2022, 05:34:23 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 27, 2022, 05:18:36 AM
Please read articles before you post them. That was the Ohio House of Representatives passing a bill calling for ODOT to do that. It hasn't passed the Senate nor been signed by the governor. And in most legislatures (don't know about Ohio), a "resolution" is just an unfunded mandate that expresses the opinion of the Legislature and doesn't have any binding power. Even if it passed ODOT could probably just say "No, we don't think we will" absent a direct order from the Governor.
When I saw this, I was surprised because I did not realize they are still trying to move forward with this proposal!
I've been there! See something exciting that should be done but seems impossible because of the current political and societal climate. Then you see a headline about it and jump the gun. Can't say I haven't done that lol
Some of you guys have a lack of understanding of how politics works. Just because some political appointee from some long gone governor said that I-73 is dead is not like Moses etching the Ten Commandments on a slab of stone. People come and people go, things change.
The fact that the House of Representatives passed a resolution is indeed a huge step. I'm thinking there's a lot of infrastructure money coming from Uncle Sam pretty soon because of the bill Biden signed. That's why you're hearing these discussions again.
The main reason I-73 died in Ohio last time was because of opposition from people in rural Delaware County. I don't think people are going to pay too much attention to them this time because of the way the Columbus area has been growing. Everybody realizes that this is something that we should be proactive about.
Think of it this way. It took 40 years of people talking about global warming and global cooling before government started taking action. But they are taking action. Once the discussion gets started it's hard to stop it.
If Indiana could build i-69, there's no reason we can't build out I-73. I-74 I am much less enthused about. It would be nice, but I don't see it as necessary like i-73.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 20, 2022, 03:01:20 AM
I've been there! See something exciting that should be done but seems impossible because of the current political and societal climate. Then you see a headline about it and jump the gun. Can't say I haven't done that lol
I fell for this before too, on some article about the Midwest getting high speed rail :rofl:
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 20, 2022, 01:55:04 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 20, 2022, 03:01:20 AM
I've been there! See something exciting that should be done but seems impossible because of the current political and societal climate. Then you see a headline about it and jump the gun. Can't say I haven't done that lol
I fell for this before too, on some article about the Midwest getting high speed rail :rofl:
You never know, but I think it's no coincidence that the discussions became public right after Biden signed the infrastructure bill. The real work goes on behind closed doors. Once it gets out in the public, they've already decided what to do.
Quote from: Black-Man on February 19, 2022, 03:10:14 PM
Yeah... I dunno. Columbus to Chillicothe via US23 has turned into a grind, especially around Circleville. Development along US23 has pretty much made any upgrade to this highway almost cost-prohibitive at this point.
The other side of it is for anybody who has sat in a traffic jam on I-77 North in Virginia. Those traffic jams are fairly frequent as trucks try to navigate uphill. I'm guessing there are a lot of trucker douchebags clogging the left lane. It seems like i-73 would relieve I-77 of a lot of traffic.
It's not fantasy anymore.
Yeah, I know there will be naysayers here, but if you know how government works, this sounds like it's going to be a done deal. Discussions about a US-23 upgrade don't just come out of nowhere.
I'll save you all some typing .....
"Muh, it's only a resolution. It's not binding." A 75-15 vote means it's going to happen.
"Muh, it's up to TRAC." Trac is only in charge only as long as the Legislative and Executive branches say it is.
https://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/ohio-house-passes-resolution-for-interstate-extension/article_b7aee7c4-adef-5a22-ade4-8c08f5f771b2.html
QuoteRelevant quotes from the article:
"The resolution passed the House 75-15 ... The resolution is not a binding act, but it lets legislators make known their feelings on the issue when
budget time comes around, Stephens said."
"Ohio will be receiving federal infrastructure money ..."
You see, how this works is that everything is decided behind closed doors. Once the decision is made, only then does the public get to know what they decided. They make it sound like this just dropped in their laps, but in reality it only just dropped in our laps.
And since we are done with wars for the time being, that means we have more money to spend on ourselves.
I only found out about this on the Ohio Valley board. I don't believe it has been posted here.
http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_134/resolutions/hcr31/AH/02/hcr31_02_AH?format=pdf
Also remember: You have congressmen from five or six states lobbying for this, not just one.
MI - 13
OH - 15
WV - 2
VA - 11
NC - 14
SC - 7
Total - 62 Congressmen
(https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/data/apportionment/apportionment-2020-map01.png)
Quote from: TempoNick on February 20, 2022, 03:28:48 PM
Also remember: You have congressmen from five or six states lobbying for this, not just one.
Assuming those states give a shit...
Quote from: NE2 on February 20, 2022, 04:40:04 PM
Assuming those states give a shit...
I'm pretty sure they do. NC and SC interests were the ones excited about this the most, but no money to make it happen. Looks like now there is going to be a pile of money dumped here so it's gonna happen.
Like I said on the other board, if you've ever sat in a traffic jam going north on I-77 in Virginia, you can see the logic of I-73 to relieve some of the pressure from that road. Likewise with I-95, at least through SC. Very congested, very dangerous, IMO - at least the last time I drove through there. Take some of the traffic off that road to Myrtle Beach.
Besides, If we have money to build $10 million gas stations, schools and housing in Afghanistan, and money to shower all of their politicians with tons of money, we've got the money to build infrastructure here.
Quote from: TempoNick on February 20, 2022, 02:06:10 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 20, 2022, 01:55:04 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 20, 2022, 03:01:20 AM
I've been there! See something exciting that should be done but seems impossible because of the current political and societal climate. Then you see a headline about it and jump the gun. Can't say I haven't done that lol
I fell for this before too, on some article about the Midwest getting high speed rail :rofl:
You never know, but I think it's no coincidence that the discussions became public right after Biden signed the infrastructure bill. The real work goes on behind closed doors. Once it gets out in the public, they've already decided what to do.
I mean, it might be different in Ohio, and you might know better than me...but there's all sorts of crazy shit that goes on in the Oklahoma legislature that's done for political posturing, so certain legislators can claim they stood up for X and stopped Y, and no actual change to the status quo ends up happening.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 20, 2022, 10:46:34 PM
I mean, it might be different in Ohio, and you might know better than me...but there's all sorts of crazy shit that goes on in the Oklahoma legislature that's done for political posturing, so certain legislators can claim they stood up for X and stopped Y, and no actual change to the status quo ends up happening.
That's always a possibility, but I have a feeling the feds are going to give us a freeway a little or no cost. This stimulus money is what's different this time around. And a 75 - 15 vote means there is widespread agreement to use it instead of losing it.
Just follow the chain of events and you'll be a believer. Voinovich first tried to get this done in 1991. Dewine was lieutenant governor then. Who's governor now? That's right, Mike Dewine.
There were two big hang-ups last time around. First of all, people didn't want a toll road. Second of all people in Delaware County didn't want it. Today, Delaware county is half gone with housing and I have a feeling the feds are giving us enough money that we won't need tolls.
Like I said, last fall when just out of the blue they started having "how do we fix US 23" public meetings, I knew something was up. I didn't know that meant dusting off the old i-73 plans, but after this vote, it's looking good.
If I-73 in Ohio ever comes to be I-73 will end in Ohio because there is no interest in the state of Michigan for an I-73 freeway. We don't need it following I-75 all the way to Sault Ste. Marie and we most certainly don't need it on the US-223 or US-127 corridors.
Now we just need WV and VA to get their own acts together...
(but especially WV, who is half-doing its own part by rebuilding US 52 into a surface expressway that wouldn't be suitable for an Interstate designation; hopefully Charleston will get the message and make a similar resolution, even if it takes 1,000 years to do just that)
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 21, 2022, 09:10:08 AM
If I-73 in Ohio ever comes to be I-73 will end in Ohio because there is no interest in the state of Michigan for an I-73 freeway. We don't need it following I-75 all the way to Sault Ste. Marie and we most certainly don't need it on the US-223 or US-127 corridors.
I don't even know how Ohio will route their part of I-73. Looking at the US 23 upgrades posts in the other I-73 Ohio thread, the C1 option is being favored, except it isn't planned to be a full freeway. And south of Chillicothe, US 23 isn't a good option to travel to the Carolinas, where traffic will be switching to US 35 (or avoid US 23 all together from Columbus by using US 33), so it'll pretty much be a dead end in that sense. And it lacks a divided median in some places too.
All I know is that I glanced at an article somewhere complaining that this was an example of why earmarks are bad. If I'm not mistaken, earmarks mean you have to use the money for I-73. And that means it's use it or lose it money.
Trump promised I-73 when he was campaigning in South Carolina. And make no mistake, this is Trump's bill in large part.
I was reading an article about South Carolina and I'm guessing there is going to be a contribution from both the state and local governments to get this done.
I think this needs to happen anyway and it'll be fun to watch all you interstate sign haters heads explode. 🤣
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 20, 2022, 10:46:34 PM
Quote from: TempoNick on February 20, 2022, 02:06:10 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 20, 2022, 01:55:04 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 20, 2022, 03:01:20 AM
I've been there! See something exciting that should be done but seems impossible because of the current political and societal climate. Then you see a headline about it and jump the gun. Can't say I haven't done that lol
I fell for this before too, on some article about the Midwest getting high speed rail :rofl:
You never know, but I think it's no coincidence that the discussions became public right after Biden signed the infrastructure bill. The real work goes on behind closed doors. Once it gets out in the public, they've already decided what to do.
I mean, it might be different in Ohio, and you might know better than me...but there's all sorts of crazy shit that goes on in the Oklahoma legislature that's done for political posturing, so certain legislators can claim they stood up for X and stopped Y, and no actual change to the status quo ends up happening.
I figure a state like Ohio has a worse backlog of maintenance where this money would be better spent instead of building new roads currently. Still it would be nice if we had real planning again and could at the minimum purchase ROW and begin planning for such corridors. Then get the entire thing shovel ready in a decade or two and do the entire thing at once.
Quote from: TempoNick on February 21, 2022, 11:52:02 PM
All I know is that I glanced at an article somewhere complaining that this was an example of why earmarks are bad. If I'm not mistaken, earmarks mean you have to use the money for I-73. And that means it's use it or lose it money.
Trump promised I-73 when he was campaigning in South Carolina. And make no mistake, this is Trump's bill in large part.
I-73 in South Carolina is an entirely different effort compared to what some say is a dead I-73 in Ohio. The push down south is much greater, particularly east of I-95.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2022, 01:07:37 AM
Quote from: TempoNick on February 21, 2022, 11:52:02 PM
All I know is that I glanced at an article somewhere complaining that this was an example of why earmarks are bad. If I'm not mistaken, earmarks mean you have to use the money for I-73. And that means it's use it or lose it money.
Trump promised I-73 when he was campaigning in South Carolina. And make no mistake, this is Trump's bill in large part.
I-73 in South Carolina is an entirely different effort compared to what some say is a dead I-73 in Ohio. The push down south is much greater, particularly east of I-95.
Everything you guys have said before in this thread makes sense, however 75-15 votes don't happen unless something is up. I'm betting the money is there if Ohio wants it and it's so much money that they are going to want it.
^ But I'm referring to your comment about Trump "promising" I-73. IIRC, that was South Carolina. Not Ohio.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2022, 12:00:42 PM
^ But I'm referring to your comment about Trump "promising" I-73. IIRC, that was South Carolina. Not Ohio.
Yes yes, but don't be surprised if i-73 money isn't like Obama's train money. Obama's train money was specifically earmarked for trains. Kasich and Wisconsin and other places nixed the trains, so the money didn't come into state coffers to be used for something else. Money earmarked for i-73 isn't going to go into the general ODOT budget and that's what a 75-15 vote looks like to me. It looks like the House saying, yeah we better use this money it's a once in a lifetime opportunity.
Quote from: TempoNick on February 22, 2022, 02:21:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2022, 12:00:42 PM
^ But I'm referring to your comment about Trump "promising" I-73. IIRC, that was South Carolina. Not Ohio.
Yes yes, but don't be surprised if i-73 money isn't like Obama's train money. Obama's train money was specifically earmarked for trains. Kasich and Wisconsin and other places nixed the trains, so the money didn't come into state coffers to be used for something else. Money earmarked for i-73 isn't going to go into the general ODOT budget and that's what a 75-15 vote looks like to me. It looks like the House saying, yeah we better use this money it's a once in a lifetime opportunity.
Just saying... don't be surprised if nothing happens.
Quote from: TempoNick on February 22, 2022, 02:21:25 PM
Yes yes, but don't be surprised if i-73 money isn't like Obama's train money. Obama's train money was specifically earmarked for trains. Kasich and Wisconsin and other places nixed the trains, so the money didn't come into state coffers to be used for something else. Money earmarked for i-73 isn't going to go into the general ODOT budget and that's what a 75-15 vote looks like to me. It looks like the House saying, yeah we better use this money it's a once in a lifetime opportunity.
I have searched in Google and I can't find anything about any earmarks going to Ohio. I am probably missing something but do you remember where you read about this?
Quote from: TempoNick on February 20, 2022, 11:22:57 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 20, 2022, 10:46:34 PM
I mean, it might be different in Ohio, and you might know better than me...but there's all sorts of crazy shit that goes on in the Oklahoma legislature that's done for political posturing, so certain legislators can claim they stood up for X and stopped Y, and no actual change to the status quo ends up happening.
That's always a possibility, but I have a feeling the feds are going to give us a freeway a little or no cost. This stimulus money is what's different this time around. And a 75 - 15 vote means there is widespread agreement to use it instead of losing it.
Which federal bill is this supposed I-73 funding coming from?
Quote from: mvak36 on February 22, 2022, 03:25:46 PM
I have searched in Google and I can't find anything about any earmarks going to Ohio. I am probably missing something but do you remember where you read about this?
Just an educated guess based on everything that's going on. Public meetings about US 23 just out of the blue last fall, this 75-15 vote that we need i-73 and that newspaper opinion piece that this is the wrong way to use earmarks and what gives earmarks a bad name. That newspaper piece was written in another state, but with everything else going on, I'm betting that money is earmarked.
All this talk about I-73/74 makes me wonder if West Virginia would quadruplex the turnpike as I-64/73/74/77. Take that Wisconsin. :-D
Quote from: skluth on February 22, 2022, 04:12:48 PM
All this talk about I-73/74 makes me wonder if West Virginia would quadruplex the turnpike as I-64/73/74/77. Take that Wisconsin. :-D
Not saying it would ever happen but that would be the logical thing for WV to do. Just update the signs and bam (except for I-73, which would somehow need to connect the Turnpike or I-64 east of it to Roanoke).
^ It begs the question... who would actually follow I-73 through? It's completely out of the way from someone going from Greensboro to Princeton. I-40 / I-74 / I-77 is much more direct.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2022, 05:18:33 PM
^ It begs the question... who would actually follow I-73 through? It's completely out of the way from someone going from Greensboro to Princeton. I-40 / I-74 / I-77 is much more direct.
Exactly, which is why anything north of Roanoke is absurd to me.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2022, 05:18:33 PM
^ It begs the question... who would actually follow I-73 through? It's completely out of the way from someone going from Greensboro to Princeton. I-40 / I-74 / I-77 is much more direct.
The type of person who would use I-87 from Raleigh to Norfolk.
:bigass:
Quote from: plain on February 22, 2022, 06:21:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2022, 05:18:33 PM
^ It begs the question... who would actually follow I-73 through? It's completely out of the way from someone going from Greensboro to Princeton. I-40 / I-74 / I-77 is much more direct.
Exactly, which is why anything north of Roanoke is absurd to me.
Agreed. But remember, I-73 was originally planned to follow what is now (or will be) I-74's route from Mt. Airy through Winston-Salem and down to Rockingham before Greensboro and Roanoke interests shifted it to their cities instead. Which explains the crazy routing from Roanoke to Bluefield that would necessitate a wrong-way concurrency with I-77 for a few miles, give or take.
Quote from: Henry on February 22, 2022, 07:19:28 PM
Quote from: plain on February 22, 2022, 06:21:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2022, 05:18:33 PM
^ It begs the question... who would actually follow I-73 through? It's completely out of the way from someone going from Greensboro to Princeton. I-40 / I-74 / I-77 is much more direct.
Exactly, which is why anything north of Roanoke is absurd to me.
Agreed. But remember, I-73 was originally planned to follow what is now (or will be) I-74's route from Mt. Airy through Winston-Salem and down to Rockingham before Greensboro and Roanoke interests shifted it to their cities instead. Which explains the crazy routing from Roanoke to Bluefield that would necessitate a wrong-way concurrency with I-77 for a few miles, give or take.
So I-74 wasn't supposed to exist in NC in the first place (with its routing north of Asheboro be as part of I-73), before Greensboro and Roanoke complained?
How I see I-73 is having more utility for north-south traffic bound for I-81 North... not the other way.
It certainly has merit... just not for its full route.
The portion north of I-81 seems questionable... and anything north of I-64 is independent utility to I-73 in Virginia and points south.
Quote from: plain on February 22, 2022, 04:40:58 PM
Not saying it would ever happen but that would be the logical thing for WV to do. Just update the signs and bam (except for I-73, which would somehow need to connect the Turnpike or I-64 east of it to Roanoke).
Have you ever been on I-77 northbound, in that section just south of Whytheville? That freeway jams up frequently. I'm talking about la style jams where the traffic moves slooooowly. It most certainly does make sense to have a parallel roadway to take some of the pressure off of I-77. If i-77 can be expanded, it's going to take a lot of dynamite. Adding additional lanes there would be a challenge.
I-77 in Virginia need to be widened... any new location wouldn't start until West Virginia.
and plus... I-81 is arguably a higher need than I-77.
Quote from: TempoNick on February 22, 2022, 10:37:15 PM
Quote from: plain on February 22, 2022, 04:40:58 PM
Not saying it would ever happen but that would be the logical thing for WV to do. Just update the signs and bam (except for I-73, which would somehow need to connect the Turnpike or I-64 east of it to Roanoke).
Have you ever been on I-77 northbound, in that section just south of Whytheville? That freeway jams up frequently. I'm talking about la style jams where the traffic moves slooooowly. It most certainly does make sense to have a parallel roadway to take some of the pressure off of I-77. If i-77 can be expanded, it's going to take a lot of dynamite. Adding additional lanes there would be a challenge.
Plenty of times. It is not that dramatic, not even during the holiday season. Plus there are truck climbing lanes. And if you think widening I-77 is going to be a challenge, what do you think building another interstate altogether
through the mountains is going to be??
Quote from: plain on February 22, 2022, 11:14:26 PM
Quote from: TempoNick on February 22, 2022, 10:37:15 PM
Quote from: plain on February 22, 2022, 04:40:58 PM
Not saying it would ever happen but that would be the logical thing for WV to do. Just update the signs and bam (except for I-73, which would somehow need to connect the Turnpike or I-64 east of it to Roanoke).
Have you ever been on I-77 northbound, in that section just south of Whytheville? That freeway jams up frequently. I'm talking about la style jams where the traffic moves slooooowly. It most certainly does make sense to have a parallel roadway to take some of the pressure off of I-77. If i-77 can be expanded, it's going to take a lot of dynamite. Adding additional lanes there would be a challenge.
Plenty of times. It is not that dramatic, not even during the holiday season. Plus there are truck climbing lanes. And if you think widening I-77 is going to be a challenge, what do you think building another interstate altogether through the mountains is going to be??
The environmentalists would have a field day if you proposed blasting another interstate through the rugged terrain of western Virginia and West Virginia. To appease the environmentalists, I would think there would be a lot of tunnels through said mountains. Either way, it would be an extremely expensive and time-consuming endeavor.
I think Interstate 73 will be lucky to make it to Roanoke, never mind it being constructed in West Virginia, Ohio, or even Michigan.
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 23, 2022, 09:18:40 AM
The environmentalists would have a field day if you proposed blasting another interstate through the rugged terrain of western Virginia and West Virginia. To appease the environmentalists, I would think there would be a lot of tunnels through said mountains. Either way, it would be an extremely expensive and time-consuming endeavor.
Not really. What would have been Interstate 73/74 in West Virginia is being constructed as the King Coal and Tolsia Highways, a typical corridor route with a mix of interchanges and intersections. Given the low traffic counts out there, it is being built as a two-lane highway in the vicinity of Williamson-Matewan-Bluefield, with four-lane segments closer to Huntington. Built out, you'll have a 65 MPH expressway (or as West Virginia calls them, freeways) that will be fully signed as US 52 despite the presence of those deteriorating or missing "I-73/74 High Priority Corridor" signs.
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on February 03, 2022, 02:35:17 PM
I second that emotion. I never understood why ODOT routed US-23 off near Carey for OH-15. The traveling public would be served better with US-23 going to I-75 then concurrent up to I-475. Seems as if US-23 is only there to serve some political interest or ODOT being bound by some legacy reason why the route is the way it is now.
Ohio has lots of these multiple numbering designations on new expressways, which ideally should be renumbered under a single number. One of them that got unified under a single number is ADHS Corridor D, which used to be OH 32, OH 124, OH 346, US 50, and probably one or two more SR that I can't remember right now, before it was unified under the OH 32 number. Besides the US 23/OH 15 numbering, I also suggested in fictional for a swap of OH 16 and OH 161 west of Granville to keep the entire expressway east of I-270 under a single OH 16 number.
Quote from: Terry Shea on February 28, 2022, 11:15:25 AM
Quote from: TempoNick on February 22, 2022, 03:56:26 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on February 22, 2022, 03:25:46 PM
I have searched in Google and I can't find anything about any earmarks going to Ohio. I am probably missing something but do you remember where you read about this?
I've got some oceanfront property in Florida and a bridge in New York I could sell you real cheap. :)
Just an educated guess based on everything that's going on. Public meetings about US 23 just out of the blue last fall, this 75-15 vote that we need i-73 and that newspaper opinion piece that this is the wrong way to use earmarks and what gives earmarks a bad name. That newspaper piece was written in another state, but with everything else going on, I'm betting that money is earmarked.
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/congressionally-directed-spending-requests-chart
Just the requests, not the final decisions.
A few years ago I had a meeting for a project in Delaware County. Someone was there representing the client who was developing a piece of land. During the meeting this man (older guy) mentioned in passing that this piece was near where ODOT had looked at running I-73 years ago. It peaked my interest then, so we talked after and I asked him why did he think 73 never happened? He replied it hasn't happened yet. ODOT was still interested, but they stopped all talk of 73 and instead focused on just calling things US23 improvements and the like. He said it is still a goal. I found that interesting. He once worked at ODOT and so I trusted his thoughts. He said its not a rush, but to pay attention whenever I hear work to improve 23, especially if it involves bypasses, connection or interchanges being added.
Perhaps, but that can be the case for a multitude of other freeway and expressway projects in the state - US 35, US 33, OH 32, etc. Add in that the new SR 823 bypass of Portsmouth has terminuses that are not compatible with interstate extensions, and I think that the overall I-73 proposal is dead in the water.
Quote from: rte66man on February 28, 2022, 11:27:34 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on February 28, 2022, 11:15:25 AM
Quote from: TempoNick on February 22, 2022, 03:56:26 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on February 22, 2022, 03:25:46 PM
I have searched in Google and I can't find anything about any earmarks going to Ohio. I am probably missing something but do you remember where you read about this?
I've got some oceanfront property in Florida and a bridge in New York I could sell you real cheap. :)
Just an educated guess based on everything that's going on. Public meetings about US 23 just out of the blue last fall, this 75-15 vote that we need i-73 and that newspaper opinion piece that this is the wrong way to use earmarks and what gives earmarks a bad name. That newspaper piece was written in another state, but with everything else going on, I'm betting that money is earmarked.
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/congressionally-directed-spending-requests-chart
Just the requests, not the final decisions.
According to the spending requests, Senator Graham of South Carolina has requested $15 million to "complete right-of-way acquisition" for the I-73 corridor in Horry County.
As for I-73/I-74 in Ohio, there were no requests listed. Bear in mind the above referenced chart pertains to Senator requests only, not House members. However, until the I-73/I-74 extension is officially designated a project by ODOT, it's unlikely any "congressionally directed spending" will be requested, even if only for a study.
Right now, and let's be realistic, extending I-73/I-74 in Ohio is just an idea, a line drawn on a map. There's a long way to go, and many steps to hurdle over, before this becomes a reality. On a positive note, there appears to be considerable enthusiasm and political support for the project.
Quote from: ColumbusFan on March 01, 2022, 12:19:50 PM
A few years ago I had a meeting for a project in Delaware County. Someone was there representing the client who was developing a piece of land. During the meeting this man (older guy) mentioned in passing that this piece was near where ODOT had looked at running I-73 years ago. It peaked my interest then, so we talked after and I asked him why did he think 73 never happened? He replied it hasn't happened yet. ODOT was still interested, but they stopped all talk of 73 and instead focused on just calling things US23 improvements and the like. He said it is still a goal. I found that interesting. He once worked at ODOT and so I trusted his thoughts. He said its not a rush, but to pay attention whenever I hear work to improve 23, especially if it involves bypasses, connection or interchanges being added.
HaHa! I knew it. Path of least resistance is to call it US-23 for now, I-73 after you've jammed it through. And now with the infrastructure money about to rain on Ohio ...
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 27, 2022, 10:31:02 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2022, 10:17:13 AM
No Google Street View of the resolution?
I found one
(https://i.imgur.com/34hMfBw.png)
That ramp should have been two lanes wide. I hate long single-lane freeway-to-freeway ramps, where if you get stuck behind a slow semi, you're screwed.
Quote from: SignGeniusPTOE on April 26, 2022, 03:31:50 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 27, 2022, 10:31:02 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2022, 10:17:13 AM
No Google Street View of the resolution?
I found one
(https://i.imgur.com/34hMfBw.png)
That ramp should have been two lanes wide. I hate long single-lane freeway-to-freeway ramps, where if you get stuck behind a slow semi, you're screwed.
You may be lucky. If you overtook that semi at a high rate of speed, you may have then slowed yourself down further. You could have gotten into a wreck or maybe stopped.