Ohio House Passes I-73/I-74 Resolution - 75-15 Vote in Favor

[MATraveler128]

Does Ohio even have the money or the need to do such a thing? I didn't think it was still on their radar

[Flint1979]

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).

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[Rothman]

This thread is a hot mess.

[Max Rockatansky]

This thread is a hot mess.

Do you have a Google Street View of it?

[SkyPesos]

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).

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

[Strider]

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. 

[Flint1979]

I'm happy Michigan backed out. There is no need at all for I-73 in Michigan.

[Ryctor2018]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[Ryctor2018]

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.

[abqtraveler]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[MATraveler128]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[BrianP]

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.

[wanderer2575]

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.

[abqtraveler]

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.

[JREwing78]

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).

[Ryctor2018]

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.