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

[sprjus4]

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.

[TempoNick]

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.

[sprjus4]

^ But I'm referring to your comment about Trump "promising"  I-73. IIRC, that was South Carolina. Not Ohio.

[TempoNick]

^ 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.

[US 89]

^ 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.

[mvak36]

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?

[Scott5114]

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?

[TempoNick]

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.

[skluth]

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. 

[plain]

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. 

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).

[sprjus4]

^ 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.

[plain]

^ 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.

[NE2]

^ 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.

[Henry]

^ 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.

[SkyPesos]

^ 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?

[sprjus4]

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.

[TempoNick]

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

[plain]

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??

[abqtraveler]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

I think Interstate 73 will be lucky to make it to Roanoke, never mind it being constructed in West Virginia, Ohio, or even Michigan.

[seicer]

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.

[SkyPesos]

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.

[rte66man]

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.

[ColumbusFan]

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.