Ok, so I don't know if this question has been posed before (couldn't find it on searches), but was wondering what the group's thoughts are on I-70 & I-470 in the Wheeling, WV area. Every single time I've been through this town in the past 3 years, I-70 through Wheeling has been closed, detoured, not recommended, etc because of work on the tunnel through Wheeling. Since I-470 is actually the better route for trucks...why doesn't Ohio and West Virginia just swap the designations on these roadways? It would seem like just marking the "I-470 bypass" as the main I-70 would just be simpler for everyone. Any reasons why this wouldn't be a good idea, other than swapping out signs?
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=wheeling,+wv&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=47.167389,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Wheeling,+Ohio,+West+Virginia&ll=40.04654,-80.747452&spn=0.179244,0.308647&t=h&z=12 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=wheeling,+wv&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=47.167389,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Wheeling,+Ohio,+West+Virginia&ll=40.04654,-80.747452&spn=0.179244,0.308647&t=h&z=12)
This is something I've asked before and the answer seems to be I-70 is the mainline and I-470 is the loop. I agree that the numbers should be swapped as it makes sense to keep traffic on I-470. However, every time I use I-70 instead of I-470 there's no problems and I get a clear run through the tunnel.
Quote from: Truvelo on March 08, 2010, 08:13:56 AM
This is something I've asked before and the answer seems to be I-70 is the mainline and I-470 is the loop. I agree that the numbers should be swapped as it makes sense to keep traffic on I-470. However, every time I use I-70 instead of I-470 there's no problems and I get a clear run through the tunnel.
Yeah, there's all of this conflicting information for travelers too. The signs all say "I-70 Closed to Through Traffic" with big construction signs, and I-470 is even marked as "Detour I-70" on trailblazers, BUT there's always signs saying "All Wheeling attractions use I-70"....STUPID!
I-470 is even slightly shorter than I-70. About half a mile.
Judging by the number repairs on the aging tunnels, and that narrowness of the tunnels (no shoulders), what can WvDOT do to really improve that stretch? It's not like they can "blow up" the hill nor make a new highway alignment due to I-70's proximity of the tunnel to the Ohio River and it's crossings. Plus US-40 runs along the top of the hill, over the tunnels, and there is too much business & residential on and around the hill.
I do agree that I-70 should be rerouted along the bypass, and either make the old I-70 Alignment either I-470 or, to be politically correct, an odd 3di spur route (I-370).
Quote from: thenetwork on March 08, 2010, 10:13:51 AMI do agree that I-70 should be rerouted along the bypass, and either make the old I-70 Alignment either I-470 or, to be politically correct, an odd 3di spur route (I-370).
Or move I-70 onto current I-470 and redesignate the current I-70 as a business loop.
Quote from: PAHighways on March 09, 2010, 08:43:52 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on March 08, 2010, 10:13:51 AMI do agree that I-70 should be rerouted along the bypass, and either make the old I-70 Alignment either I-470 or, to be politically correct, an odd 3di spur route (I-370).
Or move I-70 onto current I-470 and redesignate the current I-70 as a business loop.
I don't think WV or OH would go for that because they would lose Interstate Mileage...
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 09, 2010, 10:39:09 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on March 09, 2010, 08:43:52 PM
Or move I-70 onto current I-470 and redesignate the current I-70 as a business loop.
I don't think WV or OH would go for that because they would lose Interstate Mileage...
Hence the idea just to swap the designations as both states would retain the same amount of Interstate Mileage. :)
QuoteI don't think WV or OH would go for that because they would lose Interstate Mileage...
I'm not for the idea of a business loop freeway- I'd just keep it as is.
That said, they could pull a Sacramento, swap the designations, and then sign the new I-470 as Business I-70
Quote from: corco on March 09, 2010, 11:53:14 PM
That said, they could pull a Sacramento, swap the designations, and then sign the new I-470 as Business I-70
Re: Business I-80 - I've always wondered why the designation change was necessary in the first place, considering how many older sections of road were grandfathered into the Interstates elsewhere.
In any case, it ended up being only somewhat like that idea for Wheeling: unsigned I-305 (and signed US 50) represents half (what was built in the 1960s as I-80 or in the early 1950s as US 99W/US 40) of Business 80 (where it meets interstate standards), the other half being unsigned state route 51.
Quote from: TheStranger on March 10, 2010, 01:46:11 AM
Re: Business I-80 - I've always wondered why the designation change was necessary in the first place, considering how many older sections of road were grandfathered into the Interstates elsewhere.
Was it partly to free up the I-880 designation for the Nimitz Freeway?
Quote from: xonhulu on March 10, 2010, 02:02:14 AM
Was it partly to free up the I-880 designation for the Nimitz Freeway?
No - there was a one or two year period (1982-1984) in which California completely lacked an 880 route (with Business 80 existing in Sacramento, and Route 17 still whole north of San Jose). Today's 880 came about after lobbying from congressman Glenn Anderson (of which I-105/Century Freeway today is named after in Los Angeles).
I know that the City of Sacramento used federal funds for light rail, some of the funding that would have gone to the I-80 upgrade in Arden/North Sacramento...but that by itself doesn't seem to necessitate the designation change I would think. (Then again, a similar situation played out with what is now Route 470 in metro Denver)
I think Business 80 in Sacramento was to prevent people from using it as a through route like they would if it had an I shield on it. Given the problems that I-70 has, Business 70 isn't the worst idea.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on March 10, 2010, 07:47:10 PM
Given the problems that I-70 has, Business 70 isn't the worst idea.
I'm not sure that ODOT or WVDOT would be too happy about the idea of losing interstate mileage. Plus, I think that Business Interstate Routes are outdated. When's the last time that a new one was created?
Quote from: shoptb1 on March 10, 2010, 07:51:15 PM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on March 10, 2010, 07:47:10 PM
Given the problems that I-70 has, Business 70 isn't the worst idea.
I'm not sure that ODOT or WVDOT would be too happy about the idea of losing interstate mileage. Plus, I think that Business Interstate Routes are outdated. When's the last time that a new one was created?
Two years ago for Business I-40 in Greensboro (and Business I-85), of which Business I-40 has since been reverted back to mainline I-40.
Quote from: AlpsROADSI think Business 80 in Sacramento was to prevent people from using it as a through route like they would if it had an I shield on it. Given the problems that I-70 has, Business 70 isn't the worst idea.
I'm reminded of the 495/95 (895) deal in Wilmington for a second here...I wonder if CalTrans would have been better off at the time, switching the 880 and 80 designations around, would that have been enough to encourage through travelers to use the route into Natomas and Del Paso Heights?
QuoteTwo years ago for Business I-40 in Greensboro (and Business I-85), of which Business I-40 has since been reverted back to mainline I-40.
That particular Business I-85 dates back to early 2004.
Last time MoDOT tried to get I-49 signed, there was a business loop proposed with it.
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 10, 2010, 11:25:57 PM
Last time MoDOT tried to get I-49 signed, there was a business loop proposed with it.
Where?
Quote from: bugo on March 11, 2010, 02:35:42 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 10, 2010, 11:25:57 PM
Last time MoDOT tried to get I-49 signed, there was a business loop proposed with it.
Where?
At the AASHTO website. Here's the dirrect link to that file: http://cms.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/AM2007_USRN_Report_AR&MO_Interstate49.pdf
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 11, 2010, 12:25:52 PM
Quote from: bugo on March 11, 2010, 02:35:42 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 10, 2010, 11:25:57 PM
Last time MoDOT tried to get I-49 signed, there was a business loop proposed with it.
Where?
At the AASHTO website. Here's the dirrect link to that file: http://cms.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/AM2007_USRN_Report_AR&MO_Interstate49.pdf
That's a pretty fascinating document (and I really want to see it now for other proposals, i.e. Arkansas's newer US routes). Thanks!
It isn't quite the same thing as the aforementioned segments of I-80 in Sacramento and I-85 in North Carolina though (business loop freeways), but more like a US route business loop on surface streets becoming an Interstate business loop (which happened in San Diego along I-5 at Mission Bay Drive).
Mod note - Extended discussion of US 71/I-49 situation has been moved to the Mid-South board (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2528.0).
So I finally got a response from ODOT on my question regarding swapping the designations. I'm not sure that I agree with anything in here:
The interstate designations are a product of congress and the Federal Highway Administration. I-70 was the first interstate through this area followed much later by I-470. The Ohio Department of Transportation, or West Virginia for that matter, cannot initiate the suggested action. Because I-470 is shorter, swapping the route designations on these two interstates would literally mean changing signage from Utah to Maryland.
shoptb1: The ONLY states that would have to have their exit #s changed in that scenario are...Ohio and West Virginia!
Not to mention that DOTs have, and will continue to, request/initiate reroutings and redesignations for interstates (i.e. the decomissioning of I-880 in Sacramento, the recent addition of I-795 in North Carolina).
So in fairness to ODOT, I got this 2nd response after I complained about their first lackluster response:
Your description of the signage changes may be more correct than we stated, however some signage would undoubtedly have to be changed. The change of a half mile would result in the movement of existing signs by half a mile. Some of these signs are overhead truss structures which are very expensive.
I looked at the traffic volumes on 70 and 470 east of the 70/470 split in 2008 and found approximately 52% utilized 470 and 48% used 70. Since these counts may have occurred during one of the recent 70 closures, I reviewed the our counts from 2005. In 2005 the usage was 46% and 54% for 470 and 70 respectively. So in round numbers roughly have of the traffic uses both routes currently. My experience tells me that vehicle traffic patterns follow those roadways that best suit their needs regardless of the roadways name, number or name.
Thank you for the suggestion, however I don't believe that ODOT or WVDOH would be successful in your requested petition, nor do I feel the benefit outweighs the problems or difficulties involved in pursuing your request.
^ I don't see how the big sign trusses would need to be moved; the existing interchange signs should be unchanged excluding the exit number tab. I don't recall any big overhead signs with mileposts on them around Wheeling either. Worse case they could use the AH (ahead) and BK (back) style milemarkers Iowa uses when they didn't want to change every single milepost on US 218 and US 34 for alignment shifts.
Would be interesting to see what WVDOH says about swapping I-470 and I-70.
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 28, 2010, 03:22:09 PM
^ I don't see how the big sign trusses would need to be moved; the existing interchange signs should be unchanged excluding the exit number tab.
I agree. Any sign (and the structure it's on) is going to stay exactly the same distance from any exit. Mile-markers and possibly tabs (If the difference is only a half-mile, I could see a DOT not bothering with it.) would be the only things need moved/adjusted.
Whether it is actually worth any $$ to change, I'm not sure... but it sure doesn't seem like it would be quite as complicated as the ODOT representative makes it out to be.
Especially from Ohio's end - they don't have to change anything all the way across the state until the 470 junction. Now let's keep Maryland in mind - they would have to move their Denver 1700/Cove Fort 2200 sign back half a mile!!
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 28, 2010, 03:22:09 PM
^ I don't see how the big sign trusses would need to be moved; the existing interchange signs should be unchanged excluding the exit number tab. I don't recall any big overhead signs with mileposts on them around Wheeling either. Worse case they could use the AH (ahead) and BK (back) style milemarkers Iowa uses when they didn't want to change every single milepost on US 218 and US 34 for alignment shifts.
Would be interesting to see what WVDOH says about swapping I-470 and I-70.
My thinking is a lot of the objections are simple inertia. It is the way it is, and we are against any change.
One thing to consider, you would be swapping out a granted problematic tunnel with a serious lane drop for a serious hill upgrade/downgrade on 470 on the OH side
Quote from: sammack on April 28, 2010, 07:40:19 PM
One thing to consider, you would be swapping out a granted problematic tunnel with a serious lane drop for a serious hill upgrade/downgrade on 470 on the OH side
The grade on 470 West from the split on the WV side is no slouch either.
Though both states provide for a third lane for the uphill climb.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on April 29, 2010, 10:00:43 AM
Though both states provide for a third lane for the uphill climb.
True, and I would guess that I-470 is an new enough Interstate that the grades aren't worse than 2 or 3%.
So, I would doubt that they are a showstopper.
This ain't Monteagle we're talkin' about here!
They may be short, but the hill in WV, both west and east has got to be a 5% to 6% grade.
Sykotyk
Quote from: Sykotyk on April 30, 2010, 03:31:51 AM
They may be short, but the hill in WV, both west and east has got to be a 5% to 6% grade.
Sykotyk
Are you talking about the I-470 grade or the even-worse I-70 grade between Triadelphia and the Cabella Drive exit? The grade between this section is worse than any of those on I-470.
Hmmm.... I don't have any numbers to possibly refute that, so you could be right...
But the climb up I-470 from the Ohio River headed east seemed to me to be a bit steeper than the stretch of I-70 you mentioned. Just my opinion.
The I-470 grades are steeper than the I-70 grade that shoptb1 mentioned. I-70 between Exit 10 and Exit 5 is a signed 5% grade. I-470 between the river and Exit 2 is signed 6%. East of Exit 2 to I-70 isn't signed, but a rough estimate based on topographic maps is 7%.
Quote from: froggie on May 01, 2010, 08:28:50 AM
The I-470 grades are steeper than the I-70 grade that shoptb1 mentioned. I-70 between Exit 10 and Exit 5 is a signed 5% grade. I-470 between the river and Exit 2 is signed 6%. East of Exit 2 to I-70 isn't signed, but a rough estimate based on topographic maps is 7%.
I stand corrected. Thanks Froggie. Regardless, I don't see this as any factor in signing one as I-70 vs. I-470, especially since they are already suggesting that all through traffic use I-470.
Question:what work is being done on the I-70 tunnels?
Quote from: ausinterkid on May 03, 2010, 06:03:03 PMQuestion:what work is being done on the I-70 tunnels?
General rehabilitation: upgrading the lighting and fire detection equipment, repairing tiles, etc.
Quote from: PAHighways on May 04, 2010, 03:11:35 PM
Quote from: ausinterkid on May 03, 2010, 06:03:03 PMQuestion:what work is being done on the I-70 tunnels?
General rehabilitation: upgrading the lighting and fire detection equipment, repairing tiles, etc.
And this is taking 3 - 4 years? LOL
Quote from: shoptb1 on May 04, 2010, 03:43:35 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on May 04, 2010, 03:11:35 PM
Quote from: ausinterkid on May 03, 2010, 06:03:03 PMQuestion:what work is being done on the I-70 tunnels?
General rehabilitation: upgrading the lighting and fire detection equipment, repairing tiles, etc.
And this is taking 3 - 4 years? LOL
WVDOH hasn't been working year-round, not to mention a dispute between them and the company doing the work halted the project for a time in 2008.
I think there were also issues with either the construction or the materials used that have caused delays too.