AARoads Forum

Ohio State Representatives Justin Pizzulli (R-Scioto County) and Jason Stephens (R-Kitts Hill)  (https://ohiohouse.gov/news/republican/pizzulli-stephens-support-house-transportation-budget-128125)convinced the Ohio State Legislature to pass a resolution and helped pass House Bill 54 (https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/136/hb54) to direct the Ohio Department of Transportation to conduct $2M feasibility study (https://hoodline.com/2025/02/ohio-house-unanimously-passes-transportation-budget-boosting-prospects-for-i-73-corridor-study/) of Future I-73 from Toledo to Chesapeake Ohio, connecting to I-64 in Huntington West Virginia along the Ohio River. The Ohio Department of Transportation already knows from its feasibility study in the 1990's and it's Route 23 Connect (https://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/files/2022%20-%20Route%2023%20Connect%20-%20Phase%201%20Executive%20Summary.pdf) study that a freeway from Waldo to I-270 Columbus  is not feasible and that public opposition will be massive in the Columbus area to Future I-73 as it was in the 1990's, no matter which route was studied (http://www.roadfan.com/i73orig.html).

"...SECTION 755.50. The Director of Transportation shall conduct a feasibility study for the creation of an Interstate Route 73 corridor connecting the municipal corporation of Toledo to the municipal corporation of Chesapeake, primarily alongside current United States Route 23. The purpose of the new corridor is to better connect Interstate Route 74, Interstate Route 75, and the states of Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina along one continuous interstate route.

The feasibility study shall examine how to alleviate congestion along United States Route 23, the economic impacts of a new interstate corridor, safety concerns, connectivity issues, and methods for coordinating with the other states and the United States Department of Transportation for the creation of the corridor.

The Director shall complete the feasibility study not later than December 31, 2026..."

This is on top of the Route 23 Connect (https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/mega-projects/mega-projects/23-connect) study that ODOT completed to plan upgrading U.S. 23 to a partially controlled access "free-flow" expressway. ODOT investigated the full freeway option for U.S. 23 but was overwhelmed with opposition and backed down to the expressway because of the high cost of even a non-interstate standard freeway. However, the State Legislature wants to investigate, either a freeway or toll-road from U.S. 23 to I-71 further north at OH 229.

"SECTION 755.60. (A) The Department of Transportation and the Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission shall work together to create a joint plan regarding the feasibility of connecting U.S. Route 23 to Interstate Route 71 by doing one of the following:

(1) Expanding State Route 229 in northern Delaware County;

(2) Expanding another similar state route or other highway in northern Delaware County;

(3) Creating a new freeway between U.S. Route 23 and Interstate Route 71 in northern Delaware County;

(4) Creating a toll road between U.S. Route 23 and Interstate Route 71 in northern Delaware County;

(5) Creating a new freeway, which may be a toll road, in the region between State Route 529 and Waldo, Ohio heading eastward toward Interstate Route 71 north of Marengo, Ohio in Marion County and Morrow County.

If U.S. 23 were converted to Future I-73, how much would it cost and how long would it take to build?  A route has not been selected, and last time, ODOT proposed to completely bypass Columbus and Delaware along a new terrain route.  Opposition exploded from property owners along the bypass, which was the most expensive route to select, and the concept sank like a lead ballon.

The cheapest conceptional route is to upgrade the existing U.S. 23 south of Columbus and U.S. 23 north of Waldo and OH 15 to I-75 with a freeway connector along OH 229 to I-71.  However, the language of the law passed by the State Legislature mandates a feasibility study for "...the creation of an Interstate Route 73 corridor connecting the municipal corporation of Toledo to the municipal corporation of Chesapeake, primarily ALONGSIDE (parallel) current United States Route 23", a "new terrain" route separate from U.S. 23.  The feasibility study limits Future I-73 to the U.S. 23 corridor with no mention of U.S. 35 or U.S. 33.  ODOT only plans to upgrade U.S. 33 to a four-lane divided highway with a few interchanges from  Athens to the Ohio River (https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/mega-projects/mega-projects/33-expansion) where it will connect to the existing U.S. 33 four-lane in West Virginia that terminates at I-77.

Upgrading the existing U.S 23 and OH 15 from I-75 Findlay to I-64 Huntington would cost $3.2B.  This assumes no need to upgrade I-71 and I-270.  However, building Future I-73 completely as a "new terrain" route from Toledo OH to Huntington WV and bypassing Columbus again as proposed in the 1990's, the cost increase to $20M per mile (https://compassinternational.net/order-magnitude-road-highway-costs/) making the cost of the "new terrain" Future I-73 between $5B-$6B.  Even if the feasibility study is finished in 2026, the mandatory full NEPA environmental studies for this new interstate facility will take another 5-10 years, and construction may wait 20 years waiting for money to become available, so the earliest completion date would be 2050 to 2060.  Environmental lawyers that are guaranteed to file lawsuits from opponents will make sure the project follows the full NEPA process of feasibility study, draft environmental study, and final environmental study which is why it will be up to 10 years of studies. The high cost versus traffic benefit may make it unfeasible again if the state's feasibility study shows insufficient traffic between I-90 and I-64.  Michigan, under Governor Jennifer Granholm, cancelled the I-73 project in the 1990's, West Virginia has no money for I-73 following U.S. 52 and the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB)  (https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/projects/salem-district/i-73/)in 2024 rescinded the 2001 location decision for an I-73 alignment between Roanoke and the North Carolina border and the Henry County Alternative, terminating future planning or funding of Future I-73 by the Commonwealth of Virginia.  The project was never funded to advance to design or construction phases.    VDOT has no funding identified to study, design or construct I-73 in Virginia and has removed the website information of future planning, so VDOT officially cancelled anything involving Future I-73.  Because Virginia no longer plans to build Future I-73, the AASHTO should decommission I-73 in North Carolina, leaving only the I-74 designation as established by Congress.  The remaining I-73 north of I-74 through Greensboro to U.S. 220 should be designated as I-174.

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on July 13, 2025, 01:48:48 AMVirginia completely cancelled the I-73 project

Why do people continue to believe this? :banghead: VA cancelled the plans to build an eastern bypass of Martinsville for I-73; they did not preclude signing I-73 along the planned Martinsville connector and existing US 220 to the west, though I still wouldn't hold my breath.

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on July 13, 2025, 01:48:48 AMEven if the feasibility study is finished in 2026, the NEPA environmental studies may take another 5-10 years, and construction may take 20 years waiting for money to become available, so the earliest completion date would be 2050.

NEPA starts a 10 year clock to get a project to construction, after which states need to pay back any federal funds that had been spent on a project, so it would not be wise to do NEPA unless they have (or reasonably expect to be able to get) funds for construction.  Fortunately, there are types of studies (such as PEL studies) that can get some preliminary work out of the way without starting the 10 year clock.

I-73 plus the beginnings of an outer-outerbelt would be lovely.

Findlay to Sunbury, circle down around Newark, then down to Lancaster to connect to US 33 and then to I-77 would be the cheap way to do it since US 33 doesn't have to have too much upgrading done to it.

I don't have a problem with the original plans to upgrade US 23 and US 52, but it just seems a lot of work needs to be done to get that up to snuff.

I don't know what you do north of Findlay. I'm thinking you wait until Michigan decides what they want to do.

Total waste of money. The only jam points on existing US 23/OH 15 is north of I-270 extending to Delaware, and in the Waverly area south of Chillicothe. The route would no doubt follow the Portsmouth bypass from Lucasville to Wheelersburg, which wasn't built to full modern interstate standards (minimal inside shoulders against the barrier wall).

Quote from: hbelkins on July 13, 2025, 06:14:30 PMTotal waste of money. The only jam points on existing US 23/OH 15 is north of I-270 extending to Delaware, and in the Waverly area south of Chillicothe. The route would no doubt follow the Portsmouth bypass from Lucasville to Wheelersburg, which wasn't built to full modern interstate standards (minimal inside shoulders against the barrier wall).

Greater Columbus will be at 3 million people in 25 years. The roads around here were largely built for an area with 1 million people, not to mention that so much distribution goes in and out of here.

Somebody needs to have a little foresight.

If we could address Columbus' housing shortage more effectively there wouldn't be so many people forced to drive up from Appalachia daily in order to get their housing costs down by 60%.

Quote from: GCrites on July 13, 2025, 08:33:16 PMIf we could address Columbus' housing shortage more effectively there wouldn't be so many people forced to drive up from Appalachia daily in order to get their housing costs down by 60%.

Nevertheless, 3 million people are going to need a road system designed for 3 million people or there are going to be big problems. I was against commuter trains when they were proposed before, but at 2.2 million we may have enough critical mass where it makes sense. I think it would definitely make sense at 3 million. Charlotte has them.

Should Ohio even be pursuing construction of Interstate 73? Michigan abandoned study on their portion of 73 in 2001. West Virginia and Virginia (mostly) have no plans to construct their portion of the Interstate. If US 23 needs upgrades, do that, but without the Interstate strings attached.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 13, 2025, 08:52:16 PMShould Ohio even be pursuing construction of Interstate 73? Michigan abandoned study on their portion of 73 in 2001. West Virginia and Virginia (mostly) have no plans to construct their portion of the Interstate. If US 23 needs upgrades, do that, but without the Interstate strings attached.

I personally don't like when things are done in a half-assed manner. I would like to see an Interstate so that it is done right.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 13, 2025, 08:52:16 PMShould Ohio even be pursuing construction of Interstate 73? Michigan abandoned study on their portion of 73 in 2001. West Virginia and Virginia (mostly) have no plans to construct their portion of the Interstate. If US 23 needs upgrades, do that, but without the Interstate strings attached.

Why not? Michigan won't give a s*** unless the feds want to fund reconstruction of US-23 north to Flint or building a freeway between Toledo and Jackson on their dime (or 9 cents out of said dime). But I-73's existence in Ohio doesn't need Michigan's involvement.

As long as Ohio has a logical terminus at an Interstate at each end (i-75 in Findlay and I-64 or I-77 in W Virginia), their I-73 can stand alone. It also doesn't necessarily need to encompass all of US-23 - they can shunt over to US-33 south of Columbus or US-35 SE of Chillicothe and have a logical Interstate route.

If and when Kentucky decides to make US-23 an Interstate, simply extend the I-26 routing northward towards Columbus. Extend north or west as desired along US-30, US-33, or US-35 for a logical terminus wherever. 

Quote from: TempoNick on July 13, 2025, 05:25:30 PMI-73 plus the beginnings of an outer-outerbelt would be lovely.

Findlay to Sunbury, circle down around Newark, then down to Lancaster to connect to US 33 and then to I-77 would be the cheap way to do it since US 33 doesn't have to have too much upgrading done to it.

I don't have a problem with the original plans to upgrade US 23 and US 52, but it just seems a lot of work needs to be done to get that up to snuff.

As I mentioned in another thread, if ODOT can bring SR-15 to interstate standards along the short multiplex with US-68 near Findlay, Hancock County would be readybfor interstate status. 

Wyandot County has a lot of catching up to do with eliminating at-grade intersections in order to get US-23 up to snuff.

And depending if/when/where the new freeway connector to I-71 is completed, there may be little to no additional upgrade work that needs to be done in Marion County.

I 73 74 has never and will never make any sense.   The current roads, with some improvements such as stop light removals, are perfectly adequate in Ohio, and the WV and VA situation is not changing.


We just need to accept that the rules of road numbering do not apply to NC, and quit pretending any other state is going to connect up to it.  Or go back and renumber in NC

Quote from: SP Cook on July 14, 2025, 11:17:48 AMI 73 74 has never and will never make any sense.   The current roads, with some improvements such as stop light removals, are perfectly adequate in Ohio, and the WV and VA situation is not changing.


We just need to accept that the rules of road numbering do not apply to NC, and quit pretending any other state is going to connect up to it.  Or go back and renumber in NC

Well, I don't agree that they are perfectly adequate, but they are a good start. But there is another point here that doesn't get hit upon enough. I read somewhere that the big reason I-73 doesn't make a lot of sense is that it is really should be split up into five different projects that should get five different numbers.

Interstate numbers are important to me. That means the road is of a certain quality usually. I also like the control city signing better. A control city of some import is usually listed on interstates. On lesser highways, minor stops along the road are the control cities listed. Major control cities help travelers, minor cities just confuse people from out of the area.

Quote from: JREwing78 on July 13, 2025, 11:48:00 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 13, 2025, 08:52:16 PMShould Ohio even be pursuing construction of Interstate 73? Michigan abandoned study on their portion of 73 in 2001. West Virginia and Virginia (mostly) have no plans to construct their portion of the Interstate. If US 23 needs upgrades, do that, but without the Interstate strings attached.

Why not? Michigan won't give a s*** unless the feds want to fund reconstruction of US-23 north to Flint or building a freeway between Toledo and Jackson on their dime (or 9 cents out of said dime). But I-73's existence in Ohio doesn't need Michigan's involvement.

As long as Ohio has a logical terminus at an Interstate at each end (i-75 in Findlay and I-64 or I-77 in W Virginia), their I-73 can stand alone. It also doesn't necessarily need to encompass all of US-23 - they can shunt over to US-33 south of Columbus or US-35 SE of Chillicothe and have a logical Interstate route.

If and when Kentucky decides to make US-23 an Interstate, simply extend the I-26 routing northward towards Columbus. Extend north or west as desired along US-30, US-33, or US-35 for a logical terminus wherever.

Another harebrained idea. Besides the stretch through Catlettsburg/Ashland/southern Greenup County, the only problematic stretch of US 23 in Kentucky is the commercial area in northern Pike County (Coal Run Village) and southern Floyd County (Harold/Betsy Layne). An interstate through this area would be prohibitively expensive and not worth it.

What about the segment of US 23 in Virginia? That would be the main obstacle in extending Interstate 26 further north. Would it be difficult to upgrade that portion of US 23 to Interstate Standards? An eastern bypass of Weber City off the end of the existing US 23 alignment south of the Tennessee/Virginia border would have to be constructed. While there are some portions of 23 that are freeway, it looks like it would take a massive undertaking to make all of 23 in Virginia an extension of Interstate 26.

Yeah the bazillion curves and undulations on 23 in VA would have to go. A lot of the exits would be no-goes as well. Probably something about how the NB vs. SB lanes are often so misaligned on the vertical plane as well. It would be a major undertaking.

It has been a while since the last time I came up from South Carolina on I-77, but the last few times I was up through there, I was stuck in traffic jams in Virginia. I don't know if that situation has improved any, but that's what I think about when people talk about I-73. It doesn't seem like a bad thing to me if those traffic jams are still a thing all the way into Wytheville. Or at least add enough Lanes to I-77 to get traffic flowing the way it should.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 14, 2025, 05:02:44 PMIt has been a while since the last time I came up from South Carolina on I-77, but the last few times I was up through there, I was stuck in traffic jams in Virginia. I don't know if that situation has improved any, but that's what I think about when people talk about I-73. It doesn't seem like a bad thing to me if those traffic jams are still a thing all the way into Wytheville. Or at least add enough Lanes to I-77 to get traffic flowing the way it should.

A proposed I-73 has zero to do with traffic along I-77 in Virginia. They serve completely separate corridors ~50 miles apart.

Quote from: Bitmapped on July 14, 2025, 09:17:58 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 14, 2025, 05:02:44 PMIt has been a while since the last time I came up from South Carolina on I-77, but the last few times I was up through there, I was stuck in traffic jams in Virginia. I don't know if that situation has improved any, but that's what I think about when people talk about I-73. It doesn't seem like a bad thing to me if those traffic jams are still a thing all the way into Wytheville. Or at least add enough Lanes to I-77 to get traffic flowing the way it should.

A proposed I-73 has zero to do with traffic along I-77 in Virginia. They serve completely separate corridors ~50 miles apart.

A completed I-73 between I-95 and I-81 would provide an alternative route for those connecting from I-95 to I-81 and vice versa. So yes, it would take traffic off of I-77.

A good amount of traffic uses I-77 to reach I-81 North, not continuing along I-77 into WV.

In the meantime, since I-73 in VA isn't getting built, what I-77 needs is truck climbing lanes in several locations.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 13, 2025, 10:45:28 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 13, 2025, 08:52:16 PMShould Ohio even be pursuing construction of Interstate 73? Michigan abandoned study on their portion of 73 in 2001. West Virginia and Virginia (mostly) have no plans to construct their portion of the Interstate. If US 23 needs upgrades, do that, but without the Interstate strings attached.

I personally don't like when things are done in a half-assed manner. I would like to see an Interstate so that it is done right.

If you think an Interstate can't be half-assed, you clearly haven't visited Oklahoma.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 14, 2025, 09:51:23 PM

Quote from: Bitmapped on July 14, 2025, 09:17:58 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 14, 2025, 05:02:44 PMIt has been a while since the last time I came up from South Carolina on I-77, but the last few times I was up through there, I was stuck in traffic jams in Virginia. I don't know if that situation has improved any, but that's what I think about when people talk about I-73. It doesn't seem like a bad thing to me if those traffic jams are still a thing all the way into Wytheville. Or at least add enough Lanes to I-77 to get traffic flowing the way it should.

A proposed I-73 has zero to do with traffic along I-77 in Virginia. They serve completely separate corridors ~50 miles apart.

A completed I-73 between I-95 and I-81 would provide an alternative route for those connecting from I-95 to I-81 and vice versa. So yes, it would take traffic off of I-77.

A good amount of traffic uses I-77 to reach I-81 North, not continuing along I-77 into WV.

In the meantime, since I-73 in VA isn't getting built, what I-77 needs is truck climbing lanes in several locations.

And then there is the congestion around Charlotte as well. I-77 didn't seem to flow very well through there. I don't think an alternate route back to Ohio is such a bad thing if it ever gets built.

Quote from: JREwing78 on July 13, 2025, 11:48:00 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 13, 2025, 08:52:16 PMShould Ohio even be pursuing construction of Interstate 73? Michigan abandoned study on their portion of 73 in 2001. West Virginia and Virginia (mostly) have no plans to construct their portion of the Interstate. If US 23 needs upgrades, do that, but without the Interstate strings attached.

Why not? Michigan won't give a s*** unless the feds want to fund reconstruction of US-23 north to Flint or building a freeway between Toledo and Jackson on their dime (or 9 cents out of said dime). But I-73's existence in Ohio doesn't need Michigan's involvement.

As long as Ohio has a logical terminus at an Interstate at each end (i-75 in Findlay and I-64 or I-77 in W Virginia), their I-73 can stand alone. It also doesn't necessarily need to encompass all of US-23 - they can shunt over to US-33 south of Columbus or US-35 SE of Chillicothe and have a logical Interstate route.

If and when Kentucky decides to make US-23 an Interstate, simply extend the I-26 routing northward towards Columbus. Extend north or west as desired along US-30, US-33, or US-35 for a logical terminus wherever.

When most people think of a highway corridor, they only think about local traffic.  By that logic, I-75 which followed U.S. 25 through Kentucky and Tennessee would have never been built based on local traffic in Kentucky and Tennessee in the 1950's and it would have been too costly as a new terrain highway that followed the ridgeline of the mountains, with expensive cut and fill and viaducts over the valleys.  But the planners of the Interstate system did not construct the system for local traffic, it was built for freight trucking from interstate commerce, not for commuting to work in your car.  In the case of U.S. 23, it is a significant traffic corridor from Columbus, through Kentucky to I-26 in South Carolina.  What most people miss is that it can become a major freight truck corridor between Ohio and the deep-sea port in Charleston South Carolina if an interstate is built, a major economic development corridor.  In addition, it is an alternative traffic corridor to I-75 that avoids Cincinnati.  Since Columbus will be an area of high public opposition, it would be better to bypass west of Columbus.  This future interstate would follow U.S. 23 from I-26 through Tennessee, Virginia, Kentucky, Huntington West Virginia, and Ohio then either following OH 73 to Wilmington Ohio, then U.S. 68 to I-75 Findlay Ohio or following U.S. 23 to U.S. 35 then somewhere between Springfield and Columbus before connecting to I-75 Findlay.  Following U.S. 33 or U.S. 30 make sense if Michigan wants the future interstate to U.S. 127 Jackson Michigan or U.S. 131 Grand Rapids Michigan.

How will future interstates be funded?  The state transportation departments and groups the  Port-to-Plains Alliance along with the Future I-69 and Future I-14 support groups (https://www.portstoplains.com/newsletter/june-2025-vol-23-issue-6/) support groups are lobbying somewhat successfully in convincing Congress to return to the "formula" funding method of guaranteed annually distribution from the Federal-Aid Highway Trust fund in the new surface transportation authorization bill ""America Builds: Highways to Move People and Freight" (https://www.congress.gov/event/119th-congress/house-event/117819)" in 2026.  Formula funding was the original method Congress used to fund and build the Interstate System from 1956 to 1996 before the 1991 ISTEA (and other highway bills) started the irregular competitive grant and loan method, which has proved disastrous to highway building.  Congress has also returned to Congressionally Directed Funding, better known as "earmarked" funding.

I've seen your maps before. That's a no-go. Greater Columbus is going to be at 3 million people in 25 years (as opposed to 2.2 million people now). It needs more highway infrastructure. They aren't building a new highway through Springfield and Dayton. Your future 63 needs to be closer to Columbus and it should be routed along US 23 south of Columbus.

http://futureinterstatecorridors.com/images/Ohio%20Future%20Interstate%20Corridors.jpg

Quote from: TempoNick on July 15, 2025, 09:07:15 AMI've seen your maps before. That's a no-go. Greater Columbus is going to be at 3 million people in 25 years (as opposed to 2.2 million people now). It needs more highway infrastructure. They aren't building a new highway through Springfield and Dayton. Your future 63 needs to be closer to Columbus and it should be routed along US 23 south of Columbus.

http://futureinterstatecorridors.com/images/Ohio%20Future%20Interstate%20Corridors.jpg

Nobody said ODOT is building any highway between Springfield and Dayton, and the map is only one route concept.   The map you referenced actually shows the route of a "new terrain" Future I-73 (or I-63) separate from U.S. 23 passing far west of Columbus between Springfield and Columbus up to U.S. 68 to avoid the guaranteed opposition to building I-73 in or around Columbus.  The fact is ODOT does not support building I-73 at all, and only plans to upgrade U.S. 23 to a "free-flow" expressway as studied in "Route 23 Connect" north of Columbus and the "Strategic Transportation & Development Analysis" study south of Columbus released in 2025.  This new feasibility study of I-73 is only being pushed by Ohio State Legislators in South Ohio and will never be built once opposition starts and ODOT shows the price is too high.  The opposition does not care that the population of Columbus will increase, they only see that Columbus has enough freeways already and building one more interstate directly to Columbus besides I-70 and I-71 will not reduce traffic, in fact it will increase it if I-73 follows I-71.  And the opposition outside around Columbus will stop even building any freeway bypass just like the proposed route in the 1990's. My prediction is this new plan will go away like it did in the 1990's as ODOT has the final say of "go of no go".

Couldn't an Interstate 73 follow the US 23 corridor from Portsmouth to Interstate 270 south of Columbus, ride the 270 beltway either east or west of Columbus, and then continue northward on the US 23/OH 15/US 68 corridor to Interstate 75? If 73 is ever built in Ohio (which still seems remote to me), I think that would be the most logical routing for the Interstate.

Any north-south interstate should follow US-35 into West Virginia to I-64, OR US-33 to I-77.

There is no reason to continue south to Portsmouth. I-73 will never exist south of I-64 in West Virginia. Follow the route that is the closest to upgraded and easiest to build, and where the traffic is currently going.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 15, 2025, 05:13:22 PMCouldn't an Interstate 73 follow the US 23 corridor from Portsmouth to Interstate 270 south of Columbus, ride the 270 beltway either east or west of Columbus, and then continue northward on the US 23/OH 15/US 68 corridor to Interstate 75? If 73 is ever built in Ohio (which still seems remote to me), I think that would be the most logical routing for the Interstate.

It could, and would make more sense, except the feasibility study directed by the Ohio Legislature is to investigate a new terrain route parallel to U.S. 23.  ODOT already investigated upgrading U.S. 23 north of Columbus to an interstate-standard freeway in the "Route 23 Connect" study and concluded the upgrade was not feasible. The best answer is it depends on exactly what alternative routes ODOT includes in the feasibility study, which has not been established whatsoever, so speculation at this time is useless.  You will have time to add your ideas when the public comment meeting are convened, so watch for them on the ODOT website some time in the future.  We will know the  exactly what alternative routes will proceed to a draft environmental study in two years.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 15, 2025, 06:03:20 PMAny north-south interstate should follow US-35 into West Virginia to I-64, OR US-33 to I-77.

There is no reason to continue south to Portsmouth. I-73 will never exist south of I-64 in West Virginia. Follow the route that is the closest to upgraded and easiest to build, and where the traffic is currently going.

The Ohio Legislature is not interested in converting U.S. 35 to Future I-73 and is determined instead that Future I-73 follow U.S. 23 and U.S. 52 to I-64 in Huntington West Virginia.  You can submit your input at the public comment meeting that will be part of the feasibility study, so keep an eye on the ODOT website when the public comment meetings are convened, probably in 2026.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 14, 2025, 03:37:50 PMWhat about the segment of US 23 in Virginia? That would be the main obstacle in extending Interstate 26 further north. Would it be difficult to upgrade that portion of US 23 to Interstate Standards? An eastern bypass of Weber City off the end of the existing US 23 alignment south of the Tennessee/Virginia border would have to be constructed. While there are some portions of 23 that are freeway, it looks like it would take a massive undertaking to make all of 23 in Virginia an extension of Interstate 26.

VA US-23 is 61.0 miles long, with 26.3 miles of new location bypasses

US-23 bypasses -- Gate City (8.9), Big Stone Gap-Appalachia (8.8), Norton-Esserville (3.0), Wise (2.9), Pound (2.7) [61.0 mi. total, 26.3 mi. byp. 33.1%]                                                       

Only in rare cases do I see the value of replacing or upgrading a high-speed rural four-lane highway with an Interstate highway.

This is not one of them.

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on July 15, 2025, 09:14:18 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 15, 2025, 06:03:20 PMAny north-south interstate should follow US-35 into West Virginia to I-64, OR US-33 to I-77.

There is no reason to continue south to Portsmouth. I-73 will never exist south of I-64 in West Virginia. Follow the route that is the closest to upgraded and easiest to build, and where the traffic is currently going.

The Ohio Legislature is not interested in converting U.S. 35 to Future I-73 and is determined instead that Future I-73 follow U.S. 23 and U.S. 52 to I-64 in Huntington West Virginia.

Why?

A routing to I-64 in Charleston, WV is around 25 miles longer following US-23 and US-52 and would require significantly more construction.

30 miles of US-23 south of Chillicothe would be need to be upgraded or relocated, much of that only 5 lanes, and at least two town bypasses around Waverly and Piketon.

The Portsmouth Bypass provides a limited access section but is substandard - although it's no different than the new I-49 in southern Missouri through the mountains with a narrow cross section so we'll assume it's up to interstate standards for the purposes of this.

South of there, US-52 is mostly limited access with long freeway portions. Some overpasses and an interchange or two may need to be built.

Then there's the challenge of crossing the Ohio River and connecting with I-64. The existing route is limited access and 4 lanes through Huntington, but you would need a second parallel Ohio River bridge or an outright 4 lane replacement.

Now, let's look at US-35. 10 miles south of Chillicothe would need upgrading, which appears mostly doable on existing location. The rest of the route? Existing or limited access with some overpasses and interchanges sporadically needed. 4 lane existing bridge over the Ohio River. And it's 25 miles shorter to I-64.

You tell me which is the better route.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 14, 2025, 03:37:50 PMWhat about the segment of US 23 in Virginia? That would be the main obstacle in extending Interstate 26 further north. Would it be difficult to upgrade that portion of US 23 to Interstate Standards? An eastern bypass of Weber City off the end of the existing US 23 alignment south of the Tennessee/Virginia border would have to be constructed. While there are some portions of 23 that are freeway, it looks like it would take a massive undertaking to make all of 23 in Virginia an extension of Interstate 26.

Granted, I only drove on it one time, but US-23 did not appear to carry nearly the level of traffic to warrant a limited access highway. Not to mention, it would be prohibitively expensive. The route exists today as a mostly 60 mph divided rural highway with limited interruption, and as Beltway mentioned above, has a good amount of limited access portions (although nowhere near interstate standards). The light amount of regional and through traffic that does use it is adequately served.

If you're going to spend a billion+ dollars improving north-south travel, widen I-77 to six lanes. Or build I-73 up to Roanoke from NC. US-23 is not anywhere close to a priority or need 50 years from now.

I will say - one area of US-23 could be improved and that's near Weber City. I could see extending I-26 into Virginia up to US-58 to bypass that strip, but US-23 becomes a 60 mph divided highway near Gate City beyond that point with only a few traffic signals the rest of the way to Kentucky.

Quote from: hbelkins on July 14, 2025, 02:05:40 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on July 13, 2025, 11:48:00 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 13, 2025, 08:52:16 PMShould Ohio even be pursuing construction of Interstate 73? Michigan abandoned study on their portion of 73 in 2001. West Virginia and Virginia (mostly) have no plans to construct their portion of the Interstate. If US 23 needs upgrades, do that, but without the Interstate strings attached.

Why not? Michigan won't give a s*** unless the feds want to fund reconstruction of US-23 north to Flint or building a freeway between Toledo and Jackson on their dime (or 9 cents out of said dime). But I-73's existence in Ohio doesn't need Michigan's involvement.

As long as Ohio has a logical terminus at an Interstate at each end (i-75 in Findlay and I-64 or I-77 in W Virginia), their I-73 can stand alone. It also doesn't necessarily need to encompass all of US-23 - they can shunt over to US-33 south of Columbus or US-35 SE of Chillicothe and have a logical Interstate route.

If and when Kentucky decides to make US-23 an Interstate, simply extend the I-26 routing northward towards Columbus. Extend north or west as desired along US-30, US-33, or US-35 for a logical terminus wherever.

Another harebrained idea. Besides the stretch through Catlettsburg/Ashland/southern Greenup County, the only problematic stretch of US 23 in Kentucky is the commercial area in northern Pike County (Coal Run Village) and southern Floyd County (Harold/Betsy Layne). An interstate through this area would be prohibitively expensive and not worth it.

The point of my statement is that Ohio doesn't need US-23 south of Columbus to be an Interstate. ONLY at the point Virginia and Kentucky want to punch I-26 northward should they consider it. (Sometimes, I post the harebraned idea to make the point.)

ODOT would be better served routing this "I-73" south of Columbus along US-33 or US-35 to connect to West Virginia. At that point, it can be like I-86 or I-88 with a state or two separating each I-73 instance. Or, each I-74 instance - because North Carolina's already twinned that designation onto I-77, and that's still the shortest path between NC and Columbus.

What number the Interstate is designated is kind of irrelevant. What's not is the need and viability of a NW to SE Interstate across Ohio linking Toledo to Columbus to Charleston, WV. 

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 15, 2025, 11:51:51 PMGranted, I only drove on it one time, but US-23 did not appear to carry nearly the level of traffic to warrant a limited access highway. Not to mention, it would be prohibitively expensive. The route exists today as a mostly 60 mph divided rural highway with limited interruption, and as Beltway mentioned above, has a good amount of limited access portions (although nowhere near interstate standards). The light amount of regional and through traffic that does use it is adequately served.

Based on what some states use for Interstate highways, two of the bypasses wouldn't take much to upgrade to Interstate standards -- Big Stone Gap-Appalachia (8.8 mi), Norton-Esserville (3.0 mi), names I used on a spreadsheet for what is actually a continuous bypass, the first being what was called the Powell Valley Relocation when it was being built in the 1980s.

Serious slope collapse problems held up completion for several years and led to building a 590 foot long viaduct near the Powell Valley Overlook.

Quote from: JREwing78 on July 16, 2025, 01:16:46 AMThe point of my statement is that Ohio doesn't need US-23 south of Columbus to be an Interstate. ONLY at the point Virginia and Kentucky want to punch I-26 northward should they consider it. (Sometimes, I post the harebraned idea to make the point.)

ODOT would be better served routing this "I-73" south of Columbus along US-33 or US-35 to connect to West Virginia. At that point, it can be like I-86 or I-88 with a state or two separating each I-73 instance. Or, each I-74 instance - because North Carolina's already twinned that designation onto I-77, and that's still the shortest path between NC and Columbus.

What number the Interstate is designated is kind of irrelevant. What's not is the need and viability of a NW to SE Interstate across Ohio linking Toledo to Columbus to Charleston, WV.

US 23 needs to be upgraded between Columbus and Chillicothe and through Waverly to connect to the bypass.

I like the idea of scrapping I-73 and treating this as five or six different projects. I would give the Ohio section the I-875/877 number.

I like the way that US 23 and US 30 are intertwined south of Chillicothe and at Upper Sandusky. No goofy configurations like at Beaverdam (I-75/US 30) or Jeffersonville (I-71/US 35).

Quote from: TempoNick on July 16, 2025, 07:49:10 AMUS 23 needs to be upgraded between Columbus and Chillicothe and through Waverly to connect to the bypass.

If you're following US-35, you don't need to bypass or upgrade Waverly. Most of US-35 southeast of Chillicothe is a 4 lane partially controlled access highway, and freeway or mostly freeway in many section.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2025, 12:05:33 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 16, 2025, 07:49:10 AMUS 23 needs to be upgraded between Columbus and Chillicothe and through Waverly to connect to the bypass.

If you're following US-35, you don't need to bypass or upgrade Waverly. Most of US-35 southeast of Chillicothe is a 4 lane partially controlled access highway, and freeway or mostly freeway in many section.

This is a key to why portions of US 23 and US 33 don't live up to the performance of US 30 and US 35: US 30 is free flowing between the IN state line and Riceland, US 35 is free flowing from Xenia to I-64. No traffic signals or stop signs on those routes, and they have the least number of problems.

23 and 33 have stop lights and 23 in particular has too many. Part of why I think sections of 23 and 33 should get freeway upgrades is because there's no other way to get free flowing corridors when intersections hve enough volume to warrant signalization.

To the point of growth: Look at Indianapolis. The most expansive side of the metro is the north side (same as Columbus). Hamilton County IN has growing at 8% annually since 2000, with a 2025 population of 371,645. Delaware County OH has growing at 8.4% annually since 2000, with a 2025 population of 231,636. 15 years ago, US 31, Keystone Pky, and SR 37 were all signalized 4 lane highways like US-23. US-31 was widened to 6 lanes and converted to interstate grade, Keystone Pky was converted to freeway, and SR 37 is in an ongoing process of freeway conversion. The interchange between US 31 and I-465 was rebuilt a decade ago and INDOT is already planning on adding lanes to the ramps. Traffic using Keystone Pky has nearly doubled since 2014. I-465 has one ongoing widening and interchange reconstruction project on the northeast side and another planned for the northwest side.

These are the steps to handling the growth Columbus will be experiencing in the next 25 years. ODOT was ahead of INDOT when it comes to I-270 vs I-465, but INDOT (and the city of Carmel) have demonstrated how these 4 lane signalized corridors should be handled. US 23 has 4 lanes and 40,000+ vpd between I-270 and Gregory. 40-50k is where we start looking to widen INTERSTATES from 4-6 lanes, let alone surface streets.

The Portsmouth bypass is a limited-access freeway but is not interstate compatible. It has one-lane terminuses that cannot be easily widened and a two-lane segment at its southern end. The freeway is pretty new (completed in 2018), so I don't foresee ODOT reconstructing the two terminuses to accommodate two lanes.

The idea of turning the "Four Lane" (US 23...or US 23/460/119/KY 80...) in KY into an Interstate is just silly given the level of traffic on it.  Serves the communities and coal traffic as intended just fine as is.  If anything, it is overbuilt with the decent-sized median.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 14, 2025, 11:42:20 AMWell, I don't agree that they are perfectly adequate,

In what manner?  They easily handle the traffic that exists and will do so for generations to come.  Some stoplight removals, such as Ohio has done near the end of Corridor D, can be done.   Stoplights are a bane on proper highway design on roads such as these.

QuoteBut there is another point here that doesn't get hit upon enough.

Interstate numbers are important to me. That means the road is of a certain quality usually. I also like the control city signing better. A control city of some import is usually listed on interstates. On lesser highways, minor stops along the road are the control cities listed. Major control cities help travelers, minor cities just confuse people from out of the area.

Spending billions of dollars so a road can have a blue and red sign rather than a black and white one is perhaps among the worst ideas.

There are places, many of them, particularly in Appalachia but also everywhere else where a logical routing, even for many 100s of miles, involves roads other than interstates.  That's OK. 

They don't get the kind of US Route signature platooning that higher-volume areas see anywhere within 5 miles of a stoplight.

Quote from: Rothman on July 16, 2025, 01:20:38 PMThe idea of turning the "Four Lane" (US 23...or US 23/460/119/KY 80...) in KY into an Interstate is just silly given the level of traffic on it.  Serves the communities and coal traffic as intended just fine as is.  If anything, it is overbuilt with the decent-sized median.

Quote from: GCrites on July 16, 2025, 01:48:45 PMThey don't get the kind of US Route signature platooning that higher-volume areas see anywhere within 5 miles of a stoplight.

Quote from: Rothman on July 16, 2025, 01:20:38 PMThe idea of turning the "Four Lane" (US 23...or US 23/460/119/KY 80...) in KY into an Interstate is just silly given the level of traffic on it.  Serves the communities and coal traffic as intended just fine as is.  If anything, it is overbuilt with the decent-sized median.

I am surprised that it is six lanes through the stoplights at Coal Run Village on the north side of the Pikeville area.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 15, 2025, 05:13:22 PMCouldn't an Interstate 73 follow the US 23 corridor ... continue northward on the US 23/OH 15/US 68 corridor to Interstate 75?

The problem with updating the US 23 corridor between I-270 and Waldo is, the current (northern) 23/270 interchange is not freeway-to-freeway.  In fact, it was recently downgraded from a cloverleaf to a parclo.  And it would not be a good idea to upgrade the interchange because of its proximity to two other freeway junctions -- I-71 to the east, and SR-315 to the west.

Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 16, 2025, 01:53:57 PM

Quote from: GCrites on July 16, 2025, 01:48:45 PMThey don't get the kind of US Route signature platooning that higher-volume areas see anywhere within 5 miles of a stoplight.

Quote from: Rothman on July 16, 2025, 01:20:38 PMThe idea of turning the "Four Lane" (US 23...or US 23/460/119/KY 80...) in KY into an Interstate is just silly given the level of traffic on it.  Serves the communities and coal traffic as intended just fine as is.  If anything, it is overbuilt with the decent-sized median.

I am surprised that it is six lanes through the stoplights at Coal Run Village on the north side of the Pikeville area.

Some of the comments being made are by individuals who have never driven through the region. However, that does not automatically render their points invalid. Corridor-level highways are essential for attracting businesses and industries, as well as for improving safety on major routes—especially those with higher-than-average accident rates.

Whether these roads should be built as full freeways or limited-access expressways is open to debate. That said, modern US 23 in Kentucky replaced a network of narrow, winding two-lane roads that passed through numerous small and medium-sized towns. Those routes were shared by passenger vehicles, commercial trucks, and coal haulers, making them among the most dangerous highways in the state. (I researched this while preparing documents for the Appalachian Regional Commission.)

In Coal Run Village, average annual daily traffic (AADT) counts exceed 30,000 vehicles per day in some sections. US 23 is the only major thoroughfare in that area, and it experiences significant congestion due to numerous side street entrances and traffic signals. Corridor-level improvements—such as the construction of frontage or backage roads, consolidation of entrances, installation of restricted crossing U-turns (RCUTs), and construction of interchanges at major junctions—would be beneficial. However, with US 460 currently receiving the bulk of transportation funding in the district, such upgrades are unlikely in the near future.

In other locations, traffic volumes alone may not support four-lane construction. Yet the presence of steep grades and heavy truck traffic could justify alternatives to a two-lane design. A similar rationale was used for the ongoing Interstate 79 widening project between Clarksburg and Morgantown. While traffic counts alone did not warrant the expansion, the persistent congestion caused by slow-moving trucks on steep inclines supported the need for additional capacity.

Quote from: seicer on July 16, 2025, 05:04:19 PMIn other locations, traffic volumes alone may not support four-lane construction. Yet the presence of steep grades and heavy truck traffic could justify alternatives to a two-lane design. A similar rationale was used for the ongoing Interstate 79 widening project between Clarksburg and Morgantown. While traffic counts alone did not warrant the expansion, the persistent congestion caused by slow-moving trucks on steep inclines supported the need for additional capacity.

This pretty much describes I-81 through Virginia in a nutshell.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2025, 05:20:57 PM

Quote from: seicer on July 16, 2025, 05:04:19 PMIn other locations, traffic volumes alone may not support four-lane construction. Yet the presence of steep grades and heavy truck traffic could justify alternatives to a two-lane design. A similar rationale was used for the ongoing Interstate 79 widening project between Clarksburg and Morgantown. While traffic counts alone did not warrant the expansion, the persistent congestion caused by slow-moving trucks on steep inclines supported the need for additional capacity.

This pretty much describes I-81 through Virginia in a nutshell.

This pretty much describes I-81 between TN I-40 and Harrisburg PA in a nutshell.

Quote from: seicer on July 16, 2025, 05:04:19 PMHowever, with US 460 currently receiving the bulk of transportation funding in the district, such upgrades are unlikely in the near future.

Same thing with US-460 in Virginia, the last segments of ADHS Corridor Q in each state.

Kentucky: US-23 to Virginia State Line
+ Total Mileage: 16.7 miles
+ Spending to Date: Approximately $700 million

Virginia: State line to existing US-460 near Grundy
+ Total Mileage: 14 miles
+ Spending to Date: Estimated at over $1 billion

Both consuming a huge amount of funding.

Quote from: vdeane on July 13, 2025, 12:17:10 PM

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on July 13, 2025, 01:48:48 AMVirginia completely cancelled the I-73 project

Why do people continue to believe this? :banghead: VA cancelled the plans to build an eastern bypass of Martinsville for I-73; they did not preclude signing I-73 along the planned Martinsville connector and existing US 220 to the west, though I still wouldn't hold my breath.

I mean, this is FutureInterstateCorridors you're talking to. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35575.msg2960128#msg2960128)

I do feel this interstate is not only feasible, but necessary, especially between Columbus and Findlay.  I don't know this for a fact as I have not traveled it, but I have heard the route from I-270 to and through Delaware is treacherous.  And Columbus has a little over 2 million and Detroit well over 4 million population (I don't have my exact figures offhand) so the demand is indubitably there.

Quote from: Beltway on July 16, 2025, 05:58:44 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2025, 05:20:57 PM

Quote from: seicer on July 16, 2025, 05:04:19 PMIn other locations, traffic volumes alone may not support four-lane construction. Yet the presence of steep grades and heavy truck traffic could justify alternatives to a two-lane design. A similar rationale was used for the ongoing Interstate 79 widening project between Clarksburg and Morgantown. While traffic counts alone did not warrant the expansion, the persistent congestion caused by slow-moving trucks on steep inclines supported the need for additional capacity.

This pretty much describes I-81 through Virginia in a nutshell.

This pretty much describes I-81 between TN I-40 and Harrisburg PA in a nutshell.

Traffic volumes alone may not justify four-lane construction on I-81?  I'd imagine it does for I-81 through most of Virginia and up to I-78.

Quote from: Rothman on July 16, 2025, 09:46:29 PM

Quote from: Beltway on July 16, 2025, 05:58:44 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2025, 05:20:57 PM

Quote from: seicer on July 16, 2025, 05:04:19 PMIn other locations, traffic volumes alone may not support four-lane construction. Yet the presence of steep grades and heavy truck traffic could justify alternatives to a two-lane design. A similar rationale was used for the ongoing Interstate 79 widening project between Clarksburg and Morgantown. While traffic counts alone did not warrant the expansion, the persistent congestion caused by slow-moving trucks on steep inclines supported the need for additional capacity.

This pretty much describes I-81 through Virginia in a nutshell.

This pretty much describes I-81 between TN I-40 and Harrisburg PA in a nutshell.

Traffic volumes alone may not justify four-lane construction on I-81?  I'd imagine it does for I-81 through most of Virginia and up to I-78.

Traffic volumes get down to around 40,000 - 45,000 AADT on a lot of I-81. On an interstate highway with level terrain and low truck volumes, this would suffice. I-64 between Richmond and Staunton is closer to these conditions and similar volumes, and rarely has any congestion issues. I wouldn't say that highway needs widening any time soon. This is a route I have driven semi-frequently, and often the difference between I-81 and I-64 on the days that I-81 gets pretty bad is night and day.

I-81 on the other hand, with similar volumes but varying grades and high truck percentages, warrants widening throughout due to those additional factors.

Quote from: Rothman on July 16, 2025, 09:46:29 PM

Quote from: Beltway on July 16, 2025, 05:58:44 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2025, 05:20:57 PM

Quote from: seicer on July 16, 2025, 05:04:19 PMIn other locations, traffic volumes alone may not support four-lane construction. Yet the presence of steep grades and heavy truck traffic could justify alternatives to a two-lane design. A similar rationale was used for the ongoing Interstate 79 widening project between Clarksburg and Morgantown. While traffic counts alone did not warrant the expansion, the persistent congestion caused by slow-moving trucks on steep inclines supported the need for additional capacity.

This pretty much describes I-81 through Virginia in a nutshell.

This pretty much describes I-81 between TN I-40 and Harrisburg PA in a nutshell.

Traffic volumes alone may not justify four-lane construction on I-81?  I'd imagine it does for I-81 through most of Virginia and up to I-78.

TN I-81 is 75 miles long and has very similar traffic patterns and volumes to the rest of I-81 up to where I-78 branches at West Jonestown PA.

Quote from: seicer on July 16, 2025, 01:10:42 PMThe Portsmouth bypass is a limited-access freeway but is not interstate compatible. It has one-lane terminuses that cannot be easily widened and a two-lane segment at its southern end. The freeway is pretty new (completed in 2018), so I don't foresee ODOT reconstructing the two terminuses to accommodate two lanes.

Asides from the one lane endings, the rest of the highway would likely pass.

Missouri recently opened a new segment of I-49 between the Arkansas state line and Pineville, MO and has a very similiar cross section, through similar terrain: Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5084863,-94.387266,3a,40.3y,340.31h,81.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfLcXRVueFzyd6n2Mf5nkhQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D8.839304964197822%26panoid%3DfLcXRVueFzyd6n2Mf5nkhQ%26yaw%3D340.31285387665906!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDcxMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)

With that being said, I do not think this should be apart of any major interstate highway corridor as I've mentioned above. But I just wanted to point this out.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2025, 10:00:08 PM

Quote from: Rothman on July 16, 2025, 09:46:29 PM

Quote from: Beltway on July 16, 2025, 05:58:44 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2025, 05:20:57 PM

Quote from: seicer on July 16, 2025, 05:04:19 PMIn other locations, traffic volumes alone may not support four-lane construction. Yet the presence of steep grades and heavy truck traffic could justify alternatives to a two-lane design. A similar rationale was used for the ongoing Interstate 79 widening project between Clarksburg and Morgantown. While traffic counts alone did not warrant the expansion, the persistent congestion caused by slow-moving trucks on steep inclines supported the need for additional capacity.

This pretty much describes I-81 through Virginia in a nutshell.

This pretty much describes I-81 between TN I-40 and Harrisburg PA in a nutshell.

Traffic volumes alone may not justify four-lane construction on I-81?  I'd imagine it does for I-81 through most of Virginia and up to I-78.

Traffic volumes get down to around 40,000 - 45,000 AADT on a lot of I-81. On an interstate highway with level terrain and low truck volumes, this would suffice. I-64 between Richmond and Staunton is closer to these conditions and similar volumes, and rarely has any congestion issues. I wouldn't say that highway needs widening any time soon. This is a route I have driven semi-frequently, and often the difference between I-81 and I-64 on the days that I-81 gets pretty bad is night and day.

I-81 on the other hand, with similar volumes but varying grades and high truck percentages, warrants widening throughout due to those additional factors.

I posted too quickly.  Was thinking about four total lanes rather than four in a single direction.

Maybe I'm posting too quickly again.

I don't care.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2025, 10:00:08 PMTraffic volumes get down to around 40,000 - 45,000 AADT on a lot of I-81. On an interstate highway with level terrain and low truck volumes, this would suffice. I-64 between Richmond and Staunton is closer to these conditions and similar volumes, and rarely has any congestion issues. I wouldn't say that highway needs widening any time soon. This is a route I have driven semi-frequently, and often the difference between I-81 and I-64 on the days that I-81 gets pretty bad is night and day.

I-64 between Staunton and Charlottesville has those volumes and is nearing six-lane warrants, and has the Afton Mountain grades, but I-64 between Charlottesville and Oilville (about 45 miles) is mostly in the low- to mid-30,000s and operates fine with four lanes (two each way). Then a few miles east of Oilville the highway opens up to six lanes (three each way) with that or more the rest of the way to Richmond.

Quote from: Beltway on July 16, 2025, 10:09:59 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2025, 10:00:08 PMTraffic volumes get down to around 40,000 - 45,000 AADT on a lot of I-81. On an interstate highway with level terrain and low truck volumes, this would suffice. I-64 between Richmond and Staunton is closer to these conditions and similar volumes, and rarely has any congestion issues. I wouldn't say that highway needs widening any time soon. This is a route I have driven semi-frequently, and often the difference between I-81 and I-64 on the days that I-81 gets pretty bad is night and day.

I-64 between Staunton and Charlottesville has those volumes and is nearing six-lane warrants, and has the Afton Mountain grades, but I-64 between Charlottesville and Oilville (about 45 miles) is mostly in the low- to mid-30,000s and operates fine with four lanes (two each way). Then a few miles east of Oilville the highway opens up to six lanes (three each way) with that or more the rest of the way to Richmond.

Afton Mountain definitely needs to at least have climbing lanes for the up-hill portions, and ideally six lanes through the whole thing, but I feel like the rest between Charlottesville and Staunton is okay for a while. With limited budget and priority for I-81 though, we likely won't be seeing much improvements coming to I-64 anytime soon, and it will be fine for a while.

Quote from: hbelkins on July 13, 2025, 06:14:30 PMTotal waste of money. The only jam points on existing US 23/OH 15 is north of I-270 extending to Delaware, and in the Waverly area south of Chillicothe. The route would no doubt follow the Portsmouth bypass from Lucasville to Wheelersburg, which wasn't built to full modern interstate standards (minimal inside shoulders against the barrier wall).

The feasibility study is likely to agree with your assessment as ODOT and the Ohio Turnpike Commission concluded in the 1990's.  But local politicians in Southeast Ohio are ignoring this history and don't care about the public opposition that will grow as it did back then.  All the speculation that ODOT is going to route I-73 along U.S. 35 or U.S. 33 is never going to happen.  ODOT is already upgrading U.S. 23 south of Columbus and U.S. 33 to the Ohio River to complete the corridor to I-77, and only want to spend funds on these projects along with the "Route 23 Connect" project north of Columbus.  ODOT is only going through the motions to satisfy the State Legislature's direction, and knows full well that the new terrain I-73 will fail the feasibility study because of cost and low traffic counts along U.S. 23 south of Columbus.  ODOT also has no intention to shorten the environmental study phase either and is required to conduct a full study with another feasibility study for the FHWA and a draft environmental study and full environmental study as required for a new interstate highway facility under NEPA laws or else open itself and the FWHA to environmental lawsuits for no good reasons.  Future I-73 is not the high priority like the I-75 Brent Spence Bridge.

Can Future I-73 be built as envisioned by the Ohio State Legislature?  The answer is yes.  The legislature simply has to fund the construction 100% from the state budget, all $6B.  It can do this anytime it wants, and there is no requirement to follow NEPA studies, just build it as an interstate-standard freeway and request the interstate number I-73 from the AASHTO.  It doesn't matter if it's unfeasible and one car drives along the thing every two minutes, the state can spend Ohio taxpayer money on it all it wants, just not the Federal taxpayers of every other state.  But it's about getting the Federal government to pay for the internal "wishlist" of a few Ohio Legislators.  It is always funny to read all the fantasy "wishlist" routes of Future I-73, not seeming to get the point that the concept of I-73 was always a fantasy waste of time and money.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2025, 12:05:33 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 16, 2025, 07:49:10 AMUS 23 needs to be upgraded between Columbus and Chillicothe and through Waverly to connect to the bypass.

If you're following US-35, you don't need to bypass or upgrade Waverly. Most of US-35 southeast of Chillicothe is a 4 lane partially controlled access highway, and freeway or mostly freeway in many section.

I guess what I was trying to say is that if you wanted to use the original proposal, you have a lot of work to do between Chillicothe and the bypass versus US 35 being a pretty nice highway, at least until you get to Jackson.

Quote from: Daniel Fiddler on July 16, 2025, 09:14:22 PMI do feel this interstate is not only feasible, but necessary, especially between Columbus and Findlay.  I don't know this for a fact as I have not traveled it, but I have heard the route from I-270 to and through Delaware is treacherous.  And Columbus has a little over 2 million and Detroit well over 4 million population (I don't have my exact figures offhand) so the demand is indubitably there.

Metro Columbus is somewhere between 2.2 million and 2.3 million. Credible estimates say that we will be at 3 million in 25 years. And by "credible," I mean that they have been pretty much on the money in the past.

I-875 between Columbus and Findlay; I-677 between Columbus and I-77.

Quote from: Beltway on July 16, 2025, 05:58:44 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2025, 05:20:57 PM

Quote from: seicer on July 16, 2025, 05:04:19 PMIn other locations, traffic volumes alone may not support four-lane construction. Yet the presence of steep grades and heavy truck traffic could justify alternatives to a two-lane design. A similar rationale was used for the ongoing Interstate 79 widening project between Clarksburg and Morgantown. While traffic counts alone did not warrant the expansion, the persistent congestion caused by slow-moving trucks on steep inclines supported the need for additional capacity.

This pretty much describes I-81 through Virginia in a nutshell.

This pretty much describes I-81 between TN I-40 and Harrisburg PA in a nutshell.

I agree. It doesn't always take steep grades to create problems. Interstates 81 and 40 through the Shenandoah Valley, for example, don't have particularly steep climbs, but the long, gradual inclines are enough to slow trucks significantly. When a truck gets caught in the left lane and can't safely merge back over—often because the right lane is already congested—it can lead to substantial backups. It's easy to say that left-lane blockers should be ticketed, but in many of these cases, it's not intentional. The conditions simply don't allow for a safe lane change.

If we look at Rothman's state of New York, we can see similar corridor-level justifications for improvements of highways, too. It's not just a West Virginia or Kentucky or Ohio thing. NY Route 17 has been incrementally upgraded across the Southern Tier and Catskills since the 1940s, from improved two-lane roads that became expressways that became freeways. And it spurred a lot of economic development along its path, cut travel times drastically, and made it easier to be more mobile in a region that had few through routes.

Quote from: seicer on July 17, 2025, 11:02:06 AM

Quote from: Beltway on July 16, 2025, 05:58:44 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2025, 05:20:57 PM

Quote from: seicer on July 16, 2025, 05:04:19 PMIn other locations, traffic volumes alone may not support four-lane construction. Yet the presence of steep grades and heavy truck traffic could justify alternatives to a two-lane design. A similar rationale was used for the ongoing Interstate 79 widening project between Clarksburg and Morgantown. While traffic counts alone did not warrant the expansion, the persistent congestion caused by slow-moving trucks on steep inclines supported the need for additional capacity.

This pretty much describes I-81 through Virginia in a nutshell.

This pretty much describes I-81 between TN I-40 and Harrisburg PA in a nutshell.

I agree. It doesn't always take steep grades to create problems. Interstates 81 and 40 through the Shenandoah Valley, for example, don't have particularly steep climbs, but the long, gradual inclines are enough to slow trucks significantly. When a truck gets caught in the left lane and can't safely merge back over—often because the right lane is already congested—it can lead to substantial backups. It's easy to say that left-lane blockers should be ticketed, but in many of these cases, it's not intentional. The conditions simply don't allow for a safe lane change.

The only real grades on I-81 in Tennessee are near Kingsport at the Holston River crossing.

Virginia handles the grades in the Marion area, which don't seem all that steep but do cause truck slowdowns, by posting regulatory signs saying that trucks operating under the speed limit (used to be 65 mph, but the signs were patched to read 70 mph) must use the right lane. This is a (futile, in my experience) attempt to eliminate micropassing.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2025, 10:03:50 PMAsides from the one lane endings, the rest of the highway would likely pass.

Quite a few interstates have one lane transitions to another highway so I don't see what the big deal is. OH 823 would be fine as part of an interstate. Might have to be 60 mph, though.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 17, 2025, 03:10:41 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2025, 10:03:50 PMAsides from the one lane endings, the rest of the highway would likely pass.

Quite a few interstates have one lane transitions to another highway so I don't see what the big deal is.

Well yes, but this wouldn't be a transition to another highway. This would be staying on the same highway, I-73 in this instance.

QuoteMight have to be 60 mph, though.

Why? It's posted at 70 mph today.

Quote from: hbelkins on July 17, 2025, 03:00:40 PMThe only real grades on I-81 in Tennessee are near Kingsport at the Holston River crossing.
Virginia handles the grades in the Marion area, which don't seem all that steep but do cause truck slowdowns, by posting regulatory signs saying that trucks operating under the speed limit (used to be 65 mph, but the signs were patched to read 70 mph) must use the right lane. This is a (futile, in my experience) attempt to eliminate micropassing.

But at least it tells them to try -- much better than having no such rule.

Even fairly level highways like I-65 Indy-NW Indiana are plagued  by not having such a rule.

Indiana also still has split speed limits -- trucks over 26,000 lbs are limited to 65 mph on rural interstates, while passenger vehicles may go up to 70 mph.

Quote from: seicer on July 17, 2025, 11:02:06 AM

Quote from: Beltway on July 16, 2025, 05:58:44 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2025, 05:20:57 PM

Quote from: seicer on July 16, 2025, 05:04:19 PMIn other locations, traffic volumes alone may not support four-lane construction. Yet the presence of steep grades and heavy truck traffic could justify alternatives to a two-lane design. A similar rationale was used for the ongoing Interstate 79 widening project between Clarksburg and Morgantown. While traffic counts alone did not warrant the expansion, the persistent congestion caused by slow-moving trucks on steep inclines supported the need for additional capacity.

This pretty much describes I-81 through Virginia in a nutshell.

This pretty much describes I-81 between TN I-40 and Harrisburg PA in a nutshell.

I agree. It doesn't always take steep grades to create problems. Interstates 81 and 40 through the Shenandoah Valley, for example, don't have particularly steep climbs, but the long, gradual inclines are enough to slow trucks significantly. When a truck gets caught in the left lane and can't safely merge back over—often because the right lane is already congested—it can lead to substantial backups. It's easy to say that left-lane blockers should be ticketed, but in many of these cases, it's not intentional. The conditions simply don't allow for a safe lane change.

If we look at Rothman's state of New York, we can see similar corridor-level justifications for improvements of highways, too. It's not just a West Virginia or Kentucky or Ohio thing. NY Route 17 has been incrementally upgraded across the Southern Tier and Catskills since the 1940s, from improved two-lane roads that became expressways that became freeways. And it spurred a lot of economic development along its path, cut travel times drastically, and made it easier to be more mobile in a region that had few through routes.

And yet, a former NYSDOT commissioner traveling through Parksville during its construction blurted out rhetorically, "Why are we doing this?"

Took a long time before NYSDOT touched NY 17 again.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Quote from: Beltway on July 17, 2025, 05:12:03 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on July 17, 2025, 03:00:40 PMThe only real grades on I-81 in Tennessee are near Kingsport at the Holston River crossing.
Virginia handles the grades in the Marion area, which don't seem all that steep but do cause truck slowdowns, by posting regulatory signs saying that trucks operating under the speed limit (used to be 65 mph, but the signs were patched to read 70 mph) must use the right lane. This is a (futile, in my experience) attempt to eliminate micropassing.

But at least it tells them to try -- much better than having no such rule.

Even fairly level highways like I-65 Indy-NW Indiana are plagued  by not having such a rule.

Indiana also still has split speed limits -- trucks over 26,000 lbs are limited to 65 mph on rural interstates, while passenger vehicles may go up to 70 mph.

Those signs also exist on basically the entirety of I-77 south of I-81 to the NC border, and they are essentially ignored by truckers.

Between the micropassing truckers (and larger than normal quantities of them as it's the oversized load detour for I-40), aggressive speed enforcement around Hillsville, and often treacherous weather conditions through the Fancy Gap grade, I-77 is often a miserable drive south of I-81 in Virginia.  It needs to be either 6-8 lanes in its entirety (down to the I-74 split in NC), or needs a relief route.  Like an I-73 or I-74.

Quote from: wriddle082 on July 17, 2025, 06:06:43 PM

Quote from: Beltway on July 17, 2025, 05:12:03 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on July 17, 2025, 03:00:40 PMThe only real grades on I-81 in Tennessee are near Kingsport at the Holston River crossing.
Virginia handles the grades in the Marion area, which don't seem all that steep but do cause truck slowdowns, by posting regulatory signs saying that trucks operating under the speed limit (used to be 65 mph, but the signs were patched to read 70 mph) must use the right lane. This is a (futile, in my experience) attempt to eliminate micropassing.

But at least it tells them to try -- much better than having no such rule.

Even fairly level highways like I-65 Indy-NW Indiana are plagued  by not having such a rule.

Indiana also still has split speed limits -- trucks over 26,000 lbs are limited to 65 mph on rural interstates, while passenger vehicles may go up to 70 mph.

Those signs also exist on basically the entirety of I-77 south of I-81 to the NC border, and they are essentially ignored by truckers.

Between the micropassing truckers (and larger than normal quantities of them as it's the oversized load detour for I-40), aggressive speed enforcement around Hillsville, and often treacherous weather conditions through the Fancy Gap grade, I-77 is often a miserable drive south of I-81 in Virginia.  It needs to be either 6-8 lanes in its entirety (down to the I-74 split in NC), or needs a relief route.  Like an I-73 or I-74.

At a minimum, it needs climbing lanes throughout in both directions on the uphills. One exists northbound over Fancy Gap, but that's not nearly enough.

The slow moving trucks are frustrating on this stretch, and often quickly backs up traffic and creates a sea of brake lights for miles.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2025, 06:12:51 PM

Quote from: wriddle082 on July 17, 2025, 06:06:43 PM

Quote from: Beltway on July 17, 2025, 05:12:03 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on July 17, 2025, 03:00:40 PMThe only real grades on I-81 in Tennessee are near Kingsport at the Holston River crossing.
Virginia handles the grades in the Marion area, which don't seem all that steep but do cause truck slowdowns, by posting regulatory signs saying that trucks operating under the speed limit (used to be 65 mph, but the signs were patched to read 70 mph) must use the right lane. This is a (futile, in my experience) attempt to eliminate micropassing.

But at least it tells them to try -- much better than having no such rule.

Even fairly level highways like I-65 Indy-NW Indiana are plagued  by not having such a rule.

Indiana also still has split speed limits -- trucks over 26,000 lbs are limited to 65 mph on rural interstates, while passenger vehicles may go up to 70 mph.

Those signs also exist on basically the entirety of I-77 south of I-81 to the NC border, and they are essentially ignored by truckers.

Between the micropassing truckers (and larger than normal quantities of them as it's the oversized load detour for I-40), aggressive speed enforcement around Hillsville, and often treacherous weather conditions through the Fancy Gap grade, I-77 is often a miserable drive south of I-81 in Virginia.  It needs to be either 6-8 lanes in its entirety (down to the I-74 split in NC), or needs a relief route.  Like an I-73 or I-74.

At a minimum, it needs climbing lanes throughout in both directions on the uphills. One exists northbound over Fancy Gap, but that's not nearly enough.

The slow moving trucks are frustrating on this stretch, and often quickly backs up traffic and creates a sea of brake lights for miles.

If only Virginia was as crackdown-vigilant with left-lane slowpokes as it is with (gasp) radar detectors.

Quote from: wriddle082 on July 17, 2025, 06:06:43 PM

Quote from: Beltway on July 17, 2025, 05:12:03 PMBut at least it tells them to try -- much better than having no such rule.
Even fairly level highways like I-65 Indy-NW Indiana are plagued  by not having such a rule.
Indiana also still has split speed limits -- trucks over 26,000 lbs are limited to 65 mph on rural interstates, while passenger vehicles may go up to 70 mph.

Those signs also exist on basically the entirety of I-77 south of I-81 to the NC border, and they are essentially ignored by truckers.
Between the micropassing truckers (and larger than normal quantities of them as it's the oversized load detour for I-40), aggressive speed enforcement around Hillsville, and often treacherous weather conditions through the Fancy Gap grade, I-77 is often a miserable drive south of I-81 in Virginia.  It needs to be either 6-8 lanes in its entirety (down to the I-74 split in NC), or needs a relief route.  Like an I-73 or I-74.

My experiences have been quite a bit better but . . .

AADT south of I-81 to THS is in the 27,000 to 31,000 range, large truck % in the 25 to 28 range, edging to or near six-lane warrants. The 2002 rebuilt New River Bridge has a future lane on each bridge in addition to the two current lanes.

AADT north of I-81 to WV is in the 38,000 to 43,000 range, large truck % in the 25 to 28 range, definitely six-lane (three each way) warrants.

Not sure how they will handle the two tunnels, though. Probably a pair of new 2-lane tubes for each.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2025, 03:58:44 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 17, 2025, 03:10:41 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2025, 10:03:50 PMAsides from the one lane endings, the rest of the highway would likely pass.

Quite a few interstates have one lane transitions to another highway so I don't see what the big deal is.

Well yes, but this wouldn't be a transition to another highway. This would be staying on the same highway, I-73 in this instance.

QuoteMight have to be 60 mph, though.

Why? It's posted at 70 mph today.

I've seen one lane transitions to the same highway as well. Heck, Columbus had one from the east freeway, to continue on I-70.

But if you are talking about US 23 South to 823, I imagine that can get rebuilt. I never understood why they did things that way in the first place. I always thought it should be two continuous lanes, with maybe an "exit" lane to continue on to US 23, kind of like what you see on the 161 freeway near Sunbury Rd. where the left lane continues on to 161 and the right two or three lanes "exit" to I-270.

It seems like rougher terrain at the end of 823, however. Maybe that would not be such an easy task.

As to the speed limit, it may be 70 today, but I'm imagining a lot more congestion and truck traffic as an interstate. The way that highway is situated, could it handle high speeds with increased traffic?

Quote from: TempoNick on July 18, 2025, 11:36:37 AMAs to the speed limit, it may be 70 today, but I'm imagining a lot more congestion and truck traffic as an interstate. The way that highway is situated, could it handle high speeds with increased traffic?

Even if it were to be redesignated as part of an Ohio I-73, the SR 823 Portsmouth Bypass is unlikely to see a significant increase in traffic. WV isn't building I-73/I-74 as a freeway, and it's unlikely to be completed as 4-lane US 52 for decades if ever. The most might happen is a dualized West Huntington Bridge because the current two-lane one is carrying 23K vehicles per day.

That means you're left with the traffic coming up US 23 in Kentucky now or from the Huntington area, and all that is already using SR 823. Traffic coming up I-77 is still going to take US 33 or US 35, which are both about 25 miles shorter. Travel time along on a freeway I-73 corridor isn't going to be that much improved over US 23 that's there now to draw a significant amount of traffic from TN and south over to US 23 that wasn't already going that way.

Quote from: Bitmapped on July 18, 2025, 12:53:05 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 18, 2025, 11:36:37 AMAs to the speed limit, it may be 70 today, but I'm imagining a lot more congestion and truck traffic as an interstate. The way that highway is situated, could it handle high speeds with increased traffic?

Even if it were to be redesignated as part of an Ohio I-73, the SR 823 Portsmouth Bypass is unlikely to see a significant increase in traffic. WV isn't building I-73/I-74 as a freeway, and it's unlikely to be completed as 4-lane US 52 for decades if ever. The most might happen is a dualized West Huntington Bridge because the current two-lane one is carrying 23K vehicles per day.

That means you're left with the traffic coming up US 23 in Kentucky now or from the Huntington area, and all that is already using SR 823. Traffic coming up I-77 is still going to take US 33 or US 35, which are both about 25 miles shorter. Travel time along on a freeway I-73 corridor isn't going to be that much improved over US 23 that's there now to draw a significant amount of traffic from TN and south over to US 23 that wasn't already going that way.

I've never taken US 23 south of Portsmouth so I don't know what the condition of the road is. I would like to see it upgraded between South Columbus and 823. Whether it's an interstate or not, I guess it's not a big deal, but I still like the idea of a road network that fits logically together.

I've said this over and over again, but I don't think people in these pages appreciate things from the standpoint of the out of area traveler. Anything with a US or state route number is a mixed bag. It could be an easy trip, or could be a harrowing experience. You don't know what you're getting into unless you have local knowledge and experience driving that road.

When something has an Interstate designation, you know generally that you are on a pretty good road. You might encounter some localized congestion, but for the most part it's an easy drive.

That's why I like the idea of extending Interstate 26 somebody posted here.

Quote from: Bitmapped on July 18, 2025, 12:53:05 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 18, 2025, 11:36:37 AMAs to the speed limit, it may be 70 today, but I'm imagining a lot more congestion and truck traffic as an interstate. The way that highway is situated, could it handle high speeds with increased traffic?

Even if it were to be redesignated as part of an Ohio I-73, the SR 823 Portsmouth Bypass is unlikely to see a significant increase in traffic. WV isn't building I-73/I-74 as a freeway, and it's unlikely to be completed as 4-lane US 52 for decades if ever. The most might happen is a dualized West Huntington Bridge because the current two-lane one is carrying 23K vehicles per day.

That means you're left with the traffic coming up US 23 in Kentucky now or from the Huntington area, and all that is already using SR 823. Traffic coming up I-77 is still going to take US 33 or US 35, which are both about 25 miles shorter. Travel time along on a freeway I-73 corridor isn't going to be that much improved over US 23 that's there now to draw a significant amount of traffic from TN and south over to US 23 that wasn't already going that way.

A lot of the traffic is still going to Portsmouth. The bypass got the semis off of 23/52 in the city where they were really lugging around town then ruining the neighborhoods east of 23 on 52. Those neighborhoods are still in bad shape years afterward. They should probably go back to 2-way operation on 52 in town to make them better places to live. The bypass also got semis and even cars looking for a shortcut off of Rosemount Hill and OH-139. Was it worth $800 million? That's debatable.

One of my first memories of Portsmouth as a new resident 26 years ago was seeing two old worn-out cabover semis working really hard and blowing tons of smoke heading east on 52 having to stop at every traffic light.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 18, 2025, 04:33:12 PM

Quote from: Bitmapped on July 18, 2025, 12:53:05 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 18, 2025, 11:36:37 AMAs to the speed limit, it may be 70 today, but I'm imagining a lot more congestion and truck traffic as an interstate. The way that highway is situated, could it handle high speeds with increased traffic?

Even if it were to be redesignated as part of an Ohio I-73, the SR 823 Portsmouth Bypass is unlikely to see a significant increase in traffic. WV isn't building I-73/I-74 as a freeway, and it's unlikely to be completed as 4-lane US 52 for decades if ever. The most might happen is a dualized West Huntington Bridge because the current two-lane one is carrying 23K vehicles per day.

That means you're left with the traffic coming up US 23 in Kentucky now or from the Huntington area, and all that is already using SR 823. Traffic coming up I-77 is still going to take US 33 or US 35, which are both about 25 miles shorter. Travel time along on a freeway I-73 corridor isn't going to be that much improved over US 23 that's there now to draw a significant amount of traffic from TN and south over to US 23 that wasn't already going that way.

I've never taken US 23 south of Portsmouth so I don't know what the condition of the road is. I would like to see it upgraded between South Columbus and 823. Whether it's an interstate or not, I guess it's not a big deal, but I still like the idea of a road network that fits logically together.

I've said this over and over again, but I don't think people in these pages appreciate things from the standpoint of the out of area traveler. Anything with a US or state route number is a mixed bag. It could be an easy trip, or could be a harrowing experience. You don't know what you're getting into unless you have local knowledge and experience driving that road.

When something has an Interstate designation, you know generally that you are on a pretty good road. You might encounter some localized congestion, but for the most part it's an easy drive.

That's why I like the idea of extending Interstate 26 somebody posted here.

There are only two real "camps" of thought when it comes to this second feasibility study of Future I-73.  One is the Ohio State Legislature that believes the 1991 ISTEA proposal for the I-73/I-74 North-South Corridor is viable and the other is the Ohio Department of Transportation that only plans to upgrade U.S. 23 to a combination of non-interstate-standard freeways and "free-flow" expressways depending on traffic conditions and the need for interchanges without the high cost and long drawn out environmental study process to upgrade U.S. 23, OH 823, and U.S. 52 to an interstate-standard freeway.  The fact is Congress authorized every state transportation department to build Future I-73 and make funding requests to the Federal Highway Adminstration for the last 34 years.  By Federal law only the state transportation departments can request the money, and if they did not, either the state did not have the money for its cost share or the tranportation department did not want to build it.  The only part the state legislature plays is to provide the state transportation department the state's cost share.  The only state transportation department that did this was North Carolina and none of the others bothered because they had no intention to build Future I-73.  The Ohio Legislature wants to refight the battle of getting all the states transportation departments from Michigan to South Carolina to commit to building Future I-73, which they already have said "not interested".

As far as building a future interstate from Ohio to I-26 in Tennessee and South Carolina, Congress needs to create a new high-priority corridor and designate it as a future interstate in the next surface transportation authorization underway in Congress for 2026.  Another fact is U.S. 23 is Corridor B and Corridor C in the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) from I-40 Asheville North Carolina to I-270 Columbus Ohio.   The ADHS is unique in the Federal highway system because Congress has made corridors eligible for 100% Federal funding and can do this in the next transportation authorization bill.  The old 1991 ISTED I-73 concept route was not eligible.  Since I-73 exists in North Carolina, if you want this new corridor to become Future I-73, AASHTO should decommission I-73 in North Carolina.  Otherwise, the new corridor needs the "next" available north-south interstate number of Future I-63 or Future I-67 to avoid a duplicating I-73.  Likewise, I-26 should be decommissioned and changed to I-63 or I-67 to Charleston South Carolina to eliminate confusion for drivers.

First, this conversation needs merged into the I-73 updates thread. Mods, I think we could also merge the "US 23 Through Central Ohio" there as well. While that conversation mostly stayed away from I-73, it would provide additional context to help the thread as a whole.

Regarding the Legislature, the flex in power comes from a large contingent of legislative leadership (both houses, both parties) representing places along the US 23 corridor, especially Northwest Ohio, who are tired of the status quo on 23, along with their constituents. The House Speaker's district (former Senate President) stretches up to Bluffton, the new House Finance Chair represents Circleville, and one of the majority whips is from Upper Sandusky. The current Senate President represents areas west of Findlay and Toledo, while other members of the Republican (supermajority) leadership are from Tiffin and Bowling Green.

About the pull of legislators from Southern Ohio: 2 years ago, the former Speaker got the Chesapeake Bypass revived, while the House Finance Chair (from Nelsonville) got the US 33 expansion. They also restarted the I-73 discussion using the transportation budget. It is no surprise that the US 23 corridor is the focus of the current legislature because of where the leadership calls home.

Without discussing any proposed routings, I think the policy decision to create an expressway-level corridor from Toledo to the Portsmouth area using Columbus is the right one, and the studies are worth the time and money. The corridor will be very expensive and done in a piecemeal fashion, but I think including the Turnpike Commission on the 23-71 Connector (ORC 755.60) study is a sign indicating that segment will happen as a tolled facility in northern Delaware County or southern Morrow County sooner than later. Hopefully, a bypass of South Bloomfield will be second on the project list. :D

There was no extra federal funding allocated for construction of I-73, so it was not just a matter of states requesting funding for it (Future-whatzit dude).  It is little surprise, then, that progress has not been made quickly, as funding had to be found within the states' own existing apportionments, competing against every other federal-aid project (probably with NHPP funding).

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on July 19, 2025, 02:04:11 AMThe fact is Congress authorized every state transportation department to build Future I-73 and make funding requests to the Federal Highway Adminstration for the last 34 years.  By Federal law only the state transportation departments can request the money, and if they did not, either the state did not have the money for its cost share or the tranportation department did not want to build it. 

This is a fiction. ODOT is no different than any administrative agency. The legislature can overrule ODOT whenever it wants and direct that it do something. Obviously, there's a strong feeling building about I-73 that the legislature is going to force the issue before long.

As I've mentioned before, we've had better projects and more long-term thinking when politicians were running the show instead of the so-called professionals. George Voinovich's regime was rebuilding highway overpasses with an additional lane, foreseeing future highway expansion. He built US 33 in a way to make it easy to four lane it. He built Ohio 161. The so-called professionals are basically doing grade school band-aid fixes, doing everything piecemeal. Small ball thinking. I think that's why the legislature is stepping in.

As to the naming, I don't care what you call it. Give It whatever Interstate number you want. I just agree with what I read elsewhere that I-73 really should be cut up into five or six different projects instead of a single project and that makes a lot of sense.

-Findlay to Ravenswood, West Virginia makes sense. That can be I-73 or give it a three-digit number, later extended up to the Canadian border.

-At the time Michigan bailed on I-73, it was because Ohio bailed first. There's no sense in having an orphan I-73 if it doesn't connect to anything.

-The southern leg of US 23 from Columbus to at least Chillicothe, makes sense as well. If it ends up becoming I-26, that's great as well.

I like this for another reason. We've got too many Interstate highways numbered in the 70s around here. A highway with the number 26 would stand out, as stupid as that sounds.

-Whatever happens in the Carolinas sounds like it can be a different project. Give it a different number? Extend 26 into Michigan?

-if Ohio is eligible for 100% funding for Appalachian expressways then I don't know what the problem is. We have a vice president sympathetic to Appalachia from our state. If he can't get it done, nobody can. For all the money they've been dumping into Ukraine, that highway could have been fixed 20 times over

US-23 is not getting upgraded through Virginia and Kentucky.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: 63 is another number that could easily become available in Ohio, West Virginia, and Michigan depending on future needs or desires.

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on July 19, 2025, 02:04:11 AMThe fact is Congress authorized every state transportation department to build Future I-73 and make funding requests to the Federal Highway Adminstration for the last 34 years.  By Federal law only the state transportation departments can request the money, and if they did not, either the state did not have the money for its cost share or the tranportation department did not want to build it.

There is no special separate money for future interstate corridors (such as I-73) like there was for the initial construction of the system.  If there was, we'd see a lot more of them being built.  Instead, states have to use money from their regular federal apportionment, meaning that it is competing with regular road/bridge projects on the existing system.

Quote from: carbaugh2 on July 19, 2025, 09:22:11 AMFirst, this conversation needs merged into the I-73 updates thread. Mods, I think we could also merge the "US 23 Through Central Ohio" there as well. While that conversation mostly stayed away from I-73, it would provide additional context to help the thread as a whole.

Honestly, with how this thread has gone, moving it to the Fictional forum would probably be the best fit.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 19, 2025, 11:17:36 AM-if Ohio is eligible for 100% funding for Appalachian expressways then I don't know what the problem is. We have a vice president sympathetic to Appalachia from our state. If he can't get it done, nobody can. For all the money they've been dumping into Ukraine, that highway could have been fixed 20 times over

The only thing from the ADHS left incomplete in Ohio is 7.1 miles on US 23. Everything else is done. ODOT can only get ADHS funding for the incomplete part, and while the feds won't require a state match for that work, it comes out of the same pool of federal dollars as every other project. Money spent on this can't be used on other projects that are a higher priority.

Quote from: vdeane on July 19, 2025, 04:38:06 PM

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on July 19, 2025, 02:04:11 AMThe fact is Congress authorized every state transportation department to build Future I-73 and make funding requests to the Federal Highway Adminstration for the last 34 years.  By Federal law only the state transportation departments can request the money, and if they did not, either the state did not have the money for its cost share or the tranportation department did not want to build it.

There is no special separate money for future interstate corridors (such as I-73) like there was for the initial construction of the system.  If there was, we'd see a lot more of them being built.  Instead, states have to use money from their regular federal apportionment, meaning that it is competing with regular road/bridge projects on the existing system.

Quote from: carbaugh2 on July 19, 2025, 09:22:11 AMFirst, this conversation needs merged into the I-73 updates thread. Mods, I think we could also merge the "US 23 Through Central Ohio" there as well. While that conversation mostly stayed away from I-73, it would provide additional context to help the thread as a whole.

Honestly, with how this thread has gone, moving it to the Fictional forum would probably be the best fit.

The real issue here is that FutureInterstateCorridors was told to stop bumping old threads a grand total of one time after they had bumped a 15-year-old thread with 6-year-old information, so now they are under the impression that adding relevant content to any thread older than 120 days is frowned upon.

Quote from: vdeane on July 19, 2025, 04:38:06 PM

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on July 19, 2025, 02:04:11 AMThe fact is Congress authorized every state transportation department to build Future I-73 and make funding requests to the Federal Highway Adminstration for the last 34 years.  By Federal law only the state transportation departments can request the money, and if they did not, either the state did not have the money for its cost share or the tranportation department did not want to build it.

There is no special separate money for future interstate corridors (such as I-73) like there was for the initial construction of the system.  If there was, we'd see a lot more of them being built.  Instead, states have to use money from their regular federal apportionment, meaning that it is competing with regular road/bridge projects on the existing system.

^5 for the echo!

Quote from: Molandfreak on July 19, 2025, 05:49:57 PM

Quote from: vdeane on July 19, 2025, 04:38:06 PM

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on July 19, 2025, 02:04:11 AMThe fact is Congress authorized every state transportation department to build Future I-73 and make funding requests to the Federal Highway Adminstration for the last 34 years.  By Federal law only the state transportation departments can request the money, and if they did not, either the state did not have the money for its cost share or the tranportation department did not want to build it.

There is no special separate money for future interstate corridors (such as I-73) like there was for the initial construction of the system.  If there was, we'd see a lot more of them being built.  Instead, states have to use money from their regular federal apportionment, meaning that it is competing with regular road/bridge projects on the existing system.

Quote from: carbaugh2 on July 19, 2025, 09:22:11 AMFirst, this conversation needs merged into the I-73 updates thread. Mods, I think we could also merge the "US 23 Through Central Ohio" there as well. While that conversation mostly stayed away from I-73, it would provide additional context to help the thread as a whole.

Honestly, with how this thread has gone, moving it to the Fictional forum would probably be the best fit.

The real issue here is that FutureInterstateCorridors was told to stop bumping old threads a grand total of one time after they had bumped a 15-year-old thread with 6-year-old information, so now they are under the impression that adding relevant content to any thread older than 120 days is frowned upon.

For the OP, sure.  But this discussion went Fictional very, very quickly.  Last I checked, there weren't any actual proposals for extending I-26 into VA and KY, re-routing I-73 to US 33 or US 35, or building an I-63, but that's 95% of the thread in just those three things.

Quote from: vdeane on July 19, 2025, 10:53:27 PMFor the OP, sure.  But this discussion went Fictional very, very quickly.  Last I checked, there weren't any actual proposals for extending I-26 into VA and KY, re-routing I-73 to US 33 or US 35, or building an I-63, but that's 95% of the thread in just those three things.

US 33 and US 35 as alternate potential Interstate routes to save time cutting over to I-77 (and cost) are realistic alternatives, not fictional, whether bureaucrats have stumbled onto this idea or not.

I-26 is unlikely to happen, but it is interesting nonetheless.

I-63 is fictional.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 12:19:02 AMUS 33 and US 35 as alternate potential Interstate routes to save time cutting over to I-77 (and cost) are realistic alternatives, not fictional, whether bureaucrats have stumbled onto this idea or not.

US-35 is all 4 lanes now between WV I-64 and OH I-75, but there are three sections that are not built to freeway standards. I would estimate about 1/3 of the mileage. It functions very well as is and would be very expensive to upgrade to full freeway standards.

At least WV US-35 is on limited-access right-of-way, but there are many at-grade intersections.

The two non-freeway sections in Ohio are also nonlimited-access.

Quote from: Beltway on July 20, 2025, 12:40:40 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 12:19:02 AMUS 33 and US 35 as alternate potential Interstate routes to save time cutting over to I-77 (and cost) are realistic alternatives, not fictional, whether bureaucrats have stumbled onto this idea or not.

US-35 is all 4 lanes now between WV I-64 and OH I-75, but there are three sections that are not built to freeway standards. I would estimate about 1/3 of the mileage. It functions very well as is and would be very expensive to upgrade to full freeway standards.

At least WV US-35 is on limited-access right-of-way, but there are many at-grade intersections.

The two non-freeway sections in Ohio are also nonlimited-access.

My point is that whatever you have to upgrade US 33 to full freeway, it's probably going to be less intensive than what you have to upgrade on US 23 and US 52. It's a way of achieving some of the goals of the I-73 project, even if you are not sticking to the original vision. It is a viable route in my opinion.

US 35 is a beautiful road in Ohio for the most part, at least from Beavercreek to Jackson. It's also not bad in West Virginia. In some respects, it is better than US 33,. However, too much of it is in West Virginia and they may not share the same vision and may not want to incur the upgrade cost. They do appear to be playing ball with US 33, but they don't have much of it in their state that needs to be upgraded and that upgrading is about 20 years overdue.

Quote from: Beltway on July 20, 2025, 12:40:40 AMUS-35 is all 4 lanes now between WV I-64 and OH I-75, but there are three sections that are not built to freeway standards. I would estimate about 1/3 of the mileage. It functions very well as is and would be very expensive to upgrade to full freeway standards.

[...]

The two non-freeway sections in Ohio are also nonlimited-access.

Between US-23 Chillicothe and the West Virginia state line, there's only two sections that are not fully controlled access freeway, and one of those sections is on a limited access right of way with a mix of overpasses, intersections, two partial interchanges, and no private driveways.

---

From north to south starting in Chillicothe:

US-23 to Richmond Dale: 14 miles, fully controlled access freeway

Richmond Dale to Jackson Bypass: 11 miles, non-limited access divided highway

Jackson Bypass: 5.2 miles, fully controlled access freeway

Jackson to Centerville: 15 miles, limited access with mix of overpasses, partial interchanges, intersections, and no private driveways

Centerville to Ohio River (WV state line): 17 miles, fully controlled access freeway.

---

Whereas with US-23 and US-52 south of Chillicothe to the WV state line going north to south, you have:

Chillicothe: 3 miles, fully controlled access freeway.

Massieville: 3.5 miles, non-limited access divided highway

Massieville to Waverly: 9.5 miles, non-limited access 5 lane undivided highway, passes through town of Waverly

Waverly to Portsmouth Bypass: 16 miles, non-limited access divided highway, passes through town of Piketon. Has two grade separated interchanges.

Portsmouth Bypass and US-52 down to Haverhill: 29 miles, fully controlled access freeway.

Haverhill to Ironton: 7.2 miles, limited access with mix of interchanges, intersections, and no private driveways.

Ironton Bypass: 5.3 miles, fully controlled access freeway.

Ironton to Ohio River (WV line): 11 miles, limited access with mix of interchanges, intersections, and no private driveways.

---

Comparing both corridors, US-33 would require Ohio to extensively upgrade 11 miles of divided highway by constructing frontage roads, various overpasses and a few interchanges. It would also require upgrading 15 miles of limited access highway by constructing piecemeal improvements such as overpasses and interchanges. The mainline and access control is already in place.

US-23/52 would require extensively upgrading or relocating 29 miles of highway, and partially piecemeal upgrading another 18.2 miles.

US-33 would be far cheaper for Ohio, and improve the most direct route to I-64. US-23/52 improves a route that is still 20+ miles longer than US-33, and wouldn't fulfill its maximum potential until I-73 is built south of I-64 down to Bluefield, which will never happen.

Ohio is foolish for sticking with US-23/52 south of Chillicothe.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 15, 2025, 05:13:22 PMCouldn't an Interstate 73 follow the US 23 corridor from Portsmouth to Interstate 270 south of Columbus, ride the 270 beltway either east or west of Columbus, and then continue northward on the US 23/OH 15/US 68 corridor to Interstate 75? If 73 is ever built in Ohio (which still seems remote to me), I think that would be the most logical routing for the Interstate.

A future I-73 could follow U.S. 23 south of Columbus, but if it runs concurrent with I-270, ODOT has rejected directly connecting U.S. 23 to I-270 as a freeway (https://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/files/2022%20-%20Route%2023%20Connect%20-%20Phase%201%20Executive%20Summary.pdf) because "This study concludes that all of the proposed concepts for a fully free-flowing connection between Waldo and I-270 would substantially impact natural and cultural resources, and would cost much more than they provide in benefit. As a result, none of the proposed concepts, as presented, are feasible to advance for further study."  That is why OH 229 further north will be studied as a freeway connector from U.S. 23 to I-71.  That means Future I-73 will run concurrent with I-71 or eastern bypass of Columbus like in the 1990's, a real expensive option sure to fail feasibility study.

Because the Legislature has limited the Future I-73 feasibility study to U.S. 23, the suggest route would terminate at I-64 if West Virginia agrees to also fund and build a new interstate-standard Ohio River Bridge, another stumbling block that has to be overcome.  Further south, West Virginia does not have the money to build Future I-73 as originally planned in the 1990's.

I emailed the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet about the potential of build an interstate along U.S. 23 through the state and their response was:

"Over the past several years, KYTC has worked with individual Members of Congress to support future interstate route conversions in Kentucky.  However, a new interstate is a significant undertaking, requiring cooperation and agreement between multiple states as well as special funding sources. 

Unfortunately, current funding levels are limited and aren't enough to support the creation of a new interstate system. Due to funding constraints, any new federal funding we receive is used for existing pavement and bridge needs to ensure the highways we already have remain safe and receive necessary improvements. 

We appreciate your recognition that new funding opportunities could bring a resurgence in the national vision for the interstate highway system, and we look forward to one day soon being able to talk about expanding our interstate system."
 
Forget about any extension of Future I-73 to I-26.  This would be entirely up to Congress to create a new interstate corridor in the next surface transporation authorization bill.  However, in any Federal appropriation bill, there is no such thing as a "line item" in the Federal-Aid Highway Trust fund that ties to a single specific interstate and "sets aside" money in the FHWA budget for a project.  After the 1991 ISTEA, Future I-73 could only be funded using grants and loans that only a state transportation department could request from the FHWA by Federal law, not a state legislature or governor.  North Carolina was the only state that requested money for I-73 and I-74, no other state did. The Federal-Aid Trust Fund is a big pot of money available to every state for every type of highway project and is competitive.  However, Congress has returned to the practice of "Congressionally Directed" funding, aka "earmarked" or good old fashion "pork barrel".  But this only happens when a Congressman or Senator of a state gets one successfully voted into an appropriation bill.  Fortunately, Congress is seriously discussing returning to annual "formula" funding like the orginial Interstate System funding was from 1956 to 1991. 
 

FIC, there are so many errors in your misunderstanding of the federal-aid process, I'm exhausted just by making a list of them.  You simply exaggerate Congress' role in Interstate corridor funding while ignoring other requirements that come into play. 

Had to laugh at KYTC's response to you, since it reflects exactly what vdeane and I have said about availability of funding.

Then again, I suppose the conclusion is still the same: These discussions are indeed fictional territory until a huge amount of funding is found.  And that is only if states have interest in doing so, which, in an era where funding struggles to keep up with preservation, is not very likely.

This thread is why politicians and traffic engineers make road planning decisions, and why I am happy they do.  Four pages, and counting, of discussions.  About the need for a road?  Facts, figures, projections, ideas?  Nah.  About making the grid symmetrical and control cities and such.  Rather than what real-world politicians and planners think about, at least hopefully, which is people and how to help them.

Reality is the current non-interstate highways that an "I-73" would replace already exist and are already totally adequate for the traffic needs of that region.  Reality is that the USA is not a flat perfect rectangle with significant cities spaced out evenly across it in a perfect grid.  Reality is that some states that were quite backwater in 1955 when it was all laid out, are now in a very different economic and thus populational place and have new needs and this has led to weird out-of-place numbering in those places (73, 74, and 87 in the NC case) the worst solution to (if a solution is actually necessary at all, just live with it) would be to build 100s of miles of unnecessary roadway through mostly unpopulated parts of the country.

True, Interstates 73, 74 (the North Carolina segment), and Interstate 99 are out-of-the-grid designations. Interstate 87 is not as bad, since even though it currently goes in east-west trajectory (as does Interstate 85), it is less of a grid-buster than the other three designations.

Quote from: SP Cook on July 20, 2025, 10:18:20 AMThis thread is why politicians and traffic engineers make road planning decisions, and why I am happy they do.  Four pages, and counting, of discussions.  About the need for a road? 

What do you think they sit around doing?

Columbus is a distribution hub. That's one of the major industries in the Columbus area. There is nothing wrong with advocating for seamless highways in and out of the area.

Our voices do get results and do get people thinking who are in the loop. Not always, maybe not even often, but it does happen.

South of Columbus? Sure, what is there might be adequate, especially south of Chillicothe. But the Columbus to Waldo segment is the real problem here.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 02:08:50 PMThere is nothing wrong with advocating for seamless highways in and out of the area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_70_in_Ohio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_71
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_33_in_Ohio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_23_in_Ohio

These roads already exist.  US 23 is fully adequate for the volume of traffic that it has. 

Again, there are lots of trips of even 100s of mile that do not involve the interstates.  And that is OK.

Quote from: SP Cook on July 20, 2025, 02:41:23 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 02:08:50 PMThere is nothing wrong with advocating for seamless highways in and out of the area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_70_in_Ohio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_71
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_33_in_Ohio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_23_in_Ohio

These roads already exist.  US 23 is fully adequate for the volume of traffic that it has. 

Again, there are lots of trips of even 100s of mile that do not involve the interstates.  And that is OK.

As they say in football, statistics are for losers. Are you from this area? No, it is not adequate, anybody local can tell you that. It needs to be upgraded to freeway from Findlay to Circleville.

Now if you are judging traffic by what happens during non-peak times, sure, it's adequate. But that's not how things are judged By the user. The user judges things based off the amount of congestion and bottlenecks during peak times.

South of Columbus isn't as bad, but it's getting there.

The non freeway sections of US 23 North of Columbus can be a little harrowing after dark. Especially with a little rain. And my vision is pretty good. I can only imagine somebody with mediocre vision or less.

And this is what frustrates me about government. Too much small ball thinking that ends up costing way more in the end. If we had such small ball thinking in the 1950s, we wouldn't have the interstate highway system right now.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 02:56:41 PMAs they say in football, statistics are for losers. Are you from this area? No, it is not adequate, anybody local can tell you that.

By all means, we should start building roads based on making the numbers work out, not based on actual needs.  Got it.

QuoteIt needs to be upgraded to freeway from Findlay to Circleville.

Ah, so you agree that only a tiny fraction of this road actually need upgraded, and if/when built will work exactly the same if the sign is blue and red or black and white.  This is correct.  Building billions of dollars of roads through the middle of nowhere to satisfy some desire to make 73 and 74 in NC not be "wrong" is, well, foolish.

Tell ya what.  Lets just renumber 74 in NC from 77 to 40 as I-177 and revert 73 to US 220.  Problem solved.  Maybe a couple thousand in signs.

Quote from: SP Cook on July 20, 2025, 03:13:09 PMAh, so you agree that only a tiny fraction of this road actually need upgraded, and if/when built will work exactly the same if the sign is blue and red or black and white. 

If "only a tiny fraction" actually means about half of the corridor being discussed here, sure.

Quote from: SP Cook on July 20, 2025, 03:13:09 PMAh, so you agree that only a tiny fraction of this road actually need upgraded, and if/when built will work exactly the same if the sign is blue and red or black and white.  This is correct.  Building billions of dollars of roads through the middle of nowhere to satisfy some desire to make 73 and 74 in NC not be "wrong" is, well, foolish.

Walmart and Kroger don't lay out the stores the way they want, they tailor their stores to what the customer wants. Because they sell more that way. You guys seem to be against that Interstate shield without appreciating the comfort it conveys to The non-frequent traveler and the added safety that extends from that.

Whatever the situation is in the Carolinas, that's best for them to figure out. But when I drove to Fayetteville one time, I could see the use for I-74. Being unfamiliar with that part of North Carolina, it automatically communicates that you are following a decent road.

Regardless, I'm telling you for a whole host of reasons, US 23 from Columbus to Findlay should be all freeway and I don't think an interstate is such a horrible idea since it branches off of I-75 and would connect to I-70. An I-875 shield, if they never get around to building I-73, would instantly communicate where that road connects.

Likewise for the southern leg if and when US 33 gets an upgrade. I-870 or I-477 would communicate the same thing. It says, "Hey driver, Google is sending you on a good road to get to the Carolinas."

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 02:08:50 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on July 20, 2025, 10:18:20 AMThis thread is why politicians and traffic engineers make road planning decisions, and why I am happy they do.  Four pages, and counting, of discussions.  About the need for a road? 

What do you think they sit around doing?

O.o

Traffic engineers?  They're working on their active projects.  What a silly question...

Our taxes (yes, even those outside of the US) pay for this abomination of a numbering violation! That's why I commit tax fraud!

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 12:19:02 AMUS 33 and US 35 as alternate potential Interstate routes to save time cutting over to I-77 (and cost) are realistic alternatives, not fictional, whether bureaucrats have stumbled onto this idea or not.

How realistic something is isn't the determinator of whether something belongs in Fictional.  Whether the idea exists outside of this hobby is.  Now, it's natural that in discussing real things (like the Ohio legislature ordering a study) that we would mention what we'd want, but at this point, it's dominating the thread.

Quote from: Rothman on July 20, 2025, 03:32:42 PMO.o

Traffic engineers?  They're working on their active projects.  What a silly question...

So traffic engineers don't spend a lot of their time and meetings discussing these things? If they don't, then maybe they should.

Quote from: vdeane on July 20, 2025, 04:43:34 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 12:19:02 AMUS 33 and US 35 as alternate potential Interstate routes to save time cutting over to I-77 (and cost) are realistic alternatives, not fictional, whether bureaucrats have stumbled onto this idea or not.

How realistic something is isn't the determinator of whether something belongs in Fictional.  Whether the idea exists outside of this hobby is.  Now, it's natural that in discussing real things (like the Ohio legislature ordering a study) that we would mention what we'd want, but at this point, it's dominating the thread.

The general idea of the thread is not fictional, the legislature passed a bill requiring the study of constructing an interstate highway south to I-64.

The scope of this discussion has largely focused on constructing a controlled access highway south to I-64. We have suggested alternatives routes to the official proposed one, but the scope of the discussion has stayed within a real-life concept. I-73 is not a fictional proposal.

Now, ideas to extend I-26 via US-23 through VA and KY, are fully fictional and do not belong here.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 05:17:16 PM

Quote from: Rothman on July 20, 2025, 03:32:42 PMO.o

Traffic engineers?  They're working on their active projects.  What a silly question...

So traffic engineers don't spend a lot of their time and meetings discussing these things? If they don't, then maybe they should.

Traffic engineers working on a specific project to upgrade US-23 to interstate standards, perhaps. Traffic engineers work on the projects they're given. It's not up to them to say hey let's work on this highway. That responsibility is for a transportation planner.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 05:17:16 PM

Quote from: Rothman on July 20, 2025, 03:32:42 PMO.o

Traffic engineers?  They're working on their active projects.  What a silly question...

So traffic engineers don't spend a lot of their time and meetings discussing these things? If they don't, then maybe they should.

Somebody doesn't understand what a traffic engineer acu

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 05:17:16 PM

Quote from: Rothman on July 20, 2025, 03:32:42 PMO.o

Traffic engineers?  They're working on their active projects.  What a silly question...

So traffic engineers don't spend a lot of their time and meetings discussing these things? If they don't, then maybe they should.

Glad someone else pointed out to you what an engineer actually does...dear heavens...

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 20, 2025, 05:18:50 PMTraffic engineers working on a specific project to upgrade US-23 to interstate standards, perhaps. Traffic engineers work on the projects they're given. It's not up to them to say hey let's work on this highway. That responsibility is for a transportation planner.

Design engineers design highway construction projects. The state transportation board decides what will become a project in the first place.

Traffic engineers design traffic control features.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 20, 2025, 05:17:41 PM

Quote from: vdeane on July 20, 2025, 04:43:34 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 12:19:02 AMUS 33 and US 35 as alternate potential Interstate routes to save time cutting over to I-77 (and cost) are realistic alternatives, not fictional, whether bureaucrats have stumbled onto this idea or not.

How realistic something is isn't the determinator of whether something belongs in Fictional.  Whether the idea exists outside of this hobby is.  Now, it's natural that in discussing real things (like the Ohio legislature ordering a study) that we would mention what we'd want, but at this point, it's dominating the thread.

The general idea of the thread is not fictional, the legislature passed a bill requiring the study of constructing an interstate highway south to I-64.

The scope of this discussion has largely focused on constructing a controlled access highway south to I-64. We have suggested alternatives routes to the official proposed one, but the scope of the discussion has stayed within a real-life concept. I-73 is not a fictional proposal.

Now, ideas to extend I-26 via US-23 through VA and KY, are fully fictional and do not belong here.

OK, so I didn't notice that the study was actually south and not north with the long, rambley wall of text FIC posted, but still, it stays largely to the Congressionally-designated route, while we're veering into thinks like US 33, US 35, and extending I-26 up US 23.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 20, 2025, 05:17:41 PM

Quote from: vdeane on July 20, 2025, 04:43:34 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 12:19:02 AMUS 33 and US 35 as alternate potential Interstate routes to save time cutting over to I-77 (and cost) are realistic alternatives, not fictional, whether bureaucrats have stumbled onto this idea or not.

How realistic something is isn't the determinator of whether something belongs in Fictional.  Whether the idea exists outside of this hobby is.  Now, it's natural that in discussing real things (like the Ohio legislature ordering a study) that we would mention what we'd want, but at this point, it's dominating the thread.

The general idea of the thread is not fictional, the legislature passed a bill requiring the study of constructing an interstate highway south to I-64.

The scope of this discussion has largely focused on constructing a controlled access highway south to I-64. We have suggested alternatives routes to the official proposed one, but the scope of the discussion has stayed within a real-life concept. I-73 is not a fictional proposal.

Now, ideas to extend I-26 via US-23 through VA and KY, are fully fictional and do not belong here.

Correct, this post was only to inform AAroads.com fans about the Future I-73 Feasibility study approved by the Ohio State Legislature.  All the discussion about U.S. 35, U.S 33, I-26 extension were never relevant.  None of the states bordering Ohio are going to plan, fund, or build Future I-73 and what is actually proposed will be a standalone highway disconnected from I-73 in North Carolina.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 02:56:41 PMAs they say in football, statistics are for losers.

Why are you on a forum full of people you think are losers, then?

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on July 21, 2025, 01:05:13 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 20, 2025, 05:17:41 PM

Quote from: vdeane on July 20, 2025, 04:43:34 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 12:19:02 AMUS 33 and US 35 as alternate potential Interstate routes to save time cutting over to I-77 (and cost) are realistic alternatives, not fictional, whether bureaucrats have stumbled onto this idea or not.

How realistic something is isn't the determinator of whether something belongs in Fictional.  Whether the idea exists outside of this hobby is.  Now, it's natural that in discussing real things (like the Ohio legislature ordering a study) that we would mention what we'd want, but at this point, it's dominating the thread.

The general idea of the thread is not fictional, the legislature passed a bill requiring the study of constructing an interstate highway south to I-64.

The scope of this discussion has largely focused on constructing a controlled access highway south to I-64. We have suggested alternatives routes to the official proposed one, but the scope of the discussion has stayed within a real-life concept. I-73 is not a fictional proposal.

Now, ideas to extend I-26 via US-23 through VA and KY, are fully fictional and do not belong here.

Correct, this post was only to inform AAroads.com fans about the Future I-73 Feasibility study approved by the Ohio State Legislature.  All the discussion about U.S. 35, U.S 33, I-26 extension were never relevant.  None of the states bordering Ohio are going to plan, fund, or build Future I-73 and what is actually proposed will be a standalone highway disconnected from I-73 in North Carolina.

:|

Since the scope is strictly US-23 to Portsmouth, and any other discussion regarding other shorter and more improved routes is not permitted here, then I'll say one thing: the project is D.O.A. and not realistic.

Upgrading US 23 to freeway standards south of Columbus would require building a few bypasses around towns US 23 still goes through. That being said, I think upgrades to US 23 north of Columbus should be the priority, since I think traffic counts are higher north of Interstate 270 than south of it.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 21, 2025, 10:47:12 AMUpgrading US 23 to freeway standards south of Columbus would require building a few bypasses around towns US 23 still goes through. That being said, I think upgrades to US 23 north of Columbus should be the priority, since I think traffic counts are higher north of Interstate 270 than south of it.

No major upgrades are needed directly to US-23, all it needs is a new bypass connecting Waldo with I-71.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 21, 2025, 10:47:12 AMUpgrading US 23 to freeway standards south of Columbus would require building a few bypasses around towns US 23 still goes through. That being said, I think upgrades to US 23 north of Columbus should be the priority, since I think traffic counts are higher north of Interstate 270 than south of it.

Circleville, South Bloomfield and Waverly come to mind, most of the rest of it to 823 should be okay. But this is going to have to be done sooner or later anyway and it will be much easier and cheaper to do it sooner than later.

Put it this way: Columbus has freeway or almost freeway access to each of the neighboring county seats (London, Marysville, Newark and Lancaster) except for Delaware and Circleville. The idea that those two should be excluded is not defensible.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 21, 2025, 10:29:00 AMSince the scope is strictly US-23 to Portsmouth, and any other discussion regarding other shorter and more improved routes is not permitted here, then I'll say one thing: the project is D.O.A. and not realistic.

Agreed.  The new feasibility study directed by the Ohio Legislature duplicates what ODOT has already done before in the 1990's study and in the "Route 23 Connect" study.  The saying is "Stupid is doing something the same over and over again and expecting different results".  $2M down the drain.  If the Ohio Legislature wants to build Future I-73 in the state, vote to fund the full $6B from the Ohio taxpayers' pocket and ODOT will build it as ordered, and the rest of the nation does not have to waste the nation's taxpayer money.   State funding means no NEPA study, no FHWA approval, and it will be built sooner.  This was like Tennessee that built TN 840 south of Nashville with state funds and applied to get the I-840 number from AASHTO approved.

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on July 21, 2025, 09:54:32 PMAgreed.  The new feasibility study directed by the Ohio Legislature duplicates what ODOT has already done before in the 1990's study and in the "Route 23 Connect" study.  The saying is "Stupid is doing something the same over and over again and expecting different results".  $2M down the drain.

What's crazy is that anybody would think that a report written a generation ago would still be relevant today and that it would be a "waste of money" to do an updated report. So, a report completed in the 1990's is like something Moses etched in a tablet? Or is it more like res judicata as it applies to the court system?

BTW, who made you people hall monitors? This is the internet and I will talk about what I want. If I want to talk about US 33 as an alternative route from Toledo that will accomplish similar results with a lot less disruption and a lot less cost, I will continue to do so.

And again, the legislature can tell ODOT to "go to hell" any time it chooses. Or it can accomplish the same thing by replacing the people there. (Subject to the Governor's consent, of course.) The legislature is not subordinate to the ODOT.

A return to the old days when Governors Rhodes and Voinovich were running the show is far more preferable to small minded bureaucrats who want to create J-turns and RIRO's everywhere as solutions to long-term problems!

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 12:19:24 AMBTW, who made you people hall monitors?

In my case, Alex did. He also gave me the ability to delete or move off-topic posts and ban users that make too many of them.

Consider not making me use those abilities.

Let's stay on the topic of only upgrades that are being officially considered by the government of Ohio.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 22, 2025, 03:52:35 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 12:19:24 AMBTW, who made you people hall monitors?

In my case, Alex did. He also gave me the ability to delete or move off-topic posts and ban users that make too many of them.

Consider not making me use those abilities.

Let's stay on the topic of only upgrades that are being officially considered by the government of Ohio.

Then there's nothing worthwhile discussing on this thread, because Ohio's official proposal is D.O.A.

But if the rules are going to be strictly enforced that heavily, might as well move this entire thread to fictional highways.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 22, 2025, 07:01:37 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 22, 2025, 03:52:35 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 12:19:24 AMBTW, who made you people hall monitors?

In my case, Alex did. He also gave me the ability to delete or move off-topic posts and ban users that make too many of them.

Consider not making me use those abilities.

Let's stay on the topic of only upgrades that are being officially considered by the government of Ohio.

Then there's nothing worthwhile discussing on this thread, because Ohio's official proposal is D.O.A.

But if the rules are going to be strictly enforced that heavily, might as well move this entire thread to fictional highways.

I don't see what's so heavy about that.

Quote from: Rothman on July 22, 2025, 07:39:17 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 22, 2025, 07:01:37 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 22, 2025, 03:52:35 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 12:19:24 AMBTW, who made you people hall monitors?

In my case, Alex did. He also gave me the ability to delete or move off-topic posts and ban users that make too many of them.

Consider not making me use those abilities.

Let's stay on the topic of only upgrades that are being officially considered by the government of Ohio.

Then there's nothing worthwhile discussing on this thread, because Ohio's official proposal is D.O.A.

But if the rules are going to be strictly enforced that heavily, might as well move this entire thread to fictional highways.

I don't see what's so heavy about that.

Discussion about utilizing US-35 or US-33 as a routing to I-73, because they're shorter, more improved routes, and with I-73 in West Virginia being virtually canceled, is not unreasonable discussion to be had in a thread about I-73 in Ohio.

But I digress - any talk of I-73 outside of US-23 between Huntington and Toledo is not permitted here. I presume it would also preclude discussion about OH-15 to I-75, because that is not apart of US-23, which the bill mandated, and is off topic.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 21, 2025, 01:28:02 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 02:56:41 PMAs they say in football, statistics are for losers.

Why are you on a forum full of people you think are losers, then?

You do that big boy. Nothing like errant internet posts being the hill to die on. There are a few things more pressing in life than a bunch of people on the spectrum throwing temper tantrums over what is in an internet thread. We can't have people talking about better, quicker to build and cheaper alternative routes on an I-73 thread!

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 09:52:47 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 21, 2025, 01:28:02 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 02:56:41 PMAs they say in football, statistics are for losers.

Why are you on a forum full of people you think are losers, then?

You do that big boy.

I do...what exactly? A forum? A reason for being on a forum? What?

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 09:52:47 AMWe can't have people talking about better, quicker to build and cheaper alternative routes on an I-73 thread!

We can't, because the forum has a fictional highways section for things that are not being pursued by the government, and the rest of the forum is for things that are being pursued by the government. We are currently in the latter.

This is pretty basic stuff.

It is not fictional. Those alternatives have been discussed in official circles. Maybe not at ODOT (or maybe it has, who knows) but among the legislators it absolutely has been discussed. (A little birdie told me.)

It's so obvious and makes so much sense that even the government should be able to figure it out.

So far, this is the third or fourth time that I-73 is being discussed by the legislature in recent years. As I've stated before (and received ridicule for), something is happening here. There is too much noise on a supposedly dead topic for this not to be happening.

My guess is that JD is in a position to twist some arms and rain some money down on the state.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 11:07:58 AM(A little birdie told me.)

So you made it up.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 11:07:58 AMMy guess is that JD is in a position to twist some arms and rain some money down on the state.

I would think we would all know about it if JD cared that much about I-73 by now.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 22, 2025, 11:35:28 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 11:07:58 AM(A little birdie told me.)

So you made it up.

Sonny, I'm in Columbus. It doesn't take too many degrees of separation to hear what's talked about at the statehouse if you know the right people. I also used to dabble in the political realm (but way out on the periphery). Pretty good friends with a local Republican judge, as a matter of fact.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 11:54:31 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 22, 2025, 11:35:28 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 11:07:58 AM(A little birdie told me.)

So you made it up.

Sonny, I'm in Columbus. It doesn't take too many degrees of separation to hear what's talked about at the statehouse if you know the right people. I also used to dabble in the political realm (but way out on the periphery). Pretty good friends with a local Republican judge, as a matter of fact.

Documents, or it's fictional.

If US-33 and US-35 discussion is "fictional" for an I-73 thread, then so is OH-15 connecting to I-75, and I-270 around Columbus.

As per the bill, I-73 study shall be focused solely on US-23. That includes through Columbus, up through Delaware (a section proposed to be bypassed using a new connector and I-75, but outside of the scope of the bill so no discussion here is allowed), and the two lane portion that is actively bypassed by OH-15 and I-75, but again outside the scope of the bill.

I will further add that discussion of the Portsmouth Bypass is also off topic, as the bill does not specify that route but instead going directly to Portsmouth via US-23.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 22, 2025, 11:58:50 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 11:54:31 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 22, 2025, 11:35:28 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 11:07:58 AM(A little birdie told me.)

So you made it up.

Sonny, I'm in Columbus. It doesn't take too many degrees of separation to hear what's talked about at the statehouse if you know the right people. I also used to dabble in the political realm (but way out on the periphery). Pretty good friends with a local Republican judge, as a matter of fact.

Documents, or it's fictional.

One of my co-workers is now a Republican Central Committee member. He was the one that got me involved beginning with the second Bush campaign. An old girlfriend of my brother, her brother was the mayor of one of our local suburbs. I also knew him pretty well too.

So yeah, I know people. I won't say this rises to the level of anything official, but if you don't think people talk about things as things get hashed out, you're naive.

When pols on the transportation committee are out having dinner and drinks, do you think the senator from Findlay throws a hissy fit because their deviating from US-23 as a hash things out!

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 22, 2025, 12:29:11 PMIf US-33 and US-35 discussion is "fictional" for an I-73 thread, then so is OH-15 connecting to I-75, and I-270 around Columbus.

As per the bill, I-73 study shall be focused solely on US-23. That includes through Columbus, up through Delaware (a section proposed to be bypassed using a new connector and I-75, but outside of the scope of the bill so no discussion here is allowed), and the two lane portion that is actively bypassed by OH-15 and I-75, but again outside the scope of the bill.

I will further add that discussion of the Portsmouth Bypass is also off topic, as the bill does not specify that route but instead going directly to Portsmouth via US-23.

What is the northern limit of the study, anyways?  I thought it was Columbus, which is why I was confused by FIC's initial post.  I thought US 23/I-73 north of Columbus was a separate effort on the part of the legislature.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 12:58:00 PMSo yeah, I know people.

don't care

Documents or it's fictional.

I don't see any fictional or non-fictional Interstate along the US 23 corridor following 23 between Carey and Toledo. Any fictional or non-fictional Interstate would follow OH 15 to connect with Interstate 75, which would be the most logical alignment for a Columbus-to-Findlay (or beyond) Interstate Highway.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 22, 2025, 02:50:59 PMI don't see any fictional or non-fictional Interstate along the US 23 corridor following 23 between Carey and Toledo. Any fictional or non-fictional Interstate would follow OH 15 to connect with Interstate 75, which would be the most logical alignment for a Columbus-to-Findlay (or beyond) Interstate Highway.

It might be the most logical, but because it is not along US-23, it is outside the scope of this study and therefore you are off topic on this thread, which is strictly focused on the legislature's bill.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 22, 2025, 01:02:21 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 12:58:00 PMSo yeah, I know people.

don't care

Documents or it's fictional.

So, you think they create documents when they're out to dinner or having informal discussions on issues? When it comes to development, and new highways ARE development, the public is the last to know when it comes to these things. It's like city council meetings for some new development project. By the time they get around to voting on something in a public meeting, it has already been decided behind closed doors. City council is just a show they put on for the public.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 02:53:43 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 22, 2025, 01:02:21 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 12:58:00 PMSo yeah, I know people.

don't care

Documents or it's fictional.

So, you think they create documents when they're out to dinner or having informal discussions on issues? When it comes to development, and new highways ARE development, the public is the last to know when it comes to these things. It's like city council meetings for some new development project. By the time they get around to voting on something in a public meeting, it has already been decided behind closed doors. City council is just a show they put on for the public.

Even if this is all true about who you know, your sources are still degrees away from transportation decisionmakers.

This thread should be locked.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 18, 2025, 04:33:12 PMI've said this over and over again, but I don't think people in these pages appreciate things from the standpoint of the out of area traveler. Anything with a US or state route number is a mixed bag. It could be an easy trip, or could be a harrowing experience. You don't know what you're getting into unless you have local knowledge and experience driving that road.

When something has an Interstate designation, you know generally that you are on a pretty good road. You might encounter some localized congestion, but for the most part it's an easy drive.

That's why a paper map is so valuable, along with the ability to read it.

Paper maps are generally going to designate where a US or state route is a two-lane road, or a four-lane road, and whether that said four-lane road is a surface arterial with crossroads or a full freeway with grade-separated interchanges. You don't need a red-and-blue Interstate marker to see that US 68 and KY 80 is a four-lane route all the way from I-69 at Mayfield to I-165 near Bowling Green. A map will tell you that.

Now, I've long been an advocate of numbering any full freeway that connects to an interstate as an interstate, but I also recognize that not every four-lane route needs to be a full freeway. This means US 23 between Columbus and Kingsport, and US 31 between Indy and South Bend.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 20, 2025, 02:56:41 PMAs they say in football, statistics are for losers. Are you from this area? No, it is not adequate, anybody local can tell you that. It needs to be upgraded to freeway from Findlay to Circleville.

The segment from Columbus north to Delaware has been long debated, but south of I-270 to Circleville needs to be a freeway? What are you smoking? An occasional traffic light isn't going to stop the world.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 02:53:43 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 22, 2025, 01:02:21 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 12:58:00 PMSo yeah, I know people.

don't care

Documents or it's fictional.

So, you think they create documents when they're out to dinner or having informal discussions on issues? When it comes to development, and new highways ARE development, the public is the last to know when it comes to these things. It's like city council meetings for some new development project. By the time they get around to voting on something in a public meeting, it has already been decided behind closed doors. City council is just a show they put on for the public.

If it's an "informal discussion" where no documents are being created, we have no proof that it's actually being discussed. If we have no proof that it's being discussed, we have no way to know that these discussions aren't actually happening in your head. Thus, they are fictional until you bring proof that someone actually talked about this at some point.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 22, 2025, 11:26:48 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 02:53:43 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 22, 2025, 01:02:21 PM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 12:58:00 PMSo yeah, I know people.

don't care

Documents or it's fictional.

So, you think they create documents when they're out to dinner or having informal discussions on issues? When it comes to development, and new highways ARE development, the public is the last to know when it comes to these things. It's like city council meetings for some new development project. By the time they get around to voting on something in a public meeting, it has already been decided behind closed doors. City council is just a show they put on for the public.

If it's an "informal discussion" where no documents are being created, we have no proof that it's actually being discussed. If we have no proof that it's being discussed, we have no way to know that these discussions aren't actually happening in your head. Thus, they are fictional until you bring proof that someone actually talked about this at some point.

I mean, TempoNick could also wear a wire the next time he sees some of these officials he supposedly knows, and just upload that audio to YouTube/Soundcloud. Ohio is a one-party consent state.

Quote from: hbelkins on July 22, 2025, 05:55:10 PMNow, I've long been an advocate of numbering any full freeway that connects to an interstate as an interstate, but I also recognize that not every four-lane route needs to be a full freeway. This means US 23 between Columbus and Kingsport, and US 31 between Indy and South Bend.

What do you guys have against safety, efficiency and free-flowing traffic?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GwZ6DATXYAAffQk?format=jpg&name=900x900)

Quote from: Molandfreak on July 23, 2025, 12:20:12 AMI mean, TempoNick could also wear a wire the next time he sees some of these officials he supposedly knows, and just upload that audio to YouTube/Soundcloud. Ohio is a one-party consent state.

I'll get right on that.

We look forward to it, Ohio Legislature Man.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 23, 2025, 02:37:32 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2025, 01:36:52 AMWe look forward to it, Ohio Legislature Man.

I have nothing to prove to a bunch of autistic people who have a melt down because an internet topic doesn't stay as focused as they like. Now run to your safe space, snowflake.  :-D

Yeah, I'm not really understanding the strictness with the US-23 corridor here, virtually every topic on this forum deviates from its original topic to some extent.

If it upsets people so much, just break it off into another thread. A mod can easily do that. The strict focus of this thread doesn't really have much discussion merit, it's an unrealistic proposal and anything realistic deviates into fictional by the strict nature of the thread.

Discussion of the Portsmouth Bypass, I-270 / I-75, nor OH-15 is not allowed per the admin's rules here either. Because the study strictly indicated US-23.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 23, 2025, 12:49:22 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on July 22, 2025, 05:55:10 PMNow, I've long been an advocate of numbering any full freeway that connects to an interstate as an interstate, but I also recognize that not every four-lane route needs to be a full freeway. This means US 23 between Columbus and Kingsport, and US 31 between Indy and South Bend.

What do you guys have against safety, efficiency and free-flowing traffic?

But at what cost? Are the benefits you perceive worth the millions of dollars the project would cost?

Quote(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GwZ6DATXYAAffQk?format=jpg&name=900x900)

As if such crashes don't happen on "free-flowing" interstates every day?

Quote from: TempoNick on July 23, 2025, 02:37:32 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2025, 01:36:52 AMWe look forward to it, Ohio Legislature Man.

I have nothing to prove to a bunch of autistic people who have a melt down because an internet topic doesn't stay as focused as they like. Now run to your safe space, snowflake.  :-D

Might not be a good idea to poke the bear a mod who has the power to ban you.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 23, 2025, 03:31:28 PMYeah, I'm not really understanding the strictness with the US-23 corridor here, virtually every topic on this forum deviates from its original topic to some extent.

If it upsets people so much, just break it off into another thread. A mod can easily do that. The strict focus of this thread doesn't really have much discussion merit, it's an unrealistic proposal and anything realistic deviates into fictional by the strict nature of the thread.

Discussion of the Portsmouth Bypass, I-270 / I-75, nor OH-15 is not allowed per the admin's rules here either. Because the study strictly indicated US-23.

I can only hope that you're being sarcastic.

QuoteAs if such crashes don't happen on "free-flowing" interstates every day?

Cross traffic and turning traffic are eliminated on interstate highways and freeways. Some of the nastiest crashes when mixed with high speeds of motorists who perceive they're on a freeway like facility moving 70+ mph.

High volumes of traffic on free flowing facilities with intersections, mixed with local traffic turning and crossing is a very dangerous recipe for disaster. It's a reason you see interchange projects be built all over the country to replace at-grade intersections, it's not a foreign concept.

QuoteI can only hope that you're being sarcastic.

I would hope so, but an admin said so:

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 22, 2025, 03:52:35 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 12:19:24 AMBTW, who made you people hall monitors?

In my case, Alex did. He also gave me the ability to delete or move off-topic posts and ban users that make too many of them.

Consider not making me use those abilities.

Let's stay on the topic of only upgrades that are being officially considered by the government of Ohio.

According to the language of the bill, the study is focused on US-23 between Toledo and Chesapeake.

Ohio 823, which provides a limited access bypass of Portsmouth, is not apart of US-23 and is in fact several miles away.

I-275 and I-75 through Columbus, and potential connecting routes to Delaware, are not apart of US-23.

Ohio 15, a limited access highway that connects traffic to I-75, is not apart of US-23 and is in fact several miles away.

Because the bill states US-23 upgrades, and discussion here must relate to what the Ohio legislature is studying, those would seem off topic. As would any discussion about other alternative routes, such as US-33 or US-35, that any worthwhile high level study would logically evaluate for the purposes of moving traffic between Columbus and Toledo towards I-64 in WV ultimately going southeast - which is the purpose of I-73.

Alternative routes to US-23, such as Ohio 15, I-75/I-275 and a potential connector through and north of Columbus, Ohio 823, and US-33/35 all provide higher quality, access controlled options, but none are designated at US-23.

QuoteRequires the ODOT Director to conduct a feasibility study for an Interstate Route 73 corridor, primarily along current U.S. Route 23, stretching from Toledo to Chesapeake, Ohio.

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/download?key=24699

QuoteCross traffic and turning traffic are eliminated on interstate highways and freeways. Some of the nastiest crashes when mixed with high speeds of motorists who perceive they're on a freeway like facility moving 70+ mph.

High volumes of traffic on free flowing facilities with intersections, mixed with local traffic turning and crossing is a very dangerous recipe for disaster. It's a reason you see interchange projects be built all over the country to replace at-grade intersections, it's not a foreign concept.

And as far as I'm concerned, Ohio 15 / US 23 is a complete disaster at this point in the non freeway sections. I remember one time driving home in the rain just passed Findlay, it had just gotten dark and the roads were wet. It was a little congested, treacherous with the people trying to turn off and on US 23 at the at-grade intersections.

But one thing new I noticed that I hadn't noticed before is how much semis obstructs your view of what's coming into the intersection. Sealing off those at-grade intersections is long overdue, I don't care what the statistics say.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 23, 2025, 07:05:54 PM

QuoteAs if such crashes don't happen on "free-flowing" interstates every day?

Cross traffic and turning traffic are eliminated on interstate highways and freeways. Some of the nastiest crashes when mixed with high speeds of motorists who perceive they're on a freeway like facility moving 70+ mph.

And yet... (https://www.whec.com/top-news/mcso-590-south-near-empire-boulevard-closed-due-to-crash/)

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 23, 2025, 07:05:54 PMAccording to the language of the bill, the study is focused on US-23 between Toledo and Chesapeake.

Ohio 823, which provides a limited access bypass of Portsmouth, is not apart of US-23 and is in fact several miles away.

I-275 and I-75 through Columbus, and potential connecting routes to Delaware, are not apart of US-23.

Ohio 15, a limited access highway that connects traffic to I-75, is not apart of US-23 and is in fact several miles away.

Because the bill states US-23 upgrades, and discussion here must relate to what the Ohio legislature is studying, those would seem off topic. As would any discussion about other alternative routes, such as US-33 or US-35, that any worthwhile high level study would logically evaluate for the purposes of moving traffic between Columbus and Toledo towards I-64 in WV ultimately going southeast - which is the purpose of I-73.

Alternative routes to US-23, such as Ohio 15, I-75/I-275 and a potential connector through and north of Columbus, Ohio 823, and US-33/35 all provide higher quality, access controlled options, but none are designated at US-23.

QuoteRequires the ODOT Director to conduct a feasibility study for an Interstate Route 73 corridor, primarily along current U.S. Route 23, stretching from Toledo to Chesapeake, Ohio.

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/download?key=24699 (https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/download?key=24699)

Going by how strictly you're interpreting the bill, even stuff put out by ODOT attempting to comply with it would qualify as "fictional" - note that Chesapeake isn't on US 23.  However, "Cheasapeake to Toledo" still excludes US 33 and US 35, which is what the vast, vast majority of the posts on this thread (that weren't about off the wall suggestions to extend I-26 or make and I-63) were about.  It makes sense that people would make mention of what they would do that might even spawn a brief tangent.  It does not make sense for such discussion to completely take over the thread as happened here.  By the time it got to the point where we were debating what belongs here, it had taken over to such a degree that I had a hard time even ascertaining what the original post was even supposed to be about (not helped by FIC's rambley style and known tendency to assert falsehoods as fact).

Quote from: vdeane on July 23, 2025, 08:11:32 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 23, 2025, 07:05:54 PM

QuoteAs if such crashes don't happen on "free-flowing" interstates every day?

Cross traffic and turning traffic are eliminated on interstate highways and freeways. Some of the nastiest crashes when mixed with high speeds of motorists who perceive they're on a freeway like facility moving 70+ mph.

And yet... (https://www.whec.com/top-news/mcso-590-south-near-empire-boulevard-closed-due-to-crash/)

Crossover collision, not the same as a t-bone caused by an intersection.

Not saying it just isn't as bad, obviously it unfortunately took a life, but a different issue.

Cable guardrail should really be installed in more places, it would've prevented this situation from being a head-on.

In fact, the picture of the Ohio crash posted above actually shows cable guardrail installed down the median. The issue is the intersection where the crash occurred. With an overpass or interchange, you eliminate those conflict points entirely.

Intersections with high turning volume and local traffic mixed with high speed through traffic is never a good mix. But it would be blasphemous to suggest improvements if AADT is under 50,000 or there's not miles of backups because it "flows fine".

Quote from: vdeane on July 23, 2025, 08:11:32 PM...note that Chesapeake isn't on US 23...

And also, it sits directly from Huntington, WV, on US 52. This is more or less the same route that's been proposed since 1991, and stands a snowball's chance in hell of ever going south of Huntington, even if it does get there.

Quote from: TempoNick on July 23, 2025, 02:37:32 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2025, 01:36:52 AMWe look forward to it, Ohio Legislature Man.

I have nothing to prove to a bunch of autistic people who have a melt down because an internet topic doesn't stay as focused as they like. Now run to your safe space, snowflake.  :-D

Enjoy your 80 points.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 24, 2025, 01:26:01 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 23, 2025, 02:37:32 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2025, 01:36:52 AMWe look forward to it, Ohio Legislature Man.

I have nothing to prove to a bunch of autistic people who have a melt down because an internet topic doesn't stay as focused as they like. Now run to your safe space, snowflake.  :-D

Enjoy your 80 points.

As I was saying...

Quote from: hbelkins on July 23, 2025, 04:55:17 PMMight not be a good idea to poke the bear a mod who has the power to ban you.

To get away from the ad-hominems and back on topic, I saw a map posted on Facebook that referenced the legislative mandate with a highlighted map of the corridor. The highlighted route starts at I-75 and OH 15/US 68 and follows that alignment to US 23, then US 23 to a point north of Delaware, where it connects to I-71 and follows I-71 into Columbus, then US 23, the Portsmouth bypass, and US 52 down to Huntington. It referred to the route as the "I-63 (sic) Underground Railroad Corridor."

I certainly sympathize with TempoNick's complaints about no apparent vision for new freeways in Ohio, but I wonder if that has to do with the present constitution of Ohio (which was passed in 1851). Due to the overinvestment in failed infrastructure projects and the wave of state bankruptcies in that era, the current constitution of Ohio IIRC does not allow significant borrowing of money and mandates a balanced budget (a measure introduced to prevent a repeat of the state's near-bankruptcy). It's conceivable to me therefore that the only reason *any* interstates were ever built in Ohio as public projects was due to the initial federal funding, and that until Congress passes a new and modernized act with new mileage under the original rules, or taxes are raised, no new major construction is likely.

Quote from: chesapeake256 on July 25, 2025, 11:08:18 AMI certainly sympathize with TempoNick's complaints about no apparent vision for new freeways in Ohio, but I wonder if that has to do with the present constitution of Ohio (which was passed in 1851). Due to the overinvestment in failed infrastructure projects and the wave of state bankruptcies in that era, the current constitution of Ohio IIRC does not allow significant borrowing of money and mandates a balanced budget (a measure introduced to prevent a repeat of the state's near-bankruptcy). It's conceivable to me therefore that the only reason *any* interstates were ever built in Ohio as public projects was due to the initial federal funding, and that until Congress passes a new and modernized act with new mileage under the original rules, or taxes are raised, no new major construction is likely.

Nearly every state constitution requires a balanced budget and places limits on borrowing. That's why there are turnpike commissions, which are seen as separate from the state and not bound by borrowing limits, and statewide votes on constitutional amendments to allow bond issues like Issue 2 that Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved in May for local government infrastructure funding.

Bonds aren't a magic cure all. You have to pay debt service on them and that money has to come from somewhere. Whether you're building infrastructure using bonds or on a PAYGO basis, it still requires tax increases.

News of this thread has reached me through other venues.  Having just skimmed all seven pages I'm left with one question that has been wracking my brain; "does TempoNick drive a Ford Tempo?"

Quote from: hbelkins on July 25, 2025, 10:42:15 AMTo get away from the ad-hominems and back on topic, I saw a map posted on Facebook that referenced the legislative mandate with a highlighted map of the corridor. The highlighted route starts at I-75 and OH 15/US 68 and follows that alignment to US 23, then US 23 to a point north of Delaware, where it connects to I-71 and follows I-71 into Columbus, then US 23, the Portsmouth bypass, and US 52 down to Huntington. It referred to the route as the "I-63 (sic) Underground Railroad Corridor."

Kinda reminds me of the US 4S proposal (https://www.facebook.com/I390AlbanyBennington/) (and an even earlier I-390 proposal).

Quote from: Bitmapped on July 25, 2025, 12:29:08 PM

Quote from: chesapeake256 on July 25, 2025, 11:08:18 AMI certainly sympathize with TempoNick's complaints about no apparent vision for new freeways in Ohio, but I wonder if that has to do with the present constitution of Ohio (which was passed in 1851). Due to the overinvestment in failed infrastructure projects and the wave of state bankruptcies in that era, the current constitution of Ohio IIRC does not allow significant borrowing of money and mandates a balanced budget (a measure introduced to prevent a repeat of the state's near-bankruptcy). It's conceivable to me therefore that the only reason *any* interstates were ever built in Ohio as public projects was due to the initial federal funding, and that until Congress passes a new and modernized act with new mileage under the original rules, or taxes are raised, no new major construction is likely.

Nearly every state constitution requires a balanced budget and places limits on borrowing. That's why there are turnpike commissions, which are seen as separate from the state and not bound by borrowing limits, and statewide votes on constitutional amendments to allow bond issues like Issue 2 that Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved in May for local government infrastructure funding.

Bonds aren't a magic cure all. You have to pay debt service on them and that money has to come from somewhere. Whether you're building infrastructure using bonds or on a PAYGO basis, it still requires tax increases.

The current iteration of the General Assembly is not afraid to borrow funds for infrastructure. For example, the "as introduced" House version of the state budget was going to borrow $600 million in bonds to provide funding to the new Cleveland Browns dome in Brook Park. While that funding was changed to be sourced by the Unclaimed Funds bucket of money (https://www.cleveland13news.com/story/600m-browns-stadium-plan-fuels-legal-challenge-and-record-rush-for-ohio-s-unclaimed-money), it tells me that borrowing money for, say, a connector from I-71 to US 23 is in play.

There has been and continues to be a push from the legislative leadership in recent years to get large scale highway projects outside of Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus funded and completed. The last transportation budget began with a carveout of $1 billion from the General Revenue Fund to be used exclusively on rural projects (https://www.statenews.org/government-politics/2023-03-24/ohios-transportation-budget-bill-hits-a-bump-in-the-road and https://www.statenews.org/government-politics/2023-03-17/senate-transportation-budget-changes-would-boost-speed-limits-cut-rural-ohio-highway-fund). This transportation budget includes a joint study for a 23-71 connector that must be submitted to the General Assembly in 90 days. There can be skepticism about another I-73 study- understandably so- but the connector project feels like a forgone conclusion.

Out of curiosity, has anyone drawn up ideas of what a Morrow County connector ("Creating a new freeway, which may be a toll road, in the region between State Route 529 and Waldo, Ohio heading eastward toward Interstate Route 71 north of Marengo, Ohio in Marion County and Morrow County") could look like as a proposal? Senator Brenner added this option due to concerns over a routing near Delaware Lake (https://www.newsbreak.com/the-blade-1588774/3863363437728-fifth-option-for-potential-u-s-23-bypass-put-on-table).

"Nearly every state constitution requires a balanced budget and places limits on borrowing."

Pfffffft.  In most states with this kind of lip service, there are arcane exceptions to bonding.  NY requires a balanced budget and places limits on borrowing...and yet somehow a huge chunk of the capital program is funded through personal income tax (PIT) bonding and then even first-instance funding for federal reimbursement is supported through whatever kinds of borrowing.

I'd find it very hard to believe if a decent number of other states don't follow suit given the size of their programs.  I'm sure some states have clamped down on borrowing...probably to their own detriments, but to think a lot of States don't say one thing and do another comes across as naive.

Quote from: hbelkins on July 25, 2025, 10:42:15 AMand back on topic,

Agree.  And, with all respect, the discussions of Ohio's willingness to borrow money or not, assumes facts not in evidence.  The idea that I-73 (or 74) should exist because NC was allowed to misuse the (mostly) logical interstate numbering system.  IMHO, there would be no one talking about any of this but for this violation.

Let's start at the beginning.  This 73 would multiplex with the existing 75 (for no reason) from Canada to the middle of the lower peninsula where it would follow the perfectly adequate US 127 until multiplexing back with 75 near the Ohio line.  The rural parts of Michigan are, IMHO, lovely.  Great scenery and good people, but it isn't growing.  It already has I-75 and the US n-s routes to reach rural "northern" Ontario (why do Canadians insist that the western parts of Ontario are "northern" and the part near Windsor is "western", but I digress.

Now on to Ohio.  This is about upgrading the perfectly adequate US 23 across Ohio.  Ohio is like a heart.  NW Ohio is, mostly, an extension of the Detroit economy.  This is not going to get better.  The current transportation system in the whole area is not only adequate, but, because it was built in different economic times for that region, probably over-built from what one would design today.

Now on to Columbus.  Columbus is growing.  Growing places need new roads.  Whatever roads are needed will function just as well if they are Ohio state routes, US routes, or 3dis, and whether the control city is "Chillicothe" or if it is "Huntington", or it has none at all. 

Now, southern Ohio.  Again this is about upgrading the fairly new and totally adequate US 23.  There may, or may not, be a few places where the road can be improved (Chillicothe) but THIS IS APPALACHIA.  No, its not a bad economically as places south and east of it, but this is where Appalachian hopelessness meets midwestern Rust Belt decline.  It isn't growing and it isn't going to grow.

Now on to the worst part of this idea.  West Virgina.  This is the worst section of poverty in eastern USA.  This is upgrading US 52, at a cost of billions.  170 miles through places that have lost 90% of their population.  The current I 64 and I 77 is fully adequate.  This is 170 miles of new construction to shorten a trip by maybe 15 minutes with so little potential locals along the way that might use the road as to be zero.

Then onto to Virginia.  The lightly used Corridor Q-US 460, already fully adequate, and in very rough, and environmentally fragile, terrain, over to the totally adequate US 220, and down to Greensboro and beyond, eventually entering South Carolina and into Myrtle Beach.  An growing resort and residential area to be sure, but the parts of North and South Carolina between there and about Asheboro are not the growing parts of the Carolina Miracle, US 220 is just fine and the roads that approach Myrtle Beach are mostly adequate (and a tolled approach road would seem to make the most sense when this is no longer the case).

And lets not forget the partner in crime.  74 is supposed to work its way across Cincinnati, which is a fine city but hardly growing and has lots of NIMBYs who have always opposed connecting Corridor D into downtown.  Out to OH 32-Corridor D.  Again, a totally adequate road.  Ohio is almost finished with a great stop light removal project in Clairmont County, and really it just takes some leadership to get rid of the rest (not by building exits, just remove the stop lights, this is farm country) across southern Ohio, a lovely and pretty, but not growing, place. 

Where is disappears into 73 through WV (see above) and the pointlessly multiplexes with 77 in VA.  Only to respawn as a diagonal connector to Winston-Salem, a route that US 52 has served for decades.  The various road through the Piedmont Triad to yet another multiplex with 73 and then a final split at Rockingham and then multiplexing with US 74 to Wilmington, which would actually be about an hour longer of a drive than the existing I 40 between those two points.  US 74 is actually about connecting Charlotte to the ocean, and if people have been figuring out that US 74 is the way between those two points for decades, the I signs are unnecessary.  Again, the Carolina Miracle is happening in the Piedmont, not the Sand Hills.

So the conclusion I have is Columbus needs some new roads and the Piedmont Triad needs some roads, and NC upgraded US 220 between Greensboro and Rockingham, which is fine. 

But building hundreds of miles of totally unneeded roads just so a handful of people won't be upset that there are two I 74s and maybe three I-73s, is just silly.  A better road in Columbus will be just as good if its numbered OH 174 or called the Mike Dewine Highway.

Quote from: SP Cook on July 27, 2025, 01:39:39 PMThe current I 64 and I 77 is fully adequate.

Highly questionable. I-77 needs arguably six lane widening for most its length, at least along the I-64 overlap. I-64 is being widened as well.

I'm not saying US-52 needs to be relocated to a four lane highway, but the I-64 / I-77 needs significant upgrades to be considered "fully adequate".

QuoteThen onto to Virginia.  The lightly used Corridor Q-US 460, already fully adequate, and in very rough, and environmentally fragile, terrain

Agreed.

Quote, over to the totally adequate US 220, and down to Greensboro and beyond, eventually entering South Carolina and into Myrtle Beach.  An growing resort and residential area to be sure, but the parts of North and South Carolina between there and about Asheboro are not the growing parts of the Carolina Miracle, US 220 is just fine and the roads that approach Myrtle Beach are mostly adequate (and a tolled approach road would seem to make the most sense when this is no longer the case).

US-220 is significant geometrically deficient and carries quite a bit of truck traffic through southern Virginia. Also a couple of bottleneck locations including south of Roanoke.

I-73 between North Carolina and I-81 in Virginia would actually be a useful route, and also serve as a connection between Greensboro and I-81, and an alternative to I-77 for traffic bound to I-81 north from the south, and vice versa. The killer is cost, but "totally adequate" for US-220 is again, highly questionable.

I-73 exists through North Carolina down to Rockingham, so any discussion regarding that corridor is moot, it's a perfectly adequate 4 lane interstate highway.

South of Rockingham, into SC, and onto Myrtle Beach, it is absolutely a warranted project - especially between I-95 and Myrtle Beach. Significant amount of summer traffic, congested roads, inadequate of handling that much traffic load. Not to mention, Myrtle Beach is large enough to warrant an interstate connection to I-95 at minimum.

QuoteOnly to respawn as a diagonal connector to Winston-Salem, a route that US 52 has served for decades.

No, the US-52 freeway went into Mt Airy, then onto windy 2 lane US-52 into Virginia. I-74 was built as a connector to I-77 in the 1990s.

QuoteThe various road through the Piedmont Triad to yet another multiplex with 73 and then a final split at Rockingham and then multiplexing with US 74 to Wilmington, which would actually be about an hour longer of a drive than the existing I 40 between those two points.

"An hour longer" = incorrect.

The I-74 / US-74 route between Winston-Salem and Wilmington is 8 miles longer than I-40, and less than 10 minutes longer when no traffic on I-40 exists. I-40 also passes through Greensboro and the Raleigh-Durham metros, whereas I-74 / US-74 bypass both entirely, and carries significantly less traffic. I-40 also is an 8 lane highway between Greensboro and Durham, overlapped with I-85, and while it moves quite well, it's also quite busy.

A lot of people prefer to use the I-74 / US-74 route over I-40 to avoid those metros and associated traffic. It's often faster.

I had the pleasure of driving I-73 / I-74 between Winston-Salem and Rockingham earlier this year, and it was quite a pleasant drive.

Most of US-74 between Rockingham and Wilmington is built on a limited access right of way, with various rural intersections, although a good portion of it has been improved to freeway. There are spot projects over time being constructed one by one to close intersections with interchanges and overpasses, but by no means is it one single multi billion dollar project. Most of that work has been completed.

Quote from: SP Cook on July 27, 2025, 01:39:39 PMAgree.  And, with all respect, the discussions of Ohio's willingness to borrow money or not, assumes facts not in evidence.  The idea that I-73 (or 74) should exist because NC was allowed to misuse the (mostly) logical interstate numbering system.  IMHO, there would be no one talking about any of this but for this violation.

It isn't just that, though. The Columbus-Toledo segment is something I believe the original system planners assumed would shortly surface through good faith and goodwill alone. Its exclusion from the original system was probably the biggest mistake made from the standpoint of population trends at the time.

And it isn't just about connecting Columbus to Toledo, it's about connecting Columbus with all other points northwest, including areas that are still growing.

Does it have to be I-73? No, but discussion of upgrades to this part of the corridor is hardly a waste of time.

FWIW, I don't think North Carolina's I-73 is a substantial enough violation to warrant a change at this point. Or ever, actually.

Quote from: Molandfreak on July 27, 2025, 03:01:43 PMFWIW, I don't think North Carolina's I-73 is a substantial enough violation to warrant a change at this point. Or ever, actually.

It doesn't. Some people take the grid way too seriously... same with I-99. It's fine.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2025, 02:54:44 PMHighly questionable. I-77 needs arguably six lane widening for most its length, at least along the I-64 overlap. I-64 is being widened as well.

A discussion for another day, but that will never happen.  The mis designed northern third of the Turnpike is a no-median deal.  Adding a third lane would require blasting, blasting, and more blasting.  The desire to keep the old two lane Turnpike open as the other two lanes were added, is why they didn't do the proper blasting in the first place.  But really, a discussion of its mis design, and subsequent 60 SL and high accident rates, is a different discussion of if it is over capacity.  It isn't near that.

QuoteSouth of Rockingham, into SC, and onto Myrtle Beach, it is absolutely a warranted project - especially between I-95 and Myrtle Beach. Significant amount of summer traffic, congested roads, inadequate of handling that much traffic load. Not to mention, Myrtle Beach is large enough to warrant an interstate connection to I-95 at minimum.

WV is so bad that the local TV stations give Myrtle Beach weather and even sometimes news in the summer.  But the flow of Myrtle Beach traffic that a 73 would get is just that.  Toronto, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Piedmont Triad. That is some people, but there are a lot more people that get to Myrtle Beach on many other roads. 

Now an extension of the Conway Bypass (SC 22) to somewhere on I-95 is probably a good idea.  Toll the **** out of it.  But from there to Rockingham is just building a road for numbering sake.

QuoteOnly to respawn as a diagonal connector to Winston-Salem, a route that US 52 has served for decades.

No, the US-52 freeway went into Mt Airy, then onto windy 2 lane US-52 into Virginia. I-74 was built as a connector to I-77 in the 1990s.

QuoteA lot of people prefer to use the I-74 / US-74 route over I-40 to avoid those metros and associated traffic. It's often faster.

So its already good.  Good to know.  No need to upgrade.  And no reason to call it I-74 if it was.

I will say that a single route number for the theoretical MI to Myrtle Beach trip is of diminished importance in the GPS era. This goes for any long trip, really.

Quote from: GCrites on July 27, 2025, 07:43:29 PMI will say that a single route number for the theoretical MI to Myrtle Beach trip is of diminished importance in the GPS era. This goes for any long trip, really.

All the way from Michigan to Myrtle Beach, sure, but the decision to have US 23 abruptly exit the corridor at Carey without a plan to unify the Columbus-Perrysburg corridor in the short term was extremely stupid.

Quote from: GCrites on July 27, 2025, 07:43:29 PMI will say that a single route number for the theoretical MI to Myrtle Beach trip is of diminished importance in the GPS era. This goes for any long trip, really.

I would concur, particularly given how GPS apps can provide a driver with a more direct route.

Quote from: Mav94 on July 27, 2025, 08:15:56 PM

Quote from: GCrites on July 27, 2025, 07:43:29 PMI will say that a single route number for the theoretical MI to Myrtle Beach trip is of diminished importance in the GPS era. This goes for any long trip, really.

I would concur, particularly given how GPS apps can provide a driver with a more direct route.

If limited data plans didn't exist, sure, but the current routing of US 23 from Perrysburg to Carey is counterintuitive to low-income motorists. It just doesn't make sense. Highway numbers are supposed to have a useful purpose, not take these random tangents for no good reason.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2025, 03:55:51 PMsame with I-99. It's fine.

My issue with I-99 is that it's a frankencorridor with no real purpose.  Altoona isn't big enough for a 2di, nor is is part of any corridor that is major enough for one, so Bud Schuster glued it onto the totally separate US 15 corridor to try to make a viable 2di out of it so he could get his I-99 through his district.

Quote from: SP Cook on July 27, 2025, 04:10:03 PMBut really, a discussion of its mis design, and subsequent 60 SL and high accident rates, is a different discussion of if it is over capacity.  It isn't near that.

Not over capacity =/= Fully adequete

Not to mention, it is a bottleneck during several weekends throughout the year, and has quite a bit of truck traffic. It's not "fully" adequate long-term.

QuoteWV is so bad that the local TV stations give Myrtle Beach weather and even sometimes news in the summer.  But the flow of Myrtle Beach traffic that a 73 would get is just that.  Toronto, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Piedmont Triad. That is some people, but there are a lot more people that get to Myrtle Beach on many other roads. 

Now an extension of the Conway Bypass (SC 22) to somewhere on I-95 is probably a good idea.  Toll the **** out of it.  But from there to Rockingham is just building a road for numbering sake.

I-73 being completed between I-95 and Roanoke isn't "just building a road for numbering sake". It provides an alternative route to the heavily congested I-77 corridor (Charlotte area) between I-95 and I-81, and also provides a connection between Greensboro and I-95.

The current route is a two-lane road entering South Carolina, before widening to a 4 lane divided highway closer to I-95. It also travels through Bennettsville. At minimum, NC-38 / SC-38 needs to be widened to a four lane divided highway with a freeway bypass around Bennettsville. The current route is not adequate.

QuoteSo its already good.  Good to know.  No need to upgrade.  And no reason to call it I-74 if it was.

Correct, because NCDOT has put a significant amount of work upgrading the corridor over the years and is continuing to do so. Over 20 miles of new interstate highway was constructed in the Lumberton area to bypass the previous 2 lane road, and NCDOT continues to close off the remaining intersections along the limited access with intersections portion of the route. The more mileage that is improved to interstate standards, the more portions they're able to increase from 60 to 70 mph.

Quote from: vdeane on July 27, 2025, 09:16:27 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2025, 03:55:51 PMsame with I-99. It's fine.

My issue with I-99 is that it's a frankencorridor with no real purpose.  Altoona isn't big enough for a 2di, nor is is part of any corridor that is major enough for one, so Bud Schuster glued it onto the totally separate US 15 corridor to try to make a viable 2di out of it so he could get his I-99 through his district.

That is still not a reason to make any changes to the existing number.

Altoona has a population of 45,000 and State College has 40,000 with a major university in Penn State. The Williamsport area has over 100,000 population. The I-99 corridor connects these with Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, etc. in New York which all combine for a population over a million.

The interstate is certainly not useless and connecting nothing. It is an interstate, however, that will be adequate as a 4 lane highway for decades to come, carrying lighter traffic volumes and need little improvements, outside of actually completing its gaps between Williamsport and I-80.

Quote from: vdeane on July 27, 2025, 09:16:27 PMMy issue with I-99 is that it's a frankencorridor with no real purpose.  Altoona isn't big enough for a 2di, nor is is part of any corridor that is major enough for one, so Bud Schuster glued it onto the totally separate US 15 corridor to try to make a viable 2di out of it so he could get his I-99 through his district.

The Appalachian Thruway was planned before the ADHS.

In the late 1950s, planners envisioned a continuous highway stretching from Cumberland, Maryland, through central Pennsylvania, and up to Corning, New York.

This route followed the corridors of US 220 (Cumberland to Williamsport) and US 15 (Williamsport to Corning).

The goal was to modernize and replace the winding, two-lane alignments with a high-speed, limited-access route to improve mobility and stimulate economic growth in the Appalachian region.

The corridor was designed to connect southern and northern Appalachia, linking industrial centers and rural communities.

It was later incorporated into the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) in 1965 as Corridor O, and eventually designated as Interstate 99 in the 1990s.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 28, 2025, 12:17:01 AM

Quote from: SP Cook on July 27, 2025, 04:10:03 PMBut really, a discussion of its mis design, and subsequent 60 SL and high accident rates, is a different discussion of if it is over capacity.  It isn't near that.

Not over capacity =/= Fully adequete

Not to mention, it is a bottleneck during several weekends throughout the year, and has quite a bit of truck traffic. It's not "fully" adequate long-term.

Eliminating the toll booths and instituting open-road tolling would eliminate most of those bottlenecks, as might building some strategically-placed truck climbing lanes.

But you still have the two tunnels (East River and Big Walker) that aren't on the turnpike segment (or even in the same state) that bottleneck traffic because people apparently don't know how to drive in tunnels.

Quote from: hbelkins on July 28, 2025, 01:16:44 PMEliminating the toll booths and instituting open-road tolling would eliminate most of those bottlenecks, as might building some strategically-placed truck climbing lanes.

Agrees, and these should be done. I believe some segments of the Turnpike have climbing lanes (?), but certainly more could help.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 28, 2025, 12:18:01 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 27, 2025, 09:16:27 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2025, 03:55:51 PMsame with I-99. It's fine.

My issue with I-99 is that it's a frankencorridor with no real purpose.  Altoona isn't big enough for a 2di, nor is is part of any corridor that is major enough for one, so Bud Schuster glued it onto the totally separate US 15 corridor to try to make a viable 2di out of it so he could get his I-99 through his district.

That is still not a reason to make any changes to the existing number.

Altoona has a population of 45,000 and State College has 40,000 with a major university in Penn State. The Williamsport area has over 100,000 population. The I-99 corridor connects these with Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, etc. in New York which all combine for a population over a million.

The interstate is certainly not useless and connecting nothing. It is an interstate, however, that will be adequate as a 4 lane highway for decades to come, carrying lighter traffic volumes and need little improvements, outside of actually completing its gaps between Williamsport and I-80.

Sure, I-99 is useful for Altoona and State College... but it's useless for Rochester (which has a long history of getting shafted when it comes to interstates; bypassed by its east-west 2di, no north-south 2di, and 3dis that should have gone to NY 104 but got truncated to I-490 instead).  All traffic to points south uses the US 15/PA 147/US 22 corridor (which sees more traffic than I-99 ever will).  So I-99 is three corridors with one number, while Corning-Harrisburg is one corridor with (more than) three numbers.  Figure that one out.

Quote from: hbelkins on July 28, 2025, 01:16:44 PMEliminating the toll booths and instituting open-road tolling would eliminate most of those bottlenecks, as might building some strategically-placed truck climbing lanes.

Come to think of it, am I the only person who still uses "open road tolling" to refer to a situation with highway-speed transponder lanes in the center with cash booths on the side (distinctive from all-electronic tolling, which is highway-speed gantries with no cash option)?

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 22, 2025, 03:52:35 AM

Quote from: TempoNick on July 22, 2025, 12:19:24 AMBTW, who made you people hall monitors?

In my case, Alex did. He also gave me the ability to delete or move off-topic posts and ban users that make too many of them.

Consider not making me use those abilities.

Let's stay on the topic of only upgrades that are being officially considered by the government of Ohio.

Thanks for recognizing that my original post was only about the issue of reviving Future I-73 in the new Ohio Legislature feasibility study.  The feasibility study focusses on building a new terrain freeway generally parallel to the U.S. 23 corridor from Toledo to Cheasepeake to the Ohio River.  The Ohio Legislature's goal is to establish an interstate freeway between the two cities in Ohio with eventual connection to I-64 in Huntington West Virginia as required by Federal law and with I-75 near Toledo.  ODOT has final discretion to decide exactly what the route will become when the feasibility study is concluded.  ODOT will listen to the public at the public comment meetings as part of the feasibility study, and anyone, including fans on this website, are welcome to give their input at that time.  One thing that people on this website are ignoring is that public opposition today will probably be the same as in the 1990's if not worse because more developments have been built along any potential route.

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on July 29, 2025, 03:07:33 AMThe feasibility study focusses on building a new terrain freeway generally parallel to the U.S. 23 corridor from Toledo to Cheasepeake to the Ohio River.

You're still stuck on this whole "new terrain freeway" thing, huh. OH-823, OH-15, and most of US-23 north of Columbus on limited access right of way would all be bypassed, and using the existing corridor is outside the scope of the study, according to you. 

QuoteOhio Legislature's

Quoteas required by Federal law

:rolleyes:

QuoteODOT has final discretion to decide exactly what the route will become when the feasibility study is concluded.

And their final discretion will likely either: use existing freeways and highways to the extent possible (such as existing limited access facilities), and also: the significant amount of money required to upgrade and relocate this corridor (particularly south of Chillicothe) for the light amount of traffic that uses it, does not justify the expense.

If Ohio wants a limited access route south, they have two largely limited access highways that would require far less expensive upgrades and would provide a more direct connection by 30 miles.

QuoteOne thing that people on this website are ignoring is that public opposition today will probably be the same as in the 1990's if not worse because more developments have been built along any potential route.

One thing you're ignoring is the practicality of this entire concept. A corridor on new location, parallel to a lot of existing freeway segments, one that travels over 30 miles out of the way for a motorist connecting from Columbus to I-64 East / I-77 South, etc.

More info from outside the Forum Thread:

https://sciotovalleyguardian.com/2025/07/28/route-23-could-soon-become-i-73/?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwL18YNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHtZB1s5mPva1fIOA3BLhYPYWTRzkq7Y9b7YhSWOiQ2yOO5VskbJQVHPB0G3V_aem_1KcuXp_hTHgYg9okjV5QiA#mdova5p050lp31ynw9d

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 29, 2025, 07:11:21 AM

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on July 29, 2025, 03:07:33 AMThe feasibility study focusses on building a new terrain freeway generally parallel to the U.S. 23 corridor from Toledo to Cheasepeake to the Ohio River.

You're still stuck on this whole "new terrain freeway" thing, huh. OH-823, OH-15, and most of US-23 north of Columbus on limited access right of way would all be bypassed, and using the existing corridor is outside the scope of the study, according to you. 

QuoteOhio Legislature's

Quoteas required by Federal law

:rolleyes:

QuoteODOT has final discretion to decide exactly what the route will become when the feasibility study is concluded.

And their final discretion will likely either: use existing freeways and highways to the extent possible (such as existing limited access facilities), and also: the significant amount of money required to upgrade and relocate this corridor (particularly south of Chillicothe) for the light amount of traffic that uses it, does not justify the expense.

If Ohio wants a limited access route south, they have two largely limited access highways that would require far less expensive upgrades and would provide a more direct connection by 30 miles.

QuoteOne thing that people on this website are ignoring is that public opposition today will probably be the same as in the 1990's if not worse because more developments have been built along any potential route.

One thing you're ignoring is the practicality of this entire concept. A corridor on new location, parallel to a lot of existing freeway segments, one that travels over 30 miles out of the way for a motorist connecting from Columbus to I-64 East / I-77 South, etc.

The new terrain route is not a fiction; the Ohio State Legislature ordered the feasibility study of the Future I-73 route parallel to U.S. 23 from Toledo to Chesapeake,  "The Director of Transportation shall conduct a feasibility study for the creation of an Interstate Route 73 corridor connecting the municipal corporation of Toledo to the municipal corporation of Chesapeake, primarily alongside current United States Route 23".   Nothing about this proposal from the Ohio Legislature is practical, so I don't know why you think I am promoting it, it is unfeasible from the start just like it was in the 1990's, another road to nowhere as all of I-73 was when first proposed.

Quote from: thenetwork on July 29, 2025, 02:27:57 PMMore info from outside the Forum Thread:

https://sciotovalleyguardian.com/2025/07/28/route-23-could-soon-become-i-73/?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwL18YNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHtZB1s5mPva1fIOA3BLhYPYWTRzkq7Y9b7YhSWOiQ2yOO5VskbJQVHPB0G3V_aem_1KcuXp_hTHgYg9okjV5QiA#mdova5p050lp31ynw9d

So we're looking at another rinse and repeat; however, I'm not seeing any mention of I-74 because they probably didn't think it would've been worth it to continue past Cincinnati, as no good route can be found between its terminus at I-75 and that of OH 32 without consuming some very expensive land, which is not an ideal thing to do these days.

Quote from: Henry on July 30, 2025, 10:36:00 PM

Quote from: thenetwork on July 29, 2025, 02:27:57 PMMore info from outside the Forum Thread:

https://sciotovalleyguardian.com/2025/07/28/route-23-could-soon-become-i-73/?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwL18YNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHtZB1s5mPva1fIOA3BLhYPYWTRzkq7Y9b7YhSWOiQ2yOO5VskbJQVHPB0G3V_aem_1KcuXp_hTHgYg9okjV5QiA#mdova5p050lp31ynw9d

So we're looking at another rinse and repeat; however, I'm not seeing any mention of I-74 because they probably didn't think it would've been worth it to continue past Cincinnati, as no good route can be found between its terminus at I-75 and that of OH 32 without consuming some very expensive land, which is not an ideal thing to do these days.

If they were going to continue it beyond Cincinnati, the easiest thing would be to sign-post it along I-75, I-71, I-471, and I-275. There is no way a new location route would ever be built.

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on July 30, 2025, 09:16:19 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 29, 2025, 07:11:21 AM

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on July 29, 2025, 03:07:33 AMThe feasibility study focusses on building a new terrain freeway generally parallel to the U.S. 23 corridor from Toledo to Cheasepeake to the Ohio River.

You're still stuck on this whole "new terrain freeway" thing, huh. OH-823, OH-15, and most of US-23 north of Columbus on limited access right of way would all be bypassed, and using the existing corridor is outside the scope of the study, according to you. 

QuoteOhio Legislature's

Quoteas required by Federal law

:rolleyes:

QuoteODOT has final discretion to decide exactly what the route will become when the feasibility study is concluded.

And their final discretion will likely either: use existing freeways and highways to the extent possible (such as existing limited access facilities), and also: the significant amount of money required to upgrade and relocate this corridor (particularly south of Chillicothe) for the light amount of traffic that uses it, does not justify the expense.

If Ohio wants a limited access route south, they have two largely limited access highways that would require far less expensive upgrades and would provide a more direct connection by 30 miles.

QuoteOne thing that people on this website are ignoring is that public opposition today will probably be the same as in the 1990's if not worse because more developments have been built along any potential route.

One thing you're ignoring is the practicality of this entire concept. A corridor on new location, parallel to a lot of existing freeway segments, one that travels over 30 miles out of the way for a motorist connecting from Columbus to I-64 East / I-77 South, etc.

The new terrain route is not a fiction; the Ohio State Legislature ordered the feasibility study of the Future I-73 route parallel to U.S. 23 from Toledo to Chesapeake,  "The Director of Transportation shall conduct a feasibility study for the creation of an Interstate Route 73 corridor connecting the municipal corporation of Toledo to the municipal corporation of Chesapeake, primarily alongside current United States Route 23".   Nothing about this proposal from the Ohio Legislature is practical, so I don't know why you think I am promoting it, it is unfeasible from the start just like it was in the 1990's, another road to nowhere as all of I-73 was when first proposed.

That's just semanitics. "Primarily alongside..." means not all the route would be new-terrain. The OH 15-I-75 section could be defined as "primarily alongside" existing US 23.

Policy people write bills, not engineers.

2 of the 2025 TRAC applications (https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/programs/trac/home/2025-apps) are for preliminary engineering and right of way purchasing for the intersections of US 23 with Home Rd and Orange Rd. Both applications estimate $50 million for construction costs, so it looks like both intersections will become interchanges.

Orange Road will be an overpass over US 23, with a connector road to be constructed to facilitate that connection. Home Road will be a full interchange. (source (https://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/files/2025%20-%2023Connect%20-%20US%2023%20Corridor%20Action%20Plan%20-%20Jan%202025.pdf))

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 31, 2025, 12:26:49 AM

Quote from: Henry on July 30, 2025, 10:36:00 PM

Quote from: thenetwork on July 29, 2025, 02:27:57 PMMore info from outside the Forum Thread:

https://sciotovalleyguardian.com/2025/07/28/route-23-could-soon-become-i-73/?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwL18YNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHtZB1s5mPva1fIOA3BLhYPYWTRzkq7Y9b7YhSWOiQ2yOO5VskbJQVHPB0G3V_aem_1KcuXp_hTHgYg9okjV5QiA#mdova5p050lp31ynw9d

So we're looking at another rinse and repeat; however, I'm not seeing any mention of I-74 because they probably didn't think it would've been worth it to continue past Cincinnati, as no good route can be found between its terminus at I-75 and that of OH 32 without consuming some very expensive land, which is not an ideal thing to do these days.

If they were going to continue it beyond Cincinnati, the easiest thing would be to sign-post it along I-75, I-71, I-471, and I-275. There is no way a new location route would ever be built.

Or they could reroute it over the north and east sides of I-275 and make the in-town part an I-x74. As much as I like your idea of taking it down I-75, I-71 and I-471 to I-275, this creates the unfortunate side effect of entering a state briefly before returning to the other, like I-24 in TN and GA.

I agree with Henry on a theoretical eastern extension of Interstate 74 (which, even if OH 32 is upgraded into an Interstate-Standard freeway, it probably will not become an extension of Interstate 74).

Again, let's keep everything in this thread real proposals only and NOT theoretical. I have already issued sanctions in this thread for this, so my options for handling it if it keeps happening are to issue more sanctions or lock the thread.

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2025, 11:18:16 PMAgain, let's keep everything in this thread real proposals only and NOT theoretical. I have already issued sanctions in this thread for this, so my options for handling it if it keeps happening are to issue more sanctions or lock the thread.

Was I-74 not a real proposal? Genuinely asking here.

House Passes Resolution Urging for the Extension of I-73 and I-74 (https://ohiohouse.gov/members/jason-stephens/news/house-passes-resolution-urging-for-the-extension-of-i-73-and-i-74-108407)

Quote COLUMBUS - The Ohio House of Representatives today unanimously passed House Concurrent Resolution 31 urging Governor DeWine and the Director of Transportation to provide for the extension of I-73 and I-74 into Ohio.

[...]

The project would also include the extension of I-74 from Cincinnati to Portsmouth. Several routes for this project are being studied for the most suitable to accommodate this addition.

"Several routes" would seem to imply that proposals to extend I-74 through Cincinnati eastward via various methods along existing interstates are indeed real proposals. These stem back to the 1990s and original discussions with I-73/I-74.

That being said, if off-topic discussion is a rampant issue here (because the current proposal is unrealistic), how about splitting the thread into its own discussion? I'm surprised it hasn't been already.

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 05, 2025, 12:24:28 AMThat being said, if off-topic discussion is a rampant issue here (because the current proposal is unrealistic), how about splitting the thread into its own discussion? I'm surprised it hasn't been already.

Not being a local, I'm having a hard time figuring out what is and isn't real because people keep pulling crap like posting three sentences about something ODOT might plausibly be studying and then saying "Theoretically that could be part of I-23."

This is the one situation where regional moderators really come in handy.

Let me see if I can help out.

About I-74, the House Continuing Resolution referenced died in committee once it went to the Ohio Senate (https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/134/hcr31). While ODOT has been working to reduce access points on Ohio 32 (see this overpass project (https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/projects/103957), these Eastern Corridor projects (https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/mega-projects/mega-projects/eastern-corridor), and this project in Brown County (https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/projects/110478)), I think that I-74 is outside the scope of this discussion. There is no mention of it in the studies added to the transportation budget.

When it comes to I-73, I think that this has legs in Ohio. We will see the results of the 71-23 connector study in a little under 60 days (end of September). ODOT has been quietly working to build overpasses and interchanges from Findlay to Marion. This project (https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/projects/114008) is located in Hancock County (and I suggest watching the imbedded YouTube video on the page around the 7:30 mark), while the US 23/Ohio 294 intersection will become an interchange in 2027 (https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/projects/121424) (start watching around the 4:30 mark for the long-term goal). While the focus in our discussions about I-73 in Ohio has been traffic counts, the recurring theme I have found from the project videos is that the focus is on safety due to serious accidents in these stretches of highway.

I know that there have been posts made about US 23 being sufficient south of Columbus. Since I'm not an engineer, I am simply going to share the data I found on ODOT's traffic count (https://odot.public.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?mod=tcds)site. Anecdotally, I have found my drives from 270 to Circleville to feel very slow with all of the traffic lights between 270 and South Bloomfield. The most recent count at the US 23/Ohio 665/Ohio 317 intersection puts the volume at 37,000 AADT, and it fluctuates between 27,000-35,000 from there down to the Ohio 207 interchange. The lowest count anywhere between Columbus and the Portsmouth Bypass at 17,000 AADT about 2 miles north of the Ohio 823 interchange.

^Thanks for the link to the ODOT traffic count tool. According to it traffic counts were higher (13,000) in 2024 on 23 just south of the Portsmouth Bypass than on the Bypass itself (9,000).

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 06, 2025, 06:53:31 PMThe most recent count at the US 23/Ohio 665/Ohio 317 intersection puts the volume at 37,000 AADT, and it fluctuates between 27,000-35,000 from there down to the Ohio 207 interchange. The lowest count anywhere between Columbus and the Portsmouth Bypass at 17,000 AADT about 2 miles north of the Ohio 823 interchange.

This is well into freeway territory, and comparable to roads like US-24 between Toledo and the Indiana state line. 

It's not terribly surprising that the Portsmouth Bypass has lower traffic than vehicles headed into and out of Portsmouth. That doesn't make Ohio 823 unimportant - the reduction in traffic going through Portsmouth is certainly welcome. But Portsmouth is a regional destination, and currently the corridor between there and points south and east aren't well developed for interregional traffic. 

For example, following the signed US-23 corridor between Portsmouth and I-64 means lots of in-town traffic and stoplights along the way. US-52 on the Ohio side doesn't have that issue, but the only free-flowing crossing takes you several miles out of your way if you intend to continue south on US-23. 

Would through traffic increase if there was a free-flowing connection between US-23 at I-64 and US-23 at Ohio 823? Likely. Would it be enough to justify building one? The fact it doesn't exist already speaks volumes.

Quote from: JREwing78 on August 10, 2025, 12:02:56 AMFor example, following the signed US-23 corridor between Portsmouth and I-64 means lots of in-town traffic and stoplights along the way. US-52 on the Ohio side doesn't have that issue, but the only free-flowing crossing takes you several miles out of your way if you intend to continue south on US-23.

Would through traffic increase if there was a free-flowing connection between US-23 at I-64 and US-23 at Ohio 823? Likely. Would it be enough to justify building one? The fact it doesn't exist already speaks volumes.

OH-823->US-52->KY-10 (Greenup Dam)->US-23->KY-67 (Industrial Parkway)->I-64 attempts it.

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 05, 2025, 12:36:24 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 05, 2025, 12:24:28 AMThat being said, if off-topic discussion is a rampant issue here (because the current proposal is unrealistic), how about splitting the thread into its own discussion? I'm surprised it hasn't been already.

Not being a local, I'm having a hard time figuring out what is and isn't real because people keep pulling crap like posting three sentences about something ODOT might plausibly be studying and then saying "Theoretically that could be part of I-23."

This is the one situation where regional moderators really come in handy.

The Ohio State House passed resolutions urging Governor Dewine and the Ohio Department of Transporation to revive the I-73 and I-74 projects cancelled in the 1990's.  What the Ohio State Legislature finally voted into law is to fund a feasibility study of Future I-73 following the U.S. 23 corridor from Toledo to Chesapeake Ohio.  The Ohio Department of Transporation has issued a request for proposals (https://taylor.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/taylor.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/i-73-study-info-w-map-1.pdf) to study all options for a Future I-73 highway. The request for proposals clearly gives objectives of the study:
• Provide an objective, transparent analysis of what it would take to construct I-73.
• It's important to remember that this is not a commitment to build the interstate—but strictly
informational. It arms the state's decision makers with data so they can execute accordingly. 
• The study assesses county-by-county impacts and will identify pinch points and areas of concern.
• The findings of this study will help guide future transportation investment decisions using accurate,
comprehensive data.
• Ultimately, it helps determine where scarce funding can be most effectively allocated.

This article doesn't add a lot to the technical side of things or to project updates, but it does add the perspective of those who are lobbying to get Ohio to build Interstate 73.

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2025/08/ohio-joins-six-state-effort-to-build-1000-mile-interstate-corridor.html

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 11, 2025, 05:47:02 AMThis article doesn't add a lot to the technical side of things or to project updates, but it does add the perspective of those who are lobbying to get Ohio to build Interstate 73.

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2025/08/ohio-joins-six-state-effort-to-build-1000-mile-interstate-corridor.html

Quote Each of the six states has designated portions of the route as priority corridors, but he says progress varies between them. Gray says Michigan has made the most progress, with portions of Interstate 75 already serving the corridor's northern terminus, near the border with Ontario.

Michigan?

NC I-73 has only 20 miles not completed, and is contingent on Virginia and South Carolina building connecting pieces. The rest of the route is fully complete in North Carolina and signed as I-73.

MI I-73 has over 70 miles of limited access highway yet to be built, and zero miles of any existing roads are designated as I-73.

-

Either way, West Virginia is not interested in this project (I-64 and I-77 provide the connection - which is why US-33 or US-35 are more logical, and far more direct routes), and Virginia is not interested outside of maybe US-220 (I-77 and I-74 provide the connection).

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 11, 2025, 11:33:00 AMEither way, West Virginia is not interested in this project (I-64 and I-77 provide the connection - which is why US-33 or US-35 are more logical, and far more direct routes), and Virginia is not interested outside of maybe US-220 (I-77 and I-74 provide the connection).

And doubtful then Kentucky wants a piece of I-73 unless a miracle happen.

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 11, 2025, 11:33:00 AMEither way, West Virginia is not interested in this project (I-64 and I-77 provide the connection - which is why US-33 or US-35 are more logical, and far more direct routes), and Virginia is not interested outside of maybe US-220 (I-77 and I-74 provide the connection).

Not to mention the fact that offering an another alternate to 77 in WV would eat at the revenue of the turnpike which the state desperately needs

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 11, 2025, 11:33:00 AM

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 11, 2025, 05:47:02 AMThis article doesn't add a lot to the technical side of things or to project updates, but it does add the perspective of those who are lobbying to get Ohio to build Interstate 73.

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2025/08/ohio-joins-six-state-effort-to-build-1000-mile-interstate-corridor.html

Quote Each of the six states has designated portions of the route as priority corridors, but he says progress varies between them. Gray says Michigan has made the most progress, with portions of Interstate 75 already serving the corridor's northern terminus, near the border with Ontario.

Michigan?

NC I-73 has only 20 miles not completed, and is contingent on Virginia and South Carolina building connecting pieces. The rest of the route is fully complete in North Carolina and signed as I-73.

MI I-73 has over 70 miles of limited access highway yet to be built, and zero miles of any existing roads are designated as I-73.

-

Either way, West Virginia is not interested in this project (I-64 and I-77 provide the connection - which is why US-33 or US-35 are more logical, and far more direct routes), and Virginia is not interested outside of maybe US-220 (I-77 and I-74 provide the connection).

Gray does not know what the hell he's talking about. MI does not care about I-73 at all. And last time I checked, it was the I-73/I-74 Corridor, with no mention of I-75. If I-73 were to exist in MI, the furthest it could go on its own would be Grayling, then I-75 takes over the rest of the way to Sault Ste. Marie. The fact that US 52 is being rebuilt as a surface expressway instead of a freeway also speaks volumes about WV's plans for the corridor, and VA and SC may not even get their parts completed barring a large Congressional windfall.

Bringing the discussion back to Ohio :) , I had the opportunity to drive US 23 from the south side of Columbus down to Circleville yesterday. It was awful. I did not get above 45 mph between 270 and the Pickaway County line due to the traffic lights and slow-moving semi traffic. The other thing I noticed is that the berms are miniscule on left and right. The new rest area looks nice and has additional truck parking, but the signage has not been completed to indicate it is open. I think the location is far enough north of South Bloomfield that it will not be a waste of money once a bypass of South Bloomfield is eventually completed.

Traffic opened up for a couple of miles, but by that time I was getting to South Bloomfield. The sidewalk project is well underway, but it did not seem to hinder traffic any more than normal. The rest of the drive was pretty nondescript, but I did see that any bridges that have been rehabbed recently have been widened for interstate standard berms.

I ended up stopping on the south side of Circleville for a quick bite to eat and stop at Walmart, so I was able to see again just how close to the road the development really is. If this section of 23 were to be improved to a freeway, I think the best option is to put in an overpass at the Court St Connector, cul de sac Sperry Dr, and put in an interchange using the south side of Circle Lane.

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 15, 2025, 07:02:05 AMBringing the discussion back to Ohio :) , I had the opportunity to drive US 23 from the south side of Columbus down to Circleville yesterday. It was awful. I did not get above 45 mph between 270 and the Pickaway County line due to the traffic lights and slow-moving semi traffic. The other thing I noticed is that the berms are miniscule on left and right. The new rest area looks nice and has additional truck parking, but the signage has not been completed to indicate it is open. I think the location is far enough north of South Bloomfield that it will not be a waste of money once a bypass of South Bloomfield is eventually completed.

Traffic opened up for a couple of miles, but by that time I was getting to South Bloomfield. The sidewalk project is well underway, but it did not seem to hinder traffic any more than normal. The rest of the drive was pretty nondescript, but I did see that any bridges that have been rehabbed recently have been widened for interstate standard berms.

I ended up stopping on the south side of Circleville for a quick bite to eat and stop at Walmart, so I was able to see again just how close to the road the development really is. If this section of 23 were to be improved to a freeway, I think the best option is to put in an overpass at the Court St Connector, cul de sac Sperry Dr, and put in an interchange using the south side of Circle Lane.

What day and what time of day did you take the drive?

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 15, 2025, 07:02:05 AMTraffic opened up for a couple of miles, but by that time I was getting to South Bloomfield. The sidewalk project is well underway, but it did not seem to hinder traffic any more than normal.

It is not a sidewalk project actually. It is just for turn lanes. The sidewalk part got dropped by ODOT citing a lack of projected demand for that travel mode.

Quote from: Rothman on August 15, 2025, 08:51:45 AM

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 15, 2025, 07:02:05 AMBringing the discussion back to Ohio :) , I had the opportunity to drive US 23 from the south side of Columbus down to Circleville yesterday. It was awful. I did not get above 45 mph between 270 and the Pickaway County line due to the traffic lights and slow-moving semi traffic. The other thing I noticed is that the berms are miniscule on left and right. The new rest area looks nice and has additional truck parking, but the signage has not been completed to indicate it is open. I think the location is far enough north of South Bloomfield that it will not be a waste of money once a bypass of South Bloomfield is eventually completed.

Traffic opened up for a couple of miles, but by that time I was getting to South Bloomfield. The sidewalk project is well underway, but it did not seem to hinder traffic any more than normal. The rest of the drive was pretty nondescript, but I did see that any bridges that have been rehabbed recently have been widened for interstate standard berms.

I ended up stopping on the south side of Circleville for a quick bite to eat and stop at Walmart, so I was able to see again just how close to the road the development really is. If this section of 23 were to be improved to a freeway, I think the best option is to put in an overpass at the Court St Connector, cul de sac Sperry Dr, and put in an interchange using the south side of Circle Lane.

What day and what time of day did you take the drive?

My time through there was 3:30 on Thursday, so a little before the worst of rush hour here. The bigger issue, though, is that 23 is operating like something closer to an arterial road rather than a main route for through traffic. The current look and feel south of 270 is how 23 between Worthington and Delaware operated 30 years ago when I had to travel to Olentangy HS (the original; now the district has 4 high schools and trying for a fifth) for high school events. I hope that ODOT and local governments in the area team up on zoning to cut down on direct access points to help with traffic flow until improvements (interchanges and frontage roads) can be implemented.

Nothing like taking the most expensive portion of the entire route to create a cost estimate for the entire route.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2025/08/18/i-73-columbus-and-toledo-interstate-cost/85681258007/

$13.75 billion? Would even building the roadway as a toll road be enough to pay for such an expensive roadway? This is why I think the proposed roadway will be built in either a piecemeal process or not at all.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2025, 10:51:50 AM$13.75 billion? Would even building the roadway as a toll road be enough to pay for such an expensive roadway? This is why I think the proposed roadway will be built in either a piecemeal process or not at all.

The article said they calculated for a 275 mile roadway, although between Findlay (I-75) and Lucasville (OH-823) there's only 174 miles, call it 150 miles when taking out the I-270 concurrency. So using their unit cost (from OH-823 which again was expensive due to being a new terrain route with blasting) it'd be only $7.5 billion. Now let's look at what tolls would do.

The Ohio Turnpike made $388 million in toll revenue on 3.033 billion VMT in 2024 per their annual report. This comes out to approximately 35,000 vehicles per mile paying an average 13 cents per mile over 241 miles of road. Assuming that the rural/urban average vehicles per mile is close to 25k for US 23, tolling all 150 miles of new freeway would net $177 million per year, which would require 42 years just to pay off the principal amount at the bs unit price in the article.

In reality, most of the route would be upgraded from US-23, and would likely cost much less (closer to $5 million per mile in rural areas). Tolling would generate between $1.1-1.2 million per mile, and the principal would likely be paid off within a decade.

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 22, 2025, 06:12:01 AMNothing like taking the most expensive portion of the entire route to create a cost estimate for the entire route.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2025/08/18/i-73-columbus-and-toledo-interstate-cost/85681258007/

Would you rather they use the least expensive portion?

Quote from: vdeane on August 22, 2025, 12:40:00 PM

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 22, 2025, 06:12:01 AMNothing like taking the most expensive portion of the entire route to create a cost estimate for the entire route.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2025/08/18/i-73-columbus-and-toledo-interstate-cost/85681258007/

Would you rather they use the least expensive portion?

The story says 275 miles for 13.75 billion dollars.  Someone needs to do some corrective math here.  Some of the roadway (such as the Portsmouth bypass, the roadway with I-75, and perhaps the area through Columbus, etc) are already done.  There would be some upgrades, but that's a lot of miles already in place with either interstate or "interstate-type. limited access, exits" roadway already in place.

Something tells me following a largely controlled access US-33 or US-35 with piecemeal upgrades would be easier to purse, and cheaper. But I digress.

Quote from: Life in Paradise on August 22, 2025, 12:48:30 PM

Quote from: vdeane on August 22, 2025, 12:40:00 PM

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 22, 2025, 06:12:01 AMNothing like taking the most expensive portion of the entire route to create a cost estimate for the entire route.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2025/08/18/i-73-columbus-and-toledo-interstate-cost/85681258007/

Would you rather they use the least expensive portion?

The story says 275 miles for 13.75 billion dollars.  Someone needs to do some corrective math here.  Some of the roadway (such as the Portsmouth bypass, the roadway with I-75, and perhaps the area through Columbus, etc) are already done.  There would be some upgrades, but that's a lot of miles already in place with either interstate or "interstate-type. limited access, exits" roadway already in place.

Just because something looks like an interstate when you drive on it doesn't mean it meets interstate standards, though.  Just look at I-86/NY 17 in NY... the most expensive part yet to be upgraded isn't even the part with at-grades, it's the freeway between I-84 and the Thruway (and that was before the widening project got bundled in).

Quote from: vdeane on August 22, 2025, 12:40:00 PM

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 22, 2025, 06:12:01 AMNothing like taking the most expensive portion of the entire route to create a cost estimate for the entire route.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2025/08/18/i-73-columbus-and-toledo-interstate-cost/85681258007/

Would you rather they use the least expensive portion?

I would greatly prefer the author to make a reasonable estimate, even in an opinion hit piece. My initial very rough estimate is around $6 billion, and while that is a lot of money, it is still less than half of Mr. Warner's scaremongering. It will take me much more time to type out how I got there than how I actually did the estimating, but here goes. And FIC, "primarily" in the Ohio Revised Code means 50% + 1 of the total route, so it can diverge from US 23 without the legislature getting upset (this comes from my experience working on compliance programs in multiple agencies of Ohio's state government, so I can't really source that one).

Page 3 of ODOT's RFP for the study (https://taylor.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/taylor.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/i-73-study-info-w-map-1.pdf) gives us what will be the likely result for the vast majority of the corridor. I-73 would be concurrent with either I-75 or I-475 from the Michigan state line to Findlay. From Findlay, I-73 would use the SR 15/US 23 corridor to the north side of Columbus, and ODOT already has programmed work in place to make the route from Findlay to Marion be fully limited access (see the links in paragraph 2 of post 188). It's going to be very expensive to connect I-73 from US 23 to I-71, but there's a separate study taking place for that, and we will revisit this. From I-71 to the north side of Columbus, we will likely need a 4th lane on I-71, and ODOT already has a project to build a flyover ramp from 71 South to I-270 East on the north side of town. We need a new flyover ramp from I-270 to US 23 south, so let's include that here, too. We have now made it down to Columbus and around it with maybe $0.5-1 billion in total cost excluding the 71-23 connector (sorry for the tease).

Without going into as much detail on the corridor south from Columbus to the Ohio River, I think that the Interstate 69 project from the Ohio River to Indianapolis is a better and timelier comparison, especially since the heaviest lifting (building the Portsmouth Bypass, which will still need upgrading) is complete in Ohio. This article (https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2024/08/06/decades-in-the-making-indiana-to-unveil-last-stretch-of-i-69/) tells me that the project cost approximately $4 billion to build, with half of that for the final phase that included the I-465 interchange. I think that $2 billion for upgrading US 23 from Columbus to the river is a fair quick estimate to use , and the other $2 billion is what I'll allocate for the 71-23 connector (tease paid in full :-D ).

This gets us to the crossing over the Ohio River. Once again, I-69 is going to help here, because Indiana and Kentucky have provided us a solid estimate for a bridge. Page 15 of their most recent update (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2024-I-69-ORX-FPAU_FINAL.pdf) estimates the cost at just under $1.4 billion, so I'm going to round up to $1.75 billion to also account for an interchange with I-64 in West Virginia.

For those who don't like math, my estimate totals $6.75 billion, which is less than half of Mr. Warner's. It's a LOT of money to be sure, and I don't know if Ohio is willing to stomach that cost, especially when the state does have rough roads and decrepit bridges (the D+ infrastructure grade doesn't lie, but freeze/thaw cycles do damage that can't be fully mitigated). Regardless, I came up with that figure with 5-10 minutes of Google searches, which is likely the same amount of time Mr. Warner used to scale the cost of the Portsmouth Bypass into today's dollars, create a per mile cost, and then add to his submission. He and The Columbus Dispatch should do a lot better.

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 23, 2025, 07:53:59 AM

Quote from: vdeane on August 22, 2025, 12:40:00 PM

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 22, 2025, 06:12:01 AMNothing like taking the most expensive portion of the entire route to create a cost estimate for the entire route.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2025/08/18/i-73-columbus-and-toledo-interstate-cost/85681258007/

Would you rather they use the least expensive portion?

I would greatly prefer the author to make a reasonable estimate, even in an opinion hit piece. My initial very rough estimate is around $6 billion, and while that is a lot of money, it is still less than half of Mr. Warner's scaremongering. It will take me much more time to type out how I got there than how I actually did the estimating, but here goes. And FIC, "primarily" in the Ohio Revised Code means 50% + 1 of the total route, so it can diverge from US 23 without the legislature getting upset (this comes from my experience working on compliance programs in multiple agencies of Ohio's state government, so I can't really source that one).

Page 3 of ODOT's RFP for the study (https://taylor.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/taylor.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/i-73-study-info-w-map-1.pdf) gives us what will be the likely result for the vast majority of the corridor. I-73 would be concurrent with either I-75 or I-475 from the Michigan state line to Findlay. From Findlay, I-73 would use the SR 15/US 23 corridor to the north side of Columbus, and ODOT already has programmed work in place to make the route from Findlay to Marion be fully limited access (see the links in paragraph 2 of post 188). It's going to be very expensive to connect I-73 from US 23 to I-71, but there's a separate study taking place for that, and we will revisit this. From I-71 to the north side of Columbus, we will likely need a 4th lane on I-71, and ODOT already has a project to build a flyover ramp from 71 South to I-270 East on the north side of town. We need a new flyover ramp from I-270 to US 23 south, so let's include that here, too. We have now made it down to Columbus and around it with maybe $0.5-1 billion in total cost excluding the 71-23 connector (sorry for the tease).

Without going into as much detail on the corridor south from Columbus to the Ohio River, I think that the Interstate 69 project from the Ohio River to Indianapolis is a better and timelier comparison, especially since the heaviest lifting (building the Portsmouth Bypass, which will still need upgrading) is complete in Ohio. This article (https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2024/08/06/decades-in-the-making-indiana-to-unveil-last-stretch-of-i-69/) tells me that the project cost approximately $4 billion to build, with half of that for the final phase that included the I-465 interchange. I think that $2 billion for upgrading US 23 from Columbus to the river is a fair quick estimate to use , and the other $2 billion is what I'll allocate for the 71-23 connector (tease paid in full :-D ).

This gets us to the crossing over the Ohio River. Once again, I-69 is going to help here, because Indiana and Kentucky have provided us a solid estimate for a bridge. Page 15 of their most recent update (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2024-I-69-ORX-FPAU_FINAL.pdf) estimates the cost at just under $1.4 billion, so I'm going to round up to $1.75 billion to also account for an interchange with I-64 in West Virginia.

For those who don't like math, my estimate totals $6.75 billion, which is less than half of Mr. Warner's. It's a LOT of money to be sure, and I don't know if Ohio is willing to stomach that cost, especially when the state does have rough roads and decrepit bridges (the D+ infrastructure grade doesn't lie, but freeze/thaw cycles do damage that can't be fully mitigated). Regardless, I came up with that figure with 5-10 minutes of Google searches, which is likely the same amount of time Mr. Warner used to scale the cost of the Portsmouth Bypass into today's dollars, create a per mile cost, and then add to his submission. He and The Columbus Dispatch should do a lot better.

Add inflation and the fact this won't be built for another 20+ years (particularly south of Columbus), if at all. All of a sudden $13.75 billion doesn't seem too unreasonable.

Long distance traffic that I-73 is intending to serve is not using the US-23 corridor, nor would they with an upgraded route until West Virginia constructs their portion (which will never happen).

For now, an I-73 plan only needs to exist as far north as the I-75/US-68/SR-15 interchange, as there existing freeways a future I-73 would multiplex on north of Findlay in Ohio.  Why the study must detail it's future track along I-75 and I-475 is a moot point until Michigan agrees on a potential I-73 routing in the Wolverine state.

I-73's northern terminus could naturally end at I-75.  I really don't see why it must be forced to continue further north, hell or high water, at this time.

It's also worth noting that estimates can sometimes include anticipated inflation between now and when construction would be expected to happen.

I'm not laying awake at night in eager anticipation of this.

Mike

Not sure why carbaugh's estimate is any better than the one in the article.

Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2025, 06:41:40 PMNot sure why carbaugh's estimate is any better than the one in the article.

I think my 10 minutes of work is high, maybe even double what the study will calculate. I had forgotten about ODOT's recent feasibility study on a new 4-lane bridge and interchange at Ravenswood, which came in at a cost of $290 million (source) (https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/projects/120478). The 71-23 connector is an unanswerable variable until that study comes out at the end of September. My point was that you don't create an estimate for an entire corridor based on a per mile cost of new highway going through the most difficult terrain of the entire corridor unless you want to scare people away from considering something to be viable. Surely, you can appreciate that as a transportation engineer.

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 22, 2025, 09:35:30 PMSomething tells me following a largely controlled access US-33 or US-35 with piecemeal upgrades would be easier to purse, and cheaper. But I digress.

From a practical standpoint, US 33 is left out of this study because it doesn't have direct access to the developments around Rickenbacker Airport, which includes the Anduril megasite under development. While I agree that US 35 warrants serious consideration and would be much cheaper, I think that the uranium enrichment facility in Piketon is situated close to US 23, and Ohio legislators have been trying to prop it up since its startup.

With regards to looking at how this connects to the overall corridor, I don't think that the General Assembly is looking at how this would fit with any work in the bordering states.









 

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 24, 2025, 07:00:54 AM

Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2025, 06:41:40 PMNot sure why carbaugh's estimate is any better than the one in the article.

I think my 10 minutes of work is high,

I'm sure 10 minutes of work was enough to come up with an accurate estimate...

Quote from: Rothman on August 24, 2025, 03:15:55 PM

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 24, 2025, 07:00:54 AM

Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2025, 06:41:40 PMNot sure why carbaugh's estimate is any better than the one in the article.

I think my 10 minutes of work is high,

I'm sure 10 minutes of work was enough to come up with an accurate estimate...

If I had sufficient knowledge of the cost of various types of projects in Ohio, then I would agree with you. I posted my quick work based on I-69 with the hope that others would collaborate and sharpen it with their knowledge and observations (an x-mile long segment needs proper berms, this ramp project was bid for $x million, etc.) so I could learn and apply it in the future. It's why I said I didn't spend much time on the estimate.

Outside of the 71-23 connector, I would like to get a ballpark idea for what it will take financially to upgrade the corridor to fully limited access, even if it weren't to include an interstate designation. I do know that it isn't $13.75 billion, and I am fairly confident that it isn't $6.5 billion, either. I have friends, family, and coworkers that struggle with the traffic and subsequent safety issues on a daily basis from Marion to Circleville. My read on the legislature is there appears to be the will to bring the project to fruition, regardless of what is happening in any of the other states that are part of the I-73 corridor. I'm also hoping to learn through the process of getting there. I'd appreciate the help in sharpening my knowledge and skills, but if you aren't willing, then that's fine too. This thread will start falling down the list, at least until the results of the 71-23 connector study is submitted to the General Assembly and made public at the end of September.  ;-)

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 24, 2025, 06:13:53 PM

Quote from: Rothman on August 24, 2025, 03:15:55 PM

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 24, 2025, 07:00:54 AM

Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2025, 06:41:40 PMNot sure why carbaugh's estimate is any better than the one in the article.

I think my 10 minutes of work is high,

I'm sure 10 minutes of work was enough to come up with an accurate estimate...

If I had sufficient knowledge of the cost of various types of projects in Ohio, then I would agree with you. I posted my quick work based on I-69 with the hope that others would collaborate and sharpen it with their knowledge and observations (an x-mile long segment needs proper berms, this ramp project was bid for $x million, etc.) so I could learn and apply it in the future. It's why I said I didn't spend much time on the estimate.

Outside of the 71-23 connector, I would like to get a ballpark idea for what it will take financially to upgrade the corridor to fully limited access, even if it weren't to include an interstate designation. I do know that it isn't $13.75 billion, and I am fairly confident that it isn't $6.5 billion, either. I have friends, family, and coworkers that struggle with the traffic and subsequent safety issues on a daily basis from Marion to Circleville. My read on the legislature is there appears to be the will to bring the project to fruition, regardless of what is happening in any of the other states that are part of the I-73 corridor. I'm also hoping to learn through the process of getting there. I'd appreciate the help in sharpening my knowledge and skills, but if you aren't willing, then that's fine too. This thread will start falling down the list, at least until the results of the 71-23 connector study is submitted to the General Assembly and made public at the end of September.  ;-)

Now I'm not sure how you thought your estimate was better than the one provided.

Quote from: vdeane on August 22, 2025, 09:41:10 PM

Quote from: Life in Paradise on August 22, 2025, 12:48:30 PM

Quote from: vdeane on August 22, 2025, 12:40:00 PM

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 22, 2025, 06:12:01 AMNothing like taking the most expensive portion of the entire route to create a cost estimate for the entire route.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2025/08/18/i-73-columbus-and-toledo-interstate-cost/85681258007/

Would you rather they use the least expensive portion?

The story says 275 miles for 13.75 billion dollars.  Someone needs to do some corrective math here.  Some of the roadway (such as the Portsmouth bypass, the roadway with I-75, and perhaps the area through Columbus, etc) are already done.  There would be some upgrades, but that's a lot of miles already in place with either interstate or "interstate-type. limited access, exits" roadway already in place.

Just because something looks like an interstate when you drive on it doesn't mean it meets interstate standards, though.  Just look at I-86/NY 17 in NY... the most expensive part yet to be upgraded isn't even the part with at-grades, it's the freeway between I-84 and the Thruway (and that was before the widening project got bundled in).

I'm going by the Rand McNally map showing limited access.   I-86/NY 17 does show a gap of several miles of just four lane (non-interstate) miles next to the PA border.  If a road is already limited access with exits, there should be less upgrading than a four lane with driveways and at grade intersections.  That's why I made my observation.

Quote from: vdeane on August 22, 2025, 09:41:10 PM

Quote from: Life in Paradise on August 22, 2025, 12:48:30 PM

Quote from: vdeane on August 22, 2025, 12:40:00 PM

Quote from: carbaugh2 on August 22, 2025, 06:12:01 AMNothing like taking the most expensive portion of the entire route to create a cost estimate for the entire route.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2025/08/18/i-73-columbus-and-toledo-interstate-cost/85681258007/

Would you rather they use the least expensive portion?

The story says 275 miles for 13.75 billion dollars.  Someone needs to do some corrective math here.  Some of the roadway (such as the Portsmouth bypass, the roadway with I-75, and perhaps the area through Columbus, etc) are already done.  There would be some upgrades, but that's a lot of miles already in place with either interstate or "interstate-type. limited access, exits" roadway already in place.

Just because something looks like an interstate when you drive on it doesn't mean it meets interstate standards, though.  Just look at I-86/NY 17 in NY... the most expensive part yet to be upgraded isn't even the part with at-grades, it's the freeway between I-84 and the Thruway (and that was before the widening project got bundled in).

The overpasses must be 16'5" to be interstate. Many  there don't meet that.  The DDI in Woodbury raised NY 17/32 as part of that conversion as that was only one of many overpasses that need replacing.  NYSDOT decided to make use of the interchange replacement to take care of that as well and made it known in the project summary during construction on the state website.

I think a new terrain alignment would be better between Waverly and Richmond Dale versus overlaying US 23 through Massieville.

And regarding the connections with OH 823, I think it's possible to extend OH 823 over and curve around rejoin US 23 to the north, like how the WV Turnpike curves around US 60 outside Charleston.