Ohio

[SkyPesos]

And looking at AADT data, it seems like that the most usage for US 23 south of Columbus is to connect to US 35 (for points southeast) at Chillicothe. So I don't really see a need to upgrade US 23 south of Chillicothe anyways.

You guys here are in love with US 35, and I admit, that's a nice drive. But there is nothing along there. Absolutely nothing. You are capturing a lot more population, not to mention commerce, if you use the original route. US 35 makes sense if you're only concerned about Columbus traffic. But if you want to pick up and serve traffic along the way, the original route is more practical.

The original route picks up Portsmouth, Ashland, Ironton and Huntington and all the business and traffic generated along that route. I think that's a fairly significant reason to go with the original plan. Plus, if the idea is to extend I-74, you lose too much mileage going backward if you have to go back up to us 35 to go south.

US 35 picks up traffic from Dayton, Cincinnati and Columbus to WV, southern VA and the Carolinas. Dayton is directly on US 35, Columbus via US 23, and Cincinnati via either I-71 (from northern suburbs) or OH 32 (from downtown or eastern suburbs). Not to mention that it's part of the fastest route from other parts of the Midwest to the Carolinas too, like form Detroit, Chicago or Minneapolis for example. And it's an even better route now that WV finished the last 4 lane section a few months ago. This is why I'm more interested in it for long-distance traffic than a route that goes out of the way through small cities in southern Ohio and western WV.

[Buck87]

I've been looking at the STIP for the first time in a while and noticed this:

SAN US 20 20.80 roundabout
Termini: the easterly interchange (US-20/State St.) on the Fremont By-Pass
Description: A safety funded project to reconfigure the easterly interchange (US-20/State St.) on the Fremont By-Pass to a roundabout. The
intersection of CR 198 & CR 199 with US 20 will also be closed.

Did some searching and found this video from 2019 which shows the diagrams of the proposals at time:
https://www.wtol.com/article/news/local/us-20-safety-alternatives/512-1e9bf01a-d3fa-48e6-a440-2a1aabb3f987

...so damn, if the roundabout is really what they are going with, eastbound US 20 will have to go through a roundabout right after the speed limit drops from 65 to 60 (westbound gets lanes to bypass the roundabout)

[seicer]

How is there that many accidents for that interchange set up? The west end - with an intersection thrown into the middle of it, looks more suspect. I don't mind roundabouts, either, but from a 65 MPH freeway? That seems like what is proposed for the Chesapeake bypass - a limited access 55 MPH expressway with a roundabout dead center.

[Buck87]

The accidents occur at the CR 229/198 intersection on US 20 just north of the interchange. Since there is no eastbound State St to westbound US 20 movement, traffic that wants to go that direction must use CR 198/229 and turn left onto 20 (there are trailblazers directing this move.) This project would eliminate that intersection altogether and make it possible to turn left at grade from State to US 20.

Going eastbound on US 20, the speed limit drops from 65 to 60 between the OH 412 exit and the CR 229/198 intersection, as that intersection marks the end of the full freeway portion of the bypass. I wonder if they will move that drop farther back and/or decrease the speed limit to 55 for the stretch approaching the roundabout.

For the record I think this roundabout is a crazy stupid idea.

Edit to add, based on the funding listed in the STIP, this is planned to be a 2024 project.

[wanderer2575]

How is there that many accidents for that interchange set up? The west end - with an intersection thrown into the middle of it, looks more suspect. I don't mind roundabouts, either, but from a 65 MPH freeway? That seems like what is proposed for the Chesapeake bypass - a limited access 55 MPH expressway with a roundabout dead center.

How is that really any different from the current traffic signal another 1/2 mile farther along (at Shock Road/OH-19) from a 65 mph freeway?

Separate note:  The bridge carrying the westbound US-20 exit to State Street over the eastbound lanes looks fairly new.  That's a big waste of money and material.

[GCrites]

The roundabouts at US-33 and OH-664 in Logan seem to be working out fine.

[skluth]

How is there that many accidents for that interchange set up? The west end - with an intersection thrown into the middle of it, looks more suspect. I don't mind roundabouts, either, but from a 65 MPH freeway? That seems like what is proposed for the Chesapeake bypass - a limited access 55 MPH expressway with a roundabout dead center.

How is that really any different from the current traffic signal another 1/2 mile farther along (at Shock Road/OH-19) from a 65 mph freeway?

The problem is with EB drivers going from the bypass directly into the roundabout

[seicer]

The roundabouts at US-33 and OH-664 in Logan seem to be working out fine.

Those are on ramps.

[wanderer2575]

How is there that many accidents for that interchange set up? The west end - with an intersection thrown into the middle of it, looks more suspect. I don't mind roundabouts, either, but from a 65 MPH freeway? That seems like what is proposed for the Chesapeake bypass - a limited access 55 MPH expressway with a roundabout dead center.

How is that really any different from the current traffic signal another 1/2 mile farther along (at Shock Road/OH-19) from a 65 mph freeway?

The problem is with EB drivers going from the bypass directly into the roundabout

I understand what you are saying.  My point is that EB drivers currently go from the bypass directly into a traffic signal.  I don't think adding a roundabout only 1/2 mile before the signal adds any additional hazard.

[TempoNick]

Traffic splits fairly evenly heading south/east from Chillicothe on US 23 versus US 35.

Portsmouth, Ashland, Ironton, and Huntington already have a four-lane route to Columbus (US 23) that adequate serves its traffic. There's probably a justification to be made for a Waverly bypass, but with traffic counts in the 13K-21K range south of Chillicothe, there's no need for a full freeway in that section.

If need along any given point is your metric, then you could disqualify any project from being a freeway. The object is connectivity. Where does Columbus and Dayton want to connect in the long run? The several hundred thousand people along the river or Bob Evans in Gallipolis?

[Bitmapped]

Traffic splits fairly evenly heading south/east from Chillicothe on US 23 versus US 35.

Portsmouth, Ashland, Ironton, and Huntington already have a four-lane route to Columbus (US 23) that adequate serves its traffic. There's probably a justification to be made for a Waverly bypass, but with traffic counts in the 13K-21K range south of Chillicothe, there's no need for a full freeway in that section.

If need along any given point is your metric, then you could disqualify any project from being a freeway. The object is connectivity. Where does Columbus and Dayton want to connect in the long run? The several hundred thousand people along the river or Bob Evans in Gallipolis?

Need, largely determined by traffic demand, is how road construction gets prioritized. 4-lane expressways like the existing US 23 and US 52 provide a high level of connectivity. If you're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new facility, you'd better have a pretty good reason why the current one is inadequate.

Considering that Portsmouth, Ironton, Ashland, and Huntington are depopulating and in economic decline, I doubt that freeway access to them is really all that high on the priority list for Dayton or Columbus.

[SkyPesos]

Traffic splits fairly evenly heading south/east from Chillicothe on US 23 versus US 35.

Portsmouth, Ashland, Ironton, and Huntington already have a four-lane route to Columbus (US 23) that adequate serves its traffic. There's probably a justification to be made for a Waverly bypass, but with traffic counts in the 13K-21K range south of Chillicothe, there's no need for a full freeway in that section.

If need along any given point is your metric, then you could disqualify any project from being a freeway. The object is connectivity. Where does Columbus and Dayton want to connect in the long run? The several hundred thousand people along the river or Bob Evans in Gallipolis?

This may sound new to you, but drivers can change from one highway number to another using these things called interchanges, connecting them to places on another highway.

Look at the cities beyond US 35 for why it got upgraded to 4 lanes, not just what's on it.

[Buck87]

On the topic of roundabouts, there are a lot of them in the works in Ohio. I did a ctrl+F for "roundabout" in the STIP document and thought my laptop was going to crash for a second while the search loaded.

Some noteworthy ones planned for the next 1-3 years in northern Ohio that caught my eye:

OH 18 and OH 601 east of Norwalk. This is right next to Summit Motorsports park and an R&L Trucking distribution center and is just down the road from the previously discussed roundabout at US 20 and OH 601 that opened last year.

US 250 and OH 60 on the north side of Ashland. This is at the northwest end of Ashland's 2 lane bypass. There's also a couple planned on US 42 further northeast of Ashland at OH 89 and OH 302.

US 6 at Cedar Point Dr in Sandusky. This one will be interesting as it butts right up against Pipe Creek/Castaway Bay as well as some local business parking lots including the Thirsty Pony/Cedar Lanes complex. This intersection handles the vast majority of traffic going to and from Cedar Point. 

OH 4 and OH 99 about a mile north of the Ohio Turnpike. OH 4 gets very busy in the summer with Cedar Point and general Shores and Islands area traffic.

OH 18 and OH 511 in the unincorporated village of Brighton. Two churches are there across road from each other, but sit far enough back that it shouldn't be a problem. 

OH 163 and North Shore Blvd/Englebeck Rd west of Marblehead. North Shore is the main road going back into Lakeside.

OH 113 and Baumhart Rd, 1 mile south of Baumhart's Ohio Turnpike exit.

SR 83 and Chestnut Ridge Rd in North Ridgeville. There's a nice bar there called 83 and Chestnut that I hope survives.

US 224 and OH 587 between Tiffin and Findlay.

OH 98 and OH 597 north of Waldo.

[TempoNick]

Look at the cities beyond US 35 for why it got upgraded to 4 lanes, not just what's on it.

And that's exactly my point. Connecting Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati to Huntington/Ashland/Ironton seems like it wouldn't be a bad idea. US 35 is a good road to Charleston, but you have to backtrack to get to Huntington.

[seicer]

There just isn't demand. OH 7 south of Gallipolis drops to under 2,300 VPD, and the initial phases of the Chesapeake-Proctorville bypass are being built to two-lane limited-access standards with the ultimate goal of building out to four lanes with interchanges - but that's mostly because the area is a bedroom community for Huntington.

On the West Virginia side, WV 2 drops to around 3,500 to 4,500, depending on how close to Huntington or Point Pleasant you are. The new Nucor plant will add some traffic but not enough to warrant four lanes. There are long-range "plans" to widen all of Route 2 to four lanes but that's gotten nowhere except for at its northern reaches. Parts of the route in Cabell County are built on a four-lane right-of-way but that's about it.

I live in the Tri-State area and frequently go to Columbus. US 23 is the preferred route and it takes about 2.25 hours via US 23 and OH 823. With the Portsmouth bypass in place, there is no need to traverse steep and winding two-lane roads. If I'm going to Dayton, I take US 23 and US 35 as those are essentially all freeways or expressways. Cincinnati? US 23 to the AA Highway (2 hours) or US 23 to OH 73-32 (2.25 hours) or OH 32 (2.5 hours).

[sprjus4]

Look at the cities beyond US 35 for why it got upgraded to 4 lanes, not just what's on it.

And that's exactly my point. Connecting Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati to Huntington/Ashland/Ironton seems like it wouldn't be a bad idea. US 35 is a good road to Charleston, but you have to backtrack to get to Huntington.

US-23 is just as adequate of a route as US-35 is. Why wouldn't one just take that?

[skluth]

How is there that many accidents for that interchange set up? The west end - with an intersection thrown into the middle of it, looks more suspect. I don't mind roundabouts, either, but from a 65 MPH freeway? That seems like what is proposed for the Chesapeake bypass - a limited access 55 MPH expressway with a roundabout dead center.

How is that really any different from the current traffic signal another 1/2 mile farther along (at Shock Road/OH-19) from a 65 mph freeway?

The problem is with EB drivers going from the bypass directly into the roundabout

I understand what you are saying.  My point is that EB drivers currently go from the bypass directly into a traffic signal.  I don't think adding a roundabout only 1/2 mile before the signal adds any additional hazard.

I know there's a light not far beyond the proposed roundabout EB. However, a stop light may force a driver to slow down. A roundabout forces a driver to slow down. Not a big deal for drivers in cars. But for trucks, it's a big deal. It's not a problem for EB trucks as there is a bypass for the roundabout for drivers bypassing Fremont.

Also, the speed limit is 65 mph EB going into the roundabout. It's 60 mph WB (and that's after the stoplight and only for drivers entering Fremont). Not much difference, but every little bit helps. Especially as Ohio drivers are likely to know 65 is the typical expressway speed and any lower speed could mean obstacles like stop lights.

I agree that it's not much distinction. I've dealt with roundabouts in the middle of nowhere when I've gone back to visit relatives in Wisconsin. I didn't like them either. And I usually like roundabouts.

[sprjus4]

^ Except for highways in the eastern part of the state, which may be wide open expressways with little obstacles easily traversable at 70+ mph, however are all capped at 60 mph simply due to low traffic at-grade crossings.

[frankenroad]

OH 163 and North Shore Blvd/Englebeck Rd west of Marblehead. North Shore is the main road going back into Lakeside.

I'm glad to see they are finally doing something for that intersection.  I personally had been thinking a  signal and dedicated turn lanes, but I think a roundabout will work well there.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

On the topic of roundabouts, there are a lot of them in the works in Ohio. I did a ctrl+F for "roundabout" in the STIP document and thought my laptop was going to crash for a second while the search loaded.

Some noteworthy ones planned for the next 1-3 years in northern Ohio that caught my eye:

OH 98 and OH 597 north of Waldo.

OH 98 & Oh 529 or Oh 98 & Oh 598? There is no 597.

[Buck87]

OH 98 and OH 597 north of Waldo.

OH 98 & Oh 529 or Oh 98 & Oh 598? There is no 597.

529. That was a pretty bad typo.

[wanderer2575]

A roundabout was just completed end of last year at the Ohio Turnpike's exit 91, replacing the trumpet interchange at OH-53.  I'm guessing the bridge was in need of replacement and it was decided to eliminate it instead, but with a roundabout instead of a signalized T-intersection.

https://goo.gl/maps/HEWuzRYPdPbhFQZCA

[tolbs17]

A roundabout was just completed end of last year at the Ohio Turnpike's exit 91, replacing the trumpet interchange at OH-53.  I'm guessing the bridge was in need of replacement and it was decided to eliminate it instead, but with a roundabout instead of a signalized T-intersection.

https://goo.gl/maps/HEWuzRYPdPbhFQZCA

Definitely a downgrade. I have a feeling something like that could happen here as well. Used to serve I-95 traffic but its relatively quiet here now.

4299 N U.S. 301
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HHkG7PoQ2mKrFsvq6

[SkyPesos]

A roundabout was just completed end of last year at the Ohio Turnpike's exit 91, replacing the trumpet interchange at OH-53.  I'm guessing the bridge was in need of replacement and it was decided to eliminate it instead, but with a roundabout instead of a signalized T-intersection.

https://goo.gl/maps/HEWuzRYPdPbhFQZCA

Definitely a downgrade. I have a feeling something like that could happen here as well. Used to serve I-95 traffic but its relatively quiet here now.

4299 N U.S. 301
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HHkG7PoQ2mKrFsvq6

And another excuse for you to post an unrelated NC GSV link...

[wanderer2575]

A roundabout was just completed end of last year at the Ohio Turnpike's exit 91, replacing the trumpet interchange at OH-53.  I'm guessing the bridge was in need of replacement and it was decided to eliminate it instead, but with a roundabout instead of a signalized T-intersection.

https://goo.gl/maps/HEWuzRYPdPbhFQZCA

Definitely a downgrade. I have a feeling something like that could happen here as well. Used to serve I-95 traffic but its relatively quiet here now.

4299 N U.S. 301
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HHkG7PoQ2mKrFsvq6

If it's "relatively quiet" then maybe it's not worth the money to replace structures supporting high traffic volumes that don't exist.