Ohio Legislature Mandates Feasibility Study of Future I-73

[FutureInterstateCorridors]

The Future I-73/I-74 North-South Corridor and the Future I-66 Trans-America Corridors where the biggest example of boondoggle highway projects created by Congress in the 1991 ISTEA.  Both were completely motivated by local business interest and local politicians that were the worst highway concepts too expensive to build with neither solving any traffic problem.  Future I-73 was the "wish-list" of business and local politicians in Bluefield West Virginia that wanted the U.S. 52 King Coal Highway to become an interstate through Bluefield.  Future I-66 was the concept of business interest in Wichita Kansas that wanted to revive the tourism of "Route 66" from Washington D.C. (thus I-66) to Los Angeles California.  They tried to convince Congressmen and Senators from across the nation to make their "wish-list" come true, except the majority of state transportation departments new the concepts were unfeasible and had no intention to fund any part of these boondoggles.  But Senators like Warner of Virginia and Faircloth of North Carolina created the ridiculous idea of I-73 and extending I-74, both out of place in the Interstate system grid.  And now a few State Legislators passed a resolution in 2022 and convinced the Ohio State Legislature in House Bill 54 to direct the Ohio Department of Transportation to conduct another feasibility 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" study the highway is not feasible and that public opposition will be massive in the Columbus area.  The Legislators of Southeast Ohio don't care and are funding this SECOND feasibility study of Future I-73.  The never learn.

"...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 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. 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", which implies a "new terrain" route separate from U.S. 23.

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 making the cost of the "new terrain" Future I-73 between $5B-$6B.  Even 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.  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) in 2024 rescinded the 2001 location decision for an I-73 alignment between Roanoke and the North Carolina border and the Henry County Alternative, effectively terminating future planning or funding of Future I-73 in Virginia. The estimated cost to design and build I-73 between Roanoke and the North Carolina border was $4 billion in 2017 dollars. The project was never funded to advance to design or construction phases.    VDOT currently has no funding identified to study, design or construct I-73 in Virginia.  If I-73 connects to I-75 at Findlay or by way of I-280 east of Toledo to I-75, trying to convince Michigan to build I-73 is unneccesary.  The same is true if I-73 connects to I-64, then I-73 south of I-64 just parallels I-77 and I-74 that already connects to I-73 in North Carolina, another unneccesary duplication that avoids convencing West Virginia and Virginia to spend money they don't want to spend.

[vdeane]

Virginia completely cancelled the I-73 project

Why do people continue to believe this? 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.

Even 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.

[TempoNick]

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.

[hbelkins]

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).

[TempoNick]

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).

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.

[GCrites]

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%.

[TempoNick]

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%.

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[TempoNick]

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.

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.

[JREwing78]

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.

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. 

[thenetwork]

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.

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.

[SP Cook]

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

[TempoNick]

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

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

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 Ghostbuster]

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.

[GCrites]

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.

[TempoNick]

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.

[Bitmapped]

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.

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

[sprjus4]

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.

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

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.

[TempoNick]

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.

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.

[FutureInterstateCorridors]

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.

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.  Unless the AASHTO decommissions I-73 in North Carolina, to avoid duplicating I-73 in North Carolina the future interstate should be designated as I-63.

How will future interstates be funded?  The state transportation departments and groups like the Ports-to-Plains Coalition and future I-69 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 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.