Ohio Legislature Mandates Feasibility Study of Future I-73

[TempoNick]

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. 

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

[sprjus4]

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

[Molandfreak]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

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.

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.

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

[Bitmapped]

-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.

[Molandfreak]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Rothman]

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.

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!

[vdeane]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[TempoNick]

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[TempoNick]

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.

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

[...]

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.

[FutureInterstateCorridors]

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.

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 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. 
 

[Rothman]

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.

[SP Cook]

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.