Ohio Legislature Mandates Feasibility Study of Future I-73

[Scott5114]

We 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. 

Enjoy your 80 points.

[hbelkins]

We 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. 

Enjoy your 80 points.

As I was saying...

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

[hbelkins]

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."

[chesapeake256]

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.

[Bitmapped]

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.

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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?"

[vdeane]

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."

Kinda reminds me of the US 4S proposal (and an even earlier I-390 proposal).

[carbaugh2]

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.

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).

[Rothman]

"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.

[SP Cook]

and 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.

[sprjus4]

The 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".

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

Agreed.

, 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.

Only 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.

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.

"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.

[Molandfreak]

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.

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

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

[SP Cook]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Only 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.

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.

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

[GCrites]

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.

[Molandfreak]

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.

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.

[Mav94]

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.

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

[Molandfreak]

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.

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.

[vdeane]

same 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.

[sprjus4]

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.

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.

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.

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.

So 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.

[sprjus4]

same 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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

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.

[sprjus4]

Eliminating 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.

[vdeane]

same 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.

Eliminating 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)?