AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster  (Read 17670 times)

tdindy88

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1213
  • Last Login: Today at 12:17:04 PM
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2015, 03:13:23 AM »

Wish Indiana could do that.
Logged

PurdueBill

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1115
  • Last Login: Today at 10:01:57 AM
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #26 on: April 20, 2015, 05:21:19 PM »


By enhanced mile markers, do we mean the blue ones with shield and 2/10 mileage?  If so, they are out there in Ohio in many places on US and state routes and have been for a while.  I've seen them on US 35, OH 8, US 422, OH 315 to name a few.  (315 even has a few odd-tenth ones.)  These predated exit numbering even.

Yes but I'm pretty sure putting them on conventional surface streets is new.

Yeah, this is the one vtk's referring to - they go down College as well, joining up with the freeway portion. I've not seen them in that setting anywhere else.

[image removeed]

I didn't know that stretch was even state-maintained. Thought Livingston, Main, and Broad were entirely local maintenance.

As I understand it, that should be local maintenance. But that doesn't mean ODOT can't erect signs in cooperation with the local jurisdictions.

ODOT in Region 4 did go on a kick a couple years ago placing the small white mile markers that reset at county lines on non-state-maintained sections of numbered routes.  All the routes (18, 261, 59, 91, 241, etc.) passing through Akron, Fairlawn, Cuyahoga Falls, etc. got them.  (Some nearly instantly became bases for other signs--for example, AKTE right away used the u-channel post for OH 18 mile marker 6 to attach another sign post to so now the mile marker isn't visible correctly in both directions. 

Now indeed, I wonder why INDOT can't be allowed to reach some understanding where state route numbers can be blazed over city streets with city maintenance.  It would beat the crap with routes like 25 and 26 randomly starting and ending.  (Although the reaction of some to the West Lafayette State Street stuff included comments like "now that we're free of the state on this, we can do what we want at last!" makes me think that maybe enough people don't WANT the routes continuous...)
Logged

Buck87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 653
  • Aesculus glabra

  • Age: 30
  • Location: Bellevue, Ohio
  • Last Login: Today at 12:26:33 PM
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #27 on: December 28, 2015, 08:34:48 PM »

Any update on the Carroll interchange? I can't seem to find much about what progress has been made since the project got underway in the spring.
Logged
When it comes to volume, the Ohio River is not a tributary. The Upper Mississippi is.

vtk

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3896
  • she pronouns please

  • Age: -17
  • Location: Columbus
  • Last Login: February 13, 2018, 09:24:19 AM
    • Vid's Space
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #28 on: January 11, 2016, 11:22:58 AM »

I don't go that way for work as frequently as I used to, but as of the fall, it looked like the work was progressing steadily.
Logged
Look, over by the restrooms! It's a girl! It's a boy! No, it's Captain Enby!

…Do you think they're trying to decide which one to use?

GCrites80s

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 692
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Columbus, OH
  • Last Login: October 22, 2017, 11:03:36 AM
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #29 on: January 11, 2016, 08:57:32 PM »

Yes, steady progress. It's still in the grading phase; no bridge beams down yet.
Logged

Buck87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 653
  • Aesculus glabra

  • Age: 30
  • Location: Bellevue, Ohio
  • Last Login: Today at 12:26:33 PM
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #30 on: June 08, 2016, 09:14:57 AM »

Just noticed you can see the Carroll project underway in the current Google maps aerial and street view pics.

District 5 is not good about posting updates to the project page or even on Facebook
Logged
When it comes to volume, the Ohio River is not a tributary. The Upper Mississippi is.

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2819
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:18:39 AM
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #31 on: June 08, 2016, 10:29:32 AM »

Just noticed you can see the Carroll project underway in the current Google maps aerial and street view pics.

District 5 is not good about posting updates to the project page or even on Facebook

Now, to properly redo that part between I-70 and I-270 (southeast) . . . .

(yea, we can all dream   :spin:  )

Mike
Logged

cl94

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5060
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Troy, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 08:46:47 AM
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #32 on: June 08, 2016, 11:26:50 AM »

Just noticed you can see the Carroll project underway in the current Google maps aerial and street view pics.

District 5 is not good about posting updates to the project page or even on Facebook

Now, to properly redo that part between I-70 and I-270 (southeast) . . . .

(yea, we can all dream   :spin:  )

Mike

Not gonna happen. Rebuild plans have them keeping the signal.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

vtk

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3896
  • she pronouns please

  • Age: -17
  • Location: Columbus
  • Last Login: February 13, 2018, 09:24:19 AM
    • Vid's Space
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #33 on: June 08, 2016, 12:15:34 PM »

Just noticed you can see the Carroll project underway in the current Google maps aerial and street view pics.

District 5 is not good about posting updates to the project page or even on Facebook

Now, to properly redo that part between I-70 and I-270 (southeast) . . . .

(yea, we can all dream   :spin:  )

Mike

Not gonna happen. Rebuild plans have them keeping the signal.

That section is within the scope of a study covering a portion of I-70. Last I saw alternatives for that one, there was one which was very impressive.  While still technically retaining the Petzinger Rd signal on US 33, the ramps between I-70 towards Downtown and US-33 towards Lancaster would fly over that intersection in that alternative.
Logged
Look, over by the restrooms! It's a girl! It's a boy! No, it's Captain Enby!

…Do you think they're trying to decide which one to use?

cl94

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5060
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Troy, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 08:46:47 AM
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #34 on: June 08, 2016, 12:32:34 PM »

Just noticed you can see the Carroll project underway in the current Google maps aerial and street view pics.

District 5 is not good about posting updates to the project page or even on Facebook

Now, to properly redo that part between I-70 and I-270 (southeast) . . . .

(yea, we can all dream   :spin:  )

Mike

Not gonna happen. Rebuild plans have them keeping the signal.

That section is within the scope of a study covering a portion of I-70. Last I saw alternatives for that one, there was one which was very impressive.  While still technically retaining the Petzinger Rd signal on US 33, the ramps between I-70 towards Downtown and US-33 towards Lancaster would fly over that intersection in that alternative.

That was my point. I actually like that alternative, as it preserves the freeway-freeway connection. Actually, I like ODOT's plans for I-70 between downtown and SR 204. It'll do a lot to solve the issues in that area.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Stephane Dumas

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1618
  • Last Login: Today at 07:36:48 AM
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #35 on: June 08, 2016, 04:31:48 PM »


That was my point. I actually like that alternative, as it preserves the freeway-freeway connection. Actually, I like ODOT's plans for I-70 between downtown and SR 204. It'll do a lot to solve the issues in that area.

I guess ODOT might be inspired by the freeway-freeway connection of I-680 and US-6/West Dodge Road at Omaha. http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=41.26479,-96.08275&z=15&t=S
Logged

Buck87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 653
  • Aesculus glabra

  • Age: 30
  • Location: Bellevue, Ohio
  • Last Login: Today at 12:26:33 PM
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2016, 11:00:14 PM »

District 5 has been posting some pics of the Carroll project lately on facebook, here's the most recent post: https://www.facebook.com/ODOTD5/posts/1177470612294077

« Last Edit: February 13, 2017, 12:28:37 PM by Buck87 »
Logged
When it comes to volume, the Ohio River is not a tributary. The Upper Mississippi is.

GCrites80s

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 692
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Columbus, OH
  • Last Login: October 22, 2017, 11:03:36 AM
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #37 on: July 23, 2016, 08:21:29 PM »

That picture is at least a month old since the beams on the other side of the overpass are now down. The approach on the right is much further along as well.
Logged

GCrites80s

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 692
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Columbus, OH
  • Last Login: October 22, 2017, 11:03:36 AM
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #38 on: September 08, 2016, 01:22:10 PM »

The McDonalds at the new interchange has rage-closed. Looking like a month or two until project completion.
Logged

vtk

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3896
  • she pronouns please

  • Age: -17
  • Location: Columbus
  • Last Login: February 13, 2018, 09:24:19 AM
    • Vid's Space
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #39 on: September 08, 2016, 01:32:49 PM »

It's a shame my job doesn't take me this way anymore…
Logged
Look, over by the restrooms! It's a girl! It's a boy! No, it's Captain Enby!

…Do you think they're trying to decide which one to use?

Buck87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 653
  • Aesculus glabra

  • Age: 30
  • Location: Bellevue, Ohio
  • Last Login: Today at 12:26:33 PM
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #40 on: February 11, 2017, 02:41:35 PM »

So apparently traffic has been using the new interchange at Carroll since the middle of November. Anyone been through there yet?

Logged
When it comes to volume, the Ohio River is not a tributary. The Upper Mississippi is.

GCrites80s

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 692
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Columbus, OH
  • Last Login: October 22, 2017, 11:03:36 AM
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #41 on: February 12, 2017, 09:18:01 PM »

Yes, I'm through there 5 days a week. It took me until Friday to actually use the interchange though. Barriers on 33 still need finished and I imagine 33 through there will be repaved once the asphalt plants re-open for the year. The asphalt has that awkward look and feel of having a project done on it without any more work done on the surface itself. Also, more lighting is yet to be installed. I think all the signage has been installed except for little stuff like mileage markers and cryptic inventory stuff.
Logged

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2819
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:18:39 AM
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #42 on: February 13, 2017, 11:53:26 AM »


That was my point. I actually like that alternative, as it preserves the freeway-freeway connection. Actually, I like ODOT's plans for I-70 between downtown and SR 204. It'll do a lot to solve the issues in that area.

I guess ODOT might be inspired by the freeway-freeway connection of I-680 and US-6/West Dodge Road at Omaha. http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=41.26479,-96.08275&z=15&t=S

I'd love to see a map of this proposal.

 :nod:

Mike
Logged

Buck87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 653
  • Aesculus glabra

  • Age: 30
  • Location: Bellevue, Ohio
  • Last Login: Today at 12:26:33 PM
Logged
When it comes to volume, the Ohio River is not a tributary. The Upper Mississippi is.

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2819
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:18:39 AM
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #44 on: December 13, 2017, 10:27:36 AM »

There are now 3D renderings of the proposed US 33/Petzinger Rd interchange/intersection:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D06/projects/FarEastFreewayStudy/Documents/Petzinger_Cam_1.jpg
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D06/projects/FarEastFreewayStudy/Documents/Petzinger_Cam_6.jpg
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D06/projects/FarEastFreewayStudy/Documents/Petzinger_Cam_7b.jpg

and here's the above view: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D06/projects/FarEastFreewayStudy/Documents/Petzinger%20Option%204.pdf

Interesting solution for that part of that area.  The only change that I would make would be to extend a conventional sidewalk to the northwest on the southwest side of US 33.

Elsewhere in that area, I would redo the I-70/James Rd interchange to eliminate the westbound 'par-clo' ramps on I-70, replacing them with diamond ramps (eastbound to remain), replacing the signalized ramp intersections with roundabouts and extending Petzinger Rd eastward to the roundabout that would be built at the EB ramp intersection, giving that area along Petzinger a useful 'second way out' (could Petzinger Rd to the east be reconnected with James Rd, too?).  I would also rebuild James Rd in that area to urban standards with curbs, sidewalks, streetlights, etc.

The US 33/OH 104/Refugee Rd/James Rd/Winchester Pike (et al) part will be an interesting challenge to update, especially to restore local non-motorized connectivity and integrate the area into a cohesive urban network, too.

Mike
Logged

JREwing78

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 941
  • Location: Janesville, WI
  • Last Login: February 16, 2018, 07:30:48 PM
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #45 on: December 13, 2017, 10:23:48 PM »

I find it odd that they've gone to such lengths to grade-separate traffic in the area, and then only provide one lane coming off of EBD I-70 to EBD US-33. I would think that would be a major enough movement to justify 2 EBD lanes.
Logged

vtk

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3896
  • she pronouns please

  • Age: -17
  • Location: Columbus
  • Last Login: February 13, 2018, 09:24:19 AM
    • Vid's Space
Re: US 33 Freeway Conversion - Columbus to Lancaster
« Reply #46 on: February 13, 2018, 08:32:34 AM »

There are now 3D renderings of the proposed US 33/Petzinger Rd interchange/intersection:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D06/projects/FarEastFreewayStudy/Documents/Petzinger_Cam_1.jpg
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D06/projects/FarEastFreewayStudy/Documents/Petzinger_Cam_6.jpg
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D06/projects/FarEastFreewayStudy/Documents/Petzinger_Cam_7b.jpg

and here's the above view: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D06/projects/FarEastFreewayStudy/Documents/Petzinger%20Option%204.pdf

I don't think these are new, but those renderings are very nice looking. Detailed models of existing buildings, bounce lighting, realistic terrain elevation, realistic terrain texture (though I'm a bit surprised they didn't model lush grass where earth is moved or pavement is removed), subtle depth-of-field simulation… these must have been expensive.

I find it odd that they've gone to such lengths to grade-separate traffic in the area, and then only provide one lane coming off of EBD I-70 to EBD US-33. I would think that would be a major enough movement to justify 2 EBD lanes.

It's one lane already. Sure, it backs up a bit in the afternoons, but I think bypassing the light at Petzinger could plausibly fix that. Increasing the through-width of that movement to two non-stop lanes would require expanding the scope to include rebuilding the railroad bridge to accommodate a wider roadway beneath, and modifications to the James Rd / Refugee Rd / 104 interchange — or eliminating access from Petzinger Rd to 33 EB.
Logged
Look, over by the restrooms! It's a girl! It's a boy! No, it's Captain Enby!

…Do you think they're trying to decide which one to use?

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.