1 minute ago, ColDayMan said:

Agreed with Walker.  Road diets and 2-way conversions are a must for ALL downtown streets.

 

Sounds like he's been reading Strong Towns. Plus, he swore in the article 😳

12 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

Agreed with Walker.  Road diets and 2-way conversions are a must for ALL downtown streets.

 

On 3rd and 4th it feels like a giant hand is trying to push you out of town rather than encouraging you to patronize the businesses. 

Long and Spring as well.

4 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

Long and Spring as well.

Long is just like wide open area with the seas of parking lots on either side. Drivers treat it like a race track, and it’s not surprise why. 

On 1/27/2023 at 1:41 PM, Pablo said:

https://columbusunderground.com/opinion-reducing-downtown-speed-limits-is-great-but-not-nearly-enough-we1/

 

 

Looks like this plan will change traffic light patterns too. From the Dispatch:

 

“By the end of March, the city plans on changing the timing on traffic lights to slow down traffic. On some streets now, for example, the lights are timed so drivers can hit green lights one after the other at 35 mph. That will change so they can go to each light at 25 mph, Cantrell said.

 

The city is also changing the timing of traffic lights at seven intersections. Lights will remain red in all four directions for up to seven seconds to give pedestrians a head start crossing the street, she said.

 

The intersections are: High at Rich; Broad at Cleveland;, Mound at 3rd; Gay Street at 4th; Front Street at Mound; Grant at Town; and High at Mound.“

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2023/01/30/columbus-city-council-considers-setting-speed-limit-downtown-at-25-mph/69841668007/

The advanced pedestrian signals are a good thing. I noticed the newly installed signal at 15th and High on Campus has this feature. Motorists need to get used to is, especially those who watch the cross street signal and use it like a drag strip christmas tree. (I'm talking about you, Pablo!)

Heads up motorists: A third of Franklin County's road projects for 2023 involve roundabouts
 

‘"This will be a big year for our office when it comes to roundabouts," W. Fritz Crosier, chief deputy of engineering for the Franklin County Engineer's Office, told The Dispatch.

 

Of the 12 total construction projects set for 2023 on county-owned roadways — costing a collective $18 million — four will include roundabouts: one single-lane roundabout, two multilane "2x1" roundabouts and one smaller mini-roundabout, Crosier said.

Aside from the roundabouts, the most notable county-owned road improvement projects this year include the rehabilitation and widening of Hayden Run Road bridge over the Scioto River, which also will include a shared-use path that will connect to the Central Ohio Greenways trail.

 

Meanwhile, a new 2x1 roundabout will be constructed at the intersection of Reynoldsburg-New Albany Road and Havens Road and the Havens Road bridge over Blacklick Creek near that intersection will be rehabilitated. That planned roundabout, located less than 5 minutes south of another roundabout at Reynoldsburg-New Albany and Morse roads, was originally planned to be built last year but was moved back to this year due to increases costs and material supply issues.“

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/county/2023/02/07/franklin-county-road-construction-2023-expect-more-roundabouts/69859194007/

Money on ODOT being a PITA over this. 
 

Columbus City Council votes for 25 mph speed limit on all Downtown streets

 

“The Columbus City Council voted 7-0 on Monday to lower the speed limits on all Downtown streets to 25 mph, which would knock 10 mph off many major routes. But the issue now heads to the Ohio Department of Transportation, which has said it must review and approve a city traffic study before the city can lower any speed limits because those major streets are also state routes.
 

"If people use the rules of the road, if they use the tools that are on the roadways, we know that we can prevent crashes from happening," Council member Lourdes Barroso de Padilla said in support of lowering the speed limit.

 

Citing statistics that the survival rate of pedestrians struck by a vehicle increases 10% to 90% by dropping vehicular speed from 40 mph to 20 mph, Barroso de Padilla said lowering speeds gives pedestrians better odds of avoiding serious injuries in a crash with a vehicle. She also cited local statistics showing that the number of people killed in traffic crashes on Columbus streets (not including freeways) almost doubled between 2015 and 2022, from 37 to 72.

 

Speed limits are currently 35 mph on numerous Downtown streets: Broad, 3rd, 4th, Town, Rich, Main, Mound and Fulton streets and Grant and Cleveland avenues. The Ohio Revised Code says it is prima facie lawful to go 35 mph on state routes "within municipal corporations outside business districts," but Columbus officials say Downtown meets the state's definition of a business district and all streets should therefore be reduced to 25 mph.“

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2023/02/07/odot-approval-sought-to-cut-downtown-speed-limits-to-25-mph-limit/69871374007/

Downtown Speed Limit to be Reduced to 25 MPH

 

Columbus City Council approved legislation yesterday to reduce the speed limit in Downtown Columbus to 25 miles per hour. The primary purpose behind the reduction is to improve pedestrian and cycling safety and reduce fatalities and injuries that result from car crashes.

 

“Slower vehicle speeds on our Downtown streets will save lives,” said Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther. “This bold action advances our Vision Zero goal to eliminate all fatal and serious injury crashes on Columbus streets. The lower speed limit is especially supportive of safe and equitable travel by vulnerable road users who may not have access to a vehicle and must walk or bike to reach their destinations or a bus stop.”

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/downtown-speed-limit-to-be-reduced-to-25-mph-we1/

 

Downtown Columbus speed limit lowered to 25 miles per hour

 

The speed limit in downtown Columbus is dropping down to 25 miles per hour.

 

Columbus City Council on Monday passed legislation that will request that the Ohio Department of Transportation lower the speed limit for downtown from 35 to 25 miles per hour. That request is essentially a formality, though; in the coming weeks the city's Department of Public Service will install new speed limit signs and traffic signals will be retimed, city officials said.

 

The downtown district meets the Ohio Revised Code definition of a business district and gives the city jurisdiction to lower the speed limit on streets within it.

 

Concilwoman Lourdes Barroso de Padilla, chair of the Public Services and Transportation Committee, sponsored the legislation. She said that after a public hearing on changing the speed limit, she heard from about 70 residents who supported the legislation and had concerns for cyclists and pedestrians on downtown roadways.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2023/02/07/speed-limit-downtown.html

 

On 2/7/2023 at 10:44 AM, amped91 said:

Money on ODOT being a PITA over this. 

From my understanding, they don't care as long as it isn't a State or US route. The General Assembly on the other hand...

Quote

 

Transportation bill to look at Toledo-to-Columbus connector

 

Gov. Mike DeWine on Friday signed into law a two-year, $13.5 billion transportation budget that will pour federal and state dollars into pavement and bridges, mandate safety improvements for rail, and look into a better way to get from Toledo to Columbus.

 

Mr. DeWine said the Toledo area legislative delegation and other elected officials have made it clear that a better connection with Columbus is needed.

 

The study must be completed by the end of 2024 in time for consideration for debate over the next two-year transportation budget.

 

 

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/transportation/2023/03/31/governor-signs-bill-to-look-at-toledo-to-columbus-connector/stories/20230331145

Quote

 

Smart lanes to help ease Columbus gridlock on Interstate 71

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation is planning to create so-called smart lanes along Intestate 71 to ease traffic snarls. The plan would convert the inside median shoulder for regular use during peak traffic hours.

 

The shoulder-to-lane conversion both north and south along the freeway would operate between 5th Avenue and the Dublin-Granville Road exit. The original study area was longer, extending from Interstate 670 to I-270.

 

Following public input, environmental and other studies, work could begin by spring of 2025 and take two years to complete, said Brooke Ebersole, ODOT's District 6 spokeswoman.

 

 

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2023/04/28/smart-lanes-to-help-ease-columbus-gridlock-on-interstate-71/70162733007/

3 hours ago, NW24HX said:

 

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2023/04/28/smart-lanes-to-help-ease-columbus-gridlock-on-interstate-71/70162733007/

Induced demand.
 

Need to improve our public transportation first or concurrently. 

31 minutes ago, Pablo said:

Induced demand.
 

Need to improve our public transportation first or concurrently. 

 

Agreed, but if nothing else this project will dramatically improve the appearance of I-71 through a large portion of the city. Right now it's like night and day driving on 315 vs 71

 

I'm most excited for the rebuild of the bridges, and I think the best thing the community and the city can (and should) realistically push ODOT for is to make them as pedestrian and bike friendly as possible, alongside better pedestrian crossings at the on and off ramps

https://www.newarkadvocate.com/story/business/transportation/2023/07/14/intel-growth-prompts-look-at-licking-county-johnstown-bypass/70414569007/
 

Oh boy…a second outer belt starting in Licking and Delaware counties??? It proposes starting from I-70 N of Delaware heading east, bypassing Johnstown, then heading SE and then finally heading South all the way to I-70.  Something like this wasn’t supposed to have gotten out according to the article, which tells me they’re serious about it. This would take Licking County growth to levels Delaware county hasn’t even seen. Is/was anybody able to see this map of the proposed first phase of a new outer belt, before it was taken down??? 

Edited July 15, 20231 yr by OhioFinest

57 minutes ago, OhioFinest said:

https://www.newarkadvocate.com/story/business/transportation/2023/07/14/intel-growth-prompts-look-at-licking-county-johnstown-bypass/70414569007/
 

Oh boy…a second outer belt starting in Licking and Delaware counties??? It proposes starting from I-70 N of Delaware heading east, bypassing Johnstown, then heading SE and then finally heading South all the way to I-70.  Something like this wasn’t supposed to have gotten out according to the article, which tells me they’re serious about it. This would take Licking County growth to levels Delaware county hasn’t even seen. Is/was anybody able to see this map of the proposed first phase of a new outer belt, before it was taken down??? 

I didn't see it no. Unfortunately, I think something like this happens in the area (a connector of 71 to 70). Traffic is at capacity in some areas and only going to get worse. I doubt a full outerbelt is considered for a while. I wish better options (alternative transportation) were considered instead but being far out from central Columbus I doubt other options even gets a second look.

Well this would certainly be something. This would be super closer to Pataskala, Granville, Alexandria and Johnstown I think. It would divert an insane amount of pass through traffic out of downtown Columbus. I get it but damn, I wonder what's going to get destroyed to make this.

39 minutes ago, TIm said:

It would divert an insane amount of pass through traffic out of downtown Columbus

 

I don't really see that being true, at least for the segment shown. However, I do think it would divert a lot of truck traffic off 270 between 70 and 71, and 71 between 270 and Polaris 

Traffic engineers gotta traffic engineer. Just more sprawl. Eventually those roads will get clogged with induced demand and then, you know what, you need to build an outer, outerbelt connecting Marion to Zanesville via Mt. Vernon.

 

71 at Weber caries 134,000 cars per day per MORPC. 161 at Hamilton has 63,000 cars per day. 71 at that location is 3 lanes in each direction while 161 in that location is 4 lanes. The State is going to add lanes to 161 making it 5 lanes in each direction at that location. There's no way Intel and the other industries are going to generate so much traffic to even come close to 71. 

 

The problem is that there aren't enough arterial streets so traffic can spread out. Rural roads are so far apart that everyone is forced to travel on a freeway giving the illusion of heavy traffic. If traffic on 71 is screwed up, I can choose 315, High St., Olentangy River Road, Kenny, Summit, Cleveland, Indianola and others as alternates. If 161 is jammed, where do I go? Central College or Morse. 

 

Roadway widenings are just a way politicians can say "Look, I'm doing something for you!"

 

 

There's also talk of extending that to US-33 in Fairfield County. 

This would all be incredibly expensive. 

3 hours ago, Pablo said:

Traffic engineers gotta traffic engineer. Just more sprawl. Eventually those roads will get clogged with induced demand and then, you know what, you need to build an outer, outerbelt connecting Marion to Zanesville via Mt. Vernon.

 

71 at Weber caries 134,000 cars per day per MORPC. 161 at Hamilton has 63,000 cars per day. 71 at that location is 3 lanes in each direction while 161 in that location is 4 lanes. The State is going to add lanes to 161 making it 5 lanes in each direction at that location. There's no way Intel and the other industries are going to generate so much traffic to even come close to 71. 

 

The problem is that there aren't enough arterial streets so traffic can spread out. Rural roads are so far apart that everyone is forced to travel on a freeway giving the illusion of heavy traffic. If traffic on 71 is screwed up, I can choose 315, High St., Olentangy River Road, Kenny, Summit, Cleveland, Indianola and others as alternates. If 161 is jammed, where do I go? Central College or Morse. 

 

Roadway widenings are just a way politicians can say "Look, I'm doing something for you!"

 

 

Which just goes to show that urban design is far superior to anything suburbia could ever dream up. 

6 hours ago, NW24HX said:

 

I don't really see that being true, at least for the segment shown. However, I do think it would divert a lot of truck traffic off 270 between 70 and 71, and 71 between 270 and Polaris 

Which is the whole point of this. There’s going to be a huge increase in truck traffic on 270, specifically between 70E and 71N. Reducing that truck traffic will not only keep traffic flowing better on 270 and 161, but it will also keep it flowing safer. 

 

Will it create some more sprawl? Sure. But I’ll take that if we can keep more semis off 270 and allow Intel a better chance at continuing to grow their operations here. 

7 hours ago, Pablo said:

If 161 is jammed, where do I go? Central College or Morse.

It seems you're making the case for why this connector should happen.

2 hours ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

It seems you're making the case for why this connector should happen.

I'm making the case that there needs to me more intermediary streets to give motorists more options. 161 can be widened ad infinitum but there will still be bottlenecks at each interchange.

28 minutes ago, Pablo said:

I'm making the case that there needs to me more intermediary streets to give motorists more options. 161 can be widened ad infinitum but there will still be bottlenecks at each interchange.

I'm confused.  The article that started this conversation is talking about a rumored 70/71 connector, not widening 161.  A Johnstown bypass that connects 70 and 71 would literally accomplish what you are saying here, right?  It would give motorists more options.

Edited July 16, 20231 yr by TH3BUDDHA

6 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

Which is the whole point of this. There’s going to be a huge increase in truck traffic on 270, specifically between 70E and 71N. Reducing that truck traffic will not only keep traffic flowing better on 270 and 161, but it will also keep it flowing safer. 

 

Will it create some more sprawl? Sure. But I’ll take that if we can keep more semis off 270 and allow Intel a better chance at continuing to grow their operations here. 

 

Traffic does not get reduced with more roads, and I can't believe this continously needs to be said. It doesn't matter what traffic you're talking about.

Beyond that, though, ground temps in Europe are reaching 140 degrees, the earth has been having the hottest recorded days for the month ever known, waters around Florida are nearly 100 degrees which is threatening wildlife, smoke from wildfires is once again going to make the air unhealthy to breathe over the next few days in Ohio... but hey, you know what the world really needs, more emissions from cars because we can't seem to learn anything. 

10 hours ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

I'm confused.  The article that started this conversation is talking about a rumored 70/71 connector, not widening 161.  A Johnstown bypass that connects 70 and 71 would literally accomplish what you are saying here, right?  It would give motorists more options.

I read the article as speculation about a connector. The 161 widening is happening mainly because of Intel and other industries coming to the area. I guess my point is that widening roads does not in the long run reduce traffic, it increases traffic. We’re building roads to deal with a few hours of “heavy” traffic. I bought up the example of 71 which moves so much more traffic than these roads ever will. 

9 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Traffic does not get reduced with more roads, and I can't believe this continously needs to be said. It doesn't matter what traffic you're talking about.

Beyond that, though, ground temps in Europe are reaching 140 degrees, the earth has been having the hottest recorded days for the month ever known, waters around Florida are nearly 100 degrees which is threatening wildlife, smoke from wildfires is once again going to make the air unhealthy to breathe over the next few days in Ohio... but hey, you know what the world really needs, more emissions from cars because we can't seem to learn anything. 

If 270 didn’t exist there would be a huge amount of traffic going through downtown as a result of people or semis simply passing through. The point of 270, a bypass, is to allow those people to bypass downtown. It reduces a ton of unnecessary traffic, much of it semi traffic. 

This is the same exact same concept. Even a remote amount of rational thought will allow you to see this. 
 

Another example would be bypasses that have been built on 33. They built a bypass around Nelsonville which has greatly reduced through traffic in Nelsonville which had reduced business related to the through traffic. 
 

There are certainly instances where widening or adding roads is redundant and overly car-centric, but this isn’t one of them. 
 

The concern about “climate change” for a small 270 bypass is absolutely ridiculous. If anything, this results in less fossil fuel burning due to the more direct route semis are able to take, resulting in less miles driven and less diesel burned. 

 

10 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Traffic does not get reduced with more roads, and I can't believe this continously needs to be said. It doesn't matter what traffic you're talking about.

Beyond that, though, ground temps in Europe are reaching 140 degrees, the earth has been having the hottest recorded days for the month ever known, waters around Florida are nearly 100 degrees which is threatening wildlife, smoke from wildfires is once again going to make the air unhealthy to breathe over the next few days in Ohio... but hey, you know what the world really needs, more emissions from cars because we can't seem to learn anything. 

Uh - we've barely hit 90 all summer here. It's rather cool actually. Smoke from wildfires comes from poor forest management, and, it's not my fault people are trying to screw with the water cycle by "cloud seeding." Also the largest container ships in the world create way more emissions than every car on the planet.

7 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

Uh - we've barely hit 90 all summer here. It's rather cool actually. Smoke from wildfires comes from poor forest management, and, it's not my fault people are trying to screw with the water cycle by "cloud seeding." Also the largest container ships in the world create way more emissions than every car on the planet.

I don’t think we should devolve into a debate about climate change in this thread. It’s not relevant and shouldn’t have been brought up in the first place. 

3 hours ago, Pablo said:

I read the article as speculation about a connector.

Yes, which is what the discussion was about.  You're the one that brought up 161 widening.  Right now, as you said, the only viable option for shipping goods from that site is 161.  A connector would reduce the need for 161 widening.  So, I would imagine that you would support a connector.  That's my point.

 

 

9 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

If 270 didn’t exist there would be a huge amount of traffic going through downtown as a result of people or semis simply passing through. The point of 270, a bypass, is to allow those people to bypass downtown. It reduces a ton of unnecessary traffic, much of it semi traffic. 

This is the same exact same concept. Even a remote amount of rational thought will allow you to see this. 
 

Another example would be bypasses that have been built on 33. They built a bypass around Nelsonville which has greatly reduced through traffic in Nelsonville which had reduced business related to the through traffic. 
 

There are certainly instances where widening or adding roads is redundant and overly car-centric, but this isn’t one of them. 
 

The concern about “climate change” for a small 270 bypass is absolutely ridiculous. If anything, this results in less fossil fuel burning due to the more direct route semis are able to take, resulting in less miles driven and less diesel burned. 

 

 

Um, no. A new outerbelt wouldn't eliminate traffic, it would just shift some of it further out. The traffic will still exist. What would really happen is that a new outerbelt would temporarily create less traffic on I-270 and would initially be light on the new outerbelt, but seeing less traffic-heavy highways and as more people move to the sprawl that springs up, more people would decide to drive on them, eventually completely eliminating the temporary drop. So instead of having just one traffic choked outerbelt, we'd end up with two.  Induced demand is not a theory, it's what really happens. 

We've seen several times where major cities like Atlanta and LA shut down freeways for repairs, and there were big media-driven stories about how there would be mass traffic chaos... and then nothing happened. People adapted and used other routes. The same would happen if I-270 didn't exist. People would just use other routes and traffic would not be concentrated on a single highway. This idea that more roads are always necessary to handle traffic is severely outdated thinking and often contrary to how traffic actually works. 

Traffic in downtown Nelsonville may be down, but it's not like that traffic magically disappeared altogether. It was just shifted somewhere else. And whether that shift was necessary or even if it ultimately helped Nelsonville is highly debatable. It's population growth turned negative last decade, after all. 

It's not specifically about a "small bypass", but the insistence that creating yet ever more favorable conditions for yet more people to drive is somehow supposed to be a net positive in reducing emissions. It will do the exact opposite. People act like these things aren't cumulative. 

 

8 hours ago, columbus17 said:

Uh - we've barely hit 90 all summer here. It's rather cool actually. Smoke from wildfires comes from poor forest management, and, it's not my fault people are trying to screw with the water cycle by "cloud seeding." Also the largest container ships in the world create way more emissions than every car on the planet.

 

That's a lot of falsehoods for such a short post. Also, we don't measure global climate change by what happens in your backyard. 

8 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

I don’t think we should devolve into a debate about climate change in this thread. It’s not relevant and shouldn’t have been brought up in the first place. 

 

The potential environmental impacts about a major infrastructure proposal should be debated and discussed. Any potential negatives should be. 

Edited July 16, 20231 yr by jonoh81

18 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Um, no. A new outerbelt wouldn't eliminate traffic, it would just shift some of it further out. The traffic will still exist.

Right, this is literally what some of us are explaining. Nobody said the cars and trucks would magically disappear. We are simply acknowledging that there’s going to be a massive increase in semi traffic and it’s better, for a number of reasons, to provide a more direct route to the plant from the main interstates. 

15 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

The potential environmental impacts about a major infrastructure proposal should be debated and discussed. Any potential negatives should be. 

This project wouldn’t make a minuscule blip on the global environment, which is what you were fussing about. 
 

But if that’s the route you want to take, we should have this pointless debate with every single development project, you know, for the greater good. 

6 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

Right, this is literally what some of us are explaining. Nobody said the cars and trucks would magically disappear. We are simply acknowledging that there’s going to be a massive increase in semi traffic and it’s better, for a number of reasons, to provide a more direct route to the plant from the main interstates. 

 

Isn't that literally why all roads are built and overbuilt, to provide more convenience to drivers, whether those drivers are for business or personal use? You're not presenting any kind of new argument. You're presenting exactly the same argument that's been used for more than a century for every road that's every been built, including every highway and outerbelt. 

And you absolutely did try to argue that building a new outerbelt would reduce traffic on 270. It will not. So what we're really talking about is spending tens of billions of dollars on another highway that won't solve traffic- if anything, it will make it worse- cause home and business displacement, destroy more green fields, increase pollution and promote far more unregulated sprawl all to temporarily shave a few minutes off someone's trip. Not sure why anyone would think that's a good idea.

Edited July 17, 20231 yr by jonoh81

6 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

This project wouldn’t make a minuscule blip on the global environment, which is what you were fussing about. 
 

But if that’s the route you want to take, we should have this pointless debate with every single development project, you know, for the greater good. 

 

Again, whether it's a large impact globally is not the point. We should be moving away from this already on all fronts, because again, the damage is cumulative. Every small impact adds up. Stop making excuses for poor, short-sighted decisions, because there are a million other projects getting the exact same defense everywhere else. How do you think we got to this point?

 

Every single development project is not a potential problem, though. Even if you completely discount any environmental impacts, there would still be a host of other issues that make it a bad idea.

Edited July 17, 20231 yr by jonoh81

6 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Isn't that literally why all roads are built and overbuilt, to provide more convenience to drivers, whether those drivers are for business or personal use? You're not presenting any kind of new argument. You're presenting exactly the same argument that's been used for more than a century for every road that's every been built, including every highway and outerbelt. 

 

Yes, that's why roads are built. I'm not presenting a new argument because I'm not the one suggesting a new argument needs presented. 

 

6 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

And you absolutely did try to argue that building a new outerbelt would reduce traffic on 270. It will not. So what we're really talking about is spending tens of billions of dollars on another highway that won't solve traffic- if anything, it will make it worse- cause home and business displacement, destroy more green fields, increase pollution and promote far more unregulated sprawl all to temporarily shave a few minutes off someone's trip. Not sure why anyone would think that's a good idea.

 

Right, I said this bypass would shift a percentage of traffic from 270/161 to the bypass. This would reduce the amount of traffic that would otherwise exist on 270 absent the existence of the bypass. You confused yourself because you misrepresented what myself and others were stating. You continue stating building a bypass will not reduce traffic on the bypassed roads, which is logically incoherent. Sure, eventually traffic will increase on 270, because that's what will inevitably happen with a growing population. But it won't increase due to the existence of a bypass. That's logically incoherent. 

 

I understand that what you are really doing is arguing for rail transport, in a roundabout way. I fully agree that rail transport is a must for the metro area and should be prioritized, but this bypass in no way precludes that from happening. 

 

Oh, and this isn't simply shaving a couple minutes off a trip. This would likely make a trip ~45-60 minutes shorter. That's significant, especially in the logistics world. 

3 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Yes, that's why roads are built. I'm not presenting a new argument because I'm not the one suggesting a new argument needs presented. 

 

And my argument is that roads are already vastly overbuilt in the US compared to true need. There's a reason that road infrastructure is crumbling- there just isn't enough money to keep adding new while maintaining what already exists. The subsidization is massive. Worse, many of the projects are simply to keep the road-building lobby working, whether there is any real need for a new road or expansion. They have outsized influence on how infrastructure money gets spent and prioritized. 

 

3 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

Right, I said this bypass would shift a percentage of traffic from 270/161 to the bypass. This would reduce the amount of traffic that would otherwise exist on 270 absent the existence of the bypass. You confused yourself because you misrepresented what myself and others were stating. You continue stating building a bypass will not reduce traffic on the bypassed roads, which is logically incoherent. Sure, eventually traffic will increase on 270, because that's what will inevitably happen with a growing population. But it won't increase due to the existence of a bypass. That's logically incoherent. 

 

This is just not correct. New highways do not reduce traffic long-term. They cause it, and it doesn't matter if the population in the region is growing. It's similar to the way a city can expand outward through sprawl but maintain the same population. The population just shifts around a highway, which is why the new or expanded highway almost immediately becomes traffic clogged. There are endless studies on this process, and why the thinking that new roads solve congestion are always incorrect. Should a second outerbelt be built, a percentage of existing traffic may indeed shift off of 270, but that reduction on 270 would incentivize more people to drive on it because of the perception of reduced travel times, so you would end up exactly where you started in a very short time. The same thing would happen to the new outerbelt. You'd get that percentage that shifted off 270, you'd get induced demand and you would get all the people who would end up in the subsequent sprawl built around it. 

It's not about building more roads, it's about deincentivizing people to drive altogether. 

 

3 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

 

I understand that what you are really doing is arguing for rail transport, in a roundabout way. I fully agree that rail transport is a must for the metro area and should be prioritized, but this bypass in no way precludes that from happening. 

 

No, actually. Public transit is not meant to function as a way to reduce road traffic because that is not how it works and that's not what happens. Some people will shift from driving to transit when a transit system exists, but those people are merely replaced with other drivers via induced demand. The benefit of transit is that it gives people the option to avoid that congestion altogether, as well as providing transit options for people who can't afford driving or just don't want or enjoy driving. Public transit does not and will not solve traffic problems in a region, but it can be used as part of a plan to deincentivize it, along with WFH, congestion and mileage pricing, etc. Combined, all these things and others will do far more to prevent congestion and reduce travel times than any new highway ever could. The problem is that leadership is often skittish to do anything but build new roads because that's really all they know how to do at this point. And the general public also tends to believe that new roads and lanes make traffic better because that's what they're told.

 

3 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Oh, and this isn't simply shaving a couple minutes off a trip. This would likely make a trip ~45-60 minutes shorter. That's significant, especially in the logistics world. 

 

Based on what, though? If you're just looking at distance, you're not looking at the full picture of what will happen.

 

Edited July 17, 20231 yr by jonoh81

41 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

And my argument is that roads are already vastly overbuilt in the US compared to true need.

 

This can be true on the macro level, but not on a case-by-case situation. I'll refrain from continuing to debate you on every minute detail you've listed out because this is really the gist of the debate. You are taking an overly generalized and idealistic macro view and attempting to blindly apply it to a very specific situation. I'm looking at the specific situation, taking into context the other factors outside the local jurisdiction and state's control, and coming to a reasonable conclusion. While I agree with your overall idealistic view of deincentivizing auto centric transport, this debate is clearly pointless as we both have vastly different approaches to analyzing the specific situation.  

 

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

 

This can be true on the macro level, but not on a case-by-case situation. I'll refrain from continuing to debate you on every minute detail you've listed out because this is really the gist of the debate. You are taking an overly generalized and idealistic macro view and attempting to blindly apply it to a very specific situation. I'm looking at the specific situation, taking into context the other factors outside the local jurisdiction and state's control, and coming to a reasonable conclusion. While I agree with your overall idealistic view of deincentivizing auto centric transport, this debate is clearly pointless as we both have vastly different approaches to analyzing the specific situation.  

 

 

I'm really not, though. I am debating the merits of this specific project. It won't reduce traffic. It won't necessarily make travel times any better. It will promote unregulated sprawl, which is an enormous drain on local resources and services. It will increase regional dependency and usage on cars. It will increase local pollution. It will consume tons of land. It will displace people. It will cost billions to build and maintain in an environment in which money is already very tight. Whatever temporary benefits it may bring just do not outweigh all the negatives it would have. 

Edited July 17, 20231 yr by jonoh81

See where Ohio plans to spend additional $90 million to improve roads around Intel

 

“Gov. Mike DeWine and Ohio Department of Transportation officials announced Monday that the state would spend an additional $90 million to improve roads around the Intel factories under construction in Licking County.

 

About $46 million is earmarked for nine local road projects in Licking, Delaware and Franklin counties while $24 million will be spent on five state road improvements in the area. An additional $20 million is set aside for undetermined Licking County roadwork.

 

DeWine said the funding further illustrates the state's commitment to developing the region, which state economic development officials dub "Silicon Heartland." He noted that the money isn't just for Intel, but "to pave the way for other economic development" in the area, which has also attracted major investments from Microsoft and Amazon.

 

"We expect a lot more than Intel, so we have to build for more than Intel," DeWine said.”

 

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2023/07/17/see-where-state-plans-to-spend-90-million-to-improve-roads-near-intel/70419444007/

 

A map of road projects expected to be fully completed by 2030

 

 

 

 

https://www.nbc4i.com/intel-in-ohio/90-million-ohio-transportation-project-announced-ahead-of-intels-arrival/

 

On 7/15/2023 at 11:01 AM, Pablo said:

Traffic engineers gotta traffic engineer. Just more sprawl. Eventually those roads will get clogged with induced demand and then, you know what, you need to build an outer, outerbelt connecting Marion to Zanesville via Mt. Vernon.

 

71 at Weber caries 134,000 cars per day per MORPC. 161 at Hamilton has 63,000 cars per day. 71 at that location is 3 lanes in each direction while 161 in that location is 4 lanes. The State is going to add lanes to 161 making it 5 lanes in each direction at that location. There's no way Intel and the other industries are going to generate so much traffic to even come close to 71. 

 

The problem is that there aren't enough arterial streets so traffic can spread out. Rural roads are so far apart that everyone is forced to travel on a freeway giving the illusion of heavy traffic. If traffic on 71 is screwed up, I can choose 315, High St., Olentangy River Road, Kenny, Summit, Cleveland, Indianola and others as alternates. If 161 is jammed, where do I go? Central College or Morse. 

 

Roadway widenings are just a way politicians can say "Look, I'm doing something for you!"

 

 

Pretty disingenuous to say 161 is four lanes at Hamilton Rd. There are two exit lanes from both 270N and 270S to 161E. One of the 270N lanes ends immediately as an exit-only lane to Sunbury Rd. You have people from 270S trying to get over two lanes here to exit at Sunbury Rd. The three remaining lanes make it to Little Turtle Way. They meet the one 161E lane here and immediately the far right lane ends and has to merge. A short time later it opens back up and this is where you see four lanes at Hamilton Rd. The far right lane is exit only to Hamilton Rd. The far left lane ends immediately after passing over Hamilton Rd. This is not a four lane highway. If it it is, then so is 71 at Weber.

 

By adding a lane I assume they're meaning not literally adding a lane for every mile here, but simply making it a true three lanes while eliminating all the merging. I drive this everyday at 3pm. I used to drive 71N to Polaris everyday at 3pm. 161 is way more of a mess despite its lower traffic count.

2 hours ago, aderwent said:

Pretty disingenuous to say 161 is four lanes at Hamilton Rd. There are two exit lanes from both 270N and 270S to 161E. One of the 270N lanes ends immediately as an exit-only lane to Sunbury Rd. You have people from 270S trying to get over two lanes here to exit at Sunbury Rd. The three remaining lanes make it to Little Turtle Way. They meet the one 161E lane here and immediately the far right lane ends and has to merge. A short time later it opens back up and this is where you see four lanes at Hamilton Rd. The far right lane is exit only to Hamilton Rd. The far left lane ends immediately after passing over Hamilton Rd. This is not a four lane highway. If it it is, then so is 71 at Weber.

 

By adding a lane I assume they're meaning not literally adding a lane for every mile here, but simply making it a true three lanes while eliminating all the merging. I drive this everyday at 3pm. I used to drive 71N to Polaris everyday at 3pm. 161 is way more of a mess despite its lower traffic count.

ODOT says they are adding a lane from 270 to 62. https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/projects/116322

 

1 hour ago, Pablo said:

ODOT says they are adding a lane from 270 to 62. https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/projects/116322

 

I'm aware of what that says. That's why I said what I said. There's no reason to have three lanes from 161W to 270N. More than likely what is meant is the lane that currently ends will be extended to be the exit only lane for SR3/Westerville. Also, the current problem is a bottleneck after Hamilton Rd on 161E as three lanes merge to two. It doesn't help to have four lanes merge to three.

 

Instead of being ultra specific it's easier to just say the project will add a lane in this section of 161/270. That's why I said, "By adding a lane I assume they're meaning not literally adding a lane for every mile here." 

 

edit* here are the plans: https://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/files/Proposed Layout.pdf?d=w57bc5953624b4b31a53f5c1b70146ac7

 

Looks like I was part right, part wrong. There will be three lanes from 161W to 270N and the current lane will become the Westerville exit, but there will still be lane endings/merges. The 270N to 161E far right lane will no longer be exit only to Sunbury Rd. Thankfully the disappearing and almost immediately reappearing fourth lane prior to Hamilton Rd will be fixed, but they will be having four lanes merge to three just after Hamilton Rd. That seems dumb unless they plan on having four lanes all the way to Newark eventually. Also, they're adding the third lane prior to 62 on 161W instead of just having the 62 onramp become the third lane. Also, especially with trucks this spot is going to be exceptionally tight with an extra lane:

 

 

This is mainly why I thought they weren't doing this in all parts. They'd have to rebuild bridges to comfortably fit a fourth lane here, but this project doesn't include bridge replacements. Even removing the shoulders I definitely see people sideswiping both bridges here left and right.

Edited July 18, 20231 yr by aderwent