Yes, that is true, that segment of I-15 between Zion NP and Provo was amazingly sparse. We would be watching the same mountain on the horizon for half an hour before we passed it.

We were out today and I noted that the four lane portion of US 42 between the Waynesville city limits and the Greene county line (at least) has been upgraded to 60 MPH - probably in the last week. It's not controlled access - it has private driveways that come out to the road shoulder.

 

What is the reason for the speed increase? I thought non freeways in Ohio were always posted up to 55. 

Some perverse Tea Party concept equating freedom to driving at unsafe speeds. Preferably while shouting "Woo! 'Merica!"

That stretch is probably safe enough at 60. The cops put speed traps out there all the time, and I know guys who brag about taking that section of 42 at 100+ MPH. When you drive it any legal speed feels kind of slow. I just wondered if there was some universal upgrade of secondary highway speeds being rolled out, like the increase of freeways to 65 back in the late 80s-early 90s.

In Ohio, yes, that is the case. The same bill that changes limited access highways in rural areas to 70 sets 60 as the default speed for rural numbered roads.

 

And yes, it is a part of the Tea Party obsession of keeping that number in front of them as high as possible, regardless of whether it will actually get them there any faster due to the unlimited number of variables that happen during a trip on a non-limited-access two-lane road. But we do know it makes those two lanes more dangerous, especially for those not in automobiles. Tractors, bikes, pedestrians, mailmen, deer -- screw them. I want this damn speedo to say the number I want!

 

Some stretches are OK at 60, but a lot of them aren't. And I don't really mind the 70 limit on rural Interstates.

When we drove 42 yesterday we kept running into people turning left to make a U-turn across the median, forcing us to almost stop in the left lane while they make their turns. It's a highway posted at 60 where the locals see fit to brake to about 20 MPH and pick their asses.

So apparently they have started construction on this thing.

Nothing is proposed until 2015: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D09/Documents/D9%20STIP%202017-2017.pdf. Is there a visual of work?

Someone showed a picture staging area filling up with culvert and dumpsters on AARoads

Interesting - I didn't see that when I rolled by the site a few months ago. It must be very recent.

What a disgusting waste of money. 

Especially since the main reason for the project, the two Russian steel mills along the Ohio, never materialized.

I am assuming since this is a public-private partnership, tolls will be levied? Or how is that financing working out for this?

No, there won't be tolls.  A private company will be contracted to maintain the road.  We've got a new sheriff in town!

Cranley: State looking at keeping I-74 exit to Uptown

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation is looking at ways to keep Interstate 74’s access to Uptown where I-74 ends at Central Parkway, Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley said on Thursday.

 

Cincinnati State Technical and Community College President O’dell Owens long has been concerned that ODOT’s planned elimination of the access would harm the community college’s enrollment.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/02/20/cranley-state-looking-at-keeping-i-74.html

What are people's thoughts on this? It doesn't seem that important to me. I don't think it benefits Uptown substantially, and it sounds really expensive. If anything, it tempts Uptown's workers with more suburban living options -- how is that worth subsidizing?

If someone isn't willing to deal with slightly unusual traffic patterns to get to school do you think they'll jump through hoops to be a good student? "I had to go through a weird exit" is the adult equivalent of "The dog ate my homework"

Hard to say.  Highways are supposed to be limited-access, and more ramps just complicate the design, add cost, and further rip apart neighborhoods.  On the other hand, fewer interchanges in densely built-up areas also cause more traffic at the nearby interchanges and it swamps  the local streets with drivers trying to get to and from what interchanges do exist. 

 

Mitchell Avenue is such a mess partly because it's so isolated and it's the only access to I-75 for a pretty large area.  Without the ramps to Central Parkway there's going to be more traffic using Hopple or Mitchell and having to traverse local streets.  Still, the ramps to and from Central Parkway now are so incomplete as to be nearly useless, and the notion that Cincinnati State might lose students because of their removal is laughable.

 

The ideal solution from a maximum accessibility standpoint would be to reconfigure the I-74/I-75 interchange to accommodate a Ludlow Avenue exit.  However, because of the proximity, hills, and railroads, it would likely end up being a mess of loop ramps, retaining walls, and weird intersections like the I-71/Norwood Lateral/Ridge/Kennedy Avenue mess, turning a marginal but at least passable area with some decent bikeability into a highway wasteland. 

This is something that Cincinnati State should have brought up 3 to 4 years ago when the public meetings were held. But the college is a big enough player that they should have had discussions with ODOT on their own. But if the University of Cincinnati and the hospitals can make do without direct ramp access - so can Cincinnati State.

 

The highway interchange is a mess only because of how it was developed over the years, when it was an interchange for Colerain Avenue and then for Central Parkway and Interstate 74. The ramp to Central Parkway is shoehorned in and really serves little purpose for the parkway, other than to expedite traffic to and from downtown. The Hopple interchange is okay, but it offers no better access to Cincinnati State than Colerain Avenue via I-74.

I can't really believe the original highway planners built all that right there.  Trying to shoehorn Central Parkway, an interstate interchange, the Mill Creek, and a major rail line into a 500-yard-wide swath of land (at it's widest) was bound to present challenges.

That's what you gotta do when you have hills. Pittsburgh is the same way. One reason I think why people like Cincy, Pittsburgh, New York and parts of L.A. is that just driving around town is like an amusement ride whereas in Atlanta, Dallas and Columbus it's about as fun as mowing the grass.

I love how "access to Cincinnati State" became an issue out of nowhere. Northside is losing two major access points to the interstates, and apparently no one noticed until this Cincinnati State thing came up.

 

Keep in mind that the new I-74/I-75 interchange will barely resemble the current one. I can't even imagine how ODOT could sneak an additional interchange into this mess:

 

 

Elimination of the ramp from I-74 to Central Parkway will discourage people from going to Cincinnati State. It will take several more minutes to get there via Hopple, Mitchell, or Colerain. Commuting patterns are very sensitive to travel time, probably more so than people realise. Plus, Cincinnati State is easy to find from I-74 because of the sight lines; Cincinnati State is very prominent from that direction.

 

That said, I don't know how many Cincinnati State students come from I-74. It may not be that many.

 

I'm still upset that they removed the pedestrian bridge over I-75 at Cincinnati State, along with that neat stell arch bridge over Central Parkway. I used to use that.

I understand that increasing the travel time by a few minutes might discourage west siders from going to a restaurant on Ludlow or shopping at a store in Northside. But will it really prevent someone from enrolling at Cincinnati State, or cause an already enrolled student to stop going to class? Seriously?

 

it will probably not stop a student that's already enrolled, but it will discourage new students. Notice that I said discourage, because the travel time is just one factor. A 25 minute drive vs. a 30 minute drive might be just enough to tip a decision the other way, and send a student to a different college, online classes, or any number of other things.

 

Keep in mind too that lots of Cincinnati State students are not full time students and already have jobs, which further complicates their schedules. Time is valuable.

Why do they want this ramp?  Because it complicates use of the rapid transit right-of-way, which has otherwise been greatly simplified by all this recent I-75 reconstruction work.  In fact it might intentionally block the elevated light rail route ODOT designed into the plan, forcing a much more expensive alternative.  A light rail line is outlined to travel at the level of elevated I-74 on the east side of its berm through Northside, with a station at Hoffner St. 

 

You can see from the above diagram that a rail line traveling on the old rapid transit ROW, then deflecting northwest over I-75 can travel beneath all of the new ramps.  But reconstruction of this little-used ramp could force a much more expensive and probably slower route for the transit line.   

 

it will probably not stop a student that's already enrolled, but it will discourage new students. Notice that I said discourage, because the travel time is just one factor. A 25 minute drive vs. a 30 minute drive might be just enough to tip a decision the other way, and send a student to a different college, online classes, or any number of other things.

 

Keep in mind too that lots of Cincinnati State students are not full time students and already have jobs, which further complicates their schedules. Time is valuable.

 

Infrastructure dollars are valuable, too. Are there enough of these people to make it in the public's interest to ensure they attend Cincinnati State?

 

^

That said, I don't know how many Cincinnati State students come from I-74. It may not be that many.

 

Oh, dear. I just realized that in the picture above, they show I-75 going OVER Ludlow Avenue. Is this really the plan? If it is, I am appalled.

Hmmm, ODOT education subsidies. I like it.

 

Oh, dear. I just realized that in the picture above, they show I-75 going OVER Ludlow Avenue. Is this really the plan? If it is, I am appalled.

 

Judging by the fact that, in the picture/diagram, the other overpasses are shown in a lighter material (assumed to be concrete), and the Ludlow crossing is shown in black (asphalt), I would surmise that they aren't planning on doing any work on the Ludlow overpass, and thus decided to not even show it. Lazy mapping, for sure. There's also more than enough clearance below the Ludlow viaduct that it would have no impact on the I75 construction.

Pulling a buildingcincinnati here and linking to a newspaper far from my own city:

 

Lincoln Highway looking for more attention

By ED GEBERT, Times Bulletin Editor

Friday, March 28, 2014 12:02 AM

 

VAN WERT —Will Ohio treat the Lincoln Highway with as much respect as other states? That is the hope as representatives of several chapters of the Ohio Lincoln Highway Association (OLHA) met this week with St. Sen. Cliff Hite to discuss what can be done.

 

 

http://www.timesbulletin.com/Content/Default/Homepage-Rotator/Article/Lincoln-Highway-looking-for-more-attention/-3/1168/186499

New highway construction progressing

 

By achieving P3, the construction timetable of the project was accelerated by 17 years and will be completed all at once, rather than three phases and subject to the availability of funding.

 

Because why would we let a lack of "availability of funding" delay a highway project?

^ Page not loading in typical P-town fashion

http://portsmouth-dailytimes.com/news/5602/bypass-construction-well-underway

 

Will the Portsmouth Daily Times finally hire an editor? Like with Frank Lewis, this author relies far too much on quotes to complete basic information and there are run-on sentences and sentences that just end and begin with no reason. And then there is this:

 

"ODOT in conjunction with PGG have taken the project to social media, Facebook and Instagram accounts have been setup. Though those accounts pictures and information are shared."

 

Wow! Social media! And there is no link to said social media accounts...

That paper's budget must be tiny.

A new section of I-73 ... or rather, "Future I-73" ... opened in North Carolina last month.

Along with I-74, I-73 is being pushed and developed heavily in North Carolina. The funds and political will are there for segments to be completed at a rapid rate, especially near the golden triangle. South Carolina is developing further on their segments but have not proposed any sort of construction timetable. Other states further north have not expanded their plans because of funding and political will.

 

I'd still like to see parts of US 23 in Ohio upgraded to more modern standards but to a full interstate? I am not sure that's needed.

I never knew I-73 was a thing until this thread popped up today but after reading the old posts here I will just jump in and give my $0.02. I have driven the Columbus - Toledo route (US 23 - OH-15 - I-75) many times as well as Columbus - Athens - WV (US-33) many times and both are perfectly adequate, especially since the Nelsonville bypass opened. 23 in Southern Delaware County is a bit of a pain but you can still do the whole drive pretty quickly regardless.

Here's an UrbanCincy article that revisits the old I-73/74 plans in the context of the Eastern Corridor project, which is mostly dead now.

 

North Carolina might overtake Ohio in population by 2030.  Not sure that merits more interstate highways, though. 

Interesting they talk about getting to Atlantic Coast beaches. I find roads like OH-32 and US-23 (which these roads seem to be upgrades of) to often be more pleasurable to drive than interstates, however. They're just more interesting, and there is never traffic other than in certain pressure points like Delaware.

With ODOT's recent trend of installing roundabouts in suburban areas, I wanted to (re)start a discussion about situations where traffic patterns would benefit from the replacement of standard stoplight/stop sign controlled intersections with roundabouts.

 

Here in the Greater Cincinnati area we have seen the installation of new-build roundabouts in several locations primarily throughout Warren County as well as some replacement of existing 4 way intersections with roundabouts.

 

Having just purchased a house in Norwood, I have noticed a couple of intersections with large physical footprints which are controlled by stop signs and would be obvious candidates to be replaced with roundabouts for both increased safety and improved traffic flow.

 

Does anyone know if ODOT has looked into replacing 4 way intersections with roundabouts closer to city centers? Also, are there any other locations you think would be best served by roundabouts?

Cool idea. I'm no traffic expert, but I do know I hate this intersection in Lakewood. I've seen so many near-misses there with cars, pedestrians and bikes. Confused drivers blast through the red lights all the time.

 

[edit: There appears to be ample room for a roundabout conversion.]

The one in Twinsburg is extremely unpopular with residents, I'm on a local FB group and I would estimate it's 80% against it still. 

 

The one at Pettibone and Richmond has gotten to be rather notorious.  It’s way too small, and this issue has been exacerbated by the habit designers have of piling up crap in the middle so people can’t see across.  When traffic is heavy in two directions perpendicular to one another, the one that’s to the counterclockwise direction can get badly backed up, especially when drivers can’t see that the car to their left is going to have to wait for another entering vehicle.  Quite frankly, whoever designed it should drive it forever in Hell.

 

They really aren’t suitable for NE Ohio drivers, especially when they are too small.  Note that the ones up in the Beachwood/Pepper Pike area typically have stop signs and are therefore not really “roundabouts”.

 

^I know that intersection in Lakewood and its highly functional. I would HATE to see a roundabout there, taking out the park and some buildings. The intersection works fine. If you want to make enhancements, update the paint so its clear who turns and who doesn't'; upgrade signs or signaling, but do not pour lots of pavement and take out buildings for a big, unsightly pavement circle.

I drive this circle and three others just like it almost every day in San Diego. It's a terrific upgrade vs. the traffic lights that were there. Granted, it's a main drag intersected with more quiet neighborhood side streets. So not sure if it's universally applicable.

 

^I know that intersection in Lakewood and its highly functional. I would HATE to see a roundabout there, taking out the park and some buildings. The intersection works fine. If you want to make enhancements, update the paint so its clear who turns and who doesn't'; upgrade signs or signaling, but do not pour lots of pavement and take out buildings for a big, unsightly pavement circle.

 

As someone who bikes there often, I respectfully disagree that it's functional.

 

Plus, would it have to be big and unsightly? CHeck the San Diego pic as it is clearly neither.

...exacerbated by the habit designers have of piling up crap in the middle so people can’t see across.  When traffic is heavy in two directions perpendicular to one another, the one that’s to the counterclockwise direction can get badly backed up, especially when drivers can’t see that the car to their left is going to have to wait for another entering vehicle....

 

I have noticed that down here in Cincinnati as well. Our roundabouts usually have a very landscaped island that limits sightlines across the intersection. I understand limiting the sightlines to a degree since the goal is to get drivers to look to their left as opposed to straight ahead but there is a happy medium which can be reached.

Those Twinsburg roundabouts on Liberty and 91 are criminally small. Dangerous.

 

Whether or not the traffic circles in, say, Pepper Pike at Lander are roundabouts or not - they are large, wide - understood by motorists - and work very well