Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Summit Street

Columbus: I-70/I-71 Split Project

Recommended Posts

I think the title of this thread is a little sensational. I looked on the project's webpage fully expecting to see that whole block of Parson's being demolished. That is not the case. The image is a screen capture from an Aerial Photo of Mound/Fulton Street Alternative (east side)Livingston

 

See http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/7071study/pdfs/AFA_A3_Aerial_4%20web.pdf

 

2 buildings are being acquired, the rest of the strip is intact.

 

The * attached to the E.T. Paul building states that Additional Alternates are under consideration in this area that may eliminate the need to acquire these buildings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah hopefully it won't happen. the horse has long left the barn on doing something about that split. not to mention the need for this kind of project is so pre-2001 thinking. i agree with columbusite, if the hicks running odot want to do a major project let them run I70 traffic around the south of the I270 loop and across the newer I670. let them fill I70 back in downtown or at least turn it into a boulevard or better yet a rail/bike route. bah.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interstate 670 is not designed for handle Interstate 71's traffic.

 

For your case, what would need to happen is to eliminate the eastern leg of the innerbelt, reroute Interstate 71 onto the northern split of Interstate 670 west to OH 315, and head south to the present-day Interstate 71 junction. There are some issues with this that would need to be addressed:

1. The Interstate 71 SB to Interstate 670 WB ramp is two lanes and has a major weave issue with the 5th Street interchange. The weave would need to be eliminated (or the interchange removed), and the ramp would need to be widened to at least three lanes.

2. Interstate 670 WB narrows to two-lanes at the U.S. Route 23 interchange. To accommodate Interstate 71's through traffic, and to accommodate Interstate 670's traffic, it would need to be at least three lanes, if not more.

3. The Interstate 670 WB to OH 315 ramp is one lane, and would need to be increased to at least two-lanes, preferably three. There would be a serious weaving issue with the Goodale Street entrance ramp, and the ramp would either need to be eliminated WB, or corrected so that a weave no longer exists.

4. OH 315 already operates at LOS C and D for most of the day, and completely fails during rush hour. The highway needs at least four-lanes south of Interstate 670 to Interstate 71.

5. The Broad/Town/Rich Street interchanges need to be consolidated to remove weaving issues with the Interstate 70 junction weaving issue.

6. For BOTH directions, the OH 315 mainline that feeds into Interstate 71 needs to be widened to six lanes total. That would require a total reconstruction of the stack interchange.

7. The OH 315 NB to Interstate 670 EB ramp is only one lane, and needs to be widened to at least two or three.

8. The Interstate 670 EB to Interstate 71 NB ramp is only two lanes, and needs to be widened to at least three.

9. To accommodate Interstate 71 SB to Interstate 70 EB and vice-versa connections, the existing eastern leg of the inner-belt could be reconfigured to serve only those connections, eliminating the ramps to westbound Interstate 70 completely.

 

For the points above, you are looking at major mainline reconstruction, with interchange removals or realignments, and widenings, to accommodate at least three-lanes of through-traffic in each direction, that would give at least a LOS of B or C. For point 6 alone, that would be a major undertaking and would be just as expensive to construct as it would be to reconstruct the multiplex.

 

This would severely impact the neighborhoods west of the Scioto River and downtown, areas that are currently depressed.

 

In addition, two parcels would be required for the highway reconstruction project (not expansion). Two parcels that may not even be required, as noted above. Not an entire neighborhood or "budding" commercial strip -- which it's not. I've been by it many times, walked it, and it's not all that nice. There are vacant lots across the street they can rebuild if they wish. We're not losing Short North here, or anything with stellar significance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the title of this thread is a little sensational. I looked on the project's webpage fully expecting to see that whole block of Parson's being demolished. That is not the case. The image is a screen capture from an Aerial Photo of Mound/Fulton Street Alternative (east side)Livingston

 

See http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/7071study/pdfs/AFA_A3_Aerial_4%20web.pdf

 

2 buildings are being acquired, the rest of the strip is intact.

 

The * attached to the E.T. Paul building states that Additioanl Alternates are under consideration in this area that may eliminate the need to acquire these buildings

 

I can see how the title would be perceived that way, but I'd argue that it's accurate. This is a small stretch to begin with, we don't have much to work with here, so taking out 2 businesses when there are only like ten is a big deal. Not only that, Carabar is the only option for going out at night aside from AWOL. AWOL is fun, but I don't want to always have to run into the possibility of a bear giving me a hands on lesson on how to play pool. Having only one option to head out at night kills the variety this strip which consists of an interesting mix of hipster types and gays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interstate 670 is not designed for handle Interstate 71's traffic.

 

ODOT is the one that dropped the ball in the first place by building highways through our city instead of to our city. If it costs jut as much I see no problem. You're assuming that the same amount of traffic will reappear on 670 and that is fallacious. You also forgot about 270. I also looked into rerouting traffic to route 104 which ODOT had considered (at least they say they did). The problem?

 

Planners concluded that, if given an option, not enough people would use Rt. 104 to alleviate the gridlock that has made the Downtown split the most accident prone stretch of highway in Ohio.

 

http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/7071study/Newsroom/02-07-04Dispatch.htm

 

Of course, they were going to keep the current split Downtown and just use it for I-71 traffic. If they went with this plan but also turned the split into a boulevard, then I'm pretty sure you'd see more people use the 104 option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio Route 104 is a poor choice because,

1. The Interstate 71 junction is a diamond and would need to be entirely reconstructed. Given the proximity of the Scioto River, and Frank Road and Jackson Pike, the interchange would be expensive.

2. The highway narrows to four-lanes east of U.S. Route 23, and would need to be widened to three-lanes in each direction. The ROW is pretty narrow east of U.S. Route 23, so numerous properties would be required for purchase.

3. The U.S. Route 33 junction is very underpowered and it isn't a fully directional interchange. It would necessitate full reconstruction. The complexity of the interchange, in combination with the partial St. James interchange, the at-grades to the north, and the Interstate 70 junctions would require full reconstruction and realignment, new interchanges, and expensive property acquisitions (see also).

 

The Ohio Route 104->U.S. Route 33->Interstate 70 alignment is around 12.5 miles (to Interstate 670). The current alignment is around 7.5 miles. The Ohio Route 104 option would require major highway widening and two major interchange reconstruction projects, AND the Interstate 70/71 eastern junction would still need to be reconstructed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I echo the sentiment that ODOT will never have the money to do this, but safety is very important, and the ODOT of today is a post-NEPA department with a development process that takes 14 steps to complete, including a lot of input from the public. 70/71 is unbelievably unsafe, and saying that preservation is more important than saving lives is a slippery slope. ODOT is not the department of the 1960s that would level an entire neighborhood to put a major highway through some Southwest Ohio city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, replacing this stretch of highway with a boulevard is pro-urban and safer for cars than the alternatives despite that red herring of an either/or situation of preservation or saving lives (both can be done). Unless that alternative is using the stretch for light-rail. A fuck up is a fuck up is a fuck up, no matter how you try and fix it; it'll still be a fuck up. The boulevard will result in safer travel speeds and less traffic, not more, judging by other highway removals whether planned or done by mother nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

So just replacing the split with a boulevard would be better than also working on 104. And then Franklinton might face neighborhood demolition for the re-routing, in which case why not tear down the highway(s) to a point where we can reclaim the split for urban development or a light-rail line (much less likely, but I can dream) without having to tear down more of our city?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing the Fort Washington Way fix in Cincinnati - it worked and other than a poorly designed angle has dramatically improved that stretch of land. 70/71 needs even more. I'm all for reduced investment in highways, but what we should be hoping for is a basically stable system is the improved over time rather than frozen in the initial build. The key is stop adding capacity where people aren't and to make where people are as safe and efficient as possible. That will still require some takings but ah well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

So just replacing the split with a boulevard would be better than also working on 104. And then Franklinton might face neighborhood demolition for the re-routing, in which case why not tear down the highway(s) to a point where we can reclaim the split for urban development or a light-rail line (much less likely, but I can dream) without having to tear down more of our city?

 

I agree with this in most cases, such as with Louisville's 8664 project (Interstate 64 in downtown Louisville), but I don't see a need here. The "budding" commercial strip is anything but; it contains numerous vacant parcels and non-compatible developments, and the highway reconstruction project will only take two active parcels -- which may not even be needed in this case.

 

The highways all have AADT's (or VPD) over 100,000, some approaching 150,000. Interstate 270, the outerbelt, is approaching LOS D in many areas, and completely fails during rush hour at critical junctions. Before the interstates are removed inside the innerbelt, you need to greatly increase the capacity of Interstate 270, widening the highway to at least four-lanes in each direction and reconstructing interchanges to remove any possible weaving issues (like what was done with the Easton interchange). There are still segments of Interstate 270 that have two-through-lanes in each direction, and they frequently backup and congest, so they would need complete overhaul (one is the U.S. Route 33 interchange southeast of town).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interstate 670 is not designed for handle Interstate 71's traffic.

 

For your case, what would need to happen is to eliminate the eastern leg of the innerbelt, reroute Interstate 71 onto the northern split of Interstate 670 west to OH 315, and head south to the present-day Interstate 71 junction. There are some issues with this that would need to be addressed:

1. The Interstate 71 SB to Interstate 670 WB ramp is two lanes and has a major weave issue with the 5th Street interchange. The weave would need to be eliminated (or the interchange removed), and the ramp would need to be widened to at least three lanes.

2. Interstate 670 WB narrows to two-lanes at the U.S. Route 23 interchange. To accommodate Interstate 71's through traffic, and to accommodate Interstate 670's traffic, it would need to be at least three lanes, if not more.

3. The Interstate 670 WB to OH 315 ramp is one lane, and would need to be increased to at least two-lanes, preferably three. There would be a serious weaving issue with the Goodale Street entrance ramp, and the ramp would either need to be eliminated WB, or corrected so that a weave no longer exists.

4. OH 315 already operates at LOS C and D for most of the day, and completely fails during rush hour. The highway needs at least four-lanes south of Interstate 670 to Interstate 71.

5. The Broad/Town/Rich Street interchanges need to be consolidated to remove weaving issues with the Interstate 70 junction weaving issue.

6. For BOTH directions, the OH 315 mainline that feeds into Interstate 71 needs to be widened to six lanes total. That would require a total reconstruction of the stack interchange.

7. The OH 315 NB to Interstate 670 EB ramp is only one lane, and needs to be widened to at least two or three.

8. The Interstate 670 EB to Interstate 71 NB ramp is only two lanes, and needs to be widened to at least three.

9. To accommodate Interstate 71 SB to Interstate 70 EB and vice-versa connections, the existing eastern leg of the inner-belt could be reconfigured to serve only those connections, eliminating the ramps to westbound Interstate 70 completely.

 

For the points above, you are looking at major mainline reconstruction, with interchange removals or realignments, and widenings, to accommodate at least three-lanes of through-traffic in each direction, that would give at least a LOS of B or C. For point 6 alone, that would be a major undertaking and would be just as expensive to construct as it would be to reconstruct the multiplex.

 

This would severely impact the neighborhoods west of the Scioto River and downtown, areas that are currently depressed.

 

In addition, two parcels would be required for the highway reconstruction project (not expansion). Two parcels that may not even be required, as noted above. Not an entire neighborhood or "budding" commercial strip -- which it's not. I've been by it many times, walked it, and it's not all that nice. There are vacant lots across the street they can rebuild if they wish. We're not losing Short North here, or anything with stellar significance.

 

hmm, i think you just funneled all the I70 traffic onto I670. i was envisioning something more like an east & westside split of I70 at I270 with southern I270 being express and I670 local. that probably cuts the additional I670 traffic down by 2/3rds.

 

as for I71, just move the main I70 connection south. it could just split for I70 at the southside of I70/I270. i'd think the problematic I71 "weave" downtown could then more easily be fixed if there was no longer I70 traffic there to worry about.

 

this would open up the "old" I70 route thru downtown columbus for rail or covering over or a boulevard or whatever can be imagined. yeah unlikely, but fun to imagine!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to make driving completely safe?  Illegalize driving.  Just want to reduce congestion instead a tad?  Ban women drivers. 

 

Here again the conversation is shaped by industry jargon like "fail" and "functionally obsolete".  The situation in Columbus is absolutely, positively, a blip compared to what has happened every day for the past 50 years on the roads and highways of New York City and Boston, and those cities are doing just fine.  Pittsburgh has more high speed suicide merges than all of Ohio combined, and the very congestion is what makes the Point merges safe.  This stretch in Columbus is just plain not a very big deal, and I don't need to do bunch of studies to know that they could turn this into a boulevard with an underpass or two and the city wouldn't come to a halt.

 

The situation in Boston was that there was nothing at all parallel to the I-93 central artery, not even one major street.  It was the one and only way to get across town unlike Columbus which has I-670 as well as the previously mentioned 104 and I-270.   

 

When Fort Washington Way was shut downtown in Cincinnati, it hardly affected matters because there are 4 other highway connections between I-71 and I-75 and ramps galore from downtown to those highways.  It could easily have been rebuilt as an at-grade boulevard and saved taxpayers a few hundred million.  The rebuilt version drops off downtown traffic at the edges, the exact same as if it had been a boulevard.         

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

So just replacing the split with a boulevard would be better than also working on 104. And then Franklinton might face neighborhood demolition for the re-routing, in which case why not tear down the highway(s) to a point where we can reclaim the split for urban development or a light-rail line (much less likely, but I can dream) without having to tear down more of our city?

 

I agree with this in most cases, such as with Louisville's 8664 project (Interstate 64 in downtown Louisville), but I don't see a need here. The "budding" commercial strip is anything but; it contains numerous vacant parcels and non-compatible developments, and the highway reconstruction project will only take two active parcels -- which may not even be needed in this case.

 

The highways all have AADT's (or VPD) over 100,000, some approaching 150,000. Interstate 270, the outerbelt, is approaching LOS D in many areas, and completely fails during rush hour at critical junctions. Before the interstates are removed inside the innerbelt, you need to greatly increase the capacity of Interstate 270, widening the highway to at least four-lanes in each direction and reconstructing interchanges to remove any possible weaving issues (like what was done with the Easton interchange). There are still segments of Interstate 270 that have two-through-lanes in each direction, and they frequently backup and congest, so they would need complete overhaul (one is the U.S. Route 33 interchange southeast of town).

 

There is no need to widen 270 at all if you removed all highways inside. Keep it paved and safe, but god forbid there be traffic. 270 would not make sense for many current commutes that are from the outerbelt to the interior, Downtown as a major example. Let people sit in traffic for as long as they're willing to put up with. No one is forcing them to and widening highways as a solution is sooooo 1980's.

 

In any case, ODOT is going forward with tearing down those buildings on this budding strip (I don't see how vacant lots would prevent use of this term) which is only a block long to begin with. In which case the suggestion to move the buildings across the street on the currently vacant lot sounds plenty reasonable. Unlike ODOT's dinosaur mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ODOT plan for 70/71 would wipe out Parsons businesses

Business First of Columbus - by Adrian Burns

Friday, September 5, 2008

 

Two buildings in Olde Towne East are in the way of the state’s plans for the Interstate 70/71 split redesign project for Columbus.

 

According to updated plans by the Ohio Department of Transportation, the attached buildings along Parsons Avenue likely must be demolished to make way for the widening of the highway and modifications to nearby roads.

 

Read more at http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2008/09/08/story1.html?b=1220846400^1695322

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by David

 

I-70/71 plan shrinks parks

ODOT proposal would restore lost features, land

Friday,  November 28, 2008 3:18 AM

By Debbie Gebolys

 

Plans for rebuilding the I-70/71 corridor Downtown aren't final, but one thing is: The improved highway will nip off parts of two parks.

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation will show plans for changes to Dodge Park in Franklinton and Scioto Audubon Metro Park on the Whittier Peninsula at a public hearing from 3 to 7 p.m. Tuesday at Dodge Recreation Center, 667 Sullivant Ave.

 

http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/11/28/SPLITpark.ART_ART_11-28-08_C1_HOC2EAO.html?sid=101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The innerbelt Columbus reconstruction is a critically needed project.  It is congested, unsafe, and I-70 goes down to one through lane.  Not good.

 

The idea that the interstate is responsible for inner-city ills is not reasonable.  Ft. Wayne, Indiana and Lexington, KY were bypassed by the interstate and have had the exact same problems as anywhere else.  Speaking of Ft. Wayne, that also illustrates that people will not take a bypass route that is longer in mileage even with signage directing them to.  People are going through downtown regardless of the through route signage on the south part of the I-270 loop.

 

What's more, as previously noted, on the south side parts of I-70 are only two lanes each way.  That road would require major upgrades to handle through routed traffic.

 

The Columbus MSA is increasing in population by 200,000 people per decade.  Think of your favorite city of 200,000 people and think about all the infrastructure it has.  Columbus has to provide that every decade just to keep up with its growth in population.

 

I'm all in favor of in-city revitalization and living, and better transit options.  But the radical anti-highway views of so many urban activists is off the mark.  High quality of life - largely low housing costs and low congestion vs. urban amenities - is what Columbus is selling.  People are not going to move to Columbus if it has horrible traffic congestion if there are other regional cities with a broadly similar value proposition (Cincy, Indy, KC) that are taking care of business on the infrastructure front.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Mr. Urban Surfin, if you get your way, then those of us who live in Columbus' competitors say Thank You.

 

It's odd. Columbus has a full 360 degree inner loop, which isn't that common.  One would think that might be an asset, but it is unfortunately so poorly designed that it is sucking up a huge portion of the transportation funds that might go to other critically needed highway projects.  If not for the safety issues, I'd probably say the debate is properly one around can the city afford to do the innerbelt when I-270 needs big upgrades that likely can't be funded?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highway "improvements" are a rathole. Some of the upgrades "needed" on I-270 are updating improvements made less than 10 years ago. There's been about a billion dollars spent on Columbus highway improvements in the last decade or so, making it easy to get through or out of the city. But nowhere near as much on transit improvements or on revitalization of existing neighborhoods. Yet despite highways that have slashed through neighborhoods in Columbus (and around the country), downtown Columbus is surrounded by old neighborhoods with nearly intact historic housing stock. It is one of the city's most-unheralded assets and one of its greatest assets.

 

There's no question the 70/71 split needs improvements. I spent several years writing about transportation issues in central Ohio, including the early phases of planning for the split. But in the long run, the best thing for the split (and every urban highway in the country) is a balanced transportation system that gives people options other than highways and encourages redevelopment of urban neighborhoods, rather than piecemeal destruction to make way for more cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Split's end: $1.6 billion project to untangle city's worst traffic snarl

Friday, January 23, 2009 - 3:25 AM

By Debbie Gebolys, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

The long-awaited plan to rebuild I-70/71 through Downtown is here, along with a gigantic new price tag.

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration have agreed to use Mound and Fulton streets as major routes to and from a rebuilt I-70.  They also agreed on a retooled cost estimate: $1.6 billion.

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/01/23/THEMERGE.ART_ART_01-23-09_A1_JBCLAC5.html?sid=101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From here: http://www.columbusunderground.com/odot-announces-finalized-16-billion-split-fix

 

<b>ODOT Announces finalized $1.6 Billion Split Fix</b>

By Walker | January 23, 2009 7:58am

 

Yesterday ODOT announced that they’ve made a decision on their plans for the controversial Downtown I-70/I-71 split fix project. There’s really no new surprises here… just a few decisions made over the several options previously being considered. Essentially… they’ve decided to go with the Mound/Fulton feeder alignment running east-west despite running through the front yards of Miranova and Waterford Tower. Similarly, a Lester/Parsons feeder will run north-south in a fashion that will spell the end of a few Parsons Avenue businesses.

 

On the bright side, several highway caps, bike paths, and pedestrian-friendly sidewalks are also planned but will require some amount of local funding to develop.

 

The total cost of the project has jumped up again to a whopping $1.6 Billion. Construction is expected to start in 2011 and be completed by 2017. ODOT is holding a public hearing on the project on Tuesday, February 10th. Read on for details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, a historic business but surrounded with little to no context, will be removed (http://www.columbusunderground.com/e-t-paul-amp-carabar-to-be-sacraficed-for-70-71-split). He could always relocate, but is he closing up shop completely?

 

The option they chose is really the best effective solution for the innerbelt. This will correct all of the geometric deficiencies with the current setup, remove dangerous weaving issues, install caps over the interstates for park land (beats Cincinnati!), and feature bike lanes on the side roads as a mitigation feature. Yeah, we may be losing a business, and some may not be happy with that, but it's a minor casualty in the scope of the project.

 

As for the "whopping cost," that is all but unavoidable. The Ohio River Bridges project ten years ago was projected at less than $1 billion; today, it is over $4 billion. Construction material inflation has been outrageous, especially post-Katrina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going over the concepts featured http://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/7071study/PublishingImages/8x11_Conceptsa.pdf --

 

Concept 1: Remove the remaining signals on OH 104, and modify the Interstate 71 interchange into a free-flowing design. Much needed, and it would improve the reliability and level-of-service along OH 104, and potentially relieve some local traffic from the innerbelt.

 

Concept 3: Makes sense, to reroute Interstate 71 via OH 315 and Interstate 670, although this would require some upgrades to the existing routes.

 

Concept 5: Truck only lane in an urban area? No thanks, that will require much more space than is necessary. Ban through trucks from the center, and that may work just as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay....where are all of the critics that come out of the woodwork when a rail or transit project is proposed and a $$$$ amount is revealed?

 

$1.6-billion? You could build streetcars in Cincy, light rail in Columbus and have money left to put passenger rail in the 3-C Corridor... and move a lot more people.... and still have $$ left. Is there not a point where we begin asking ourselves why are we continuing to expend $$$ on a highway interchange to create new capacity, when vehicle miles traveled are down, gasoline prices have made driving more expensive and the public is clamoring for options?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost did not "jump" to $1.6 billion; just as transit projects rarely "jump" in cost -- this is just the refined cost estimate. ODOT does not have $1.6b for the entire project, so it will be scaled back to within available resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay....where are all of the critics that come out of the woodwork when a rail or transit project is proposed and a $$$$ amount is revealed?

 

Well, the senior fellow at the fiscally conservative Buckeye Institute, said the $1.6 billion estimate "is crying for closer scrutiny."  But then if the Buckeye Institute had its way, governments could only spend money on police, fire and tax abatements.  :wink:

 

But seriously, you make a good point.  Even if a non-highway transportation project has a fraction of a highway project's budget, it gets slammed as "wasteful" and "pork-barrel".  I'm not saying the I-70/71 split work isn't needed - but that's a valid observation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost did not "jump" to $1.6 billion; just as transit projects rarely "jump" in cost -- this is just the refined cost estimate. ODOT does not have $1.6b for the entire project, so it will be scaled back to within available resources.

 

Actually, it does. Projects on this scale are not scheduled (let) in one entire mass; they are spread over a period of five to six years (or even a decade). Right-of-way acquisition is one instance; so is planning; construction for each phase or individual contract; and any environmental or mitigation issues. While the plan has been finalized, it will be quite a while before any real work begins.

 

Money for this project has been stored away, although there will be additional funding streams over the project's timespan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in this case. ODOT pegged $400 million for the 70/71 split during the early planning phase. The scope of work and cost were undetermined. There is now a comparison between $1.6 billion and $400 million, which isn't a valid comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funding exists for the project east of the Scioto River, and future funding for the caps, and for the segments north of Interstate 70 is through allocations via the Transportation Review Advisory Council. Since construction won't begin on other sections of the highway for quite some time, not due to funding, but due to the phasing of the project, they are allocated as needed.

 

Also of note, I found ODOT's short-lived ODOT NET.NET site: http://www.odotnet.net ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a follow up article on the Friday front page I-70/71 Split story from the Saturday Dispatch...

 

Highway plan aims to simplify traffic flow

Options in and out of Downtown will be fewer, but the commute should be easier

Saturday,  January 24, 2009 - 3:07 AM

By Debbie Gebolys, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Look at it this way: The Downtown highway system now is a mess of spaghetti that someone dropped on the kitchen floor.  The Downtown highway system of the future will be neatly arranged lengths of lasagna.

 

The state wants to simplify I-70/71, first by eliminating the ramps that force drivers into too many merges and lane changes.

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/01/24/Split.ART_ART_01-24-09_A1_MSCLM4R.html?sid=101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More information from the Saturday Dispatch story about the I-70/71 renovation project (article posted above - link to full article below)...

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/01/24/Split.ART_ART_01-24-09_A1_MSCLM4R.html?sid=101

 

The state would need to buy land and buildings on more than 130 parcels for street widening and other construction to reconfigure I-70/71, including:

 

Structures to be demolished

- E.T. Paul Tire Co., 123 Parsons Ave., tire shop

- Carabar, 115 Parsons Ave., nightclub

- City of Columbus Short Street garage

 

Properties losing some land

- Columbus Africentric School, 300 E. Livingston Ave., 2.5 acres of athletic fields

- American Electric Power substation and support center on Mound Street

 

Properties losing parking spaces

- Franklin University, lot near Mound Street, 120 spaces

- Americana Apartments, 380 S. 5th St., 40 spaces

- Office building, 255 E. Main St., 40 spaces

- Franklin County Children Services intake office, 525 E. Mound St., 30 spaces

 

Source: Ohio Department of Transportation

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<b>Wasted Space in Downtown: Old Highway Feeders</b>

By Walker | January 28, 2009 10:30am

 

Last week, ODOT announced their finalized plans for the 70/71 Split Fix, which includes turning Mound, Fulton, Parsons, and Lester into busy one-way highway feeder streets. What the plan fails to address is what we’re going to do with our old one-way highway feeder streets that include Third, Fourth, Long, and Spring. They will no longer have the direct purpose of shuttling cars in and out of downtown from the 70/71 offramps, since the offramps are moving. So, the big question here is: are we going to let all of that asphalt go to waste?

 

More here: http://www.columbusunderground.com/wasted-space-in-downtown-the-old-highway-feeders

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<b>Wasted Space in Downtown: Old Highway Feeders</b>

By Walker | January 28, 2009 10:30am

 

Last week, ODOT announced their finalized plans for the 70/71 Split Fix, which includes turning Mound, Fulton, Parsons, and Lester into busy one-way highway feeder streets. What the plan fails to address is what we’re going to do with our old one-way highway feeder streets that include Third, Fourth, Long, and Spring. They will no longer have the direct purpose of shuttling cars in and out of downtown from the 70/71 offramps, since the offramps are moving. So, the big question here is: are we going to let all of that asphalt go to waste?

 

More here: http://www.columbusunderground.com/wasted-space-in-downtown-the-old-highway-feeders

 

 

 

They'd make great light rail transit corridors! We should couple that with redevelopment of the downtown area into more of a new urbanist setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's hope I-70/71 split will aid more than transit

Thursday,  February 26, 2009 - 3:24 AM

By JOE BLUNDO, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

It's colossal.  It's stupendous.  It's nothing less than a re-landscaping of Downtown.  I speak of the massive plan to rebuild the I-70/71 split.

 

I have a few thoughts on the $1.6 billion project:

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/life/stories/2009/02/26/1A_BLUN26.ART_ART_02-26-09_D3_5LD1LLO.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big news! I don't have time right now to make a full post with an article or anything, but I just saw on Channel 4 that ODOT had a meeting where they decided on or are considering the idea that are only going to do the northern portion of this project, I-71 from I-70 to 670.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...