Ohio SR32
Michael G. Koerner
In article <19971222044...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, vid...@aol.com
(Vide00) wrote:
>The other day I went across Ohio on SR32.. it's a pretty nice road, however
>boring it is at times. The only thing that puzzled me was that after US50
joins
>up with it around Athens, the roads are cosigned until the West Virginia
>border. This doesn't make sense, why don't they just stop signing 32 at
where
>50 joins up with it? The only thing I could think of is that a different
route
>is one day planned for either of the two roads. There was also a lot of
>construction going on east of Athens, it looks like they are making it into
a
>divided highway, or tearing down the old road, I couldn't really tell.
Anyone
>have any clue?
>
>Also - US50 in WV between Huntington and Clarksburg is pretty damn scary at
>night..
Do you mean 'Parkersburg' instead of 'Huntington'?
____________________________________________________________________________
Regards,
Michael G. Koerner
Appleton, WI
***NOTICE*** SPAMfilter in use, please remove ALL 'i's from the return
address to reply. ***NOTICE***
____________________________________________________________________________
Vide00
H.B. Elkins
vid...@aol.com (Vide00) wrote:
>Also - US50 in WV between Huntington and Clarksburg is pretty damn scary at
>night..
US 50 doesn't run through Huntington. It runs between Parkersburg and
Clarksburg. But why is it scary? I haven't been on that road, but the
maps show it as a four-lane, partially-controlled access highway.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
H.B. Elkins -- Winchester, KY
"You must have the courage to believe the truth!" -- Rush H. Limbaugh III
Kentucky Wildcats Basketball & #3 Dale Earnhardt -- A Championship Combination
mailto:hbel...@mis.net <or> mailto:HB...@aol.com
(Say "nyet" to spam! Please note: there is a spam-buster in my reply-to address.
To reply by E-mail,use one of the addresses above)
http://www.users.mis.net/~hbelkins (last updated 12/12/97)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Sturm
In article <349e8e99...@news.zippo.com>, hbel...@mis.nyet
says...
>
>vid...@aol.com (Vide00) wrote:
>
>
>>Also - US50 in WV between Huntington and Clarksburg is pretty damn
scary at
>>night..
>
>US 50 doesn't run through Huntington. It runs between Parkersburg and
>Clarksburg. But why is it scary? I haven't been on that road, but the
>maps show it as a four-lane, partially-controlled access highway.
I last travelled that around 1984 or so, and 50 from Park to Clark is a
reasonably graded divided 4 lane thru mountainous and hilly terrain.
However it was early morning, and there was a lot of fog, with thick
fogbanks... I'm guessing this means the fog is really bad at night
sometimes? I do recall some of the intersecting side roads might be
accident prone, particularly where WV 16 (old ALT US 50 came in...)
But I can't recall anything tortuous about the road then. Maybe it
hasn't been resurfaced since?
Hairline
vid...@aol.com (Vide00) asked in post
<19971222044...@ladder02.news.aol.com>:
> The other day I went across Ohio on SR32.. it's a pretty nice road, however
boring it
> is at times. The only thing that puzzled me was that after US50 joins up with
it
> around Athens, the roads are cosigned until the West Virginia border. This
doesn't
> make sense, why don't they just stop signing 32 at where 50 joins up with it?
The
> only thing I could think of is that a different route is one day planned for
either of the
> two roads.
Parts of this road (near Cincinnati) where OH Rt 74 prior to ODOT upgrading
it in the 1970s as part of the Appalachian Highway. The Appalachian Highway is
supposed to be a multi-lane, divided roadway from Cincinnati to West Virginia.
Local politicians and business leaders talked ODOT into building a roadway that
could accomodate truck traffic in their region and connect them with the major
city of Cincinnati . Talk surfaces in the region about making the roadway a
controlled-access one, but ODOT always cites economic figures and has no plans
to upgrade the roadway soon. I-74 will probably satisfy enough locals though,
that upgrading the roadway will be unneccesary.
I suppose ODOT chose to cosign Rt 32 with US 50 because it also is part of
the Appalachian Highway (from its junction with Rt 32 eastward to WV). As long
as drivers stay on Rt 32, they stay on the Appalachian Highway.
> There was also a lot of construction going on east of Athens, it looks like
they are
> making it into a divided highway, or tearing down the old road, I couldn't
really tell.
> Anyone have any clue?
Yes, ODOT is improving US 50 eastward from Athens, although I can't remember
how far or the scope of the work. None of my maps indicate construction
(including my 1995 Athens County official, which the county engineer gave me in
1997). The construction will probably be between Athens and Coolville though,
where US 50 becomes 4-lanes divided.
ODOT is probably extending the 4-lane, limited-access, divided roadway
westward from Coolville, instead of extending the controlled-access roadway
eastward from Athens. When ODOT makes a roadway into controlled-access, it
usually builds a road on new right-of-way instead of dealing with whats already
there.
From ODOT's web site (www.odot.state.oh.us), you can link to the district
that contains Athens, and find construction information. It's probably where I
read about the construction some months ago.
Scott M. Kozel
Hairline wrote:
>
> vid...@aol.com (Vide00) asked in post
> <19971222044...@ladder02.news.aol.com>:
>
> > The other day I went across Ohio on SR32.. it's a pretty nice road, however
> boring it
> > is at times. The only thing that puzzled me was that after US50 joins up with
> it
> > around Athens, the roads are cosigned until the West Virginia border. This
> doesn't
> > make sense, why don't they just stop signing 32 at where 50 joins up with it?
> The
> > only thing I could think of is that a different route is one day planned for
> either of the
> > two roads.
>
> Parts of this road (near Cincinnati) where OH Rt 74 prior to ODOT upgrading
> it in the 1970s as part of the Appalachian Highway. The Appalachian Highway is
> supposed to be a multi-lane, divided roadway from Cincinnati to West Virginia.
> Local politicians and business leaders talked ODOT into building a roadway that
> could accomodate truck traffic in their region and connect them with the major
> city of Cincinnati . Talk surfaces in the region about making the roadway a
> controlled-access one, but ODOT always cites economic figures and has no plans
> to upgrade the roadway soon. I-74 will probably satisfy enough locals though,
> that upgrading the roadway will be unneccesary.
So the new I-74 from Cincinatti to Huntington will not be an upgraded
OH-32?
|| Scott M. Kozel koz...@richmond.infi.net
|| Highway and Transportation History Website
|| For Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
|| http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5961/highways.html
Vide00
>>Also - US50 in WV between Huntington and Clarksburg is pretty damn scary at
>>night..
>
>US 50 doesn't run through Huntington. It runs between Parkersburg and
>Clarksburg. But why is it scary? I haven't been on that road, but the
>maps show it as a four-lane, partially-controlled access highway.
Woops, my bad.. Parkersburg, same difference :). It's a 65 mile an hour speed
limit on a road with an awful lot of sharp turns and cross roads, including
some "Pedestrian Crossing" signs, pretty humorous at 70mph.
Hairline
Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@richmond.infi.net> asked:
> So the new I-74 from Cincinatti to Huntington will not be an upgraded OH-32?
I doubt it, because as I mentioned when discussing US 50 east of Athens,
ODOT usually does not upgrade roads from at-grade to graded crossings. ODOT
prefers to build controlled-access roadways, such as I-74, on new right-of-way.
OH Rt 32 has some graded crossings, but many intersections, including business
entrances, are not graded. To upgrade Rt 32, ODOT would have to build several
bridges and service roads for the businesses, something ODOT rarely does.
Also, I-74 will connect Cincinnati and Huntington. Rt 32 connects Cincinnati
and Parkersburg. These are two separate routes and I doubt ODOT will cosign
them.
Tim Brown
Instead of plowing down neighborhoods to build a whole new road through
Cincinnati, I-74 should be routed along the north part of I-275 to OH 32.
I-74 between I-275 and I-75 should be renumbered, say, I-174.
OH 32 can easily be upgraded east of Cincinnati. The only part of I-74
in Ohio that would have to be built from scratch would be along OH 73.
--
bath...@iglou.com http://members.iglou.com/bathroom Tantrum 95.7 FM
"A capitalist is eager to sell a rope for himself to hang with" --Abe Lincoln
Read The Last Word -- It's your road atlas to freedom!
Conservatives prove: Stupid is as fascist does...
Hairline
bath...@iglou1.iglou.com (Tim Brown) wrote:
> Instead of plowing down neighborhoods to build a whole new road through
> Cincinnati, I-74 should be routed along the north part of I-275 to OH 32.
I-74
>between I-275 and I-75 should be renumbered, say, I-174. OH 32 can easily be
> upgraded east of Cincinnati. The only part of I-74 in Ohio that would have
to be built
> from scratch would be along OH 73.
I don't know how ODOT intends to handle the section of I-74 through
Cincinnati, I don't live in Cincinnati and it is still decades away.
Eventually, ODOT will probably merge it with I-275, or a mythical I-875
outer-outerbelt that I've read about on some roadgeek sites. I always thought
ODOT should try to use the Norwood Lateral (OH 562), just to get it on the
interstate dole. I also think they should use the US 50 corridor on the east
side. Currently, the spur from I-275 to US 50 is US 50F (where the F stands for
future route). It has been US 50F since the 1970s and is the only part of the
US 50 freeway ODOT completed in that area.
But, ODOT is slow to build roads. I live in Columbus, where there has been a
US 33F since the 1960s. ODOT finally began building the rest of the roadway a
few years ago, but because federal standards have changed, it no longer plans
to reroute US 33 onto US 33F.
Also, about five years ago, the Columbus City Council debated the corridor
for I-73 and decided it didn't want another major Interstate in the city, so it
authorized the (then) underutilized east leg of I-270 for I-73. That was five
years ago though, when the east side of Franklin County still had a lot of
farms. Now, the east-side villages are becoming cities (the state says an
incorporated area with less than 5,000 people is a village, anything more and
it becomes a city), and Columbus' local billionaire added an interchange to
accomodate his Easton megadevelopment (upscale housing, apartments, a regional
mall and other shopping, offices, warehouses and distribution facilities,
etc.). And two new freeways have opened that connect with I-270E (the OH 161/
New Albany Bypass, and I-670/ Airport Connector). Further development will
happen that clogs I-270E before ODOT finally gets serious about 1-73/ I-74.
I-73 will probably end up being some kind of bypass around Franklin County.
And again, I cannot think of one instance where ODOT has ever upgraded
existing roadway to controlled-access. All the controlled-access freeways in
Ohio were built on new right-of-way. The state is full of decommissioned
roadway.
Tim Brown
hair...@aol.com (Hairline) writes:
> I don't know how ODOT intends to handle the section of I-74 through
>Cincinnati, I don't live in Cincinnati and it is still decades away.
>Eventually, ODOT will probably merge it with I-275, or a mythical I-875
>outer-outerbelt that I've read about on some roadgeek sites. I always thought
>ODOT should try to use the Norwood Lateral (OH 562), just to get it on the
>interstate dole. I also think they should use the US 50 corridor on the east
>side. Currently, the spur from I-275 to US 50 is US 50F (where the F stands for
>future route). It has been US 50F since the 1970s and is the only part of the
>US 50 freeway ODOT completed in that area.
> But, ODOT is slow to build roads. I live in Columbus, where there has been a
>US 33F since the 1960s. ODOT finally began building the rest of the roadway a
>few years ago, but because federal standards have changed, it no longer plans
>to reroute US 33 onto US 33F.
I think there is a 62-F around Alliance, but I thought "F" stood for
"freeway".
Examining a Cincinnati map a bit more, I think that if Ohio has to
build more freeways in Cincinnati, it should extend Ronald Reagan through
(horrors!) Indian Hill and connect it with I-275 and make Ronald Reagan
part of I-74. The exclusive suburb of Indian Hill should be disrupted for
once just out of fairness to all the less upscale communities that have
been plowed down for new freeways.
David Sturm
In article <19971228150...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
hair...@aol.com says...
> And again, I cannot think of one instance where ODOT has ever
upgraded
>existing roadway to controlled-access. All the controlled-access
freeways in
>Ohio were built on new right-of-way. The state is full of
decommissioned
>roadway.
Here are some instances where existing 4-lane was upgraded...
Ohio's done it a few times.
The one that required the most work was I-75 in northern Dayton.
Originally it was a 4-lane US 25 from the Wagoner Ford "Traffic Circle"
6 miles north to Vandalia, where it used to veer NNW back onto the old
Dixie Dr. The construction required to change the at-grade traffic
light at Needmore Road was a huge ~1970 project. Access roads had to
be built along the first 3 miles, as this was the Northridge
subdivision (square grid section)... The strange Stop Eight Road
intersection has grown into a major hotel area, etc. That 4-lane thru
Northridge was built well before 1960, I think about 1951...
(Unfortunately, I know all this, as my Uncle Gene was hit head-on by a
drunk who crossed the median in 1962---at that time it was just 10' of
grass---a simple Jersey barrier would have prevented it...)
Another example is the old Toledo to Turnpike connector. It was
upgraded from a regular 4-lane (final work just done in the last couple
years) to make a proper interstate 280. (Used to have at-grade
intersections).
Back to Dayton, US 35 from Woodman exit, thru I-675 to (don't use your
RMcN--it doesn't show the interchange for 835) the east end of 835 to
the light at Fairfield Road is now limited access. That 3.5 mile
stretch was originally a simple 4-lane. I expect that as time passes,
current US 35 from Fairfield to Xenia will have the 8 mile stretch
upgraded on the same stretch. (And eventually US 35 from Dayton to
I-73 in Chillicothe will be interstate grade... I-68 extension anyone?)
Also, parts of old 4-lane US 40 on newer ROW was converted to I-70. I
can't find the right map I need to nail down the year, but Guernsey and
Belmont counties come to mind.
Also, old US 21 4-lane from where I-77 intersects north of Akron to
just S of the turnpike wasn't originally I-77, but a 4-lane US 21.
Finally, ODOT builds new locations with enough ROW sometimes for future
upgrading. US 33's new location around Bellefountaine has space for
interchanges...
Summary... ODOT very well COULD upgrade SR 32 to carry I-74 east of
Cincinnati... It takes a lot less in (adjusted) dollars to do this in
rural areas than what it took in urban areas (the I-75 in Dayton).
Michael Kotler
On 28 Dec 1997 15:06:17 GMT, hair...@aol.com (Hairline) wrote:
> But, ODOT is slow to build roads. I live in Columbus, where there has been a
>US 33F since the 1960s. ODOT finally began building the rest of the roadway a
>few years ago, but because federal standards have changed, it no longer plans
>to reroute US 33 onto US 33F.
What kind of changes in standards were there? Do you know if US-33
will be fully accessible in the Spring Sandusky interchange, or will
it just be grade separated on through?
> I cannot think of one instance where ODOT has ever upgraded
>existing roadway to controlled-access. All the controlled-access freeways in
>Ohio were built on new right-of-way. The state is full of decommissioned
>roadway.
Not all of them! In the mid-80s, US-35 was upgraded from 4-lane with
traffic signals, to limited access, east from Woodman Ave. all the way
to the Beaver Valley shopping center. Granted, this was done to
coincide with the opening of I-675 which intersected the new section.
But they are now limiting the access of US-35 all the way to the
bypass at Xenia.
Also, a few stretches of US-23 between Marion and Ottawa have been
upgraded to limited-access, as evidenced by some new three-tiered
interchanges I saw along the way, last time I went through. What
about US-33 between Marysville and the Honda plant?
----------------------------------------------------
Michael E. Kotler
mek...@flynns.com
[clear spamfilter before replying]
The return address is really "erols.com". (Er[r]ol Flynn, get it? ;) )
I've had to get creative to foil the spammers.
H.B. Elkins
hair...@aol.com (Hairline) wrote:
>Currently, the spur from I-275 to US 50 is US 50F (where the F stands for
>future route). It has been US 50F since the 1970s and is the only part of the
>US 50 freeway ODOT completed in that area.
> But, ODOT is slow to build roads. I live in Columbus, where there has been a
>US 33F since the 1960s. ODOT finally began building the rest of the roadway a
>few years ago, but because federal standards have changed, it no longer plans
>to reroute US 33 onto US 33F.
Are those routes signed with the "F" in the shield? If so, get some
pics and I'll host them on my Web page.
Tim Brown
hbel...@mis.nyet (H.B. Elkins) writes:
>hair...@aol.com (Hairline) wrote:
>>Currently, the spur from I-275 to US 50 is US 50F (where the F stands for
>>future route). It has been US 50F since the 1970s and is the only part of the
>>US 50 freeway ODOT completed in that area.
>> But, ODOT is slow to build roads. I live in Columbus, where there has been a
>>US 33F since the 1960s. ODOT finally began building the rest of the roadway a
>>few years ago, but because federal standards have changed, it no longer plans
>>to reroute US 33 onto US 33F.
>Are those routes signed with the "F" in the shield? If so, get some
>pics and I'll host them on my Web page.
I'm pretty sure 50-F isn't. All 50-F amounts to is the exit from I-275 to
US 50 in Milford.
Stephen A. Hill
hair...@aol.com (Hairline) wrote:
>I cannot think of one instance where ODOT has ever upgraded
>existing roadway to controlled-access. All the controlled-access freeways in
>Ohio were built on new right-of-way.
Isn't I-280 east of Toledo from OH-51 south to the OTP built on old
OH-120?
Steve Hill
Ohio Highways
Stephen A. Hill
stu...@maine.maine.edu (David Sturm) wrote:
>Also, parts of old 4-lane US 40 on newer ROW was converted to I-70. I
>can't find the right map I need to nail down the year, but Guernsey and
>Belmont counties come to mind.
Correct. I believe this is somewhere east of Old Washington.
>Also, old US 21 4-lane from where I-77 intersects north of Akron to
>just S of the turnpike wasn't originally I-77, but a 4-lane US 21.
Sorry, all of I-77 from the turnpike south to Ghent is built on new
ROW. However, from Ghent Road to the I-77/OH-21 split south of
Montrose, I-77 was built on the old 4-lane US-21. The 4-lane US-21
from Ghent south to Massllion was built in 1964 (according to John
Simpson) replacing the old 2-lane Cleveland-Massillon Road. From
Akron, I-77 was supposed to crash northwest through Fairlawn, but the
locals opposed the route. Instead, I-77 was routed west to OH-21 in
1974, and OH-21 was upgraded to interstate standards from there north
to Ghent.
Steve Hill
Ohio Highways
Stephen A. Hill
hbel...@mis.nyet (H.B. Elkins) wrote:
>Are those routes signed with the "F" in the shield? If so, get some
>pics and I'll host them on my Web page.
The US-50F designation, along with the US-62F designation for the
freeway north around Alliance, are used by ODOT for internal purposes
only. The US-62F freeway does not have any route signage, only
trailblazers, westboard it is marked TO US-62, eastbound it is marked
TO OH-225.
Steve Hill
Ohio Highways
Mike McManus
In article <ELuy9...@iglou.com>, bath...@iglou1.iglou.com (Tim Brown) wrote:
>Instead of plowing down neighborhoods to build a whole new road through
>Cincinnati, I-74 should be routed along the north part of I-275 to OH 32.
>I-74 between I-275 and I-75 should be renumbered, say, I-174.
> OH 32 can easily be upgraded east of Cincinnati. The only part of I-74
>in Ohio that would have to be built from scratch would be along OH 73.
While riding from the airport to my folks' place for the holidays, I noticed
two consecutive signs on I-75 north of the Brent Spence Bridge.
The first read:
(75) North (74) West
Dayton
| |
V V
The next read:
(71) (75) North
Dayton
| | |
V V V
Truth of the matter is, 71 north has already split off by this point, and 74
doesn't officially exist until the junction about 3 miles north.
I wonder if the intent was to route 74 over Fort Washington Way through
downtown. In that case, there should have been a corresponding sign to the
right of the first that would have read
(71) North (74)(50) East
Columbus
Huntington
| |
V V
I guess they'll get around to it once they pull the extra 71 shield off the
other sign... ;-)
74 would probably then be routed over I-471 to 275 and pick up Ohio 32 at its
junction with 275. If this were done, 471 would probably cease to exist (to
great exultant cheers from some, I'm sure ...) Trouble is, they'd have to
re-do the approach to the Big Mac (Dan Beard) Bridge, which is a single lane
shared with US 50 east. There's not enough land there to make this work --
just putting 471 through required a multi-million-dollar retaining wall to
keep Mount Adams intact.
Comments?
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Mike McManus _/ home: mmcm...@frontiernet.net _/
_/ Rochester, NY _/ work: mcm...@kodak.com _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
H.B. Elkins
mmcm...@frontiernet.net (Mike McManus) wrote:
>74 would probably then be routed over I-471 to 275 and pick up Ohio 32 at its
>junction with 275. If this were done, 471 would probably cease to exist (to
>great exultant cheers from some, I'm sure ...)
I've heard no plans to route I-74 into Kentucky. This would result in
I-74 leaving Ohio, then re-entering. I don't have a map of Cincinnati
in front of me, but it seems like they could use the Cross-County
Highway for an I-74 routing as easily as they could Fort Washington
Way. Of course I imagine that the I-74 extension is years and years
away...
Mike McManus
In article <34aa5ad7...@news.zippo.com>, hbel...@mis.nyet (H.B. Elkins) wrote:
>mmcm...@frontiernet.net (Mike McManus) wrote:
>>74 would probably then be routed over I-471 to 275 and pick up Ohio 32 at its
>>junction with 275. If this were done, 471 would probably cease to exist (to
>>great exultant cheers from some, I'm sure ...)
>
>I've heard no plans to route I-74 into Kentucky. This would result in
>I-74 leaving Ohio, then re-entering. I don't have a map of Cincinnati
>in front of me, but it seems like they could use the Cross-County
>Highway for an I-74 routing as easily as they could Fort Washington
>Way. Of course I imagine that the I-74 extension is years and years
>away...
The 75->71/50->471->275 routing would approximate US 52's current route, while
avoiding Columbia Parkway (which probably cannot be made controlled-access).
The problem with the Reagan Highway is that to extend it beyond US 22 would
entail bulldozing some *very* *expensive* *homes* in Indian Hill. Another
poster suggests this isn't a problem. Yeah. Right. ;-)
An alternative would be to co-sign 74 east and 71 north from the Reagan
Highway ("Cross County" has already all but disappeared from the signage...
snarl... ;-) to 275. The 71/Reagan Hwy interchange would probably have to be
rebuilt to remove the stop signs though. ;-)
Michael Kotler
>hair...@aol.com (Hairline) wrote:
>
>>I cannot think of one instance where ODOT has ever upgraded
>>existing roadway to controlled-access.
>
>Isn't I-280 east of Toledo from OH-51 south to the OTP built on old
>OH-120?
>
It would make sense, since I actually remember there being traffic
signals on I-280 at one time. I think it was 1986 that the at-grade
intersections were finally eliminated.
Also, in Monclova, OH (near Maumee), a few miles of US-24 southwest of
I-475 were upgraded to limited-access in the late 70s. Jerome Rd. and
Stitt Rd., which were formerly at-grade intersections with 24, were
combined into one exit.
Hairline
Tim Brown posted:
> I think there is a 62-F around Alliance, but I thought "F" stood for
"freeway".
ODOT uses only the Business and Future designations as route suffixes, and the
Future suffix only shows up on maps (such as the Franklin County Engineering
Dept's county map). The US 33F section in Columbus is really two ramps that
were intended to carry US 33 onto and off I-670. But, because federal standards
changed during the last twenty-some years, there will be no east interchange,
where US 33 would have merged with I-670 (near Spring St/ Long St).
The US 62F near Alliance is part of a proposed reroute of US 62. Plans call for
the freeway to extend eastward to the Salem Bypass (it opened between OH 14 and
US 62 decades ago), then somehow tie into the Hubbard Expressway (a proposed
freeway between Albert St and I-80) near Youngstown. Rep. James Trafficant of
Youngstown introduced legislation during the last Congress to get the Hubbard
Expressway built, but Shuster's committee never gave it a hearing. ODOT put the
plans on its long-range list (the "it might get built in my lifetime" list)
after the area became the Rust Belt in the 1970s. Youngstown still hasn't
recovered, so the plans are still long-range.
Hairline
David Sturm posted:
> Here are some instances where existing 4-lane was upgraded... Ohio's done it
a
> few times.
Thanks for the corrections. I knew someone would set me straight. Neither my
map collection nor age are extensive. And, of all the freeways built in Ohio
during the last decade, I could not think of one that was an upgrade.
> I expect that as time passes, current US 35 from Fairfield to Xenia will have
the 8
> mile stretch upgraded on the same stretch. (And eventually US 35 from Dayton
to
> I-73 in Chillicothe will be interstate grade... I-68 extension anyone?)
The entire US 35 corridor between Dayton and Chillicothe is scheduled for
upgrade to controlled-access roadway, with the Chillicothe to Washington Court
House section scheduled first. And, according to the 1995 Ross County Highway
Map (distributed by the county engineer), the US 35 freeway will be north of
existing US 35, on NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY!
Hairline
I wrote earlier:
> But, ODOT is slow to build roads. I live in Columbus, where there has been
a
>US 33F since the 1960s. ODOT finally began building the rest of the roadway a
>few years ago, but because federal standards have changed, it no longer plans
>to reroute US 33 onto US 33F.
Michael Kotler responded:
> What kind of changes in standards were there? Do you know if US-33 will be
fully
> accessible in the Spring Sandusky interchange, or will it just be grade
separated on
> through?
First, some history of the three parts of Spring - Sandusky (named for the
intersection of Spring St (US 33E) and Sandusky St (OH 315 corridor)):
1. US 33 currently follows Long and Spring Sts westward from downtown
Columbus. Near the Columbus Main Post Office, US 33 hops onto Dublin Rd.
(Dublin Rd begins as a ramp at Twin Rivers Dr, then merges with US 33 less a
football-field away.) From there, US 33 follows Dublin Rd to Trabue Rd, where
Dublin Rd jogs westward across the Scioto River. At that point, the roadway
becomes Riverside Dr and US 33 follows it to Dublin, where it merges with OH
161.
2. OH 315 runs from I-70 northward to US 23 in Delaware County. Between
I-70 and I-270, it is a controlled-access roadway. (Referred to as the
Olentangy Freeway in early documents, the freeway was complete by the early
1980s.) The section between I-70 and present I-670 was once part of I-71, and
according to ODOT's maps, is still interstate. Several interchanges along OH
315 closed prior to Spring - Sandusky construction. Of the three that closed:
Broad St to OH 315N, Twin Rivers Dr to OH 315N, and OH 315N to Spring St (US
33E), the latter has the most significance.
3. Originally, the entire Columbus Innerbelt was part of I-71. This
includes what is now I-670 between OH 315 and I-71. (Original documents
referred to this section as the Goodale Expressway because it paralled Goodale
Ave.) At some point, an I-670 proposal arose. (I was more interested in
cartoons than freeways at the time.) ODOT built the roadway between I-70 and
Grandview Ave (exit 1B), but left "ramps to nowhere" for I-670's eastward
extension. It also built ramps between US 33 and I-670 (exit 1A), which
according to the Franklin County Engineering Dept is US 33F. (This does not
appear on ODOT's state map.) The signage for and on the ramps indicate(d) it
is/ was US 33.
Later, an airport extension proposal (between I-71 and I-270) became part
of I-670. This would upgrade the US 62 freeway that already existed between E
Fifth Ave and I-270. The upgrade was complete by the early 1990s, and the
extension opened in the mid 1990s.
Meanwhile, the western extension between OH 315 and Grandview Ave lanquished.
That section finally received federal money in the late 1980s, but by then,
federal design standards for interstates had changed. ODOT had to eliminate the
eastern interchange with US 33 (Spring St/ Long St) because it was too close to
the Goodale Ave/ OH 315 interchange. Some of the problems with OH 315 in that
section currently are short on-ramps and left-lane exits. Interchanges with
both US 33 and OH 315 would have exasperated those problems by having
interchanges less than a half-mile apart.
Present plans eliminate the eastern interchange between I-670 and US 33, where
US 33 would have joined I-670. Without this eastern interchange, there can be
no western interchange. Even so, the 1997 Franklin County Highway Map continues
to label the ramps as US 33F (one ramp labeled as US 33 westbound, the other as
US 33 eastbound).
Sources are: county highway maps, Columbus Dispatch, televison medium
David Norris
hair...@aol.com (Hairline) wrote:
The section of US 35 from Washington Court House to SR 138 (near
Frankfort) should be open by this summer. The contractor began paving
this past fall. It will be 4 lanes with no access (other than the
existing interchanges at each end). It is indeed on new R/W, and north
of the existing 2-lane road.
ODOT also has a Consultanting engineering firm performing the
preliminary development phase for constructing a 4-lane section East
of Chillicothe to Richmondale (on new R/W). This project is ranked in
Tier 3, which means that no further progress will be made, after
completion of the current phase. This section may be the last section
to be upgraded to 4 lanes.
About 5 years ago ODOT upgraded a 7 mile section of US 35 in Jackson
County from 2-lane to 4-lane on existing R/W.
David Norris
ODOT
Lucasville, OH
Hairline
David Norris responded to my posts about US 35 in Ohio thusly:
<< ODOT also has a Consultanting engineering firm performing the
preliminary development phase for constructing a 4-lane section East
of Chillicothe to Richmondale (on new R/W). This project is ranked in
Tier 3, which means that no further progress will be made, after
completion of the current phase. This section may be the last section
to be upgraded to 4 lanes. >>
I know ODOT complains of funding shortfalls and inadequate bonding limits.
And its new emphasis on economic impact places southeastern Ohio at a
disadvantage for receiving highway dollars. But, I never thought the US 35
freeway was dead, just wounded. I'll have to check the project list again, but
wouldn't the Washington CH to Xenia connection be a priority? Other than Ross
County, it is the only two-lane section of US 35 between WV and I-70 (once the
US 35/ OH 49 connector opens in Dayton).
As an aside, I hate that ODOT maps no longer show construction. They did in
the late 1980s when Celeste was governor, but under the Voinovich
administration, the maps seem outdated as soon as they are released. Dashed
lines for US 35, the Jennings Freeway, and Spring-Sandusky would be nice. And
what about the Easton/ I-270 interchange (exit 33)? It opened just about the
time the latest map was published (8/97), yet I have to wait until 1998 for
ODOT to aknowledge it!
<< About 5 years ago ODOT upgraded a 7 mile section of US 35 in Jackson
County from 2-lane to 4-lane on existing R/W.>>
But, according to the 1997 ODOT map, this roadway is "multilane divided,"
not "fully controlled access (other)." If ODOT were to have made it
access-controlled, the department would probably have put it on new R/W. My
point was not that ODOT doesn't widen roads by converting them from "paved -
two or more lanes" to "multilane divided" because it is doing that now with US
50 southeast of Athens. My point was that ODOT rarely converts a roadway to
"fully controlled access." The examples cited by others here are short
segments, not a lengthy segment such as OH 32, which would require converting
crossings in at least three counties.
MaryKDan
H B Elkins wrote:
>I've heard no plans to route I-74 into Kentucky. This
>would result in I-74 leaving Ohio, then re-entering.
Other than I-24 in Tennessee, is there anyplace where a 2di leaves a state and
then reenters it?
- Dan Stober
Salt Lake City
Hairline
Dan Stober asked:
<< Other than I-24 in Tennessee, is there anyplace where a 2di leaves a state
and
then reenters it?>>
Didn't some politico propose to give PA/ NY Rt 17 an interstate shield?
I-88, IIRC. It seems to jut down into PA near Sayre (a suburb of the
twin-metropolises Elmira and Binghamton). If D'Amato (rhymes with potato) gets
his wish, this new interstate would enter both PA and NY twice. (And Clinton
would finally be convicted of something illegal :)
William F Yurasko
If/when RTE 17 promoted, it would be I-86. I-88 begins just north of
Bingo. from I-81, Cheango Bridge specifically, I think. Also, according
to an email reply from NYSDOT, not all of NY 17 would become I-86 right
away, only after meeting interstate standards.
Actually, that area is called the tri-cities, Bingo., Johnson City, and
Elimira (or Endicott). It's also reffered to as, The Southern Tier.
WILLIAM
Stephen A. Hill
William F Yurasko <wfy...@email.psu.edu> wrote:
>Actually, that area is called the tri-cities, Bingo., Johnson City, and
>Elimira (or Endicott). It's also reffered to as, The Southern Tier.
Or "The Twin Tiers" (meaning the northern tier of counties in PA and
the Southern Tier of counties in NY).
Steve Hill
Ohio Highways
JOHN.SIMPSON
I'm jumping into this thread a bit late, but I have been away from
the net for a while, and I am just catching up.
Most plans I have seen call for I-74 to follow an upgraded OH 32
from just east of Batavia to just east of Peebles. From there, it
would then closely follow the routes of OH 73 and OH 348 to
Lucasville, where it would join I-73 to bypass Portsmouth. The
question then is how to get I-74 from its current eastern terminal
at I-75 to Batavia. I have heard and read several proposals. I'll
list them here off the top of my head in order of increasing
likelihood.
1. Extend I-74 nearly due east (slightly south) directly from I-75
to OH 32. There is absolutely no chance of this happening. Such a
road would have to cut directly through many city neighborhoods
(Clifton, Avondale, Evanston, Hyde Park, etc.). It would also
require a new bridge across the Little Miami River, which is
designated a national scenic river.
2. Route I-74 north on I-75, east on OH 562 (the Norwood Lateral),
north on I-71, and construct a new road to connect I-74 to OH 32.
This would again require a new bridge over the Little Miami River.
It would also require cutting through Madeira and Indian Hill. As
another poster pointed out, there is no way a freeway is going to go
through Indian Hill.
3. Route I-74 north on I-75 and then east and south on I-275. This
would be a very out-of-the-way routing for I-74.
4. Route I-74 north on I-75 and then east on either OH 562 or OH 126
(Ronald Reagan Highway), north on I-71, and east and south on I-275.
Again, this is an out-of-the-way route. I-74 would have to go north
on I-71, as there is no chance that the RRH will be extended east of
Montgomery Rd. (US 22/OH 3).
The only reasonable alternative would seem to be I-75 south, Fort
Washington Way (I-71/US 50), I-471 south, I-275 east and north.
Even this route has problems, as the eastern part of FWW -- the part
that is US 50 alone and not I-71 -- does not (I believe) meet
Interstate standards. Also, the ramps from FWW eastbound to I-471
south and from I-471 north to FWW westbound are one lane each, and
widening them is not feasible. Also, the westbound ramp is a very
tight loop posted as 25 mph. On top of all that, the future of Fort
Washington Way itself is up in the air with the city's riverfront
development plan. Right now this whole thing is a complicated mess
involving city and county politics and Bengals owner Mike Brown.
There is also the issue of how to route I-74 through the Eastgate
area. This is the area around the I-275/OH 32 interchange and OH 32
east to Batavia. This stretch of OH 32 is very congested and has
many grade crossings. I have heard some vague plans about an
"Eastgate Parkway", which as I understand it would roughly follow
Clough Pike -- an east-west road running between OH 32 and OH 125 --
to Batavia. However, I think this project is just on the Clermont
County wish list with no support from the state.
It will be interesting to see what develops with I-74 in Cincinnati,
but I wouldn't expect it to go further east than I-75 anytime soon.
--
John Simpson -- Cincinnati, OH
John.S...@prodigy.net
Linda & Chris Bessert
Hairline wrote:
> As an aside, I hate that ODOT maps no longer show construction. They did in
> the late 1980s when Celeste was governor, but under the Voinovich
> administration, the maps seem outdated as soon as they are released.
As long as we're airing our griefs with the ODOT state map... :^) In
some
ways, I really like the "newer" style map, especially since it shows the
Ohio
state routes with an outline of the state highway marker (not many
states do
this, and yes, I do know why...). Unfortunately, Ohio has many, many
short
state highways which are only a couple miles long and these nice new
route
symbols completely cover the highway on the map, obliterating it.
>
> << About 5 years ago ODOT upgraded a 7 mile section of US 35 in Jackson
> County from 2-lane to 4-lane on existing R/W.>>
>
> But, according to the 1997 ODOT map, this roadway is "multilane divided,"
> not "fully controlled access (other)."
As long as we're still airing our griefs with the ODOT state map...
:^)
I have also noted that the map displays some freeway segments as
"Multilane
Divided" instead of "Fully Controlled Access (Other)." For example,
US-30
for approx. eight miles around Bucyrus is 100 percent freeway
(interchanges,
grade separations, no business/residential access, you name it), yet it
is
shown only as divided highway. I suspect that this has to do more with
some
ODOT definition than reality, since it's also posted at 55mph(!).
US-33 between SR-347 at East Liberty and CR-57 northwest of
Bellefontaine
is also 100 percent freeway (interchanges, etc, etc) for at least 15-18
miles
and is also shown as a divided highway. I believe this route is posted
at
65mph. GeoSystems (in the National Geographic and American Map Road
Atlases)
shows US-33 correctly as freeway from Dublin through to US-68 at
Bellefon-
taine, even aticipating the completion of the last segment between
SR-739
and SR-347. It also shows the US-30 Bucyrus bypass as freeway as well.
Just my 2 cents...
Chris
Linda & Chris Bessert
Mike McManus wrote:
> In article...hbelkins@mis.nyet (H.B. Elkins) wrote:
> >I've heard no plans to route I-74 into Kentucky. This would result in
> >in front of me, but it seems like they could use the Cross-County
> >Highway for an I-74 routing as easily as they could Fort Washington
> >Way. Of course I imagine that the I-74 extension is years and years
> >away...
>
> The problem with the Reagan Highway is that to extend it beyond US 22 would
> entail bulldozing some *very* *expensive* *homes* in Indian Hill. Another
> poster suggests this isn't a problem. Yeah. Right. ;-)
>
> An alternative would be to co-sign 74 east and 71 north from the Reagan
> Highway ("Cross County" has already all but disappeared from the signage...
> snarl... ;-) to 275. The 71/Reagan Hwy interchange would probably have to be
> rebuilt to remove the stop signs though. ;-)
I've driven on all of the Cross County (er, Ronald Regan) Hwy
completed
before 1996, and while the western half from I-75 to I-275 at Exit 31
could
be considered to be up to "Interstate-standards," the old portion from
I-71
to I-75 is a four-lane, narrow, winding "freeway" with no left shoulders
and
very short on- and off-ramps. I've always had a feeling that was one
reason
why ODOT never numbered the Cross County (state or Interstate).
Chris
David Norris
hair...@aol.com (Hairline) wrote:
> As an aside, I hate that ODOT maps no longer show construction. They did in
>the late 1980s when Celeste was governor, but under the Voinovich
>administration, the maps seem outdated as soon as they are released. Dashed
>lines for US 35, the Jennings Freeway, and Spring-Sandusky would be nice. And
>what about the Easton/ I-270 interchange (exit 33)? It opened just about the
>time the latest map was published (8/97), yet I have to wait until 1998 for
>ODOT to aknowledge it!
I will pass this on to those who make the maps. The maps have been
prepared in-house for a couple of years now.
>
<snip>
> My point was that ODOT rarely converts a roadway to
>"fully controlled access." The examples cited by others here are short
>segments, not a lengthy segment such as OH 32, which would require converting
>crossings in at least three counties.
Actually, it would be nearly impossible to "convert" 2-lane or 4-lane
to "4-lane with fully controlled access". Routes like US 35 and US 23
have at-grade intersections and residence drives. To eliminate all
these access points would require the building of access roads, and
would most likely wipe out all houses and businesses anyway.
SR 32 could possibly be upgraded by constructing interchanges, but by
the time ODOT gets around to it, it would be very expensive, as
businesses have already begun to congregate around the intersections.
BTW, we are designing an interchange on SR 32/124 at SR 327 in Jackson
County, to upgrade an existing signalized intersection. It will also
eliminate 2 other at-grade intersections.
David Norris
Lucasville, OH
ICQ 1305582
dno...@zoomnet.net
MaryKDan
>I really like the "newer" style map, especially since it
>shows the Ohio state routes with an outline of the
>state highway marker (not many states do this, and
>yes, I do know why...).
I don't know why. Please tell me.
- Dan Stober
Salt Lake City
http://members.aol.com/utahhwys/
FWIW: Both the Arizona and California DOT maps use outlines on their state
highway shields on the maps (AZ uses the state outline, and CA uses a crude
outline in the spade shapde of the highway sign).
Michael King
> I'm jumping into this thread a bit late, but I have been away from
> the net for a while, and I am just catching up.
>
> Most plans I have seen call for I-74 to follow an upgraded OH 32
> from just east of Batavia to just east of Peebles. From there, it
> would then closely follow the routes of OH 73 and OH 348 to
> Lucasville, where it would join I-73 to bypass Portsmouth. The
> question then is how to get I-74 from its current eastern terminal
> at I-75 to Batavia. I have heard and read several proposals. I'll
> list them here off the top of my head in order of increasing
> likelihood.
>
This is going to sound REALLY bizarre, but I'll toss it out anyway -- how
about running I-74 over the northern arc of I-275 (ala I-465 in
Indianapolis), with the remaining routing of I-74 into Cincinnati being
redesignated at I-274 or 474?
There would not have to be any additional construction inside the
Cincinnati Perimeter (I know it ain't the name, but humor me here), and the
continuity would be maintained.
M
--
Michael King - Atlanta, GA
"Noah, how long can you tread water?"
mic...@ilcnet.com
William S. Riddle, IV
Tennessee *almost* uses the state highway shields on their maps. The
secondary highways, which are marked with white point-side-down
triangles on black backgrounds with numbers on the top portion of the
triangles, are marked on the TDOT map with the proper point-side-down
triangles. Primary highways, which are marked with white rectangles
with a Tennessee-shaped outline on the bottom with "Tennessee" written
inside and the number above that, are marked simply with rectangles on
the TDOT map. For a much better explanation of the Tennessee highway
markers than I can provide, please visit this section of James Lin's
site: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~jlin/signs/usa/p9.html#Tennessee .
--
/---------------------------------------------------------------------\
| William S. Riddle, IV http://www.mindspring.com/~riddler4 |
| Tenn. Highways Page: http://www.mindspring.com/~riddler4/TNHwys.htm |
| *** To respond to this message, please change the .kom to .com *** |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------/
H.B. Elkins
"JOHN.SIMPSON" <JOHN.S...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Most plans I have seen call for I-74 to follow an upgraded OH 32
>from just east of Batavia to just east of Peebles. From there, it
>would then closely follow the routes of OH 73 and OH 348 to
>Lucasville, where it would join I-73 to bypass Portsmouth. The
>question then is how to get I-74 from its current eastern terminal
>at I-75 to Batavia. I have heard and read several proposals. I'll
>list them here off the top of my head in order of increasing
>likelihood.
How about these alternatives?
1.) Route I-74 north and east along I-275 along the northwest and
north side of the city to some point on the city's east side, and
renumber existing I-74 inside I-275 as I-174.
2.) Route I-74 south and east along I-275 through Indiana and
Kentucky, back into Ohio, and again renumber existing I-74 inside
I-275 as I-174.
This would eliminate the need for a lot of new and expensive
construction, either in the suburbs, or along the riverfront.
Hey, they did something similar in Indianapolis! ;-)
William S. Riddle, IV
Andrew Field
William S. Riddle, IV wrote:
>
> I did a little browsing and found this page of interest:
>
> http://www.zoomnet.net/~i73i74/
>
> Enjoy!
And enjoy I did!
This page reminds me a great deal of the U.S. 219 (I-67?) Corridor home
page that I discovered a few weeks ago. Although incomplete, this site,
dedicated to the development of the I-73/74 Corridor, has the first map
I've seen of the proposed Interstate 73.
The map only shows I-74 designated from Cincinnati to Portsmouth, but
does not mention the already existing section of I-74 in North Carolina.
Therefore, the map shows I-73 with a significant jog to the east in the
Carolinas (since the parallel routing created by I-74 is not shown). It
seems to me, based on this map alone, that a more direct route from
Mount Airy, NC, to Charleston, SC, would be via I-77 and I-26. However,
this is based on the original planned ISTEA I-73 alignment, not the
revised I-73 corridor defined in the NHS Act of 1995.
This leads me to believe that the reason why I-74 is being extended
southeast is so that the planned freeway corridor can keep its name:
the I-73/74 Corridor Association. It would be strange to call it
I-73/74/38 Corridor or something like that (where 38 is an arbitrary
number I am throwing out for the sake of argument).
This page is obvioulsy still under construction (the NC section does not
mention the already designated section of I-73/74 near Ulah). I wonder
if they plan on discussing the planned I-74 routing in Virginia/NC/SC,
or the revised I-73 routing through Roanoke and Greensboro?
Just my $0.02.
Regards,
Andy
-----------------------
Visit the Wyoming Highways Home Page
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3175/wyoming1.htm
Visit the NHS/ISTEA High Priority Corridors Home Page
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3175/highway.htm
Kirby's of Fredericton
William S. Riddle, IV wrote in article <34B0593D...@mindspring.com>...
>Tennessee *almost* uses the state highway shields on their maps. The
>secondary highways, which are marked with white point-side-down
>triangles on black backgrounds with numbers on the top portion of the
>triangles, are marked on the TDOT map with the proper point-side-down
>triangles. Primary highways, which are marked with white rectangles
>with a Tennessee-shaped outline on the bottom with "Tennessee" written
>inside and the number above that, are marked simply with rectangles on
>the TDOT map. For a much better explanation of the Tennessee highway
>markers than I can provide, please visit this section of James Lin's
>site: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~jlin/signs/usa/p9.html#Tennessee .
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia also use the shield on their maps. They even
get the background colours to make it a square. As well, Quebec, Ontario,
Alberta, Virginia and West Virginia use shield shapes.
--
J.P. Kirby
Fredericton, N.B., Canada, Earth
Roads: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7212
NB Radio: http://members.tripod.com/~jpkirby/nbradio.html
E-mail: pki...@surfcity.nb.ca
www.platinum.CON -- URL domain name given on WLBZ-TV news (Bangor ME),
1/1/98
William F Yurasko
Kirby's of Fredericton wrote:
>
> William S. Riddle, IV wrote in article <34B0593D...@mindspring.com>...
> >Tennessee *almost* uses the state highway shields on their maps. The
> >secondary highways, which are marked with white point-side-down
> >triangles on black backgrounds with numbers on the top portion of the
> >triangles, are marked on the TDOT map with the proper point-side-down
> >triangles. Primary highways, which are marked with white rectangles
> >with a Tennessee-shaped outline on the bottom with "Tennessee" written
> >inside and the number above that, are marked simply with rectangles on
> >the TDOT map. For a much better explanation of the Tennessee highway
> >markers than I can provide, please visit this section of James Lin's
> >site: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~jlin/signs/usa/p9.html#Tennessee .
>
> New Brunswick and Nova Scotia also use the shield on their maps. They even
> get the background colours to make it a square. As well, Quebec, Ontario,
> Alberta, Virginia and West Virginia use shield shapes.
circles. Many maps use cirlces for adjoining states (NJ uses for all
state highways, reguardless of state) so they are correct for other
states as well. NJ maps circles are actually more representitive of the
shield for DE, than DE. MD gets both NJ and DE right, plus VA secondary.
VA gets Kentucky right.
WILLIAM
Mike Wiley
William F Yurasko wrote:
Oregon does now on their official state maps. The neighboring states
also have Oregon shaped route markers too (I think that is bad form
though).
Also, doesn't the Alexander Drafting Company (ADC) use the proper state
markers on their maps too? Thomas Brothers California Atlas also uses
the proper state shape.
--
Mike Wiley - YLEKOT
http://www.wenet.net/~mwiley
mwi...@hooked.net or yle...@aol.com
William F Yurasko
ADC uses the proper or close to proper on some of its atlases. They
include the black so it's a full square. THey make the inside yellow
though. On some very old ADC maps, I saw proper VA cutouts, but its
really old. The county or city atlas maps generally use circles for
primary and secondary.
WILLIAM
Paul Schlichtman
If NY 17 becomes I-86, it will enter Sayre, PA for a short stretch before
reentering NY state. This is now a stretch of NY17 in PA , maintained and
numbered by NYSDOT.
I know you asked for 2-di's, but I-684 cuts through a corner of CT (with no exit
in CT) and is maintained by New York.
MaryKDan wrote:
> H B Elkins wrote:
> >I've heard no plans to route I-74 into Kentucky. This
> >would result in I-74 leaving Ohio, then re-entering.
>
> Other than I-24 in Tennessee, is there anyplace where a 2di leaves a state and
> then reenters it?
>
> - Dan Stober
> Salt Lake City
-- -------------------------------------------------------------
"Because you are children and you can understand it."
-- Mr. Dolphus Raymond in To Kill a Mockingbird.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlichtman
Harvard University Graduate School of Education
mailto:schlicpa*NOSPAM*@hugse1.harvard.edu
remove the *NOSPAM* filter in the address or remove the SPAM from the net.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://gseweb.harvard.edu/TIEWeb/STUDENTS/DOCTORAL/schlicpa/schlicpa.html
...and why you will be lost if you come to Arlington:
http://gseweb.harvard.edu/TIEWeb/STUDENTS/DOCTORAL/schlicpa/signs.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Elkins
William F Yurasko <wfy...@email.psu.edu> wrote:
>So does Maryland and New Jersey. Delaware doesn't, even though the are
>circles. Many maps use cirlces for adjoining states (NJ uses for all
>state highways, reguardless of state) so they are correct for other
>states as well. NJ maps circles are actually more representitive of the
>shield for DE, than DE. MD gets both NJ and DE right, plus VA secondary.
>VA gets Kentucky right.
I have a couple of old (1950 and earlier) official Kentucky maps. Of
course, the Kentucky routes are in circles. But get this ... in each
individual adjoining state, the state's route marker is used. For
those years, MO, IL, IN, and OH all used state outlines (only MO and
OH do today). The Tennessee triangle, the Virginia shield, and the
West Virginia square, are all used as well. Pretty neat, I thought!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
H.B. Elkins -- Winchester, KY
"You must have the courage to believe the truth!" -- Rush H. Limbaugh III
Kentucky Wildcats Basketball & #3 Dale Earnhardt -- A Championship Combination
mailto:hbel...@mis.net <or> mailto:HB...@aol.com
(Say "nyet" to spam! Please note: there is a spam-buster in my reply-to address.
To reply by E-mail,use one of the addresses above)
http://www.users.mis.net/~hbelkins (last updated 1/2/987)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Al Tossoonian
The 1992 Rockland County, NY map shows the NY state shield for state
highways, but shows rectangles for CRs, even though the routes are posted
with pentagons. The 1990 Essex County, NY map uses circles for
pentagon-posted CRs. The 1981 Ulster County, NY map uses circles for blue
diamond/gold map posted CRs.
Regards,
Al
Hairline
Earlier I bitched about the Voinovich-administration ODOT maps that do not
include new construction. I compared them to the ODOT maps produced during the
Celeste administration that do not show proposed freeway alignments. Please,
allow me to clarify.
Even though the newer maps do not include under-construction freeways, they
are produced more frequently than the older ones. Perhaps a contributing reason
ODOT produced only one map during Celeste's second term (other than laziness)
was because the 1987 version included proposed construction, such as the US 35/
Jackson bypass, OH 2/ Huron bypass, I-480 missing link, and US 20 extension to
OH 58. (The maps even included the Hubbard Expressway!) Because these maps
included the proposed construction, they still seemed current four years later.
Under the Voinovich administration, ODOT produces a map every year, but
these maps do not include new construction (even construction under contract).
Therefore, the maps seem outdated shortly after ODOT releases them. If ODOT
would include proposed alignments for freeways under contract (Jennings
Expressway, Spring - Sandusky interchange, US 35), their maps would have a
longer shelf life.
Other than the absence of proposed freeway alignments though, I prefer the
newer ODOT maps. They include a lot more information and the maps are better
quality. I also prefer the yearly production schedule, as opposed to the
four-year production schedule of the last administration.
Kirby's of Fredericton
Hairline wrote in article <19980112080...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Other than the absence of proposed freeway alignments though, I prefer
the
>newer ODOT maps. They include a lot more information and the maps are
better
>quality. I also prefer the yearly production schedule, as opposed to the
>four-year production schedule of the last administration.
One thing I can't stand... I got my Ohio map at a Turnpike welcome centre,
and all the city blowups were missing! Are the maps with the blowups
released to the public?
--
J.P. Kirby
Fredericton, N.B., Canada, Earth
Roads: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7212
NB Radio: http://members.tripod.com/~jpkirby/nbradio.html
E-mail: pki...@surfcity.nb.ca
"What do you get when you mix 6 friends with 5 nights? You get 'Friends' 5
nights a week!"
--Local ad for syndicated "Friends" episodes
leopard
Hairline wrote in message <19980112080...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Other than the absence of proposed freeway alignments though, I prefer
the
>newer ODOT maps. They include a lot more information and the maps are
better
>quality. I also prefer the yearly production schedule, as opposed to the
>four-year production schedule of the last administration.
The latest map creation out of the Voinovich camp is 10 times better than
the last one the group put out back about 92-3. Talk about shoddy printing!
I cound of drew a better version than that one. Not only were the maps
dated, but did you ever notice the now they have shrunk! My parents have an
Ohio road map up (on our kitchen wall) from 82 and one day I overlaped the
88 edition over it and was surprised at how both the map and the index of
the 88 edition fit over the 82 version. At least Voinovich learned from
that mistake to have at least one thing go right during his adminadstration,
and yes with all the road construction (especially in the greater Columbus
area) Ohio needs to go to a yearly cycle on maps.