Comments on: 70/71 Split Fix Met With Community Contempt

By: Walker

Walker — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:09:52 +0000

Will I-71 Cap Reconnect East Side With Downtown? By DENISE YOST Published: February 25, 2010 Mayor Michael Coleman announced his goal for a historic piece of Columbus Wednesday during his State of the City address. As part of the Interstate 71 and Interstate 670 improvements, caps are planned for both Long and Spring streets. READ MORE

By: Walker

Walker — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:36:14 +0000

Olde Towne East Voices Concerns Over 70/71 Split Plans By TANYA HUTCHINS | Digital Journalist Published: January 11, 2010 The Olde Towne East Neighborhood Association wants ODOT to know residents still have concerns about plans to redesign the Interstate 70/Interstate 71 split. READ MORE

By: Walker

Walker — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:32:15 +0000

Residents slam state's design plan for I-70/71 Saturday, December 12, 2009 BY MARK FERENCHIK THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH That signature arch in the Main Street bridge that will link Downtown to Franklinton? Olde Towne East residents want one, too. Theirs would span I-71, linking Downtown to the Near East Side. But residents fear it's no longer in the works, nor one along Broad Street. The state just entered the design phase for the first three parts of the $1.6 billion project to untangle the I-70/71 corridor through Downtown. The project, scheduled to begin late next year, calls for "caps" on Spring and Long streets over I-71 to create a more seamless connection between neighborhoods. READ MORE

By: Columbusite

Columbusite — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:45:20 +0000

I emailed Mr. Ahmed and pointed out how obvious it is that this split “fix” is short-lived fiscal irresponsibility. Just doing more of the same by adding more lanes (who would’ve guessed?) and expecting a different result. The split was designed to handle 120,000 vehicles daily as the maximum capacity. That number was 160,000 in 2000 and went to 180,000 in 2003 and God knows how high that number is now. Can anyone here seriously say that spending this $1.7 billion is going to solve anything? They already have a hard enough time trying to figure out how to make it hold the current amount of traffic which probably 200,000 a day let alone increasing capacity to such an extent that it’ll be able to handle the ever increasing ~10,000 additional vehicles every 3-5 years. The highly questionable omission of the new projected capacity and how long this “fix” is supposed to last based on current increases is just glaring. And we also get to see what all of the construction will to do newer business districts in OTE and KL that have just started to gain traction.

By: cbustransit

cbustransit — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:09:28 +0000

1. @ John. HA! Looks like ODOT is angering everyone

2. Let’s do this right, get a good new highway system…AND time a vote for a new, expansive light rail system to coincide nicely with the height of congestion b/c of construction on this. Scheming…

By: johnwirtz

johnwirtz — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:08:57 +0000

Apparently the Plain Dealer isn’t happy about their ODOT Innerbelt project in Cleveland either:
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/11/by_all_means_odot_should_allow.html

By: Columbusite

Columbusite — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:30:56 +0000

Yeah, well, not enough people (like many CUers) are contacting ODOT to stop that from happening. I’d like that to change, but I doubt it’ll happen.

By: priorityred

priorityred — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:29:19 +0000

Wow, so Carabar’s gonna get knocked down for a half assed highway ‘fix’ people don’t want. Go team.

By: Brewmaster

Brewmaster — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:07:01 +0000

From an outsider’s prospective, ODOT sure still seems to be a giant dinosaur of an organization. For all of the talk about new leadership under Strickland/Beasley/Molitaris, they still seem to be the Ohio Department of Highways.

By: starman

starman — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:32:31 +0000

I am suspicious about the time of the meeting. It seemed to be designed to minimize size of crowd. These “public input” meetings feel real phony. I would hope that the City is going to wield some influence on this project and not just pass it off as something out of their control.

By: Walker

Walker — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:43:29 +0000

Jergarr27 Says: WasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t there an alternative plan that wouldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve re-routed traffic around the central city area? There was a plan to connect 70 to 104 and send all of that traffic down around past the south side. I think option required more extensive land acquisition and demolition though. And while it would undo the currently "split" overlap of 70/71, it would shift it to the portion of 71 that runs between 104 and Downtown. Which I don't think would really be a whole lot better in terms of solving congestion issues.

By: lifeontwowheels

lifeontwowheels — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:54:10 +0000

Walker, some discussion here on the Parsons bike lanes and links to some of the plans.

By: misskitty

misskitty — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:49:24 +0000

So they said caps and now it’s just a maybe? That is pretty disappointing. I don’t mind that they are fixing the freeway it needs it but I just think they should do it right and not have to revisit this in twenty years. I would have loved to see caps but it seems like a bait and switch was pulled. The whole IF we have the money. sad thing

By: tourist19

tourist19 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:03:20 +0000

Thanks hb. That makes me super sad.

By: johnwirtz

johnwirtz — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:49:39 +0000

I suggest making the split 8 lanes wide instead of 10, and adding privately operated HOT lanes to the south outerbelt from I-70 to I-70. Plenty of dynamic message signs would be needed to let drivers know the travel times through downtown versus around the city and they should consider banning through trucks from downtown.