1994 Ohio Corridor Development Consortium/
Ohio Turnpike Brochure

Introduction

The federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 established "High Priority Corridors" on the National Highway System (NHS). ISTEA clearly establishes several goals for these corridors including:

• Promoting of economic development
• Integrating regions
• Improving travel efficiency
• Increasing safety

One of the High Priority Corridors is the Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic Corridor (GL/MAC), defined in the Act as: "I-73/I-74 North-South Corridor from Charleston, South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, and Detroit, Michigan" (Section 1109).

The Ohio Turnpike Act, Chapter 5537 of the Ohio Revised Code, authorized the Ohio Turnpike Commission to have jurisdiction over an Ohio Turnpike System, including existing and future Turnpike projects at locations approved by the Governor of Ohio. Governor George V. Voinovich has approved the location of the proposed Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic Corridor in Ohio as a Turnpike System project to be studied, and if feasible, to be carried out by the Ohio Turnpike Commission.

In June 1994, the Ohio Turnpike Commission entered into a contract with the Ohio Corridor Development Consortium (OCDC), a joint venture of the national engineering firm of HNTB Corporation, Cleveland and two major construction management firms: Tumer Construction Company and Dick Enterprises. The joint venture also includes the Ohio based firms of Resource International Inc., Columbus, and Great Lakes Construction Company, Cleveland. The joint venture will provide Project Management Consultant services to the Commission for the Feasibility Study Phase of the Project and for the Design and Construction Implementation Phase, if authorized.

Project History and Legislation

The U.S. 23 corridor and the S.R. 32 corridor are on the draft National Highway System (NHS) currently under consideration by the U.S. Congress. The NHS was established to focus federal resources on loads that are most important to interstate travel and national defense; roads that connect with other modes of transportation; and roads that are essential for international commerce. The GL/MAC is listed in ISTEA as a High Priority Corridor.

ACCESS OHIO, a study performed for the Ohio Department of Transportation, establishes the state's long-range transportation plan. Both the U.S. 23 and the S.R. 32 corridors are identified as "macro-corridors," defined as "those corridors of statewide significance upon which rests the economic vitality of Ohio (ACCESS OHIO, page 36). Both corridors are shown as requiring improvements on the plan. The Ohio Department of Development has defined both the U.S. 23 and S.R. 32 corridors as Transportation Efficiency and Economic Advancement Corridors (TEEACs). Many cities, counties, and agencies have passed resolutions supporting the idea (without specific routing or funding plans) of the GL/MAC.

Project Objectives

• Conform to transportation planning at the national, state and local levels. More than 20 local governmental agencies have passed resolutions endorsing the project. Provide Ohio with improved trade integration to national and global markets. These linkages are vital for Ohio in maintaining a competitive world position in manufacturing. Integration of regions is a specific goal of ISTEA High Priority projects.
• Meet projected traffic demand through the corridor to 2020 and beyond, and eliminate existing congested areas near Delaware and Columbus. If existing travelers were traveling on an interstate instead of U.S. 23 and S.R. 32, travel time savings would amount to $62 million to $98 million per year.
• Provide Toledo with a full limited-access facility to Columbus. Toledo is the only major Ohio city without such access.
• Address the functional obsolescence of 75 percent of the route that does not meet interstate-type highway standards, and the 50 percent of the route that does not meet expressway standards for driver safety and efficiency. The project would also deal with the existing 186 bridges along the route in need of rehabilitation due to increased standards.
• Increase safety through the corridor, a major goal of ISTEA in setting the GL/MAC as a High Priority Corridor. Accident rates for fully controlled-access highways are the lowest of any facility type. It is estimated that 19 lives would be saved per year if S.R. 23 were a limited-access interstate-type facility.
• Promote intermodalism, a major thrust of ISTEA and a major factor in economic growth. For example, the GL/MAC would enhance the Greater Columbus Inland Port Program, by increasing access to pivotal facilities such as Rickenbacker International Airport. Rickenbacker Airport is growing in its role as an international air cargo hub. The potential of the three intermodal rail terminals would also be enhanced. The facility would also provide increased access to the port and foreign trade zone in Toledo, and to smaller ports along the Ohio River.
• Mitigate noise and air environmental problems, and provide congestion relief for existing urban areas for which there are no bypasses.
• Promote economic development in the corridor, a goal of ISTEA in setting the GL/MAC as a High Priority Corridor. Historical data show that improved transportation facilities attract economic development. National studies of the impact of the interstate system confirm this finding. Local studies in Ohio confirm the same fact. Throughout the nation, states have begun to recognize the critical link between transportation and economic growth. Nineteen other states have established programs to identify major economic needs and to create multi-lane highway networks to serve those needs. Initial economic benefits would first be noted during construction stages from local wages, materials and services.

Commercial activity, first in the form of services (gasoline stations, restaurants, etc.) would develop, and population growth would be realized. Improved transportation facilities will reduce transportation costs. This can benefit local commerce as dollars not spent on transportation would be spent on other items. Additionally, local industry would reduce transportation costs, therein reducing costs, increasing their competitive edge, and resulting in higher profits and possible expansion of facilities. Lower costs and efficient/enhanced transportation would induce new industries to develop and serve existing industry. By connecting local transportation facilities to regional facilities, the market and service areas are expanded. Construction of the GL/MAC would have a positive effect on Ohio's economy.

The corridor is now the subject of a feasibility study, of which the screening portion has been completed. The objectives were two-fold:

• Ensure that further studies will encompass corridors that minimize environmental impacts and total cost
• Reduce the GL/MAC study area from a ten-mile width to several mile wide corridor bands

Determining Parameters

Early efforts involved performing field inventories, contracting a number of agencies and meeting with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and regional planning agencies. Information obtained was then compiled on physical constraint maps which, along with the factors outlined in the Statement of Purpose and Need, acted as the framework for screening. Twelve such factors were deemed relevant to the screening process:

• Relationship to Transportation Plans: Any GL/MAC improvements must be in concert with plans being pursued by other agencies, at a national, regional, and local level.
• System Linkage: An upgraded, controlled-access facility in the U.S. 23 corridor will provide a northwest to southeast component to Ohio's transportation facility network.
• Population and Employment: A relationship between enhanced transportation facilities, population, and employment has been established. An improved GL/MAC will perpetrate economic growth in areas adjacent to the corridor.
• Level of Service: Present day and projected traffic volumes reveal the presence of several capacity deficiencies along the GL/MAC. Upgrades to the corridor will remedy these shortcomings.
• Physical Roadway Inventory: Road sections and bridges which fail to meet current day criteria will be upgraded via improvements made as part of GL/MAC.
• High Accident Locations: High accident locations will be remedied by upgrading cross-sectional roadway elements, eliminating at-grade intersections and controlling access. Accident and fatality rates on facilities with access control are less than half of those on facilities with at-grade intersections.
• Intermodalism: Upgrading the GL/MAC to a facility with fully controlled access will enhance intermodal efficiency. Access to major and regional airports will be improved, as well as access to existing rail lines, rail terminals, and port bulk facilities.
• Topography: The presence of rugged terrain in all corridor areas south of Chillicothe and east of Seaman greatly inhibits alternative corridor location efforts.
• Floodplains and Wetland Areas: The presence of 100-year floodplain and wetland areas throughout the corridor limits alternative corridor location efforts.
• Hazardous Waste Sites: Identified hazardous waste, solid waste and National Priority Listing (NPL) sites located throughout the corridor were avoided to minimize risk and future liability.
• Parks and Recreational Areas: Corridors impacting parks and recreational areas were considered only as a last resort - Threatened/Endangered Species, Historic/Archaeological Sites, Wetland Areas, Geological Sites, Prime Farmlands, Parks/Forests, Hazardous Waste Sites, Scenic Rivers/Roadways, Superfund Sites, Floodplains, and Plant/Animal Species (the presence of threatened and endangered species throughout the GL/MAC will influence corridor location as the study progresses. Identified sites were avoided to the extent possible during corridor placement).

Alternates Considered

One objective was to develop corridors with sufficient flexibility to accommodate future travel needs and demands. As a result, a number of alternate facility types were considered. Alternative concepts included a super two-lane highway, a four-lane expressway, a multi-lane limited-access highway, a two-lane highway with provisions for expansion to four lanes, and a multilane, multi-modal superhighway complete with automated vehicle lanes and rail lines (not pictured). The right-of-way requirements for each of the aforementioned facilities were taken into account during corridor placement. The alternative concepts will be used to make a preliminary projection of feasibility relative to need, cost, and impacts during the performance of subsequent feasibility studies.

Screening Criteria

Criteria were established to reduce the number of alternatives to be further studied. Screening was undertaken to ensure that corridor alignments minimally impacted surrounding properties, avoided environmentally sensitive areas, and minimized total cost. Determining parameters and other controls described earlier, along with environmental constraints and estimated costs, were the primary criteria for screening corridors. Additional factors were also considered, including length, displacements, level of service of existing facilities, and long-term economic development potential. To reduce the number of alternative corridors, a three tiered screening process was developed.

Alternates for Future Study

It is the dual purpose to reduce the original study area to a handful of mile-wide corridors and identify corridors having minimal environmental impacts and overall cost. It is not the intent of the study to identify or recommend specific beginning-to-end corridor locations. As such, the remaining corridors were analyzed on a comparative basis only within their respective segment. Six geographical segments have been identified, each representing a study area that will be examined during subsequent feasibility and Stage I Studies. Additional work to be performed during the ensuing Feasibility Studies includes development of Major Investment Studies in accordance with the latest applicable federal and state guidelines.

Segment Studies

The overall corridor has been divided into six segments for detailed study by design consultants:

• Segment One - Approximately 58 miles in length, its termini are the State Line and Wyandot County Road 29. Several corridors will be studied, including existing 1-475/1-75/S.R. 15, existing 1-280 and U.S. 23, and potential new corridors to the east and west of existing U.S. 23. The study area width for the aforementioned corridors varies from one-half to one mile.
• Segment Two - Approximately 33 miles in length, its ter mini are Wyandot County Road 29 and Marion-Edison Road. Only the corridor along existing U.S. 23 will be examined. The study area width for the existing U.S. 23 corridor is approximately one-half mile.
• Segment Three - Approximately 67 miles in length, its termini are Marion-Edison Road and U.S. 22. Multiple corridors will be studied, including existing U.S. 23, proposed outer bypasses to the east and west of Columbus, existing 1-270, and a proposed bypass of Delaware. The study area width for these corridors varies from one-half to one mile.
• Segment Four - Approximately 41 miles in length, its termini are U.S. 22 and S.R. 32. Several corridors will be studied, including existing U.S. 23, a proposed western bypass of Chillicothe and a proposed bypass of Waverly. The study area width for these corridors varies from one-half to one mile.
• Segment Five - Approximately 60 miles in length, its termini are S.R. 32 and the West Virginia State Line near Chesapeake. The existing corridor along U.S. 23 and U.S. 52 will be studied in addition to an eastern bypass of Portsmouth. The study area width for the aforementioned corridors varies from one-half to one mile.
• Segment Six - Approximately 75 miles in length, its termini are 1-275 and U.S. 23. Only the corridor along existing S.R. 32 will be studied. The study area width is approximately one-half mile.

Stage I work includes the refinement of the corridors identified in the initial screening process to approximately 600 meters in width. This will be governed primarily by avoiding as many environmentally sensitive or economically significant features as possible while applying all appropriate engineering design criteria, resulting in a determination of feasible corridor alternatives. A series of public meetings will be held to appraise officials and the general public of the study progress and obtain input which will be used to help in refining the feasibility corridors. A report will be prepared and made available for review which will discuss advantages and disadvantages of the corridors studied, discuss public input, and, finally, identify feasible corridors for further study.

Stage 2 will further investigate each feasible alternative and determine the magnitude of the impacts. Further engineering refinements will be made and an Environmental Assessment document describing the impacts of each alternative will be prepared.The goal of Stage 2 is to select a preferred alternative. Stage 3, Evaluation for Significance, will complete all environmental documentation and preliminary engineering for the preferred alternate for review by appropriate resource agencies.

It is expected that the GL/MAC will serve to further stimulate interstate travel between the Upper Midwest (Michigan and northeastern Indiana) and the southeastern United States (West Virginia and the Carolinas) in addition to providing upgraded transportation facilities to a significant portion of Ohio.

Created September 26, 2000, web design originally by Andy Field and Alex Nitzman, text by Andy Field and Sandor Gulyas/ transferred to roadfan.com October 2, 2001, last updated October 2, 2001/ page redesigned on August 6, 2003

Questions and comments can be sent to Sandor Gulyas

Return to I-73 in Ohio