August 2005
Over the Hills and Thru the Valley
Breaking down the plans to ease congestions on I-75
By Marc Beechuk
Queen City Forum Magazine staff writer
When a transportation study of I-75 from the Ohio River up to Piqua, Ohio, was done it was determined that the section between Paddock Road and I-275 was a top priority. Planning got underway in the spring of 2004, and currently the project is in the public input phase. The developers are seeking the advice of communities in the area and hoping to find a suitable project to ease congestion. The project will involve major roadwork; the design phase of the project is slated to begin early next year. $135 million has already been secured for the project, which shows a commitment to getting this done. Here’s a critical/informational look at what the project has to offer and what concerns will be addressed.
|
|
What are we really talking about here?
There are currently eight alternatives and five options being looked at as possible solutions to the traffic flow problem on I-75 between I-275 and the Paddock Road exit. This work has been dubbed the Thru the Valley Project and seeks to ease congestion, improve safety and provide transportation solutions in accordance with local land use plans on the highly traveled strip of road. The second public input session was recently held on June 29 at the Sharonville Convention Center. Due to the impact this project will have, these public meetings are imperative, and ME Companies (the lead engineering firm) plans to conduct them throughout the entire project. A good analogy for understanding the different proposals is that of purchasing a car: the “alternatives” are like various models of cars while the “options” are like the various options any car can be outfitted with. Although some alternatives incorporate parts of other alternatives it is a “pick one” situation with add-ons (options) available.
|
All of the alternatives offer extra lanes; the big questions are how many, what kind and where to locate them. The simplest version would upgrade the shoulders, add an auxiliary lane (special purpose lane, i.e. speed change lane or turning lane) to each direction of traffic and eliminate three risky access points (Cooper Avenue, Mangham Drive and the GE ramps). This is the only alternative with a construction rating of simple; all others have been deemed complex.
The next alternative builds on the previous one adding another lane, which would provide “four-lane continuity” through this portion of I-75. The main idea would be to provide extra room in this heavily trafficked area for local vehicles to quickly get on and right back off without disrupting the flow.
The next three alternatives incorporate two express lanes among three mainline lanes. An express lane would be for through traffic and allow access only at the north and south ends and Ronald Reagan Highway . It would be separated from the “local” routes to ease flow and allow those vehicles to pass smoothly through the valley. Two of these three alternatives would “double-stack” the highway with the express lanes riding above local lanes. This set-up would be similar to the Western Hills Viaduct and greatly increase the cost. This would be a slightly scary trend if you imagine our future involving stacked roads throughout metropolitan areas. The third of these three alternatives would widen the current highway and tuck the express lanes into the middle. The express lanes are a good idea, but implementing them would mean severe overhauls to I-75.
click to enlarge
|
|
Alternative six involves only the split section of I-75 between Ronald Reagan Highway and the north side of the Lockland/GE plant. This concept would turn the eastern portion of the current I-75 into a parkway for local traffic while beefing up Davis Street , which runs east to
west in the middle of the split section. Highway traffic would go north and south along the western portion of the split so as to not interfere with local traffic in that section.
The final alternative is similar to the last except it puts north/south traffic on both sides and limits access for the one side to be geared for through traffic. Anyone looking to exit during that stretch would need to take the “local” side, which would be the eastern portion. Also included with this alternative is the improved Davis Street access and “four-lane continuity” from alternative two. This option guides drivers at the two splits and eases flow by getting similar destined vehicles on the same path.
The options include reworking some access points and updating or identifying local roads. These apply to odd, outdated exits/entrances in the split section of the highway and Neumann Way (the parallel road in front of GE). These are not major projects, but are necessary to get our highway up to date. They all will be affected in one capacity or another regardless of which alternative is chosen. |
Pros
ME Companies has done a good job of sorting traffic out to increase flow by separating through and local traffic. This seems like a minor point, but when you realize how much congestion occurs from traffic merging you begin to see the exponential benefits. Getting folks to realize proper use of roadways is a giant step toward speeding up journeys, reducing pollution and decreasing accidents.
This may sound odd, but the other up side to this project is that it limits the amount of property that would be necessary to take in order to complete such complex work in an old, urban core. It ranges from zero to 80 property takings depending on the alternative, and while that is bad on an individual level for those owners, this is an extraordinarily low number for such a project.
Cons
My biggest problem with traffic fixes across the nation is the utter lack of education on the matter. Many traffic problems occur due to driver naivete, driving schools and politicians. First, people should be finding other methods of transportation I understand that driving is easy and necessary, but many trips could be combined or taken using better means of transportation. This would involve people actually caring about their community, Cincinnati or the planet, which many pretend to do, yet never display in their actions.
Secondly, people should get better instruction when learning how to drive especially in the case of merging. This is the cause of 75 percent of traffic jams (my number, drawn from being on highways far too often). If people merged more successfully, traffic would flow better and adding extra lanes may not be necessary.
Next comes the problem of people being on the highway when they could use local roads. This problem is complex because people are lured to expressways when they may not necessarily have been designed for such traffic. Small journeys need not be taken on major thoroughfares. However, if you must do this, do not swerve through all lanes, slowing the pace to a halt. We have a very narrow scope of what is important in America; thinking about others once in a while would do us all a bit of good.
My final concern lies directly with the proposals. Why spend millions (the projects range from $79.7 million to $607 million) of dollars to shift a bottleneck? These projects may alleviate problems in this section of the highway, but we are not accomplishing dramatic decreases here.
These alternatives merely shift traffic problems to other sections of the city, which may or may not be able to deal with them.
A final note
Traffic concerns are going to continue to increase throughout the U.S. if major steps are not taken to adjust our ways. Simply attacking sections of highway piece by piece will not cut it and, not to downplay any work done here, but this is the same old solution. People in charge need to form some new ideas or this company will be back in 20 years putting in five more lanes each way.
Contact
|
