KLF

Under a FHWA Pilot Program, there are a limited number of existing interstate highways that can be tolled. I believe there are a total of 6 or 8 slots in this program, which PA I-80 was trying for, without success. There are still slots available for a state to apply for.

I think its just the newspaper trying to make a story out of nothing. US Bridge sells mostly to counties and townships, not ODOT. This is like Director Molitoris' previous job as president of Railpower Technologies, which sells "green locomotive" technology, and benefited greatly from Gov Strickland's Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program. She resigned that position to take her assistant director job at ODOT, but her company had been well-served by then. Big difference is that no newspaper took a cheap shot at her.

The hipocrsy of some of our state legislators knows no boundaries. And nothing brings it more out into the open than their silence on the cost of heavier trucks. They decry "subsidizing" passenger rail, but what about a $45-million dollars subsidy to the trucking industry? Shame on all of them. noozer - it was not the legislature, but stricklands transportation department. what is your inside scoop?

Innovation Briefs May 24, 2010 Rail Transit Expansion Reconsidered --- Commentary ________________________________________ More than two years ago we suggested that the era of multi-billion dollar system-building investments in urban rail transit is coming to an end. We wrote: "The 30-year effort to retrofit American cities with rail infrastructure, begun back in the Nixon Administration, appears to be just about over. The New Starts program is running out of cities that can afford or justify cost-effective rail transit investment..." ("Urban Rail Transit and Freight Railroads: A Study in Contrast," February 18 2008). Now comes a startling new revelation from a senior U.S. DOT official. Speaking at a National Summit on the Future of Transit FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff questioned the wisdom of expanding rail networks when money is badly needed to maintain and modernize existing facilities. "At times like these, it's more important than ever to have the courage to ask a hard question: if you can't afford to operate the system you have, why does it make sense for us to partner in your expansion? If you can't afford your current footprint, does expanding that underfunded footprint really advance the President't goal for cutting oil use and greenhouse gases... Or are we at risk of just helping communities dig a deeper hole for our children and our grandchildren?" More at www.innobriefs.com

A study in the 90s actually found that white is more visible than yellow...and if white gets dirty, so does yellow. Also, white is cheaper than yellow. dont know about the reflective tape "features" of ODOT versus turnpike trucks

No, his clear impliction is that every bridge costs 2.5b to replace, and that is disingenuous.

Hmm, methinks Mr. Brubaker is practicing the same rhetoric: replacing a single bridge on the Capital Beltway costs $2.5 billion? C'mon. And the Atlanta airport handles 99% of Atlanta air travelers. A network is a network...of course looking at one piece of the network is disingenuous. But the real problem remains that a passenger rail network only handles 2% of travel.

^ In fairness, the N Broadway/High Street round-a-bout is a concept of the Clintonville Commission, and not City Traffic Engineers. In a bit of irony, while round-a-bouts are good for traffic and safety (in some instances), they are not always pedestrian-friendly. I would think the Clintonville Commission would consider the significance of ped traffic in the area.

^ In addition to number of passengers per vehicle mile, they need to include number of passengers per hour. The cost per mile of freeway can be quite tricky. The third lane added on I-71 between Cleveland and Columbus was added at a much lower cost than $20m/mile, because the pavement on the existing lanes was being completely replaced. The incremental cost of adding a lane -- while replacing the existing lanes -- was negligible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/business/energy-environment/30trains.html?hpw=&pagewanted=print May 30, 2009 New York Times Spain’s High-Speed Rail Offers Guideposts for U.S. By VICTORIA BURNETT LLEIDA, Spain — When President Obama announced in April his $13 billion plan to propel the United States into the age of high-speed rail, he tipped his hat to the trains that zip between the cities of the Old Continent at up to 217 miles an hour. Spain, an enthusiastic latecomer to high-speed rail, on Friday will cap six-day tour of European transit systems by the secretary of transportation, Ray H. LaHood. Officials say the Spanish experience could hold lessons in what works and what does not. Spain opened its first Alta Velocidad Española, or AVE, high-speed train route in 1992, between Madrid and Seville. The network has grown to nearly 2,000 kilometers and stretches from Malaga on the south coast to Barcelona in the northeast. Supporters say the AVE has begun to transform the country, binding remote and sometimes restive regions to Madrid and prompting traditionally home-bound Spaniards to move around for work or leisure. .......

In addition to insurance companies, the State Highway Patrol is a powerful opponent to higher speed limits. In some of my with them, they were not sophisticated in terms of data and policy analysis, but rather just went on the gut opinion that faster was less safe.

Budget Green Summer Travel Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/solutions/cleaner_cars_pickups_and_suvs/greentravel/getting-there-greener.html May 11, 2009 Summer vacationers can save money and lower their contribution to global warming at the same time, thanks to a handy travel transportation guide from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). "A summer vacation can be relatively inexpensive and 'green' if you know what to look for," said Jim Kliesch, a UCS senior engineer and primary author of the guide. "We've found that with a little bit of planning, consumers can save money with tips that save the planet, too." UCS researchers calculated the amount of carbon dioxide -- the chief heat-trapping gas that drives global warming -- associated with travel in a variety of modes, including passenger cars, SUVs, planes, trains, and buses. Since trip emissions also depend on the number of passengers traveling, UCS evaluated trip emissions for solo travelers, couples and families of four. UCS concluded that while numerous green travel options are available, poor travel choices leave large amounts of carbon in a vacation's wake. For example, a poorly planned family-of-four vacation can result in more carbon emissions than are released by an entire year of the family's commute to and from work. While UCS's analysis is focused on the environmental impact of vacation travel, the report does reveal a number of findings that can help the budget-conscious traveler: Off-peak travel. Americans tend to favor Friday, Saturday or Sunday departures for trips, but these peak travel times result in higher emissions, gasoline bills and ticket prices. Travelers who plan to arrive and depart on a trip on Monday through Thursday can take advantage of lower airplane fares and avoid weekend and rush hour highway traffic. In 2007, airport delays were responsible for 8.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Tacking an extra day or two onto a vacation can help you travel on off-peak days. That may be easier than many people think: Americans let more than a half-billion days of vacation go unused every year. Other tips include using a GPS system with real-time traffic alerts to save both time and carbon when driving. Some GPS manufacturers offer real-time traffic information with no extra charge, but others charge a subscription fee for the service. Consumers should consider the additional value of real-time traffic updates when shopping for a GPS unit. Consider coach-only flights. UCS recommends that travelers who plan to fly consider budget airlines that exclusively offer coach-class seating. Because first-class seating takes up more space than coach seating, the average first-class passenger on a domestic flight is responsible for twice as much heat-trapping emissions as someone seated in coach. Some airlines have eliminated first-class seats. That can lower a plane's per-person emissions 10 to 15 percent and also allows the airline to reduce its fares. If traveling alone or with one other person, vacationers are usually better off flying direct in coach than getting behind the wheel of a typical vehicle, especially for trips of more than 500 miles. Don't forget the bus. Motor coaches are generally the greenest vacation travel option. Compared with flying coach, a couple traveling on a bus will cut their trip's carbon dioxide emissions 55 to 75 percent, depending on the distance traveled. Compared to even a fuel-efficient hybrid car, a bus trip would cut a couple's trip emissions nearly in half. Bus travel is much less expensive than flying and can even be cheaper than driving. Some bus companies offer fares as low as $1 each way. Since there is no single online resource for booking tickets from different bus lines, travelers will have to search for those companies that serve their departure and destination cities. Additionally, many intercity buses now offer such amenities as wireless Internet connections and food service. Besides traveling from city to city, many tour operators offer guided bus services through National Parks, offering a lower-carbon way for vacationers to appreciate America's natural beauty. Trains let travelers skip in-city travel expenses. Trains are another green option, especially those in the Northeast that run primarily on electricity. Trains emit 60 percent less carbon per passenger-mile than a typical car with a single occupant. And compared with a 500-mile trip on a small jet plane, a train emits roughly 30 percent less carbon. Trains also can save vacationers money when they are traveling between large cities. Train stations are often much closer to city centers than airports, allowing travelers to avoid renting a car or paying for a cab or shuttle into town. When driving, take more passengers. More passengers in a car translates into much less pollution per person traveling. That is because a car uses most of the energy from burning gasoline to move the vehicle itself. Additional passengers and luggage do not add that much relative to a car's weight. Of course the kind of vehicle you have will make a difference. For a given distance of travel, a large, inefficient SUV, for example, emits nearly four times the amount of carbon dioxide emissions of a highly efficient hybrid such as a Toyota Prius. The SUV also uses nearly four times the amount of gas, costing that much more at the pump. For more information, UCS offers answers to frequently asked questions about the travel guide. ********************************** I didn't know where else to put this. The report from the Union of Concerned Scientists is fascinating. According to the full report (see link), intercity buses have much lower CO2 emissions per trip than rail (for example, two people going 500 miles would have a carbon footprint of 170 lbs. by bus, and 430 lbs. by train). I suppose intercity buses aren't serious addressed by national transportation policy because they aren't as cutting edge as high speed rail, or perhaps because they don't appeal to upper-income riders. Thoughts?

The Strickland administration showed strong support for the I-70 truck lane concept, and some individuals associated with Transportation Matters are part of the I-70 study team. In Ohio, the idea of truck lanes is a bit of a pipe dream, as there is not much congestion on the route. Don't fear that public resources will pour into such a project -- it won't happen without tolls, and since the lanes aren't warranted, it won't happen at all.

Might be because the Nelsonville bypass was "shovel ready." It was ready to go when construction costs soared in 2003 - 06 timeframe and it had to be delayed (only the first phase was put out to bid). It might also qualify as an economically distressed area, which ODOT was trying to address per the legislation. Finally, Governor Strickland promised to build the Nelsonville bypass when he was campaigning for governor.

There is a video of ONN forum on the 3-c passenger rail plan here: http://www.onntv.com/live/content/onnstation/capitol_square.html Mayor Berger from Lima and Stu Nicholson of the Ohio Rail Development Commission did a very good job in explaining the concept and benefits of the scheme. No one would answer direct questions regarding the annual operating subsidy though. But all in all a pretty good discussion.

Maps of vacant/publicly-owned land are available on the project website hosted by ODOT District 12. The OC concept calls for an access-controlled boulevard of 5 lanes. A freeway really won't work due to the road's terminus and the right-of-way requirements for such a facility.

Ugh...it is very frustrating to see these "arguments" against the project. The first two ($99 fares and Greyhound routes) I could see (unfortunately) where he doesn't know any better. Close-minded politicos rarely look at facts that go against the beliefs. However, the fact that he thinks transportation funds can be used for anything besides transportation purposes shows how uninformed our politicians may be. The capital funds and maintenance/operation funds will come from either state and/or federal transportation dollars. These funds do not come from the GRF (to my knowledge) and they have to be used for transportation purposes. I would expect the chairman of the Transportation Committee to know this.... :wtf: One concern is operating funds. State and federal transportation funds cannot be used for operating expenses, so they will have to come from GRF. (One exception: CMAQ funds can be used for 3 years of operating costs, but that's it.)

Sorry, I was referring to the taxation authority of Ohio's transit entities. As state policy, Ohio tends to defer the provision of services to local governments (like roads, human services, etc.) and transit agencies are similar. So RTA's have the significant authority to levy taxes on the population base that use their transit services.

There are a variety of local funding options available to RTA's in Ohio. At a time of great demand, why aren't local taxpayers supporting these services?

It seems that most of O'Toole's arguments are factual, which is a problem for rail advocates only if they let it be a problem. For example his travel statistics for Europe vs American auto mobility (79 percent vs 85 percent) seem about right. So too, the fact that many Europe rail systems are geared toward passenger rather than freight traffic. And rail is expensive, and so too is road construction: The COTA light rail plan was coming in around $800 million+, and someone pointed out that the 70/71 split was over a billion dollars. All true. Then there is the topic of investment decisions. These pages often compare a rail project to an urban road project like adding lanes to an Atlanta freeway system. Analysts like O'Toole can jump on these comparisons and make rail look really bad, because urban interstates move a whole lot of people. Less common is the comparison of rail projects to bad road investment decisions -- like the Wilmington Bypass, or lots of the Appalachian Highway System, which are not cost effective and do not move large masses of people; rail compares pretty well to those investments. A primary difference is culture and cultural attitudes. Europe and some other cultures use rail transit relatively more than America, they like the systems, and they are favorable toward subsidies for them. They might walk and bike more, too, but by and large most of their travel is by automobile (and so too, more of their freight moves on the road than by rail). We will get beat down trying to debate factoids with analysts like O'Toole. What we are trying to do is foster a cultural change that will support subsidies for passenger rail, much like we support the gas tax for road building.

The main issue with going through TRAC is that TRAC is broke. The current Tier I projects are being pushed back to meet budget constraints and with each delay the cost of these projects increase. The administration also sees the possibility of stimulus funds for the 3-C project (i.e. no local match (state funds) are required). Hence, the reason for pushing it through this way instead of the TRAC process. There is a misconception that the TRAC is "broke," as ODOT is 1) still doing hundreds of millions a year in major capacity projects, and 2) the stimulus funding (especially for rail) only adds to the TRAC/ODOT financial picture. Plus there is a reauthorization bill on the horizon, and it is a good bet that there will be more rail program funding in that bill. But KJP makes an interesting point that there are other entities that can apply for these rail funds. Ultimately though, doesn't the General Assembly have to appropriate operating funds? I'd say it is more than a misconception. The link below is a financial presentation about ODOT revenues and expenditures for the upcoming years (thru 2015). At the bottom of slide 34 of 39 you will see the Major New program "zeroes" out in 2011. This is just a forecasting and could change, the point is that as recently as 2005-06, ODOT was spending $600-$800 million on Major New (TRAC) projects. This level of spending has receded rapidly and looks like that trend will continue. One thing about the Reauthorization, the feds can pass as large a spending as they wish, but if the state is limited in their matching funds, ODOT will be not be able to take advantage of the larger reauthorization bill. I agree in that I expect this reauthorization bill to have more emphasis on transit and rail - this was evident in the stimulus bill. The issue of the solvency Highway Trust Fund still exists. There is a peculiar history of ODOT financial planning that is not well understood. Until the late 1990s, there was no financial plan/forecast. Once forecasts were started, they revealed shortfalls in major/new funding, just a few years out. Every forecast since 98 has shown it. But the future is rarely as dim as the conservative fiscal forecasts due to several reasons: lower than anticipated bid prices, higher revenues, cost savings, and federal reauthorizations that typically increase funding. Our present history is no exception: construction inflation has eased (a US 24 project came in 20% under engineers estimate on Wednesday, according to the Blade); ODOT staff is down to about 5500 (authorized for 6000); and the Obama administration showered the state with $900 million in transportation stimulus funds (plus discretionary rail programs). ODOT's budget presentation is proof: it notes that its business plan projected a 09-11 "shortfall" of $1.1 billion, but now that "shortfall" is only $274 million. Which doesn't include the stimulus largess. Some uninitiated folks have mistaken budget imbalances and transportation programming (and over-programming).

Is that true with ODOT's allocation of Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds? I don't recall the General Assembly being involved with the decision last fall to use CMAQ funds to bail out existing public transportation systems in NE Ohio. And that was a stretch because CMAQ isn't supposed to be used for existing transit. There are precedents for using CMAQ for intercity rail, including Maine's Downeaster service and NCDOT deciding to use CMAQ funds for its third round trip between Charlotte and Raleigh starting later this year. And these are funds that the highway folks have been clamoring for. The fact that there were still substantial CMAQ dollars left of ODOT books as of late last year makes me wonder if ODOT or applicants to ODOT are coveting these funds. So let's put 'em to good use! The CMAQ scheme is a wierd one: bus replacement is considered a capital cost, though some might argue otherwise. And bus replacements qualify for CMAQ because the newer models are always cleaner, air quality wise, than the buses they replace. For a new rail startup like the downeaster, CMAQ can be used for capital costs plus three years of operating costs (to kindof get it up and running). That 3 year operating cost is the only such provision for operating in the federal aid program. There are CMAQ funds "on the books" because for the most part CMAQ is suballocated to Ohio MPO's, and they are very slow to utilize CMAQ.

References, please. This may be true, but based upon passenger miles on the DC Metro versus I-270, I rather doubt it. I wasn't talking about "budgeted projects". I was referring to projects which had been identified as needing to be done but for which there was not, yet, a budget. Every state has these, they must. The Federal budget isn't known that far in advance of the fiscal year to allow the states to prepare transportation plans only after the Federal budget was known. Instead, states have lists of projects and in any given year pick from the lists those projects which are the highest priority and which fit under the Federal formula. Those projects which are required for maintenance, rehabilitation or upgrade should have been automatically budgeted along with the construction costs. You don't build a house without a long term financial plan for upkeep and maintenance. Those are recurring cost which are automatically budgeted with the cost of construction. To the extent that you don't do this, you are ignoring the true cost of the project. My only point is that I don't see Republicans discussing the cost of road, bridge and highway subsidies but they exist and, over time, they can exceed the costs of initial construction. Sure, and isn't that a subsidy? So what percentage of the state budget goes to road, bridge and highway subsidies? I am not saying that the question is not legitimate. What I am saying is that you have to consider the entire operating budget of the state to determine what costs are reasonable and what aren't. Every piece of new construction is going to have associated with it an operating subsidy. Perhaps if Ohioans had a look at the entire budget and had to pick and choose they might make a different choice than they would if you singled out one project in order to emphasize its operating costs. That is because transportation planners are not as smart as Ray Kroc (McDonalds). Kroc realized that the value of property increases in inverse proportion to the distance to a roadway. McDonalds' model was to buy the property then either own, outright or lease the business back to the franchisees. The railroads knew this as well which is why they could determine whether a community lived or died on the basis of where they located track. Many people are justifiably concerned about sprawl and its impacts on established communities. We cannot sustain unplanned growth and we can't encourage it by agreeing to build new roads to service these developments. One of the things that people don't like about rail is the way that it economically restricts land use but, in fact, that is a blessing because it puts an end to speculation and to the adverse overall effect that it has on established communities. The folks on these threads know the references to rail-road modal splits. In DC about 12-15% of peak hour ridership is by transit, which is relatively high in America. Other cities like in the Midwest experience or predict a more modest shift. You can see this in the Ohio Hub study, for example, or in the MORPC long range plan. The discussion of road versus rail operating costs or subsidies is becoming circular. I understand your point. My point remains that road costs as you define them are available from ODOT, and the 3-C rail operating costs apparently are not. And I think we transportation planners are plenty smart!

The main issue with going through TRAC is that TRAC is broke. The current Tier I projects are being pushed back to meet budget constraints and with each delay the cost of these projects increase. The administration also sees the possibility of stimulus funds for the 3-C project (i.e. no local match (state funds) are required). Hence, the reason for pushing it through this way instead of the TRAC process. There is a misconception that the TRAC is "broke," as ODOT is 1) still doing hundreds of millions a year in major capacity projects, and 2) the stimulus funding (especially for rail) only adds to the TRAC/ODOT financial picture. Plus there is a reauthorization bill on the horizon, and it is a good bet that there will be more rail program funding in that bill. But KJP makes an interesting point that there are other entities that can apply for these rail funds. Ultimately though, doesn't the General Assembly have to appropriate operating funds?

I disagree that it has to do with the administration's "tactics" (whatever they are). Many GOP members in the legislature are having the exact same reaction that many GOP members in legislatures all over the country and in congress have about this issue: the same, uninformed, ideological knee-jerk reaction about passenger trains. It's been happening for years. It's deja vu all over again... I sympathize with your view, but perhaps offer a different perspective. In my time in state transportation policy, I have witnessed, and been a part of, the promotion of many highway projects which were "stinkers" in terms of public benefit. Such projects would have never stood on their own if placed before a legislative body for a "thumbs up, thumbs down" type of vote. You can imagine, Northwest Ohio Fort-to-Port, versus Southeast Ohio appalachian roads. On their own merit, you won't get a public body to endorse such projects with narrow beneficiaries. But if presented as part of a portfolio of transportation investments, elected officials empathize with others' priorities, and a program of projects can move forward. Yes, opposition is coming from the GOP -- hello? Did no one anticipate that?