KLF

1. First of all, you need to subtract from the roadway operating costs those costs which would be eliminated through the switch to mass transit. 2. Second, if what you said about budgeting were true, there should be NO shovel-ready highway projects in Ohio which involve road, highway and bridge repairs, rehabilitation, adding lanes, etc., because these should have been anticipated and budgeted as part of the cost of operating the roadway to begin with. Wanna bet whether that is the case or not? 3. And, yes, I view the addition of lanes as an operating costs. As I have said, before, roads do not alleviate congestion, they simply increase the number of vehicle trips necessary to cause it and increased supply leads to increased demand (why not, it is free). Anyone considering building a four lane highway anywhere near a major municipality should include the cost of the additional two lanes as part of the operating cost of the highway, since these can be reliably predicted. 1. The "switch to mass transit" is about 2%, based on American rail experience, so that is not fertile ground -- mode shifts don't save highway operating costs. 2. Second point isn't valid: ODOT budgeted projects -- a project pipeline as it were -- for its anticipated revenues as required by STIP (federal law). ODOT legally could not have a "more full pipeline," so couldn't have planned for the stimulus bill to have projects at the ready. ODOT has a long range financial plan that does consider operating, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs. 3. There are studies which support your view, but the bulk of credible research on the subject is more nuanced, and points to land use policy as more important than transportation policy (indeed, transportation agencies in America mostly "chase" development).

I think your point is valid and the subject of a much broader inquiry. But the legislature isn't asking for a societal accounting of one mode versus another, just a simple answer of how much the 3-C rail will cost annually to operate. I disagree that it is an apples to orange comparison, as the ODOT/ORDC budget clearly lays out the annual operating costs for the state highway system. I also agree that some GOP members are simply being reactionary to the 3-C proposal, but I attribute this to the administration's tactics more than anything else.

Just a little more on TRAC: state law (ORC 5512) created TRAC to administer the "project selection process for the prioritization of new transportation capacity projects." It is a public body created by the legislature and governor, designed to make public decisions that are (frankly) outside the whims of the General Assembly and/or the Governor. I argue that state law directs the 3-C passenger rail decision to go to TRAC, and that ODOT budget testimony is not the appropriate venue for the decision. To the point of years of study on the 3-C initiative: I agree it is frustratingly long, but not unlike other unique public works projects. However, when ORDC was asked about annual operating subsidies, the response was in effect: "That's what AMTRAK is studying." I agree its been studied a lot--why ORDC didn't have some fundamental answers after those years of study, or would not provide the answers, I do not know.

These are all good questions, but ODOT's Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) was set up to address these very issues. Every ODOT project mentioned went through a public review and scoring process. As for the public benefits of those projects, the roads carry more than 100,000+ vehicles per day, and the congestion benefits of the projects were quantifiable; if one doesn't care about traffic congestion, perhaps the 70/71 split crash statistics (about 2 crashes per day) are more compelling reasons to fix these roads. Of course there are counter-arguments -- often expressed in these pages -- regarding the negative societal consequences of road construction and automobile dependence. But once again, I endorse the TRAC as the transcendent entity to address these issues. Last year, ODOT and the TRAC revised project selection criteria in an attempt to address multi-modalism, urban redevelopment, and economic development. As a longtime transportation watcher, I am surprised by the pushback against the 3-C corridor initiative. But there seems to have been an error in strategy, political tactics, or both. One error might have been that -- after two years of completely shutting down ODOT's project development pipeline, the administration featured just one project (3-c rail) in its two year budget. As an aside, it is dismaying that after years of various rail studies, ORDC couldn't answer fundamental questions such as capital cost and ongoing operating subsidies. Around the country, successful transportation initiatives are formed around a program of investments, rather than just one. IMHO, the administration would have had more success introducing the 3-C passenger rail project through the TRAC, in conjunction with the many other wanted/needed transportation investments from around the state. Like many projects in TRAC Tier II, the 3-C corridor needs years of study and public debate. Indeed, the history of TRAC's involvement with transit projects shows they have at least a 10 year germination cycle. I believe Ohio's political institutions can accept rail as part of a balanced, planned transportation program, with key policy questions fully vetted. Making 3-C passenger rail the administration's singular reason d'etre does not seem to be playing well.

Hootenany: There are two categories of noise wall programs. The first has to do with road widening -- federal guidelines and case law requires noise studies and predictive modeling to determine if there will be an increase in highway noise due to a road project (especially a lane addition). If so, the agency receiving federal-aid highway funds is required to install noise walls as part of the project. The second category of program is the so-called "retrofit" program, which is at the discretion of ODOT. Retrofit noise walls are installed where there was pre-existing housing development but the highway project (notably interstate construction in the 50s, 60s, and 70s) didn't mitigate noise impacts. Retrofit projects are generally driven by residents who do not like the view/sound of the freeway in their backyard (who can blame them, even though it was probably there when they purchased the property). There is a long list of "needs" for retrofit noise walls based on sound measurements taken by ODOT, but relatively little money available annually to fund them (~$10 million). ODOT tried to drop its retrofit noise wall program a few years ago but their was strong pushback from the General Assembly, so they had to keep it.

If it is true that the $8 billion for high speed rail is for a pet project -- Las Vegas to Los Angeles -- does Ohio hope to see any of it? Or is this just an urban legend?

KJP - those are good and worthy ideas but I don't know of any agency with the wherewithall to spend the money in such a short timeframe, because there are no projects programmed (yet) and no environmental work completed. Still, railbanking the corridors should have been done long ago (or at least programmed in MPO TIPs, or ODOT STIP) so that we could take advantage of funding now.

Also, I am very against private ownership of certain public goods, like roads. Their goal would be to make a profit, which does not necessarily mean correct traffic issues, maintenance, etc. The goal of a private partner in the transportation sector is to provide rail service or motorways to customers. It is a risky business, and those who manage the risk well will make a "profit." Rarely is the ownership "private" and the concern over private investment is curious: the world over, water, wastewater, electricity, and telecommunications all benefit from private finance and operation; the American transport system (save for freight railroads) is an anomoly.

"Tolls" could be used for the project without it being a freeway, using the concept of "shadow tolls," in which a private partner agrees to finance and build the road in exchange for a fee for each vehicle which uses the road. The risk is on the private partner if traffic or development projections fall short. With or without traffic, the public gets a new road. But of course some people are against the OC for other reasons.

The widening of I-75 in Cincinnati could feature a toll lane, but the project is so far along in development that it is doubtful that ODOT would want to change course at this time (would require a revised environmental document and public involvement, plus doubt it would fly politically in Cincinnati). Toll lanes do not necessarily have to accept cash, nor even be barrier separated. I-394 in Minneapolis was an under-used HOV lane that was converted to a HOT lane...purely electronic tolling.

There is very little chance that passenger trains will roll by 2010. Funding does not exist, in spite of the optimism for federal stimulus funds; routes are not established; equipment is not purchased, much less specified; and the freight railroads have not yet begun their overt opposition. It is curious why leadership would make such ambitious claims, given the risk for failure.

That is an interesting announcement. I am not aware of the Transportation Review Advisory Council taking any action on this project, yet here it is. Perhaps this is the old project funded with Appalachian Regional Commission funds...

Not in this case. ODOT pegged $400 million for the 70/71 split during the early planning phase. The scope of work and cost were undetermined. There is now a comparison between $1.6 billion and $400 million, which isn't a valid comparison.

The cost did not "jump" to $1.6 billion; just as transit projects rarely "jump" in cost -- this is just the refined cost estimate. ODOT does not have $1.6b for the entire project, so it will be scaled back to within available resources.

"Imagine if ODOT actually made it a priority to reduce carbon emissions from transportation by 80%. Such a priority would force many other positive changes, from cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars to reduction of vehicle miles traveled. Now is the time to keep up the pressure on ODOT and the Governor to adopt such changes — and develop a truly sustainable transportation system for the 21st century." It is not in ODOT's authority to reduce carbon emissions by 80%; there is essentially no new road funding for ODOT 2 years from now. Serious reductions in emissions will only come from 1) fleet-level emission reduction strategies (cleaner vehicles/fuel); 2) land-use reform which was not seriously addressed in the task force report; and 3) road-building moratorium. But a road-building moratorium won't do much in and of itself.