what a disappointing article. I am eager to see KJP's response. After I glean a few pointers from him, I'll send my own letter off to O'Brien.

It's the persistence of attitudes like O'Brien's that have weakened Ohio's cities and led to the status quo.  Personal liberty and responsibility (fiscal, environmental, and otherwise) are NOT mutually exclusive. 

 

What about the freedom to live in an urban neighborhood that isn't completely devastated due to subsidized investment in new suburbs?  Has O'Brien accounted for that freedom?

No discussion of the wasted resources: gasoline, land for the highway interchanges, land for the sprawling homes.  Must be nice to have divinely-appointed dominion over all the earth...

What do you mean there isn't an infinite oil supply?

^^Nope. But what do you expect from a writer with such a verve for tautology. Somebody should dull his crayon before he hurts himself.

I thought this comment from Kevin O'Brien was actually pretty funny:

A reader wrote in the other day to tell us he's on to us. He declared me a figment of The Plain Dealer editorial board's imagination, conjured each Wednesday by whichever writer draws the short straw and has to write whatever he or she thinks a conservative columnist might write.

 

"Sprawl, meanwhile, will continue along whatever turns out to be the path of least resistance, because sprawl offers choices that make people happy."

 

 

no, sprawl will continue on due to huge subsidies until the price of oil goes through the roof and then it will be abandoned wholesale.

^Choices, such as:  Ruby Tuesday or TGI Fridays?

 

 

ARGH! This is the sort of talk that gets me saying "Why am I still here?"

Here's some things to consider when refuting Mr. O'Brien's assertions that sprawl is responding to the public's desires:

____________________

 

http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20070117_surveydesign.htm

Published: January 17, 2007

AIA Survey Shows That Community Design Trends Favor Greater Accessibility to Public Facilities

by Peter Mosca

 

Community design trends are moving toward greater accessibility to public facilities, such as transportation and commercial activities, so reports the American Institute of Architects (AIA). In its recently released Home Design Trends Survey, the AIA found that neighborhood design trends favor more mixed-use activities with infill and other higher-density development, and with dedicated areas for recreation and open space. In addition, traditional design of neighborhoods and homes with upscale exteriors, and windows and porches to encourage more street-level interaction, also are gaining in popularity.

 

"Access to public transportation, and alternative transportation systems, such as bikeways and walkways, as well as access to commercial facilities, were both reported as increasing in popularity as community design elements by a large share of residential architects," said AIA Chief Economist Kermit Baker, PhD, Hon. AIA in the executive summary of the study. "Higher gasoline prices have made travel for routine activities more expensive, so preferences for greater accessibility may be partially in response to resistance to long drives. More services integrated into development, such as health care and convenience stores, are increasing in popularity, although by a smaller margin than a year ago."

 

The AIA study also found that almost 70 percent of residential architects report an increase in mixed-use facilities, often combining residential with retail, office, or service uses. Other trends also included infill and higher-density development.

 

"While density is increasing, there is a corresponding growing popularity for recreational opportunities, such as walking trails or exercise centers, as well as dedicated open space to help offset some of the density in development," the AIA study reported. "Traditional neighborhood design -- with homes closer to the street, front porches for more neighborhood interaction, and smaller lots -- also is increasing in popularity. With greater preferences for interaction, mixed uses, and accessibility, it's not surprising that gated entrances are declining in popularity."

______________________

 

http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/pdf/press/2006112891.pdf

Cleveland maintains 1st place ranking

in new housing construction

 

November 28, 2006 – City of Cleveland officials working with Calabrese, Racek, and Markos,

Inc. (CRM) Development Research today announced that Cleveland issued a total of 183 new forsale

residential permits during the first three quarters of 2006, the most in Cuyahoga County.

Tied for second place in Cuyahoga County were Westlake and North Royalton with 79, followed

by third place Berea with 73.

 

“This is further evidence that, together, we can create neighborhoods of choice in the City of

Cleveland,” says Mayor Jackson. “Cleveland has a lot to offer. We want to make sure

developers, potential homebuyers, and business know that we are a great City with quality

affordable and market-rate housing in our neighborhoods.”

 

Cleveland also moved up to third place from sixth place in the seven-county region. The first

place city was North Ridgeville City with 283, followed by Avon City with 201.

 

CRM Development Research is a subsidiary of Calabrese, Racek, and Markos, Inc., a full service

appraisal firm. This division monitors market activity for new residential development

throughout the Northeast Ohio region.

 

[NOTE: this only includes new construction, not renovation of existing buildings into housing. If that figure were included, it's highly likely that Cleveland's number of "new" housing units would at least double. And developers like Nathan Zaremba say that two-thirds of their buyers are coming from the suburbs and other cities.]

_____________________

 

Now, given these little tidbits of information, which are just as readily available to Mr. O'Brien as they are to me and everyone else with Internet access, is it really true to say that "Sprawl, meanwhile, will continue along whatever turns out to be the path of least resistance, because sprawl offers choices that make people happy."

 

I'd say not. Why are people moving to Lorain County from Cuyahoga County if they prefer more densely developed, walkable neighborhoods? I suspect it has more to do with housing design. Older homes cannot easily accommodate the things we want in our homes today, like home theater entertainment systems of today, large refrigerator/freezers (ever try to move one of those around in a bungalow typically found in Parma or Fairview Park, let alone a 100-year-old home in Lakewood?). Also, many single-family homes in Lakewood have just one bathroom.

 

So.... What if we altered state law so that the taxpayer funding that will be used for the new highway interchange in Lorain County were used instead for rebuilding existing neighborhoods in the I-90 corridor? What if they were used for low-interest loans to property owners to modernize or expand their homes? Or for communities to clear and clean troubled properties so they could be redeveloped with walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods? Or for funding improvements to existing transit services and adding commuter rail featuring station-area developments?

 

Any or all of these would have significant impacts on land use, sprawl and traffic in outer areas. Yet we continue to ignore the needs of existing neighborhoods while pouring more dollars to support new suburban communities in a metro area that isn't growing in population. Continuing to do this only condemns existing neighborhoods to a premature obsolesence and, ultimately death.

ARGH! This is the sort of talk that gets me saying "Why am I still here?"

 

They've got an Applebees and a Walmarts out there too!  If that ain't livin', I don't know what is.

ARGH! This is the sort of talk that gets me saying "Why am I still here?"

 

They've got an Applebees and a Walmarts out there too!  If that ain't livin', I don't know what is.

 

Maybe I'll move to Paris. Who am I kidding, they'd never let my ass in.

Hannah News Wire on this week's testimony on ODOT funding:

 

HB-67 TRANSPORTATION BUDGET (Patton T) To make appropriations pertaining to transportation purposes.

 

........

...Why are people moving to Lorain County from Cuyahoga County if they prefer more densely developed, walkable neighborhoods? I suspect it has more to do with housing design. Older homes cannot easily accommodate the things we want in our homes today...many single-family homes in Lakewood have just one bathroom.

 

Easy: when the wife is in the bathroom fussing with her makeup, pee in the kitchen sink.

 

 

I've been told that only people from Ohio and Kentucky piss in the sink when the rest of the toilets are taken.

Ouch.

I've been told that only people from Ohio and Kentucky piss in the sink when the rest of the toilets are taken.

 

Guess you're going to have to add "Michigan" to that illustrious list.

More national then state level, but I am sure some of the long haulers will make their way through Ohio at one point.

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE MARY E. PETERS

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

AND JOHN H. HILL, ADMINISTRATOR OF

THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

 

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE FOR

TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED

AGENCIES

WASHINGTON, D.C.

 

MARCH 8, 2007 9:15 AM

 

Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Bond, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today to discuss the Department of Transportation’s demonstration project to implement the trucking provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

 

I am pleased to describe to you what the Department has done to implement the Murray-Shelby amendment, Section 350 of the Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriations Act, and the additional steps we have taken to ensure that we safeguard the safety and security of our transportation network, even as we strengthen trade with a close neighbor and important trading partner.

 

As we announced on February 23rd, the U.S. and Mexican governments have agreed to implement a limited one-year demonstration project to authorize up to 100 Mexican trucking companies to perform long-haul international operations within the U.S, and 100 U.S. companies to do the same in Mexico for the first time ever.

 

We expect the pilot program will involve fewer than 1,000 trucks from Mexico. These companies will be limited to transporting international freight and will not be authorized to make domestic deliveries between U.S. cities. It is also important to note in the demonstration project there will be no trucks authorized to transport hazardous materials, no bus transportation of passengers, and no authority to operate longer combination vehicles on U.S. highways.

 

The program will meet, and in some cases exceed, the safety requirements that Congress included in Section 350. For example, Section 350 requires the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to perform 50 percent of all pre-authority safety audits of Mexican trucking companies at the companies’ headquarters in Mexico. In fact, for the duration of this program, FMCSA will perform 100 percent of these audits on-site.

 

That means that U.S. inspectors will have eyes-on and hands-on access to all of a company’s records, equipment, and personnel as we are determining whether that company has the systems in place to meet Section 350 requirements.

 

And the members of this Subcommittee know very well that Section 350 includes a very comprehensive set of requirements to ensure that long-haul Mexican trucks and drivers operate safely in the U.S. For example, Section 350 requires all Mexican drivers to have a valid commercial driver’s license, proof of medical fitness, and verification of compliance with hours-of-services rules.

 

They must be able to understand and respond to questions and directions from U.S. inspectors, must undergo drug and alcohol testing, and cannot be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. All trucks must be insured by a U.S.-licensed insurance company, and must undergo a 37-point safety inspection at least once every 90 days.

 

Section 350 also requires all long-haul Mexican trucks to have a distinct DOT number so they will be easy to identify by Customs and Border Protection officers, FMCSA, state inspectors and more than 500,000 state and local law enforcement officials. We are working closely with our partners in the states to ensure they understand the parameters of the program and are able to enforce the law effectively.

 

Finally, in addition to the Federal safety requirements, the Mexican trucks operating in this demonstration project will be required to adhere to the same state requirements as U.S. trucks – including size and weight requirements – and pay the applicable fuel taxes and registration fees.

 

We appreciate the thoughtful safety-related requirements established by this Committee in 2001. For five years, our employees have worked diligently to implement those requirements, because we fully agree that protecting Americans on their highways is our most important responsibility.

 

It also is important for us all to bear in mind that trucks from Mexico have always been allowed to cross our southern border. Every day, drivers from Mexico operate safely on roads in major U.S. cities like San Diego, El Paso, Laredo, and Brownsville. Every day, Federal and State inspectors ensure trucks are safe to travel on our roads. And our records show that Mexican trucks currently operating in the commercial zone are as safe as the trucks operated by companies here in the United States.

 

We have developed this limited program to demonstrate to you, the Congress, and to the traveling public that we will be able to implement Section 350 successfully to allow Mexican trucks to operate safely beyond the commercial zone.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to working with you to create new opportunities, new hope, and new jobs north and south of the border while continuing to ensure the safety of America’s roads. Administrator Hill and I would be happy to answer your questions.

Report: Tolls can't meet future highway needs

By Eric Kelderman, Stateline.org Staff Writer      

 

 

State highway officials warned Wednesday (March 7) of a looming $11 billion hole in federal highway funds and said the growing shift toward tolls and private leases of roads can’t generate enough money to meet the nation’s short- or long-term transportation needs. 

 

Instead, the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon, last raised 14 years ago, would have to go up at least 3 cents by 2009 and 7 cents more by 2015 just to maintain the current highway system and keep pace with the fast-rising cost of roads, according to a new report by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

 

One popular solution to road-funding woes involves state and local governments adding toll lanes or leasing toll roads to private companies. In 2005, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels ® inked a $3.85 billion deal to lease the Indiana Toll Road to an international consortium for 75 years. In 2002, Texas Gov. Rick Perry ® launched a 50-year plan to build 4,000 miles of privately financed toll roads along portions of I-69 and I-35. Pennsylvania and New Jersey are considering leasing portions of their toll roads to private companies.

 

In 2005, tolling earned $7.7 billion, which was 5 percent of highway revenues nationally, AASHTO reported. Tolling could increase to 9 percent of highway funds over the next decade, a significant amount but not a "silver bullet" to fix the country's transportation funding problems, said Victor Mendez, director of the Arizona Department of Transportation and AASHTO president.

 

Pete Rahn, director of the Missouri Department of Transportation, said states are looking for innovative ways to use the marketplace. “But the reality is, no matter how far we try to stretch these resources, we're not even coming close to dealing with the real needs of the critical roads that are the lifeblood of this country," he said.

 

The report is the first of six that AASHTO plans to provide a congressionally chartered panel analyzing the country’s future transportation needs. The last similar comprehensive study was issued in 1979 and called for deregulation of the aviation, rail and trucking industries and major investments in transportation.

 

The AASHTO report said the capacity of the Interstate highway system will have to double during the next 50 years and the number of people riding public transportation should double within 20 years.

 

Railways must be prepared to handle a 63 percent increase in freight by 2035, according to the association's estimates.

 

The half-century old Interstate highway system is in danger of being overwhelmed by long-term neglect, a steady increase in the number of drivers, a stagnant source of funding and rampant inflation of road-building costs, according to AASHTO.

 

The biggest immediate hurdle to improving roads is that federal gas taxes, which pay for more than 45 percent of the nation’s transportation infrastructure, have not been raised since 1993 and are not even sufficient to cover the spending authorized in the 2005 federal transportation law. Federal gas taxes will fall $11 billion short of planned road projects by 2009, but the gap could be as big as $19 billion the following year.

 

U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar (D) of Minnesota, chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, said the average individual pays $240 a year for gas taxes, or about 2 cents per mile driven. He told state highway administrators, meeting in Washington, D.C., that political will is needed to raise the gas tax, as three of the last four presidents have done.

 

A longer-term problem is that the cost of building and fixing roads has grown rapidly in recent years. Between the last gas-tax hike in 1993 and 2015, construction costs will have increased by more than 70 percent, report stated.

 

Mendez of Arizona said costs in his state have risen 20 percent to 30 percent in the past 18 months because of higher-priced steel, oil for asphalt, and fuel for road-building equipment.

 

While the United States faces financial shortfalls in keeping up its highway system, emerging economies such as China are being bolstered by major transportation initiatives, AASHTO warns. China, with a population of 1.3 billion compared to 301 million in the U.S., is building a 53,000-mile expressway system -- 6,000 miles more than U.S. interstates -- that is slated to be finished in 2020.

 

 

Contact Eric Kelderman at: [email protected].

 

 

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=187179

And China's expressways are being privately financed. Meanwhile, America's are publicly financed.

 

If you just landed here from another planet, were given courses on economics and governmental systems, then asked to match China or America to the systems of capitalism or communism based on the first two sentences above, you'd have probably guessed wrong.

 

That's just one of the little ironies I find amusing about how public policy addresses transportation in this country. Meanwhile we decry railroads as the governmental ward, when in reality they are about as old-guard capitalism as one can still find in the U.S.A.

In "The Hydrogen Economy", Jeremy Rifkin made the point that our infrastructure represents the energy that was used to create the infrastructure.  Our society has already used up the best material (high grade iron ore, ancient timber, shallow oil fields), and now we are going to have to pay a lot more in money and energy to rebuild the infrastructure as it decays and needs replacement.

 

The growing economies in Asia and the huge rebuilding after the hurricanes of 2004 and 2005 have already driven up the cost of commodities and construction materials.  We are left with a much more expensive proposition to rebuild the interstate highway system and similar infrastructure.  The solutions are not obvious to me.

This editorial (authored by George Will) was in todays Dispatch. While I generally enjoy reading his columns, this article is way off base. I highlighted the portion of the editorial that I assume will raise the eyebrows of the members of this board. For one thing, the sources he cites in the article Ted Balaker and Sam Staley fail to provide a well balanced perspective to the topic. Secondly, the two cities he uses as examples L.A. and Dallas are indeed looking or implementing HOV and HOT lanes. However, they are not stopping there both cities are reinvesting and expanding upon in their public transportation systems. While I agree with implementing HOV/HOT lanes, investing in one mode of transportation alone is not the answer. Congestion must be tackled by multiple modes in a balanced (funding-wise) manner. Anyway, here it is for your reading pleasure (or displeasure).

 

National traffic jam needs a technological solution

Sunday, March 11, 2007

GEORGE F . WILL  

 

 

It is peculiar: The secretary of transportation is not a household name. But Mary Peters now you know is more important than most public officials to improving Americas economic dynamism and reducing the aggravation of everyday life.

 

......

 

The usual scolds environmentalists, urban "planners," enthusiasts for public transit (less than 5 percent of the work force uses it) argue that more highways encourage more driving ("induced demand") and hence are self-defeating. But as Reason Foundation scholars Ted Balaker and Sam Staley (Staley is also a scholar with the Columbus-based Buckeye Institute) respond in their new book on congestion, The Road More Traveled, among the 10 largest metropolitan areas, Los Angeles has the least pavement per person; Dallas has twice as much per person and half as much congestion. Furthermore, when schools are built because old ones have become congested, and then the new ones fill up with children from families attracted by new schools, who argues that building the new ones was a mistake?

 

 

.....

When are these fuckos going to realize that there is no free market in the transportation system? Start by eliminating the roughly $300 billion in federal subsidies annually to domestic oil exploration and production firms and watch the price of gas more than double (and that $300 billion doesn't include military protection of vital oil shipping routes). Once that happens, give me a call to see how people are choosing to travel and where they are choosing to live. Then we'll work on eliminating or equalizing other subsidies so travel modes can compete more equally without the massive governmental distortion of the free market that once existed in transportation.

They never will because it would mean that the facts get in the way of their ideological arguments.

Here are some responses to Kevin O'Brien article in todays PD.

 

Did anybody here write one of these?

 

Americans have no right to persist in urban sprawl

Sunday, March 11, 2007

 

Kevin O'Brien offers a false choice between personal liberty and wise public policy, suggesting that the pursuit of a prudent policy to limit sprawl will send Greater Clevelanders fleeing to other states ("A dangerous intersection," Wednesday). I would point Mr. O'Brien to the article at the bottom of page B2 of the same day's Plain Dealer, in which development experts detail exactly why the region's "bias against density" (among other factors) harms us in national competition, in effect sending people fleeing to the Carolinas.

 

Smart growth and regionalism should be part of a package of regional and statewide initiatives designed to make it easier to grow developments within Ohio's existing cities and to end the cycle of outward expansion and the accompanying economic disinvestment. After all, we've tried sprawl and we're already facing its grim consequences. That doesn't mean we have to continue to repeat that mistake in perpetuity.

Josh Wellman, Akron

 

The sprawl that Kevin O'Brien argues for isn't a constitutional right of rugged individualists: It is possible only with great government subsidies of road construction, oil, utilities infrastructure and artificially low and long mortgage terms. America eviscerated its industrial base through abandoning our traditional protectionism and anti-monopoly ethics: It tries to make up the slack by subsidizing sprawl. America eviscerated its agricultural base with an oil-intensive monoculture: It tries to make up the slack with more "sprawlnomics."

 

The resulting oil addiction of the Sprawl Economy carries requisite oil wars. These oil wars aren't paid for by the mythological private sector or rugged individualist patriots. The Iraq fiasco will cost us all about $2.1 trillion when all the bills are due.

 

America is a used dartboard of expanding urban decay, rotting urban cores and derelict towns. The cost of this decay is greater than the likely appreciation of suburban housing values.

 

Besides, the shelf life of a suburb is getting shorter all the time: It takes only a generation or two now until half the kids are acting like the kids their parents paid a premium to move away from. That's OK, there will be plenty of jobs fighting the next oil wars.

Ryan Costa, Cleveland

 

Kevin O'Brien makes a reasoned argument that Avon should be allowed to build a highway intersection. He bases this argument upon his belief that "government exists to secure the blessings of liberty," and one of these blessings is that individuals are allowed to live wherever they wish.

 

However, his premise is invalid. The Constitution's preamble speaks of the community good first, then "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." I believe that these blessings are for the community, not for the individual. Nowhere does the Constitution grant or imply the right for the individual to live anywhere he chooses.

Charles Honton, Cleveland Heights

Excellent responses.

The fact that George Will quotes a libertarian idealogue like Sam Staley is enough to blow Will's thesis off the highway and into the ditch.

The fact that George Will quotes a libertarian idealogue like Sam Staley is enough to blow Will's thesis off the highway and into the ditch.

 

Not only did he quote Staley, but he called him a SCHOLAR! 

 

It even hurts to type that.

The fact that George Will quotes a libertarian idealogue like Sam Staley is enough to blow Will's thesis off the highway and into the ditch.

The Buckeye Institute is the right wing cesspool that hired former Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell after his failure in November.

Once again, our legislature perpetuates the backwards approach Ohio has taken in the past toward transportation. And, of course, theColumbus Dispatch doesn't help matters by characterizing the Governor's approach as a "Roads Plan". It was much more than that and would have finally moved ODOT toward a more wholistic approach to transportation planning.

 

Governors roads plan loses

House finance panel rejects highway priorities

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

James Nash

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

 

In a rebuke to Gov. Ted Stricklands transportation policy, an Ohio House committee declined yesterday to give higher priority to road projects that promote economic development and expand public transportation capacity.

 

The House Finance Committee approved a $7.8 billion transportation budget for the next two years after stripping out language designed to give priority to certain kinds of major projects.

 

Strickland had pushed to reprioritize transportation projects, particularly to use them as tools for economic development, after warning that Ohio could not continue the ambitious road-building schedule of the past few years.

 

Stricklands language would have given priority to projects that stimulate economic development, upgrade airports and other infrastructure, expand public transportation, reduce traffic in cities, improve rail freight, enhance safety and give communities more power over land uses.

 

But the Finance Committee took out the language, saying it would "leave too many questions unanswered." In addition, they noted that Strickland already has the power to influence transportation policy through the appointed director of the Ohio Department of Transportation, James Beasley.

 

..........

http://dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2007/03/13/20070313-02502.html

...theColumbus Dispatch doesn't help matters by characterizing the Governor's approach as a "Roads Plan". ...

...

 

Strickland?s language would have given priority to projects that stimulate economic development, upgrade airports and other infrastructure, expand public transportation, reduce traffic in cities, improve rail freight, enhance safety and give communities more power over land uses.

...

 

They got it right in paragraph #4, but it's all about how the headline breaks.

 

 

More on the subject from the Hannah News Service:

 

Democrats: Transportation Bill Could Test Override Powers

127th General Assembly The Hannah Report

March 12, 2007 Hannah News Service

 

 

.........

slightly off topic, but how much does it cost, on average, to build a mile of rural interstate these days (including land acquisition)?

 

 

Depends. Can range anywhere from $2 million/mile in some areas to $10 million/mile in others. Topography, land values, etc. all factor in.

Here's some data from Washington state DOT, but this isn't for a new highway. It's for highway widenings, and they may not be for rural areas...

 

Here's a sampling of project construction costs:

 

 

+ SR 18 widening in rural King County - about $24.5 million per mile.

+ US 12 widening south of Tri Cities - about $3.7 million per mile.

+ I-5 widening in Vancouver – about $20.2 million per mile.

+ I-90 truck climbing lanes east of Cle Elum and at Vantage – about $1 million per mile.

+ I-5 HOV lanes from Tukwila to Fife – about $7 million per mile.

 

These costs are for construction only and do not include costs for engineering and design and for a widely-varying factor, land acquisition costs.

Here's some more detailed data:

 

http://www.arkansashighways.com/Roadway/Costs%20per%20Mile.pdf?Record_Number=8

And again: rail? $10M/mile?

So do we know what the governor's proposed transportation budget has for the non-highway modes? Any dollar figures available??

Go to: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/

 

Go to the Press Room link and you can access a pdf of the ODOT Budget testimony before the Senate Transportation Committee.  I attended the hearing this afternoon.

 

Director Beasley didn't talk about numbers for mass transit, but he made it abundantly clear that a lot of major highway projects that were assumed to be a "lock" for being built are not necessarily certain.  He also indicated that ODOT will now begin assessing projects on more than just the need for traffic capacity.  Projects will also have to meet criteria as to their economic development impact and whether or not there are better alternatives to just putting down more concrete or asphalt.  He said that in response to severla questions from Senators on the Committee.

And again: rail? $10M/mile?

 

The Ohio Hub is $3.78 million per mile (1,270 miles at $4.8 billion)

that seems like a good deal. and really that is actually a little lower because I'm sure the 4.8 billion includes rolling stock

Here's a way to put it in perspective:  by comparison, the entire 20 year transportation plan for Lucas and Wood counties in NW Ohio amounts to $3.2 Billion.... that covers every planned transportation project for the next two decades for TWO counties.

 

The Ohio Hub, even at $4.8 billion, covers all of Ohio and reaches into four states and Southern Canada. 

Noozer:  It sounds like one heck of a transportation bargain to me.

A very interesting series of thoughts on why we need to change both our transportation and housing policy, from testimony delivered in Washington by a researcher for the Brookings Institute.

 

Here's the link:

 

http://www.brookings.edu/views/testimony/katz/20070228.pdf

National Transportation Commission Media Advisory

 

Media Advisory

March 16, 2007

 

For More Information Contact

Sarah Echols

(202) 366-4570

 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO STUDY WAYS TO CUT TRAFFIC & FUND FUTURE ROAD, BRIDGE AND TRANSIT PROJECTS DURING HEARING IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ON MONDAY, MARCH 19, FROM 8:15 AM TO 5:15 PM (EDT)

 

The Congressionally-chartered National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission will study ways to reduce traffic tie ups and future ways to fund new road, bridge and transit projects during a field hearing in Washington, D.C., on Monday, March 19 from 8:15 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. (EDT) 

 

During the hearing, senior transportation and policy experts selected by the President and Congress, including U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters, will hear testimony from key national transportation stakeholder groups.  After the hearing, members of the Commission will answer questions from the media at 4:45 p.m.

 

WHO:            U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters

WHAT:          National Commission to Study Traffic Problems, Explore New Ways to Pay for Road, Transit and Bridge Projects

WHEN:          Monday, March 19, 2007, 8:15 a.m. (EDT)

WHERE:        Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2167, Washington, D.C. 20515

WEBCAST:    The hearing will be simulcast at www.transportation.house.gov

 

Worth saving and sharing....

 

 

Percent of Household Expenditures on

Transportation by Metropolitan Area

(By Rank)

 

1 Houston  20.9%

2 Cleveland  20.5%

3 Detroit  20.5%

4 Tampa 20.4%

5 Kansas City 20.2%

6 Cincinnati 20.0%

7 Anchorage 19.9%

8 Dallas-Forth Worth 19.7%

9 Phoenix 19.6%

10 Miami 19.6%

11 Denver 19.2%

12 Seattle 19.0%

13 St. Louis 18.7%

14 Atlanta 18.7%

15 Los Angeles 18.4%

16 San Diego 18.4%

17 Honolulu 18.0%

18 Boston 17.2%

19 Minneapolis-St. Paul 17.2%

20 Chicago 16.9%

21 Milwaukee 16.6%

22 San Francisco 16.6%

23 Pittsburgh 16.6%

24 Philadelphia 15.9%

25 Washington, D.C. 15.4%

26 New York 15.4%

27 Portland 15.1%

28 Baltimore 14.0%

United States 19.1%

 

Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology and Surface

Transportation Policy Project, "Driven to Spend: Pumping

Dollars out of Our Households and Communities,” June

2005. Based on average annual expenditures and

characteristics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2002-2003,

for selected metropolitan statistical areas

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070327/NEWS24/70327017/-1/NEWS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article published March 27, 2007

 

Ohio Senate panel cements spot for U.S. 24, other road projects

 

By JIM PROVANCE

BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

 

 

COLUMBUS An Ohio Senate committee yesterday moved to lock in funding for the $471 million U.S. 24 upgrade and other top-tier projects, throwing a roadblock in the path of Gov. Ted Stricklands proposed rethinking of construction priorities.

 

The full Senate will take up the measure today.

 

Before [the Ohio Department of Transportation] or anyone else undertakes other major new construction projects, theyre going to respect the decisions that have already been made and have become final under the past administration, said Sen. Stephen Buehrer (R., Delta), who inserted the amendment into the $6.3 billion, two-year transportation budget.

 

Those that came through the fair, objective process of [the Transportation Review Advisory Committee] are going to go first, he said.

 

Mr. Strickland has warned that rising construction costs, uncertain federal aid, and nearly flat gas-tax collections will conspire to leave the state $1.2 billion short of the funds necessary to follow through on all the commitments made by the state.

 

 

 

 

 

More on the story from the Hannah News Wire:

 

Transportation Committee Avoids Gas CAT Skirmish

127th General Assembly The Hannah Report

March 26, 2007 Hannah News Service -

 

A bipartisan effort in the Senate Highways and Transportation Committee Monday has given the Legislature a brief reprieve from the contentious gas-CAT controversy and shielded primary road projects from further budget revisions by the Strickland administration.

 

.......

Why even have ODOT if the State Senate is going to make thier decisions for them?  :roll:

 

Let me guess...some ranking Republican Senators districts' will greatly benefit from the expansion of U.S. 24. 

None of this locking in Tier I funding means anything if the feds don't find a way to prevent the highway trust fund from going bankrupt next year, and falling $22 billion into the hole in five years.

 

If the federal hole is plugged to keep the pavement a-pouring, it still won't mean anything because adding the new highway capacity will only expand sprawl further.

 

And that won't mean anything because putting more vehicles onto our state's highways will cause more counties to fall into non-compliance with EPA air quality standards. Manufacturers looking to build new plants are avoiding non-compliant counties, and vehicles are the primary cause of the non-compliance. We've got to reduce the number of vehicles miles traveled, not increase them.

 

Maybe we can create jobs by making pizzas instead of manufactured goods. True, scaring good-paying jobs will cause the middle class to shrink further. And that won't let us afford the rising costs of car ownership, which already exceed the annual costs of housing for the average Ohioan, but is worse for low-income citizens who can't reach most of the available jobs. More of us won't be able to afford driving in the near future.

 

So maybe locking in Tier I funding won't matter anyway. That is, if we don't want smarter land use, transportation choices, cleaner air, more good-paying jobs and access to those jobs. Or maybe we have to put a stop to the status quo before it puts a stop to Ohio.

This seems important. People. start writing!

 

From Smart Growth America:

 

 

Friends:

 

We received news about a potentially alarming development in the world of federal transportation funding. The National Center for Bicycling and Walking and the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy sent us notices about a rescission order given by the Federal Highway Administration that could jeopardize the federal money that funds crucial programs for trails, bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, bridge repair, congestion mitigation, CMAQ (http://support.smartgrowthamerica.org/site/R?i=WdFYPsw_AuPvgkMM3ZJb0g..), and other progressive transportation programs.

 

On March 19, the Federal Highway Administration sent a notice to state DOTs to let them know that they have to return a combined total of $3.472 billion to the federal government. Here's where it gets sticky: State DOTs can take the money from nearly any program that has unobligated balances. In the past many states have looked to Transportation Enhancements (TE), bike trails, and pedestrian programs for the millions they have to give back. A similar rescission order was given last year and Texas chose to cut the entire TE budget, stating that it was a low priority.

 

From the date of the actual order (March 19), Governors will have 30 days to decide how to make the cuts from their transportation budgets, which range from $14 million in Delaware to $315 million in California.

 

Visit the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy's TE alert page (http://support.smartgrowthamerica.org/site/R?i=xcDSK2gYEWuf8ziHA-dB7A..) where you can find more information about what can be done to ensure TE programs aren't first on the chopping block.

 

Other resources

 

    * McKinney Courier-Gazette on the $290 million Texas has to give back (http://support.smartgrowthamerica.org/site/R?i=TS2Dpo6kYenUFrMjlEqMFQ..)

    * Surface Transportation Policy Partnership on the rescission (MS Word doc) (http://support.smartgrowthamerica.org/site/R?i=T7owla4MXUPeaVWLrx37_w..)

    * The Rescission Notice from the FHWA (pdf)(http://support.smartgrowthamerica.org/site/R?i=LbOR1bWKCUMwWoyzoZibLw..)

 

Thanks,

Smart Growth America