Why not just sell off all of our highways and allow them to be converted to toll roads?  The PUCO could regulate the new owners as they do for other monopolies in the state.  If given the choice between a government run system and a regulated monopoly, I'll choose the latter.

 

The "government run" Ohio Turnpike is being managed fine. So are most other public toll roads in the US.  Further enriching private interests (and in the case of the toll road consortiums-- overseas interests) isn't going to build more transportation in this country.  I choose keeping the dollars here. 

 

Folks, the era of "don't touch my dollars" is over.  The demands of redeveloping and balancing our transportation systems is going to require some form of revenue sharing.  Sadly, we are hamstrung in Ohio by an antiquated motor vehicle fuels tax that limits what the revenues can legally be used for: highways only. 

 

Our choices are either to change the law or come up with an alternate dedicated source of funding for all other modes: rail, public transit, waterways, bike & pedestrian...

 

Exactly.  We need to spend transportation dollars in a way that promotes intermodalism and energy efficiency, not spending money on individual modes in a vacuum.  That's how we've been doing it for decades and it has put us well behind the rest of the industrialized world, not to mention several developing nations. 

 

 

This appeared in Today's Dispatch. It appears the highway construction interests are becoming concerned about the situation they are in. More comments at bottom

 

Less driving means less money to repair roads

Saturday,  December 1, 2007 3:03 AM

 

 

Everyone who drives a car has been feeling the pinch recently. Sure, economic pundits have continually said that the current high cost of oil is not as bad as the notorious price peaks in the 1970s, after being adjusted for inflation. However, that may be beginning to change.

 

With the Thanksgiving holiday just finishing and the real start of winter here, oil has now reached a raw dollar peak of $98.93 a barrel. This is pushing prices at the pump back to $3 a gallon. Forecasts are looking quite gloomy as political tensions in the Middle East, refinery challenges in the Western Hemisphere and the declining value of the dollar are making it increasingly likely that we might see well over $100 a barrel. That price is generally agreed to be as bad as the 1970s price peaks, even when adjusted for inflation, and that means more pain at the pump for consumers.

 

Generally, consumers' response to gasoline price increases is fairly limited, as they complain but at the end of the day still fill up, assuming that the prices will soon go back down to a more manageable level. Unfortunately, if tensions don't ease and the supply of oil remains tight globally, these prices may become the new "normal," and that has huge policy implications right here in Ohio.

 

Given that the lion's share of Ohio's funding for road construction and maintenance comes from the state's 28-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax, the amount of gasoline that consumers purchase directly affects the amount of funding that the Ohio Department of Transportation has available. Already, consumers have started to make serious changes in their behavior, by buying more-fuel-efficient cars such as hybrids and by carpooling in order to buy less gasoline. It only stands to reason that such changes will happen more as prices keep climbing.

 

There have already been rumblings coming from ODOT that some of the planned construction for Ohio's roadways may need to be scaled back, because of the inflationary cost increase of building materials. Given that, any change in consumer behavior that reduces the gasoline purchased will only increase the challenges for Ohio's roads by further lowering the amount of revenue brought in to fund construction.

 

We're certainly not in crisis mode yet, but a serious conversation about the future of Ohio's transportation is one that should be started sooner rather than later.

 

GREG R. LAWSON

Managing director

 

Ohio Construction Information Association

 

Interesting situation. They are facing diminishing gas tax revenues while costs go up and yet they can't just bull a gas tax increase thru. That would cause an uproar because the public is already feeling the pinch at the gas pump.

 

At the same time, there are those of us who realize that while highways are here to stay and need to be adequately maintained, there is a pressing need to diversify our transportation portfolio.

 

That means there must be a good-faith attempt on the part of all to reach a consensus and push jointly for a comprehensive "OhioTEA" solution to current problems. That would include adequate road funding and vastly expanded funding for rail, transit, intermodal, bike and pedestrian facilities.

 

I think that unless highway construction interests try to work with others, they won't get far. They won't get a gas tax passed on their own, at least not without opposition from motorists, who won't want higher gas taxes and the have-nots, who will demand more than highways.

 

The best way out of that dilemma is to push something that that gives Ohioans real choices. They'd be a lot more likely to buy into something that will make life easier or more bearable.

 

The old days of highway-only "solutions" are over and the best thing the contractors could do would be to actively search out allies. They'll have to give to get.

Ditto. It's akin to the concrete versus asphalt turf wars that went on for decades, and in some regions, still does.

It's easy to get into an us-vs-them mentality, since lot of wrongs were done, but it's important to see opportunities to work together for the common good.

Interesting situation. They are facing diminishing gas tax revenues while costs go up and yet they can't just bull a gas tax increase thru. That would cause an uproar because the public is already feeling the pinch at the gas pump.

 

Why not just pass legislation to have an adjustable gas tax?  It could start out collecting the same amount we are collecting today to avoid people getting thier feathers ruffled.  Then, each year, it will be adjusted to provide the same funds (adjusted for inflation) based on vehicle miles traveled rather than gallons of gasoline purchased.  It takes vehicle efficiency out of play, but adds a beurocratic layer to do the adjustment/vmt tracking work.

ODOT cuts could halt I-75 work

Agency forecasts a funding shortfall that could affect highway reconstruction.

By Jim DeBrosse

Dayton Daily News

Staff Writer

 

Sunday, December 02, 2007

 

Funding for new highway and bridge projects in Ohio has hit the wall.

 

With gas tax revenues flat, federal funding uncertain and the cost of new construction increasing by double digits, the Ohio Department of Transportation predicts it will begin running a shortfall in 2009, according to an ODOT report released this week. By 2015, the agency could be $3.5 billion in the red.

 

Local officials say they're concerned the shortfall could affect major highway projects in the Dayton area, including the last two phases of the $670 million modernization of Interstate 75 through downtown, slated for completion in 2013.

 

.....

 

 

 

Find this article at:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/12/02/ddn120207odot.html

 

 

Plan likely to spell big changes for ODOT

Tom Niehaus

State Sen.

 

 

COLUMBUS - A seemingly routine business plan filed last week with the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) has implications for anyone who drives and many of the major roads they travel.

 

Last week the Ohio Department of Transportation Director Jim Beasley released his 2008-2009 Business Plan. It paints a troubling picture of flat revenues and increasing expenses that will result in significant changes in how the state agency responsible for overseeing the maintenance, construction and funding of major roads will operate.

 

Gongwer News Service in Columbus detailed the plans November 26, and I've drawn on their report for most of this column. Director Beasley outlined the proposal for me several days in advance of its formal release. He and other administration officials contacted key legislators, especially those on JCARR where their plans will be presented. I am vice-chairman of that committee.

 

The agency wants to shift funding away from new road projects toward maintenance of existing roads and bridges. In addition, the agency will adopt new criteria for construction funding that will place a greater emphasis on economic development and urban revitalization.

 

Road construction projects have been plagued by higher costs for steel, concrete and asphalt, the last of which is directly tied to the cost of oil. When you add higher fuel costs that affect us all, the increased costs are almost 40% higher in the last three years.

 

ODOT spokesman Scott Varner said the previous administration responded to rapidly rising inflation costs by cutting the money for core roadway and bridge maintenance projects rather than reducing funds for proposed construction projects, according to Gongwer.

 

Last year the Transportation Review and Advisory Council (TRAC) approved major new projects that would cost 47% more than the projected funding available. That is done in part because some of the approved projects never get built.

 

Revenues are flat from both state and federal sources. Ohio taxes gasoline by the gallon rather than as a percentage of the cost of a gallon of fuel. So even though gasoline prices we pay at the pump are higher, that does not mean more revenue for the state. And as newer cars get more miles per gallon, state revenues remain flat or fall.

 

In addition to reprioritizing funding for projects costing more than $5 million within the TRAC process, ODOT plans to refocus more funding toward smaller maintenance projects that aren't subject to approval by the panel, according to Varner.

 

The agency was critical of an amendment legislators added to the two-year $7.8 billion transportation budget last spring, which prohibits the agency from starting any new highway project until construction commences on projects TRAC previously approved.

 

The business plan says the measure constrains ODOT's "flexibility to adjust construction projects - based on delays caused by environmental, right-of-way, or community-related issues - without threatening potential future projects."

 

I remember that amendment well. I was the only Senator to speak out against it on the Senate floor this spring after Beasley told me it would be problematic. No one else spoke up. As I recall everyone voted for the bill.

 

The governor's failure to veto that provision was even more puzzling. That was the administration's last chance to remove that onerous provision.

 

It will not take long for these changes proposed by ODOT to affect a construction project near you.

Editorial: Outerbelt-tightening

ODOT is right to put road maintenance, repair ahead of new construction

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 3:11 AM

Columbus Dispatch

 

In tough fiscal times, when the state's roadwork wish list can't be fulfilled, maintaining existing roads and bridges should take priority over building new ones.

 

Gov. Ted Strickland and the Ohio Department of Transportation are to be commended for making that the state's policy.

 

ODOT's 2008-2009 Business Plan, released at the end of November, is a sober re-evaluation of the state's road-building plans.

 

 

......

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2008/01/09/odot.ART_ART_01-09-08_A8_35907QG.html?sid=101

It's about damn time they re-evaluate their "business" model.

It's a step in the right direction. But they have a journey of a thousand miles still ahead of them.

What impressed me about the Dispatch editorial was that someone finally nailed the Taft Administration for knowing the problem, doing nothing about it and then walking out the door leaving such a financial mess behind.  I don't envy the task ODOT Director Beasley faces, but the language in their business plan suggests he's up to the job.

Kudos to the Strickland administration.  Facing up to tough choices isn't fun, but it has to be done. 

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080113/NEWS11/801130332/-1/NEWS

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

Article published January 13, 2008

 

ODOT: Blinking signs put road safety in a new light

Bright diodes aim to catch drivers' notice

 

By DAVID PATCH

BLADE STAFF WRITER

 

After a fatal collision 10 months ago at a Richfield Township intersection, the teenage driver of a speeding car who admitted responsibility for the wreck told investigators he never saw the stop sign at which he should have stopped.

 

Arthur Nevers, a Richfield trustee, said he expects never to hear that particular explanation again for a crash at Sylvania Avenue and State Rt. 295 - not since mid-October, when the Ohio Department of Transportation put up the new stop signs on Sylvania with blinking light-emitting diodes around their edges.

 

"You can see it from my house, and I live two miles away," Mr. Nevers said of the westbound sign, which replaced the traditional stop sign that Michael Callan, then 17, passed before his car broad-sided an auto driven by Juanita Adams, 55, of Swanton, who died in the March 13 collision.

 

 

......

Kentucky began installing variants of the system earlier in 2007. Interstate 75 was the first, when the state installed LED backlit signage along a slippery-when-wet segment, controlled by a solar panel system. Other parts of the state now have LED-enabled signs -- stop signs mostly.

 

Ohio had a variant of that years ago on OH 32, with the strobe lights in the traffic signals. The traffic signals were soooo far apart and uncommon that there were many accidents at the intersections. The strobe lights were designed to gather the driver's attention.

^

Interesting idea, I must say!

 

Re: ODOT. I agree with Noozer concerning The Disptch's editorial. It's just too bad this didn't come out before Taft, Proctor & Co. messed everything up.

You're going to see a lot more of this. Low Cost safety improvements are going to be huge in the near future, and in fact, they already are. We're past the point of big expenditures - now is the time to see what we can do within our ways and means. ODOT has been pushing low cost safety improvements for a while now - I recently attended a seminar hosted by ODOT and the FHWA about these types of improvements and how to implement them, it was really informative and interesting. In addition to these LED stop signs other low cost improvements can be made as well, such as rumble strips. It's really amazing how effective rumble strips are at getting your attention on a rural road.

 

You are certainly going to see more and more creative ways to improve safety. Sometimes, the best solution even is the least expensive solution (ex: Howe & Mosiman Signal Removal). But, signs, warnings, delineation are all low cost solutions that may be better / feasible than leveling a road, signalization, etc. Expect to see more of these solutions in the future.

^ I attended a similar meeting in Kentucky about a year ago, and LED-enabled and backlight-enabled signage was toted as being a low-cost safety improvement. Other improvements included center-line rumble strips throughout the state on major two-lane roads -- the first implementions of this being on the Daniel Boone and Mountain Parkways.

 

I'm now seeing snake-head traffic lights -- dual red lights -- that greatly enhance a signal's visibility in some areas. West Virginia used these a lot more in the past, especially when their traffic signals were older and smaller (I think they were 8" bulbs then).

 

I don't know if Ohio has these yet on rural highways like OH 32, but Kentucky started installing reflective-yellow backplates. They are just regular black backplates, with yellow adhesive taping added -- a kit that costs only $20 per signal. A cheap and VERY effective method for enhancing a signal's visibility.

I'd be more excited about the new administration taking over if they killed the split-fix for a billion (originally supposed to cost half that) which could be used for mass-transit, making our cities much more bike-friendly and prevent the possible destruction of the budding activity on Parsons Ave. 

The Office of Inpsector General has singled out former Ohio Department of Transportation Director Gordon Proctor for major censure, citing him for management irregularities in the promotion of one-time "car-pool partner" Shobna Varma from low-level systems analyst to director of information technology. Setting aside further action against Proctor, the inspector general has moved forward with a complaint against Varma before the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee and the Ohio Ethics Commission. Read more in today's Hannah Report.

Ex-ODOT director slammed in probe

January 30, 2008 | COLUMBUS BUSINESS FIRST

 

COLUMBUS - An investigation in allegations of favoritism and misconduct by the former director of the state Department of Transportation will turn over some findings to the Columbus City Prosecutor's Office and state Ethics Commission, the state Inspector General's Office said Wednesday.

 

The probe states that while running ODOT, Gordon Proctor elevated his longtime carpool partner from a low-level analyst's job to director of information technology at the state agency and protected the controversial employee in disputes with colleagues.

 

Proctor resigned as head of ODOT in January 2007 after eight years in the job.

 

The Inspector General's Office is turning over findings that Proctor violated state "revolving door" laws when he represented staffer Shobna Varma in a hearing after she was fired and he had resigned.

 

To download the full report, click here.

 

......

Someone demonstrate to me why this thread is different than the ODOT Policy Thread? Don't we gripe over there too?

They probably should be combined.

If someone wants to gripe about ODOT or post a story like the one above, I suppose it belongs here. But if we are discussing actual ODOT transportation policy.... or changes in those policies, it belongs in the ODOT Policy thread.

 

Seems simple to me.

Naw, the two threads are completely related and should be merged imo.

my concern is that this thread had been dead since 2005.

 

Though I applaud unclerando finding this thread.

my concern is that this thread had been dead since 2005.

 

Though I applaud unclerando finding this thread.

 

No problem...it's what I do.  :wink2:

Re; The Budget Cuts announced today by Governor Strickland.  Here's some good news for rail & transit.  This is from the press release from the Governor's office:

 

FY 2008 – 2009

Budget Recalibration Highlights

Department of Transportation

 

Budget Reduction Target

FY2008: $3,306,067

FY2009: $1,470,652

 

In order to preserve the administrations’ commitment to a multimodal transportation system, ODOT provided allowable federal funds to assure that general aviation, rail, and public transit grants and local projects are held harmless.

 

Because of the downturn in the economy and projected state revenues, the agency is taking cost reduction measures and is expected to reorganize, restructure or consolidate operations in order to realize cost savings and operate successfully within reduced appropriation levels.  For the Department of Transportation, the potential impact of these actions may be a reduction of positions through attrition, vacancies that will remain unfilled, and other reductions.

 

Reduce Airport Improvement line item by $1,500,000. Despite this reduction, ODOT feels it will still be able to provide sufficient financial assistance to local general airports for system preservation and safety improvements.

 

Other cost cutting activities include the cancelation of old encumbrances, lapsing prior quarter allotments, and reducing personal service contracts, travel costs, operational support fees, and hiring activities.

I didn't even look at the date. Wow. That is good Rando! Bravo! Bravo!

There have been like 3 threads recently, that I dusted off, that hadn't been touched in over a year.  Kind of pathetic I guess.  :|

I'd be more excited about the new administration taking over if they killed the split-fix for a billion (originally supposed to cost half that) which could be used for mass-transit, making our cities much more bike-friendly and prevent the possible destruction of the budding activity on Parsons Ave. 

 

Great idea, except that such a move would more than likely violate Article XII, 5a of the state constitution, which says no gas tax money shall be spent on anything other than roads and bridges. 98.5 % of ODOT's budget comes from gas taxes, license plates and other fees. Ohio's share would come from that money and it's jealously guarded by the highway contractors.

 

It's a constitutional strait jacket. :x

Interestingly, ODOT Director Beasley used federal highway funds to help protect state budget cuts to public transit, aviation and rail programs in Ohio. He has been preaching intermodalism since he was appointed last January and now he's showing it wasn't just talk.

 

Think about it.  Do you think you would have ever seen Gordon Proctor or any of his predecessors do something like this?  Three answers:

 

No.

 

No.

 

and hell no.

There have been like 3 threads recently, that I dusted off, that hadn't been touched in over a year.  Kind of pathetic I guess.  :|

 

No really, us mods appreciate people who know how to use the search function for old thread (assuming thats what you did)

That's very true. I was just referring to the state gas tax. Federal funding is another matter.

The former "ODOT Sucks" thread has been merged into this one

Thanks Pope.

TRAC Faces Tough Decisions On Future Road Projects

 

Thursday, Feb 14, 2008 - 07:08 PM Updated: 08:03 PM

By Denise Yost

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A group that overcommitted on state road projects faces tough decisions that will impact traffic where you live.

 

Ohio's Transportation Review Advisory Council admits it won't be able to financially handle projects after 2010 without new funding sources, NBC 4's Mikaela Hunt reported.

 

There is a policy that the Ohio Department of Transportation must follow in terms of funding projects. It can't exceed 20 percent over budget. But the problem is that during former Gov. Bob Taft's administration, TRAC went 47 percent over budget commitments. And the numbers have continued to get worse.

 

........

 

 

http://www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/news.apx.-content-articles-CMH-2008-02-14-0035.html

That last sentence is SCARY!

Benefit and cost? Why would you need to factor those in?

I hope that was sarcastic! If so, try using those handy emoticons  :wink:  :-D  :-)  :-P

What to Do About $3.5 Billion Hole in ODOT Budget

127th General Assembly The Hannah Report

April 1, 2008 Hannah News Service -

 

 

The Senate Highways and Transportation Committee renewed debate Tuesday over who or what is responsible for a projected $3.5 billion budget shortfall at the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) over the next seven years.

 

ODOT Director James Beasley made his first public presentation of the department's 2008/2009 Business Plan, which was released last November and has since spurred some hand-wringing over the current outlook, and how to remedy it. (See The Hannah Report, 11/27/08.) Beasley said despite real opportunities to grow Ohio's economy, and by definition grow its tax base, with strategic infrastructure investments, ODOT is facing a massive shortfall due to lower fuel consumption and thus lower state fuel tax revenues, inflation, proposed federal funding cuts of $500 million, and project agreements by the Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) which have alone caused an estimated $2 billion hole by 2015.

 

To explain this "over-commitment," Beasley offered the committee and Chairman Stephen Buehrer (R-Delta) a summary explanation: "ODOT and TRAC violated programming policy on Major New Construction commitments," said the director, putting the overage at 47 percent of projected department revenues. He said TRAC's normal practice is to exceed estimated revenue by 20 percent, meaning the state had more than doubled its pattern of over-commitment.

 

Beasley was asked why TRAC might have violated its longstanding policy, to which he answered, "I don't know."

 

He did clarify for Buehrer that the 47-percent commitment was in "real dollars" and did not account for inflation.

 

When inflation is factored in, said Beasley, the problem grows even worse.

 

.....

Big orange barrel projects detailed

BY MARGARET A. MCGURK | [email protected]

 

DAYTON, Ohio Almost 1,000 projects worth $2.5 billion will keep road crews busy and motorists irked across Ohio this summer.

 

State officials next week will present the full summer construction program for the Cincinnati area.

 

But on Wednesday they announced six major road projects that will part of the Ohio Department of Transportation 2008 construction season, including:

 

 

.....

I suppose I should be the first to say... where are the integration projects listed above? But I suppose it is because those projects need to be placed in the queue.

I got this from KJP, but I didn't see that it was posted here.  Sorry if it was and I missed it:

 

Jolene Molitoris, Recent Congressional Testimony:

 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit - Transportation Challenges of Metropolitan Areas

2167 Rayburn House Office Building

 

Purpose of the Hearing

 

The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit met on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., in room 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony on the transportation challenges of metropolitan areas. The Subcommittee heard from a transportation expert from the Metropolitan Policy Program at The Brookings Institution, the President of the Regional Plan Association in New York, the County Executive from King County, Washington, the Assistant Director of the Ohio Department of Transportation, the Executive Director of Sacramento Regional Transit District, and the Transportation Director of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

 

This hearing was the first in a series of hearings exploring emerging themes in transportation policy and practice, the needs of our national surface transportation system, and the reauthorization of our surface transportation laws. The Subcommittee will continue this series by holding hearings in the near future on the issues surrounding freight access and goods movement, infrastructure preservation and modernization, highway safety, mobility and connectivity of rural areas, and other issues.

 

http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetail.aspx?NewsID=570

 

Jolene Molitoris Testimony:

http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Highways/20080409/Molitoris%20Ohio%20DOT%20Testimony.pdf

 

Transportation Challenges of Metropolitan Areas in Ohio

April 9, 2008

Testimony of Jolene Molitoris

Assistant Director, Ohio Department of Transportation

to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

 

Good morning Chairman DeFazio and members of the Committee. On behalf of Ohio Governor Ted Strickland and Director James Beasley of the Ohio Department of Transportation, I thank you for asking me to share Ohio's transportation story. I am Jolene Molitoris, Assistant Director for Ohio's Department of Transportation.

 

Few people realize that Ohio - only 35th in the nation in terms of land size - has the 2nd largest inventory of bridges, the 4th most operating rail routes, the 4th largest interstate system, the 7th largest state highway network and the 12th most transit ridership. Ohio has seven major metropolitan areas: Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, Akron, Youngstown and Toledo, as well as ten smaller metropolitan centers. All these cities have transportation challenges that can be improved by changes at home and in Washington.

 

Ohio's most pressing federal financial challenge is the immediate need to ensure the solvency of the nation's Highway Trust Fund. The latest figures from the Congressional Budget Office forecast a potential loss of between $140 million to $400 million for Ohio alone, representing a major blow to

projects planned for as early as 2009 and 2010. The country's underinvestment in transportation for many decades has resulted in an aging infrastructure with dramatically increasing demands and many needs. Ohio is no exception. A significant increase in federal transportation dollars and fair distribution of those dollars is critical. Ohio's donor status did improve to 92% for highway dollars under SAFETEA-LU, but most undesirable is the fact that Ohio receives a mere 51% return on each dollar contributed to the Mass Transit Account.

 

Under Governor Strickland, a strong and efficient multi-modal transportation system in Ohio is a priority to retaining and attracting the jobs and businesses we need. Just last week, Governor Strickland and the State legislature announced a $1.57 billion bipartisan economic stimulus package which includes major investments in logistics, infrastructure, bridges and other transportation projects. 57,000 new jobs are anticipated. We are acting at home to create transportation solutions, but the state and the private sector alone cannot resolve our transportation challenges. We need an effective federal partner.

 

Let me touch on a few challenges standing in the way of that partnership.

 

(1) The first is a better recognition that urban projects, by their very nature, cost significantly more. Like threading a needle with an eight-lane highway, we are trying to modernize roadways tightly woven in a built environment. Modernizing off-ramps and on-ramps - once acceptable but now deemed dangerous by today’s standards - is not only complicated, but in some cases, the fix can have unseen economic consequences on downtown livelihood. In an urban setting, right of way costs soar. And some projects come to a grinding halt when historic properties stand in the way. Even just the maintenance of traffic during construction adds significant cost, as work must be pieced together in small sections over long periods of time.

 

(2) While the government has little power over basic construction costs, our partnership could see a more effective use of its dollars with less federal micro-management. Oversight of project development continues to be lengthy and bureaucratic. Amendments in SAFETEA-LU were intended to improve efficiency in project delivery, but actual change has been modest. Ohio is a leader in environmental compliance and construction mitigation. But this higher review forces all state DOTs to produce more detail and paper than needed, often times simply to address a federal reviewer’s comments instead of project needs. A prime example of both these issues is the reconstruction of Cleveland's I-90 Innerbelt. What started as a $500 million replacement of an aging bridge was stretched by federal expansion of the project’s scope and by this process-oriented delay. Fixing the Innerbelt stands now, at least, at $1.4 billion, and growing each month.

 

For our metropolitan projects, we should explore putting federal approvals and state accountability at the program level - not at a time consuming project by project detailed analysis. Somewhat connected is a second challenge: the use of one-size-fits-all programmatic approaches to address project level mitigation needs. Rather than the current prescriptive remedies, a menu of green options could give states flexibility while still protecting the environment. Imagine, instead of following today's impact-for-impact mitigation logic, that preservation opportunities can be explored that would allow States to focus on the most important needs of that region, such as farmland preservation. In some urban settings, wetland mitigation simply brings flocks of geese to downtown streets, instead of addressing the larger issues of climate change.

 

(3) On the topic of "greener" alternatives, a third challenge continues to be a lack of federal incentive to help cities pursue alternatives to the automobile. Simply put, federal transportation funding favors highways over other transportation modes. The Federal Highway Administration will contribute up to 80 or 90 percent for highway improvements but only 50 percent for transit projects under the Federal Transit Administration's New Start Program.

 

(4) Another point on the transit disincentive is FTA's ever-changing criteria. In Columbus, a passenger light rail project did not meet FTA's New Start criteria, even though Columbus is now the state’s most populous city and one of the few growing regions in the Midwest. It has become almost impossible for most cities to introduce passenger rail projects - commuter rail, light rail, or streetcar – with federal help. One could interpret the constantly moving target as a technique to reduce FTA's investments in these alternative transportation options.

 

Finally, a story underscoring the need for transit: In Ohio, our 59 public transit systems serve half-a million customers every weekday. More than 60% of all those trips are work related. For many Ohioans, it's public transportation or public assistance. In Cleveland, ranked last year as the nation's poorest city, one in four citizens do not have access to a car. Last year, a new shopping center was set to open on the site of an abandoned steel mill. The redevelopment in a core urban area meant jobs for many who had none. At the new Target store, to get to those new jobs, more than half of the applicants needed bus service that wasn't currently available. By investing just $200,000 more annually, the regional transit authority expanded its service to run a half-hour after the store closes, but at the cost of cutting service to other parts of town. The story is repeated time and again in several of Ohio’s major cities.

 

The bottom line for Ohio and its transportation system: the proper level of investment, wisely and fairly made, with the leveraging of private dollars, our own state commitment and an effective federal partner who helps us solve rather than exacerbate our challenges, will give us the transportation system we so urgently need. A first rate multi-modal transportation system is key to the success of Ohio and the nation.

Noozer posted it here, which is where I first saw it:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,14971.msg274831.html#msg274831

^Oops.  I looked in that thread too.  Somehow I still missed it...

 

 

* Beginning the three-year reconstruction of Interstate 75 between Cincinnati-Dayton Road in Butler County and Ohio 122 in Warren County.

 

How did the segment of I-75 north of I-275 get higher priority than I-75 through the city of Cincinnati?  Seriously, has this project been in the works longer?  Or is it just that the Cincinnati studies take longer due to acquiring new land and environmental impact?

^ Because of the Brent Spence bridge.

^ True.  But I would think that since they have broken it down into two projects, the segment from Western Hills Viaduct up to I-275 (Thru The Valley) could move forward first.

 

Also, why is it that I-275 is currently being widened near I-75 on the north side, and I-75 will be reconfigured after that, and yet the interchange between I-75 and I-275 will not be modernized until both projects are completed?  Wouldn't it be much easier and cheaper if they combined the interchange with one of the two projects?

ODOT invites all Ohioans to

Join the “Transportation Conversation”

Industry experts, state leaders named to Ohio 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task Force

 

COLUMBUS (April 14, 2008) –  Inviting all Ohioans to join in a first-of-its-kind “Transportation Conversation” to determine the type of transportation system the state needs for the future, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) officially launched the Ohio 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task Force by naming the diverse mix of industry experts and state leaders who will lead the historic endeavor.

 

“Unlike past statewide planning efforts, the Transportation Priorities Task Force will explore a broader spectrum of issues facing the state,” said ODOT Director James Beasley. “We need to prioritize how the state balances the movement of people and freight, promotes safety and reduces congestion, creates jobs and encourages responsible growth, helps to build sustainable communities, and links all modes of transportation - connecting highways to rail, aviation, water ports, and transit.”

 

The task force will also identify the fairest ways to finance Ohio’s future transportation system, finding new funding tools for state and local governments, and innovative ways to partner with the private sector.

 

Leading the task force will be Chairman Ty Marsh, president of the Columbus Chamber, Vice-Chair Frank Jackson, mayor of Cleveland, and Vice-Chair Deborah Lieberman, commissioner for Montgomery County. The statewide conversations will be led by individual steering committees centered on three key issues: promoting a multi-modal system, maximizing public investment, and generating economic development.

 

Also serving on working committees will be experts from both private and governmental sectors, with backgrounds ranging from business and industry, shipping and logistics, finance and development, urban planning and agriculture, education and health care, transportation, and state and local government.

 

In addition to gathering public input and information at a series of open meetings across the state, the task force is encouraging all Ohioans to join the conversation by submitting their ideas and opinions online at TransportationForTomorrow.ohio.gov.

 

“The opportunity for a statewide dialogue of this scale is rare,” added Assistant Director Jolene Molitoris, who expects a final report from the Task Force this Fall. “Through a consensus around these important issues, Ohio can have one voice on it transportation needs as we enter debate on the state’s next biennium budget and the authorization of a new federal transportation bill.”

 

Last month, Director Beasley appointed Molitoris to Assistant Director, assigning her to lead several new transportation initiatives at the department, including work with the task force. The task force will also include input by state legislators, serving as ex officio members, and a multi-state agency support team.

 

The Ohio 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task Force will convene its inaugural meeting May 7 at ODOT’s Central Office in Columbus. Details about the meeting, the complete list of task force members, and updates on meeting times and locations can also be found at TransportationForTomorrow.ohio.gov.

 

The Ohio 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task Force chairs and steering committee members are:

 

Chairman:

Ty Marsh, Columbus Chamber

 

 

 

Vice-Chairs:

Mayor Frank Jackson, city of Cleveland

County Commissioner Deborah Lieberman, Montgomery County

 

 

 

Promoting a Multi-modal System:

Art Arnold, Ohio Rail Road Association

Larry Davis, Ohio Trucking Association

Rose Ann DeLeon, Cleveland Port Authority

Don Mader, American Council of Engineering Companies of Ohio

Tony Reams, Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments

Elaine Roberts, Columbus Regional Airport Authority

Patrick Sink, International Union of Operating Engineers

 

 

 

Generating Economic Development:

Jane Brautigam, city of Dublin

Mayor Dean DePiero, city of Parma

Joe Hamrock, American Electric Power of Ohio

Kenny Holland, Laborers’ International Union

Ben Houser, private attorney in Brown County

Bill Lhota, Central Ohio Transit Authority

John Pepper, Walt Disney Companies

Albert Ratner, Forest City Enterprises

Kay Townsend, United Parcel Service

 

 

 

Maximizing Public Investment:

Robert Brown, Transportation Review Advisory Council

Treasurer Richard Cordray, State of Ohio

Chester Jourdan, Mid Ohio Regional Planning Comm.

Dick Moreno, Ohio & Vicinity Regional Council of Carpenters

Ron Pizzuti, the Pizzuti Companies

Roxanne Qualls, Cincinnati City Councilmember

Chris Runyan, Ohio Contractors Association

Christine J. Vineis, Capital Partnerships

 

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/21ctptf/

Interesting... the only Cincinnatian I recognized is councilman Roxanne Qualls... one of the individuals thought to be trying to stall the Cincinnati Streetcar initiative.