OK, I don't know you, but I'll guess you have some sort of engineering background, based on your comments. I'll resist the urge to bite your head off and simply ask why you seem to think it's more important to replace signs than it is to provide other forms of transportation for Ohio?

 

All I am hearing from you is highways, highways, highways. We need more than that and we need it yesterday. I don't care if highways are "structurally deficient" (by whose standards?) when I can't ride a train between Ohio cities, when 40% of Columbus streets don't even have sidewalks, when state transit support is emasculated, when the working poor can't afford cars and don't have transit access to jobs, and when the auto is the only mode the state really supports.

 

Ohio lags behind other states and I want a choice. What you talk about won't accomplish that. We need to address the above concerns by focusing on ways to get people out of their cars by offering real choices, not by building more and more roads.

 

You can go on the offensive all you want, but I'm not buying what you are saying and I don't think many others here will either. :x

And really, are rural rest stops the best use of scarce transportation dollars?  I think they are a luxury compared to rebuilding existing roads and building alternative transportation modes.

To answer both:

 

No, I'm not a transportation engineer although I originally tried to pursue a civil engineering/urban planning degree. I do keep up with highway transportation at several newsgroups and keep in contact with three state DOT's. I formerly ran a pure-highway-related web-site detailing the histories of many transportation projects but transferred these to Wikipedia (see user:Seicer).

 

My interests of late are transit-related projects, such as light-rail, trolleys, bus-rapid transit, and so forth, along with making various highways more efficient and aesthetically pleasing. For instance, I am pleased that the Interstate 670 project in Columbus was finally completed as it provided an alternate route for airport-bound traffic from the west and reduced some traffic load off of the Interstate 70/71 junction. The entire project also entailed reconstructing the road from the base-up to correct geometric deficiencies, numerous interchange problems, and many other issues - and completing it from end-to-end. It was also a project where aesthetics played a large role in the construction of the highway, from the High Street cap to ornate railings and future park space.

 

Perhaps if you stated your points in a more concise manner, BuckeyeB, there would be no need to slam my viewpoints. As far as I am concerned, this board is as much highway-transit as it is mass-transit as it falls under the category, Transportation. There are many highway-transit supporters as there are mass-transit supporters, and judging from the posts here, perhaps more highway-related posts are needed to bring balance.

 

Replacing signage enhances traffic safety statewide. Signage that is 40-years old needs replacing, including other deficient signage that is no longer visible or no longer meets MUTCD standards. This is not a "one-sweep" process; many signs are quite new and do not need replacing until their lifespans dictate replacement. You've read too much into the article, and from a few sources at D10 and D9, I have confirmed my case.

 

Rural rest areas on major interstate highways and federal U.S. highways serve thousands upon thousands of people a day. They not only function as a toilet-break, but as a tourist collection center where there are brochures for distribution; many include information booths that are staffed nine to five. The point of removing rest areas is minimized when you equate in how many they serve from a diverse population base spread out over many states. After all, it wouldn't be very healthy if Ohio had no rural rest areas, right? The tourists and commuters alike need to stop somewhere, and if its at a well-stocked rest area that they can gather more information at, etc., then all the better.

 

Frankly, I'm all for mass-transit where appropriate. The major cities of Ohio (the 3 C's) definitely need mass-transit corridors to serve a growing suburban base and other modes of transit within the inner-cities. But you cannot neglect the highway infrastructure as well; Ohio serves not only Ohio, but Pennsylvania, Indiana, and pretty much the entire nation. Balancing the two will require more effort, but slamming one for the other won't help at all. Many depend on the automobile for work and recreation, and many depend on their tractor-trailer for work and commerce.

Perhaps if you stated your points in a more concise manner, BuckeyeB, there would be no need to slam my viewpoints. As far as I am concerned, this board is as much highway-transit as it is mass-transit as it falls under the category, Transportation. There are many highway-transit supporters as there are mass-transit supporters, and judging from the posts here, perhaps more highway-related posts are needed to bring balance.

 

I got my point across. Transportation is more than roads and nowhere in your first post did you mention anything other than highways. What other conclusion would I draw? Maybe you're the one who needs to be a bit more "concise."

 

Replacing signage enhances traffic safety statewide. Signage that is 40-years old needs replacing, including other deficient signage that is no longer visible or no longer meets MUTCD standards. This is not a "one-sweep" process; many signs are quite new and do not need replacing until their lifespans dictate replacement. You've read too much into the article, and from a few sources at D10 and D9, I have confirmed my case.

 

Again, you miss the point that every mode of transportation in Ohio has been emasculated other than highways. We spend about 95% to 98.5% of transportation dollars on roads. That's just a wee bit out balance.

 

Frankly, I'm all for mass-transit where appropriate. The major cities of Ohio (the 3 C's) definitely need mass-transit corridors to serve a growing suburban base and other modes of transit within the inner-cities.

 

Glad to hear it.

 

But you cannot neglect the highway infrastructure as well; Ohio serves not only Ohio, but Pennsylvania, Indiana, and pretty much the entire nation. Balancing the two will require more effort, but slamming one for the other won't help at all. Many depend on the automobile for work and recreation, and many depend on their tractor-trailer for work and commerce.

 

Nobody is talking about "neglecting" highways in favor of transit. However, let's put the shoe on the other foot here. We ARE neglecting everything else in favor of more highways and and as long as that is the case, there going to be those of us who are going to express our viewpoints, at times forcefully.

 

 

 

From your post, you stated that signage should not be replaced because it is simply a waste of money. That falls under basic maintenance, one that would be spread out over many years, not one. ODOT's basic package runs about $800 million a year, and under that there will still be deficient bridges, congested roadways, and so forth that need attention.

 

There is the option of tolling, however, you cannot toll interstates that were constructed with federal funds. I would be in support if a workaround could be found, such as in the case of North Carolina since most have a relative alternate roadway parallel to the interstate. Tolling could fund further transportation enhancement projects, such as mainline widening and bridge replacement and would not require the increase of the gas tax.

 

Mass-transit would require grants and a possible increase in gas tax if it were to stay competitive with highway-transportation. You might not get light rail, per se, but other options that are more realistic in the short-term may include bus-rapid transit, carpool lanes and the usage of heavy rail to transport commuters from outlying communities.

Sweet! The thread isn't even a page old and we've had our first scrap.

 

If I can split the difference between these two positions, I would always come down slightly on BuckeyeB's side, but I do accept the reality put forth by Seicer that we have roads that need fixing.

 

But the bigger picture here is that bridges and roads will grow deficient and congested faster and faster the longer ODOT neglects its RESPONSIBILITY to plan for the transportation needs of the state's travellers. The evidence put forth in the P-D piece puts suggests that ODOT is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Contractor's Club. Not the best path to an honest exploration of the state's transit needs, if you ask me. In politics and dating, appearances are everything. If ODOT is actively pursuing long-term solutions for Ohio's mounting transportation challenges, they aren't showing us. And ODOT's favored contractors gloating about how well-funded ODOT is ("I meet with other directors and contractors, and when you compare what we have here . . . we really rank in the upper echelon of states," Burgett said.), well, that instills yet less confidence.

 

How can ODOT make good? Interim solution: HOV lanes for carpoolers and existing rapid bus transit and honest pool when it comes to exploring rail proposals.

 

Long term solution? Shrug off the highwayman culture and behave like an entity borne of the public good.

Of course we have roads that need fixing. Here in Columbus, the I-71/I-270 interchange on the north side of town is being revamped with the old cloverleaf being replaced by ramps, a much safer way to go.

 

Forget all the pyrotechnics over signs and whatever. My entire point is that things are so lopsided we don't have a transportation system at all: we have highways. Anything else is just incidental. In that context, I believe we need to start to focus seriously on ways to address this imbalance.

 

ODOT must focus on its real customers: the citzens of this state and the needs and desires of all. Continuing to cater to an old-boy network won't achieve that goal.

Of course we have roads that need fixing. Here in Columbus, the I-71/I-270 interchange on the north side of town is being revamped with the old cloverleaf being replaced by ramps, a much safer way to go.

 

Cloverleafs are useful, but unless there are collector-distributor lanes (I can't recall if that interchange did), traffic will congest and accidents will rise. Many other roads need rehabilitation or reconstruction, including the Interstate 70/71 multiplex, and corridors need to be preserved or enhanced, such as US 23 south of Columbus.

 

Forget all the pyrotechnics over signs and whatever. My entire point is that things are so lopsided we don't have a transportation system at all: we have highways. Anything else is just incidental. In that context, I believe we need to start to focus seriously on ways to address this imbalance.

 

ODOT must focus on its real customers: the citzens of this state and the needs and desires of all. Continuing to cater to an old-boy network won't achieve that goal.

 

Incorrect, ODOT must also serve the needs of the motoring public that isn't within the state of Ohio. We simply cannot close the borders off to surrounding states as they utilise our public roadways; investing in interstate and macro-corridors provide a safe and efficient travel for not only Ohio, but for the rest of the nation. To simply focus money on the "citizens of the state" is simply nonsense -- that would involve building purely roads and transit projects that would serve only those within Ohio -- and ignore the remainder of the nation.

 

To balance the transportation modes would require more money being spent in mass-transit wherever it is feasible and realistic. For instance, mass-transit between Cincinnati and Columbus would not be feasible since a high-speed link, Interstate 71, is operating efficiently. These proposals are not new - links were proposed briefly between Cincinnati, Louisville and Lexington in the 1990s, but were deemed unrealistic.

 

Mass-transit makes sense for inner-core and for suburb-to-city routes. I would support projects of that nature, but wasting money on state-wide transit projects is unrealistic.

Incorrect, ODOT must also serve the needs of the motoring public that isn't within the state of Ohio. We simply cannot close the borders off to surrounding states as they utilise our public roadways; investing in interstate and macro-corridors provide a safe and efficient travel for not only Ohio, but for the rest of the nation. To simply focus money on the "citizens of the state" is simply nonsense -- that would involve building purely roads and transit projects that would serve only those within Ohio -- and ignore the remainder of the nation.

 

Incorrect? Do I detect an air of superiority here? Heaven forbid we should try to address the needs of our own citizens by adding some balance!

 

To balance the transportation modes would require more money being spent in mass-transit wherever it is feasible and realistic. For instance, mass-transit between Cincinnati and Columbus would not be feasible since a high-speed link, Interstate 71, is operating efficiently. These proposals are not new - links were proposed briefly between Cincinnati, Louisville and Lexington in the 1990s, but were deemed unrealistic.

 

What a load of hooey. Rail passenger service is making a very impressive showing in California, Illinois, North Carolina and other places. All of these routes are paralleled by Interstate highways and at least some had little rail service before new trains were added. In most cases, these are conventional, not high speed trains and yet ridership is increasing (see the Amtrak service thread). Ohio has a population density approaching that of France, home of the TGV. It seems to me a well-conceived train service would quite well.

 

Mass-transit makes sense for inner-core and for suburb-to-city routes. I would support projects of that nature, but wasting money on state-wide transit projects is unrealistic.

 

Well, we just are not on going to agree and that is that. I had hoped otherwise. Have a nice day.

I-71 is fine for those who can afford reliable cars and are not aged or disabled. There are more than a half-million Ohioans in metro areas (I do not have non-metro data) who do own cars, and many more surely do not trust the reliability of their cars to make trips outside of familiar areas. There are also 1.5 million Ohioans who are 65 years old or older -- more than the entire populations of 12 states. The number of elderly Ohioans is only going to go up in the coming years as the Baby Boom generation ages. And then there are those who are physically disabled.

 

I-71 may or may not be efficient, but driving is not an efficient use of a business traveler's time. Having a fast train that does no worse than the same door-to-door travel time as driving still saves time because the business traveler can prepare for a meeting, conduct post-meeting follow-up, eat and drink, or catch up on some rest while speeding through a snowstorm at 100 mph.

 

And while I-71 was widened to increase throughput capacity in the most affordable way (paving its median), the next way to add capacity will likely be to go outside the existing right of way. That of course means property acquisitions, demolitions and earthmoving -- a far more expensive proposition than the $500 million ODOT just spent to widen I-71 to three lanes. That doesn't even take into account normal inflation, let alone the energy price-induced spikes in steel, asphalt and general construction costs.

 

Over the past 50 years, I think we've built all the highways Ohio needs. I'll even argue that we've built too many of them, exacerbating urban sprawl, causing the premature obsolesence of existing communities, economic isolation of the poor, and forcing unecessary costs on communities. Those include costs to handle storm water runoff from too much paved land, extra safety forces to handle vehicle-related emergencies and traffic control, and environmental regulations from worsening air quality.

 

So there.

my concern is that ODOT is not taking a leading edge approach to transportation problems.  i'm happy they have a nice funding source, but if it is business-as-usual, then this is truly a wasted opportunity to spend.  i question what metrics ODOT is judged on.  this may be one area that strickland can have an impact. 

 

the signage replacement could be viewed as a proactive, innovative technology that is reducing accidents, electricity and maintenance costs (since most of the new signs do away with any external lighting).  but, that isn't really mentioned anywhere.  if ODOT is innovating and pushing technology forward, then i think this benefits all ohioans and has the opportunity to create a good impression and results.

 

however, what i don't hear about is innovation in adopting new bridge composite materials, widespread installation of energy efficient and light pollution minimizing fixtures, innovative approaches to solving traffic and environmental issues.  i know that some of this does go on, but it appears to be the exception and not the norm.  if it is the norm, then the PR really needs to be changed to show what ODOT is doing to put this state forward, besides just building more lanes and replacing bridges.  the innerbelt design, noise wall design and placements, and general attitude don't leave me feeling this way about ODOT.

 

it also amazes me that, at least in the cleveland area, we have no ITS/automated signage on any of the main highway links.  i know a lot of sensor technology is now in the pavement and there are numerous cameras installed, but i would prefer to see signage with accident information, weather information, estimated travel time, etc.   this should be part of the signage expenditure.  i know columbus and cincy are farther ahead here.

 

if ODOT starts putting these pieces together and showing that their mission is to create the safest and most efficient highway system in the country, than many of the expenditures could make sense.  as it is now, it doesn't appear to be a unified strategy, except to spend money. 

 

One points I think seicer, as do most highway advocates, misses,  is that: 1) highways are always have a much more rapidly deteriorating infrastructure than mass transit so their repair/wear cycle is much more intense than a rail line (consider the Shaker/Blue-Green lines went over 60 years before they were seriously upgrades, structurally, and up to the time of the upgrade, the Shaker system mainly ran on borrowed/2nd-hand equipment but drew a far stronger per-line yield than any suburban-oriented bus line in Greater Cleveland); 2) U.S. policy always defaults to highways since Eisenhower called for an interstate hwy system in our nat'l defense -- that is, allowing ample roadways to get citizens to live in areas disperse from the aging central-core cities in case of a nuclear attack from behind the Iron Curtain... Of course, the end result has been not only the decentralization of older urban core metropolises that has resulted in "doughnut" cities like Detroit, it has caused Sunbelt cities built with almost no core -- a bunch of suburbs pushed together, more or less, like San Antonio, Houston and Phoenix.  THE END RESULT BEING that people get far less bent out when tax dollars are dropped on new, superfluous/almost highway additions built (ie the Jennings Freeway; triple-laning the Ohio Turnpike in areas near Youngstown that, now, is way overcapacity), as opposed to any type of rail system -- hear the ridiculous talk, like the Republicans defeating Cincy's worthwhile light rail plan with absurd talk of "Gold plated" rail systems (can someone tell me what the hell that means!?  I've yet to see a rail car either draped in gold or run on gold rails...) -- then it becomes an emotional "freedom vs. Socialist (ie, social engineering) type media conflagration and the transit proposal either dies or is tabled forever.  AND YET we genuflect, as a society, to our God-defined role to fund highway expansion -- even if it is for needless, politically-tied contractor benies for Republicans (as the PD/Dispatch article notes with all the ancestral figurehead movements) -- hey, lets have more rural limited access roads to nowhere with more of fancy rest areas, Go'l darnit!   ... or, the highway's country ... it simply feeds the Libertarian (every man for himself/no or minimal government) foundation that the U.S. was built on. 

 

Rapid transit systems are expensive to operate because of the high technology of their systems and rolling stock and, of course, the electricity to run them.  But they really should operate within major core cities and their higher density close-in suburbs.  Diesel commuter rail should pick up the slack for further out burbs and for inner city travel, viz a viz the proposed Amtrak Ohio Hub plan -- good luck with that with troglodyte, latent Republican enemies who didn't just roll over and die after Nov 7th (many of whom share, I'm sure, seicer's views).  Ohioans just don't get it on this score, and it's really maddening to see this mentality fester even within the only big metro region in the State that has decent mass transit: Cleveland... Just witness the machinations of RTA president Joe Calabrese, America's only transit chief that runs a rail line who's an anti-rail (activist) opponent.

 

Fact is: the highway system exists and won't go away so we must continue to FEED THE BEAST.  However, the fact Ohio -- as backward an industrial state is in the USA -- is so lopsided and myopic in its funding and political oligarchy, has such a brain drain; such an outmigration of jobs and young people along with a declining industrial base, can't see the value of more balanced spending for transit; and that transit can actually INCREASE growth and SMART land-use potential, is positively mindboggling.

 

One thing to note, seicer, here in Cleveland, at least there's talk of doing the right thing, as city fathers (and mothers, in the case of Jane Campbell) have decided its in our best interest to actually junk an entire freeway: the Shoreway, in favor of slower, moronically street options and (hopefully) increased rail transit in the corridor.  In other words, we're opting to KILL THE BEAST, at least in this context.

 

*****

But really, the only way we can even begin to tame the Beast is to shine the light on the hideous system of porkbarrel fatcat hwy contractors lining up to the ODOT trough.  This PD article does it to a small degree, but as noted, fails to go the extra mile... Too often, the PD's good at pointing out the problem without offering a solution; and in this case, the solution's a balanced approach to funding highways AND rail passenger along with transit via dollars derived from gas taxes.  Maybe, just maybe, a paradigm shift in bassackwards Ohio thinking can be accomplished thru education campaigns of more green/transit-friendly groups like EcoCity Cleveland, and others -- that spending on highway maintenance will not only DECREASE with getting more people off the roads and onto rails, but likewise, help spur a dying economy by more urban, TOD dense residential/commercial developments to more efficiently route people and goods... Because right now, as Ohio's highways get fancier and gaudier, the only people who seem to stay economically sound here are highway contractors...

 

Ecch!!!

I-71 may or may not be efficient, but driving is not an efficient use of a business traveler's time. Having a fast train that does no worse than the same door-to-door travel time as driving still saves time because the business traveler can prepare for a meeting, conduct post-meeting follow-up, eat and drink, or catch up on some rest while speeding through a snowstorm at 100 mph.

 

Thanks KJP.  I wanted to make a similar point, but didn't really want to wade into this thread. 

 

As a follow-up, in regards to the italicized comment below, interstate transit users are more than just movers of goods and tourists.  They can also be white-collar service providers (bankers, consultants, lawyers, politicians, etc.) who may arrive into one of our airports and then have a need to travel to a final destination.  It would be quite useful if Ohio's transit budget reflected the needs of these users, instead of forcing them to travel by car.  In the limited reading I've done in the Ohio Hub thread, I believe that Ohio Hub takes this into account. 

 

Incorrect, ODOT must also serve the needs of the motoring public that isn't within the state of Ohio. We simply cannot close the borders off to surrounding states as they utilise our public roadways; investing in interstate and macro-corridors provide a safe and efficient travel for not only Ohio, but for the rest of the nation. To simply focus money on the "citizens of the state" is simply nonsense -- that would involve building purely roads and transit projects that would serve only those within Ohio -- and ignore the remainder of the nation.

By the way, I want to emphasize that I'm glad Seicer is here and posting on this subject. What good is it to have a bunch of us transit/urban geeks bitching to each other about the state of the state without an opposing viewpoint?

 

I find that I'm able to adjust or refine my presentations and articles on cities, transit and intercity rail when I hear people from another side of the argument question what I'm saying. That's when I learn the most.

FrqntFlyr said:

 

I wanted to make a similar point, but didn't really want to wade into this thread. 

 

Only the strong survive.  :-D

 

Clvlndr said:

 

spending on highway maintenance will not only DECREASE with getting more people off the roads and onto rails, but likewise, help spur a dying economy by more urban, TOD dense residential/commercial developments to more efficiently route people and goods... Because right now, as Ohio's highways get fancier and gaudier, the only people who seem to stay economically sound here are highway contractors...

 

Well, put...and then there is the issue of oil overdependence, brought on in large part by unversal auto use. Getting off the oil standard should be a matter of national security. That it isn't is the direct result of the influence of Big Oil, Automakers, highway contractors and  the like. These people are all too willing to sacrifice the well being of the rest of us to further their own interests when events here and abroad suggest a fresh look at what we are doing. One of these days we will pay a heavy price for their myopia.

 

 

One of these days we will pay a heavy price for their myopia.

 

I'd say we're already paying a pretty heavy price in light of current world affairs...

By the way, I want to emphasize that I'm glad Seicer is here and posting on this subject. What good is it to have a bunch of us transit/urban geeks bitching to each other about the state of the state without an opposing viewpoint?

 

True 'dat. Thanks Seicer!

For instance' date=' mass-transit between Cincinnati and Columbus would not be feasible since a high-speed link, Interstate 71, is operating efficiently. These proposals are not new - links were proposed briefly between Cincinnati, Louisville and Lexington in the 1990s, but were deemed unrealistic...[/quote']

 

Not true.  Ridership studies have already shown that the the proposed Ohio Hub-- including Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati leg of the 3-C is, in fact, feasible. 

 

Your implication is that just because we have I-71 that we don't need anything else.  That's truly myopic.  Interstates don't serve everybody's needs all the time as KJP pointed out and they never have.  They fill one piece of the broader transportation puzzle.  That's why the most efficient transportation systems are multi-modal, with efficient inter-modal connectivity, and a certain amount of redundancy.  Ohio is very seriously lacking, as is the entire nation in this concept. 

 

Incorrect, ODOT must also serve the needs of the motoring public that isn't within the state of Ohio. We simply cannot close the borders off to surrounding states as they utilise our public roadways; investing in interstate and macro-corridors provide a safe and efficient travel for not only Ohio, but for the rest of the nation. To simply focus money on the "citizens of the state" is simply nonsense -- that would involve building purely roads and transit projects that would serve only those within Ohio -- and ignore the remainder of the nation.

 

USDOT has the primary responsibility to serve the traveling need needs of the public in the broader context you suggest.  To a point ODOT's job is to serve the citizen's of Ohio within its piece of that broader context, but its primary responsibility is  to the State of Ohio and the needs and desires of its own citizens. 

 

We're also living in a democracy here.  80% of Ohioans want modern, efficient intercity passenger rail.  Nationally, 70-80% of Americans want it (depending upon which poll you look at).  Similar amounts want more mass transit. 

 

I think I'll go somewhat on the offensive here. ODOT is flush with money that other states would only dream about - like West Virginia and Kentucky, for instance. Ohio's transportation infrastructure is strained at this point...Adding onto that, many of Ohio's urban interstates feature severe deficiencies and issues. Roadways such as the Interstate 70/71 multiplex through downtown Columbus, the interstates through Dayton, Cincinnati, Toledo, etc. all require attention and reconstruction. This will require the addition of more lanes,

 

And your solution seems to be more of the same-- more lane-miles.  As Einstein said (and I paraphrase)-- 'you cannot solve a problem within the same mindset that created it'. 

 

We are well past the point now where the conventional wisdom of more lane-miles to deal with highway congestion needs to change.  We need a whole-systems approach to solve the overall transportation crisis this country is facing.  Solutions are going to have to come from a variety of sources, including: mass transit, intercity rail, bicycling, pedestrian, and better land-use policies.  Then there are long term energy price and supply issues that the country (and the world) are facing, this also needs consideration as we plan for how we are best going to move people and goods around in the 21st century. 

 

What we have been doing-- focusing most of our resources on highways-- is simply not working anymore and hasn't been for quite some time.   

One of these days we will pay a heavy price for their myopia.

 

I'd say we're already paying a pretty heavy price in light of current world affairs...

 

And in the multiple tens of billions of dollars in lost productivity we suffer annually because our transportation system is not at all balanced and not efficiently interconnected. 

I-71 may or may not be efficient, but driving is not an efficient use of a business traveler's time. Having a fast train that does no worse than the same door-to-door travel time as driving still saves time because the business traveler can prepare for a meeting, conduct post-meeting follow-up, eat and drink, or catch up on some rest while speeding through a snowstorm at 100 mph.

 

And while I-71 was widened to increase throughput capacity in the most affordable way (paving its median), the next way to add capacity will likely be to go outside the existing right of way. That of course means property acquisitions, demolitions and earthmoving -- a far more expensive proposition than the $500 million ODOT just spent to widen I-71 to three lanes. That doesn't even take into account normal inflation, let alone the energy price-induced spikes in steel, asphalt and general construction costs.

 

Over the past 50 years, I think we've built all the highways Ohio needs. I'll even argue that we've built too many of them, exacerbating urban sprawl, causing the premature obsolesence of existing communities, economic isolation of the poor, and forcing unecessary costs on communities. Those include costs to handle storm water runoff from too much paved land, extra safety forces to handle vehicle-related emergencies and traffic control, and environmental regulations from worsening air quality.

 

Yes, a business traveler has the option of driving or flying, but rail, for the most part, is out of the option range. It is more sensible to use it for commuting routes at first until more money can be diverted to rail-transit projects. Take for instance bus-rapid-transit in Louisville that now extends to the northeastern and eastern suburbs. Passenger rates have increased over 60% in the past two years and is showing no signs of slowing down. Initial BRT routes are now congested, with most buses near or at capacity. But the benefits are great and the cost is relatively cheap since BRT can be implemented within existing ROWs (until such routes are congested - then it should be moved to dedicated lanes).

 

The biggest growth (and no surprise here), came after the last gas crunch. And most have stuck with the program, even after the latest decrease in fuel prices, because most now have freed time to conduct business, read the newspaper and catch up on daily gossip. The commute times are only slightly longer - fifteen minutes is the median - but those asked considered it a great tradeoff for all the extra time they have to do other things they could not while driving; it is also less stressful.

 

I think the best option here is to go after BRT. Show that BRT can be a successful program over a timespan of five years, with lines that run out into the suburbs, and increase bus transit within the cities. Then pitch the idea of light rail once BRT becomes congested or is running on roadways that are approaching capacity during rush. You'll gain more supporters in that manner -- because LRT's startup costs are so high, many are reluctant to go past the planning stages once they see how expensive it is. Hence, why Cincinnati's LRT proposal died twice (but still has a strong chance).

As Einstein said (and I paraphrase)-- 'you cannot solve a problem within the same mindset that created it'.

 

I like his line about the deinition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

however, what i don't hear about is innovation in adopting new bridge composite materials, widespread installation of energy efficient and light pollution minimizing fixtures, innovative approaches to solving traffic and environmental issues.  i know that some of this does go on, but it appears to be the exception and not the norm.  if it is the norm, then the PR really needs to be changed to show what ODOT is doing to put this state forward, besides just building more lanes and replacing bridges.  the innerbelt design, noise wall design and placements, and general attitude don't leave me feeling this way about ODOT.

 

it also amazes me that, at least in the cleveland area, we have no ITS/automated signage on any of the main highway links.  i know a lot of sensor technology is now in the pavement and there are numerous cameras installed, but i would prefer to see signage with accident information, weather information, estimated travel time, etc.  this should be part of the signage expenditure.  i know columbus and cincy are farther ahead here

 

ITS is still in its infancy. The KYTC is installing variable message signs and cameras at ~60 mile intervals along most stretches of interstates so that it can be synced towards a more variable ITS system. Other agencies, like VDOT and NJDOT, have similar systems but work best when they are in urbanized areas. Their cost-to-benefit ratio have still yet to be calculated accurately since there are many different types in existence, and may not be worthwhile in other states until additional technology upgrades are found for the future.

 

highways are always have a much more rapidly deteriorating infrastructure than mass transit so their repair/wear cycle is much more intense than a rail line [...] One thing to note, seicer, here in Cleveland, at least there's talk of doing the right thing, as city fathers (and mothers, in the case of Jane Campbell) have decided its in our best interest to actually junk an entire freeway: the Shoreway

 

True, but with advances in highway construction, pavement lifespans should now exceed 30 years or more without minor maintenance or major pavement repair. Upgrades, such as continuously-reinforced concrete pavement, enhanced drainage, and thicker bases and pavement, are far better than what was laid down in the 1960s and 1970s. Pavement in Illinois, for instance, now have a lifespan of 40 years. Warranty pavements, also, should take care of issues for ten years (all on the contractor) - most projects that are asphalt overlays or concrete reconstructions carry ten years, for instance.

 

Is there a plan online for the Shoreway? I would be interested in seeing this proposal, as it would open up connections to the riverfront from neighborhoods to the south. I am a strong advocate of urban freeway removal where feasible, given that there are alternate routes and the end-result is better. See http://www.8664.org - for the 8664 proposal in Louisville. It's one where I have a strong backing towards.

 

(mass-transit between Cincinnati and Columbus) [...] Ridership studies have already shown that the the proposed Ohio Hub-- including Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati leg of the 3-C is, in fact, feasible.

 

Ridership studies, perhaps. But does this include costs - such as  right-of-way purchases, infrastructure, and park-and-ride lots? Is there a site on this? I recalled seeing a web-site dedicated to this but it escapes me at the moment...

 

And a final word on this post -- I'm not 100% in favor of more "lane miles" - just where it is feasible and beneficial. Trans-interstate routes, for instance, require upgrades to maintain current usability and level-of-service that serve practically the entire nation. Geometric deficiencies and reconstructions are required to bring the interstate up to speed, and macro-corridors should be finished to complete a safer transportation network across the state (e.g. US 33 in southeast Ohio). I am also in favor of freeway removal where it is feasible and where reasonable alternatives exist; and in favor of transit-alternatives - beginning with bus-rapid-transit and moving up to light-rail-transit - due to the costs involved.

 

But I am not in favor, for instance, of outer-bypasses (e.g. Cincinnati or Columbus) or roadway expansions in urbanized areas, such as Cincinnati, if it disrupts or expands the highway right-of-way. I am also not in favor of congestion through urban towns, and approve of bypasses around, for instance, South Bloomfield and Delaware (get the highway off of the river bank!).

Yes, a business traveler has the option of driving or flying, but rail, for the most part, is out of the option range.

 

What does this statement mean? Is the train "out of the option range" because the state does not support rail passenger service and thus is not available? Funny how the intercity passenger train seems to be doing just fine elsewhere and is used by people from all walks of life wherever it is a meaningful alternative to the auto.

 

Saying rail is "out of the option range" of travelers has no basis in fact. When California, a car-dependent society if there ever was one, put on trains between San Diego and Los Angeles, ridership broke records set in the Second World War. This experience was repeated when the state added more trains between Oakland and Sacramento, where they are now running 14 trains a day and are at capacity.

 

Closer to home, Illinois put on two new trains between Chicago and St. Louis, upping service to five daily round trips and ridership zoomed up 91% in the first month alone, with sold-out trains. The same has happened in Michigan and Maine where ridership keeps increasing and would happen here as well if the state decided to give rail the go-ahead.

 

It's interesting to note that none of these services are particularly fast. Most don't exceed 79 mph. Instead it's frequency that is the key, allowing the trains to fit into most travelers' needs. Indeed, this is one key feature of the Ohio Hub plan, which calls not only for faster speeds, but increased frequencies as well.

 

In regard to projections used for the Ohio Hub Plan, they are on the web. The Ohio Hub Plan is on the website of the Ohio Rail Development Commission...FYI...and can be reached thru the All Aboard Ohio website: www.allaboardohio.org

What does this statement mean? Is the train "out of the option range" because the state does not support rail passenger service and thus is not available? Funny how the intercity passenger train seems to be doing just fine elsewhere and is used by people from all walks of life wherever it is a meaningful alternative to the auto.

 

In the statement of "a business traveler has the (current) option of driving or flying" - in the present tense, rail travel is not fully supported nationwide. For instance, Amtrak does not provide reliable, daily service out of many cities across the United States. While you could go between the 3C's, what if the traveller needed to go to Ironton, Ohio? Or to Portsmouth, Ohio? Or perhaps Gallipolis or Marietta? Private and public airports provide accessibility to these regions via small prop planes or jet planes in bigger terminals.

 

In the future, I would like to see more funding allocated to Amtrak. Roadways are subsidized by gas taxes and the vast majority are not tolled, however, rail receives a petty share. When Amtrak requests more money, people balk at its expense, yet they do not realize how good that automobile drivers have it. It would be a different story if interstates were tolled nationwide, but that is not the case.

Yes, a business traveler has the option of driving or flying, but rail, for the most part, is out of the option range.

 

Untrue. I used to take the train from Detroit (Windsor, actually) to Toronto for business. It was cheaper than flying, parking was 50 yards (40 meters) from the door of the train, I got a hell of a lot done on the trip, and I was delivered straight to downtown.

 

Flying, on the other hand, was twice the ticket, and factoring in the commute and hassle at both airports (40 minute drive to airport, 30 minutes for preflighting, 1 hour flight; 15 mins unboarding, 15 minutes in customs--longer, should you be "interviewed"-- 40 minute drive from the terminal to downtown) is only about 30-minutes faster than the train.

 

But subtracting the hassle-time from flying and resulting gain in productivity (and again, lower ticket price) put rail way, way ahead. Driving, by the way, saved you little time and money. TO is just over 200 miles from Detroit--about a 4 hour drive, factoring in the urban legs of the commute.

 

Compared yet another way, that's four zero-productivity hours by car versus 3.5 limited productivity hours by air versus 4 high-productivity hours by train.

 

Train wins!

Those are larger cities, however. Ironton, Portsmouth, and many other mid-sized to smaller cities do not have the luxury of daily service due to downsizing in the 1960s that continues to this day.

 

I prefer rail travel over air travel, much like yourself. I've had many problems at airliners, from having to check my shoes for bombs, to being frisked in inappropriate places, to know that airline travel is just too much of a hassle.

 

Plus, I miss all the scenic beauty that I see from a train!

I think an important part of the equation is being missed here. The cost of a light rail line is the same as the cost of a six lane freeway, yet the rail line has less capacity than one lane of freeway. This is hardly economical or practical. Bus services on the other hand do not require separate right of way and can leverage the investments made by ODOT in our road system. The problem with buses in general is the negative stereotype associated with them. Transit authorities that have overcome that stereotype have done very well. SARTA (Stark County) ran a huge public awareness campaign and won the "Best Transit in America" award!

Ahahaha, I've been following Seicer's messages and webpages for maybe 8 years as a roadgeek. He is an opinionated guy. We roadgeeks don't like substandard highways, gridlock and dangerous intersections. Often, our pursuits are rural in nature. Highway upgrades need not be at the expense of transit if waste is eliminated. Unfortunately, many believe that if highways remain substandard and dangerous that the average American will switch to transit. Instead, they will just continue pounding their steering wheels. The only way to get people that belong in the cities back in them is is to make it "cool", unfortunately.

Also, I think Ohio's crummy rest areas on U.S. and state routes are very charming. People need to understand what it is like to use an old outhouse once in a while.

Ahahaha, I've been following Seicer's messages and webpages for maybe 8 years as a roadgeek. He is an opinionated guy. We roadgeeks don't like substandard highways, gridlock and dangerous intersections. Often, our pursuits are rural in nature. Highway upgrades need not be at the expense of transit if waste is eliminated. Unfortunately, many believe that if highways remain substandard and dangerous that the average American will switch to transit. Instead, they will just continue pounding their steering wheels. The only way to get people that belong in the cities back in them is is to make it "cool", unfortunately.

 

Looks like I had a follower :) Did you ever participate in MTR or on the Yahoo groups?

MTR, yes.

Is there a plan online for the Shoreway? I would be interested in seeing this proposal, as it would open up connections to the riverfront from neighborhoods to the south.

 

http://www.innerbelt.org/Lakefrontwest/LakefrontProjectOverview.htm

http://www.gcbl.org/planning/lakefront/lakefront-west-project

 

Ridership studies, perhaps. But does this include costs - such as right-of-way purchases, infrastructure, and park-and-ride lots? Is there a site on this? I recalled seeing a web-site dedicated to this but it escapes me at the moment...

 

Yes, it does include those things. Very little new right of way is needed, as it will involve capacity enhancements to also benefit traffic-clogged freight railroads. Unfortunately, the freight railroads do not earn enough revenue to afford enough capital investment to meet their needs for growth. In fact, they are having to turn away customers. Thus, the Ohio Hub isn't just about passenger rail but freight rail as well. Here's the website...

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohio%20Hub/Website/ordc/index.html

 

Here are threads about the Ohio Hub System and the growth in freight rail traffic....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=1414.0

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=9389.0

 

For instance, Amtrak does not provide reliable, daily service out of many cities across the United States. While you could go between the 3C's, what if the traveller needed to go to Ironton, Ohio? Or to Portsmouth, Ohio? Or perhaps Gallipolis or Marietta? Private and public airports provide accessibility to these regions via small prop planes or jet planes in bigger terminals.

 

There is no passenger train service between the 3Cs. The reason is that Ohio is the most densely populated state without a passenger rail development program. The state spends nothing on passenger rail, while all our neighboring states except Indiana have active passenger rail development programs. A dozen states with less density than Ohio have such rail programs. In fact, Ohio has only three Amtrak routes, just five trains per day for the entire state serving seven stations in Ohio. All are Chicago - East Coast routes, and all have their trains passing through Ohio in the middle of the night, making them essentially useless to Ohioans.

 

The cost of a light rail line is the same as the cost of a six lane freeway, yet the rail line has less capacity than one lane of freeway. This is hardly economical or practical.

 

Please cite an independent source (university, TRB, USDOT, etc) for this alleged "fact." Here's a better one, from individual transit agencies reporting their annual ridership data.... A double-tracked light-rail line, when built responsibly as a planning tool to reshape land use in more compact ways, carries 40,000 to 80,000 riders per day (see St. Louis, Portland, Boston, Los Angeles, San Diego etc.). The eight-lane Inner Belt highway bridge in downtown Cleveland carries 120,000 vehicles per day (per ODOT's Craig Hebebrand). Now I'm not going to take that 120,000 and divide it by eight and say that one lane has a 15,000-vehicle per day capacity. It might have more or less without the availability of the parallel lane.

 

But all of this is a myopic issue anyway. That point is to decide what kind of cities we want to have and then design the kind of transportation system that's needed to support it. But too often, people act as if this is "social engineering." Um, people decide the shape and form of cities. They're not acts of God.

 

Unfortunately, many believe that if highways remain substandard and dangerous that the average American will switch to transit. Instead, they will just continue pounding their steering wheels. The only way to get people that belong in the cities back in them is is to make it "cool", unfortunately.

 

Excuse me, but who "belongs" in cities? And it is always a question a perception of what is "cool" that influences people's choices. It was "cool" after World War II to have a determines wAnd how are American highways substandard and dangerous? Certainly not in their availability and extent. I would argue that the U.S. has an oversupply of highways compared to the rest of the developed world. Now, I would agree that U.S. highways are substandard in their construction. They simply aren't built to last like those in Europe. But then, Europe doesn't allow 80,000-pound trucks on their roads. U.S. highways, while safer than secondary roads with intersections, are designed for speed and volume, which carries their own safety issues.

 

I'm not sure where this debate is going however. I'd rather dicuss what kind of state we would like to have, and what kind of cities we want in that state. Then, we should debate how we want to design our transportation system to support that vision. Otherwise we're just pissing into the wind.

For instance' date=' Amtrak does not provide reliable, daily service out of many cities across the United States. While you could go between the 3C's, what if the traveller needed to go to Ironton, Ohio? Or to Portsmouth, Ohio? Or perhaps Gallipolis or Marietta? [/quote']

 

To Portsmouth?  Connecting bus service.  To the other cities:  car rental or car sharing from the big city stations would be the only other option.  But, no one is suggesting that rail provide service or connecting service to every single community.  Remember what I said earlier in this thread about highways--- that they fill one piece of the broader tranpsportation puzzle?  The same is true for rail and there is a sizeable need for better rail service it throughout the country to bring much balance to the system as a whole.

 

The problem, as I pointed out is that our transportation system lacks balance and connectivity-- it needs to be more multi-modal with more intermodal connections.  It's a serious problem that's costing our economy tons of money.  One of the reasons is that we tend to ignore the rail mode.

 

KJP:  what kind of state do I want to have?  One that allows me to most efficiently get to where I need to go on whatever transport mode I feel is most efficient for that need (i.e. more choice).  I want a state that has functional, city and town centers, with architecture that doesn't sap the life out of you.  I want a state with human-scale communities that values public space, greenspace, and doesn't view transportation planning and design solely as how to best move automobiles around and provide space for them. I want a state that values farmland and greenspace more than it values unchecked, auto-centric sprawl which is sacking us with long term infrastructure and environmental costs that we wouldn't have to pay for if we were smarter about development.  I want a state DOT that understands and values muti-modal, inter-modal transportation rather than just shoving more and expanded highways down our throats most of the time.  I want to be able to take a train to Toledo, Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati, Youngstown, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit/Detroit Metro Airport, Chicago and points in between.  I want intercity buses to be able to serve airports.  I want a food economy that is more local and regional (yes, there is a connection here to broader transportation issues). 

 

I could go on, but I think I've said enough.

 

 

The cost of a light rail line is the same as the cost of a six lane freeway, yet the rail line has less capacity than one lane of freeway. This is hardly economical or practical.

 

This is certainly not true:

 

PEAK HOUR ROADWAY LANE CAPACITY (from Light Rail Now website)

 

The basic problem with urban/suburban freeways is they take up so much space for the capacity they deliver. At 1500 cars per lane per hour, a six lane freeway's maximum capacity is about 11,000 people per hour (service level "E") within a 300 foot right of way (row). Urban rail systems can deliver as much or more capacity in 100 foot or less of row. The Dallas light rail line when completed to Garland and Richardson will be able to deliver at least 20% more hourly capacity than a six lane freeway (13760 people per hour) at 14% less capital cost per mile. Heavy rail systems like the Washington MetroRail have five times the capacity of a six lane freeway in about one third the space and cost about the same per mile as the Century Freeway in Los Angeles.

 

From The Center for Transportation Excellence (APTA)

 

This argument inaccurately compares the capacity of highways and rail transit to move passengers.  A look at any transportation engineering manual will tell otherwise.  According to the Highway Capacity Manual, highway operations are described as Level of Service (LOS), ranging from LOS A to LOS F.  Peak highway capacity is typically regarded as LOS E (2,000 passenger cars per hour per lane).  If you multiply that number by the Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) which averages 1.25 persons, you get 2,500 persons per lane per hour on a highway.  For transit, a typical 6 car train can carry 750 passengers.  Running at 20 trains per hour, per direction, that equates to 30,000 passengers.  It would take a twelve lane freeway going in one direction to equate the same amount of capacity of one light rail line.

 

Also, according to CFTE, the average cost of a mile of light rail line is $10-$30 million per mile, almost certainly less than a six lane freeway.

 

If I find any more info, I'll pass it on.

Those are larger cities, however. Ironton, Portsmouth, and many other mid-sized to smaller cities do not have the luxury of daily service due to downsizing in the 1960s that continues to this day.

 

I prefer rail travel over air travel, much like yourself. I've had many problems at airliners, from having to check my shoes for bombs, to being frisked in inappropriate places, to know that airline travel is just too much of a hassle.

 

Plus, I miss all the scenic beauty that I see from a train!

 

Most business travel is between major cities. Connecting those big cities only benefits all the little towns in between.

 

But you are correct: nothin' beats a choo choo train.

The cost of a light rail line is the same as the cost of a six lane freeway, yet the rail line has less capacity than one lane of freeway. This is hardly economical or practical.

Please cite an independent source (university, TRB, USDOT, etc) for this alleged "fact." Here's a better one, from individual transit agencies reporting their annual ridership data.... A double-tracked light-rail line, when built responsibly as a planning tool to reshape land use in more compact ways, carries 40,000 to 80,000 riders per day (see St. Louis, Portland, Boston, Los Angeles, San Diego etc.). The eight-lane Inner Belt highway bridge in downtown Cleveland carries 120,000 vehicles per day (per ODOT's Craig Hebebrand). Now I'm not going to take that 120,000 and divide it by eight and say that one lane has a 15,000-vehicle per day capacity. It might have more or less without the availability of the parallel lane.

 

According to the FTA, national Transit Database 1998, light rail, on average has capacity of 4,620 passenger miles per route mile of rail line. A freeway on the other hand has the average capacity of 23,724 per lane-mile of freeway . The only city that has a higher transit usage than highway is New York City, with 38,296 per route mile. This does not speak to capacity in-as-much as it does usage of the facility, which is what we're all interested in.

From the NTD --

"Today the transit industry consists of over 140,000 vehicles, traveling over 48 billion passenger miles, and collecting over $8.5 billion in passenger fares. In the past 10 years the transit industry has grown by over 20 percent - faster than either highway or air travel.

 

Funds dedicated to transit has also increased --

1985: $3.25 billion

1995: $4.1 billion

2005: $6.8 billion

From 2005 National Transit Summaries and Trends

 

I wonder what 2006's funding looks like? IMO, $10 billion/year would be ideal, but in order for that to become a reality, efficiency, dedicated lines and increased support from local, state and federal governments need to be made paramount issues.

 

Columbus and possibly the Cinci and Cleveland metros would have adequate recovery ratios as well --

Urbanized areas with one million in population (2005): 38

" " with population between 200,000 and one million (2005): 18

" " with population less than 200,000 (2005): 19.2

 

Subsidises have also increased as well, mainly because of suburb to city light rail lines, bus routes and vanpools.

1996 - 1.29

2005 - 2.08 (inc. 61%)

 

Not suprising, the amount of subsidises sharply falls with population in a metro area over one million, but is quite high for cities under one million. Increased density and increased ridership along lines would help lower the subsidy rate.

 

Capital investment is also near an all-time high as well, which is good.

 

^ By these numbers transit seems to be heading in the right direction.

 

How do these numbers stack up against the transit numbers in other industrialized nations?

Many older urban areas have lead contamination in front yards because of decades of burning leaded gas. 

According to the FTA, national Transit Database 1998, light rail, on average has capacity of 4,620 passenger miles per route mile of rail line. A freeway on the other hand has the average capacity of 23,724 per lane-mile of freeway . The only city that has a higher transit usage than highway is New York City, with 38,296 per route mile. This does not speak to capacity in-as-much as it does usage of the facility, which is what we're all interested in.

 

Light rail doesn't necessarily compete with highways.  It competes with urban streets moreso than highways. 

 

Comparison of highways to commuter rail and intercity rail would be a more accurate comparison. 

According to the FTA, national Transit Database 1998, light rail, on average has capacity of 4,620 passenger miles per route mile of rail line. A freeway on the other hand has the average capacity of 23,724 per lane-mile of freeway . The only city that has a higher transit usage than highway is New York City, with 38,296 per route mile. This does not speak to capacity in-as-much as it does usage of the facility, which is what we're all interested in.

 

Light rail doesn't necessarily compete with highways.  It competes with urban streets moreso than highways. 

 

Comparison of highways to commuter rail and intercity rail would be a more accurate comparison. 

 

There are many different modes of transportation; diverting money to projects that are *currently* needed is the best method to go, but existing roads should be tolled to pay for further improvements. While this would be a huge political wrangling, since existing federally-funded highways cannot be tolled by default, it would allow more money to be spent on mass-transit.

As I recall, in the mid or late 1990's, Congress passed a provision in a transportation bill that would permit states to turn any stretch of interstate into toll road.  I recall reading an article within the last 2-3 years about a state being the first one to take that step with a stretch of interstate.  I forget the state, though, I'm thinking maybe Missouri.

Perhaps North Carolina. They are considering tolling Interstate 95 to pay for over one billion in upgrades (that's most of the cost of building the King Coal Highway in West Virginia!).

 

But for other states, it would require federal approval. NCDOT received theirs IIRC, and I can ask a resident engineer for clearification if needed.

 

States like SCDOT, for instance, constructed interstates as toll facilities and then charged tolls (e.g. Greenville SC's belt).

A couple of comments:

 

What Innerbeltguy says about highways having more capacity than light rail is out of step with everything I have ever read about the topic. I am rather suspicious about what he has come up with. I do remember seeing a graphic years ago that said a two track railroad could move as many people as a 12 lane highway. I'll have to do some more checking.

 

The other comment concerns the idea of tolling Interstate highways. This make a lot of sense, tho as Seicer points out, there would surely be opposition. I think we will reach a tipping point where this will be a necessity, because either gas tax revenues will fall thru development of hybrids, and alternative fuels not subject to the gas tax and/or a Peak Oil scenario which would really knock the props out from under the current way we fund highways.

 

If the latter is the case, the demand will be so great to provide alternatives to roads that we will look at any option. Certainly, rebuilding transit and intercity rail would be a huge task, bigger even that the Interstate Highway system. There would be plenty for contractors to do and the cost would be in the hundreds of billions.

The Charleston Daily Mail published a graphic and it was online for a while --

http://www.wvgazette.com/

 

It showed how many tractor-trailers could fit on a train, and then how many trains could fit on a barge.

And how many people on this thread are writing letters to the editor in their respective cities about the corruption in ODOT to make this PD article  something that more people might care about by keeping this issue afloat? If anyone has any suggestions for solutions, I'd like to write a LTTE about ODOT, but also would like to offer somehthing that people could do, instead of just pointing out how horrible they are and nothing else, though that would be better than nothing.

Stay tuned. I bet All Aboard Ohio will probably have something in a month or so. meantime, write letters to the editor and contact your legislators.

Glad to see AAO is right on top of things. Granted, I'm sure they're a small organization. But still, don't they have press releases or something on current transportation issues? One month and people will all have forgotten about this, if they even knew in the first place. Oh, and just for fun, here is ODOT'S mission statement: "Our mission is to provide a world-class transportation system that links Ohio to a global economy while preserving the state’s unique character and enhancing its quality of life." http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ I think I'll be sure to compare what they're doing and have done vs their mission statement.

And how many people on this thread are writing letters to the editor in their respective cities about the corruption in ODOT to make this PD article  something that more people might care about by keeping this issue afloat? If anyone has any suggestions for solutions, I'd like to write a LTTE about ODOT, but also would like to offer somehthing that people could do, instead of just pointing out how horrible they are and nothing else, though that would be better than nothing.

 

Thank you. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if this forum isn't generating a Letter to the Editor a day we're slacking.