Think we could get Strickland to fund more intermodal or bike trail spending instead of shiny signs? --Boreal

 

Saturday, January 06, 2007

http://www.cleveland.com/editorials/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/116807601934530.xml&coll=2

 

Ohio is said to have one of the best-main tained highway networks in the nation. Loud among those who make that claim are the contractors and vendors who profit handsomely from the department, which is flush with cash.

 

They're probably right, given the unprecedented 10-year, $5 billion construction boom launched after the General Assembly overwhelmingly approved a 6-cent increase in Ohio's gas tax in 2003.

 

Since that 27 percent fuel-tax hike, phased in over three years, ODOT has been on a spending spree, lavishing tens of millions of dollars on rest areas, new roads and bridge construction.

 

Another $70 million has been allocated to replace every one of ODOT's 500,000 road signs, even though no federal regulations require the expenditure and even though ODOT's own studies show that fewer than 6,000 signs - barely 1 percent of the total - are missing, damaged or otherwise deficient.

 

That kind of expenditure calls into question not just the way the new revenue is being spent, but the need for the tax itself.

 

When questioned about the new signs, ODOT officials retorted that federal regulations required more reflective signs. But that's just plain false.

 

When Plain Dealer reporters Ted Wendling and T.C. Brown told those officials that no such regulation existed, the lame reply was that the feds were thinking about it.

 

During his campaign, Gov.-elect Ted Strickland was especially critical of some of ODOT's projects. More than once, he expressed concern that too many of the projects were driven by campaign contributions. Furthermore, he pledged that he would bring to a screeching halt the perception of a pay-to-play culture at the agency.

 

Now, he can - and should - make good on that promise.

 

Ohio has many pressing transportation needs, and meeting some of them could spur commercial growth. The proposed "opportunity corridor" in Cleveland, which would link University Circle with Interstate 490, is one such proposition. Ohio's fuel tax should be used to create new growth opportunities, rather than being ladled out to campaign contributors who happen to specialize in shiny, new signs.

 

ODOT deserves Strickland's strictest scrutiny.

 

From the Green City/Blue Lakewebiste:

 

http://www.gcbl.org/transportation/regional-agenda/reforming-odot

 

Reforming ODOT

 

Transportation is big business in Ohio. Our Department of Transportation's annual budget is an impressive $2.1 billion, but, The Plain Dealer reports in an article titled, Gas tax increase fuels ODOT building boom the split between maintaining and improving what we have and building new roads in more remote parts of the state is not equitable. The problem is fueled by accusations of a pay-to-play culture and political patronage—not to mention some bizarre funding decisions.

 

The vast majority of ODOT’s budget comes from federal and state gas taxes, which total 46.4 cents for every gallon of gas we buy. So, the more we drive, the more ODOT’s budget swells.

 

When the current director of ODOT ushered in a six-cent gas tax increase in 2003, it fueled a $500 million boom of spending on new highways, the PD adds. As a result, Ohio is one of the top spenders in the nation on new transportation infrastructure while a leader in the dubious category of suburban sprawl.

 

So protected is the gas tax revenue, that when lawmakers recently considered spending $23 million from the tax on the state’s Turnpike, the Contractor’s Association lobbied successfully to quash the effort. At the same time, the State Highway Patrol was stripped of $190 million of its budget from the tax. The powerful contractor’s lobby has a six-figure pile of campaign contributions to sympathetic lawmakers in the Ohio Legislature.

 

ODOT is so flush with cash, that it’s spending $70 million to replace all of its 500,000 road signs even though no federal regulations require it and ODOT's own studies show that fewer than 6,000 signs—barely 1 percent of the total—are missing, damaged or otherwise deficient.

 

Governor-elect Ted Strickland has vowed to reform ODOT. Last month, his spokesman repeated Strickland's concerns that ODOT projects are driven by campaign contributions, saying Strickland's new ODOT director will be under orders "to identify any activity that feeds that perception and stop it immediately."

 

What do we want?

 

How can we help the new administration reform ODOT to reestablish a balance of spending, and establish a culture that values rebuilding a 21st century transportation infrastructure to serve high-population areas versus the status quo of building more highways to nowhere?

 

For starters, we need to reform the use of the gas tax so that non-automobile gas taxes are spent on transportation alternatives.

 

History of highways only

 

The Ohio Constitution was amended in 1947 to restrict the use of passenger vehicle license fees and “fuels used for propelling such vehicles” for highway construction, reconstruction, maintenance and repair only. As a result, about 98 percent of ODOT’s budget is spent on highways, and any discussion of changing the budget to pay for new modes of transportation such as passenger rail, bike lanes and pedestrian friendly streets has been deadlocked.

 

Oregon innovates, so can Ohio

 

Most states have the same constitutional limitations on their state gas tax. But, in Oregon, gas tax reform was achieved in 1997 when the state’s Attorney General ruled that a small percentage of taxes paid by "off-road" (farm equipment, landscaping equipment, etc.) consumers of gasoline could be unrestricted, and thus used to fund alternative transportation projects.

 

With some due diligence, Ohio’s new Attorney General Marc Dann could make a similar legal ruling that a separation of special license plate fees from State Highway Fund be established.

 

Next steps

 

A group of Cleveland-area planners have formed a discussion group focused on reforming ODOT and the Ohio gas tax. Oregon’s ruling is being investigated, and a list of alternative transportation priorities are being discussed. If you would like to weigh in on the conversation, add a comment to this post. Email here if you are interested in attending the next meeting.

 

 

Slightly off topic - but still related.

 

From the Feds:

 

DOT 4-07

Contact: Sarah Echols, Tel.: (202) 366-4570

Monday, January 8, 2007

 

DOT Provides Model Legislation for Private-Sector Involvement in Transportation Projects

 

The U.S. Department of Transportation today provided model legislation that would give states flexibility to contract with the private sector to invest in and manage transportation projects.

 

The model legislation, part of the Department’s initiative to reduce congestion in the nation’s transportation system, is based on a survey of existing state laws that authorize public-private partnerships in building, owning or operating highways, mass transit, railroads, airports, seaports or other transportation infrastructure.

 

“The growing stranglehold that congestion is placing on America’s transportation network calls for new ways of financing and maintaining our critical transportation infrastructure,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters. “This model legislation will help to ensure that states are in a position to tap into the billions of dollars that the private sector and lenders have amassed to invest in transportation.”

 

Recognizing that states need statutory authority to enter into public-private agreements, this legislation can be a model to help states reduce or remove barriers to private-sector investment in transportation infrastructure. The legislation is a starting point from which states can proceed to craft laws that are most appropriate for their unique needs, and provides useful guidance on what a public-private partnership agreement might look like.

 

Issues addressed by the model legislation include which modes of transportation would be eligible for private investment, whether or when tolls may be collected, innovative procurement methods, upkeep requirements for leased roads, and provisions to be considered in an agreement with the private sector.

 

Secretary Peters noted that 21 states and Puerto Rico already have at least some legal ability to utilize public-private partnerships. However, many of those laws provide limited or project-specific authority. Broad authority will also give states the opportunity to take advantage of various federal tools and pilot programs now available under SAFETEA-LU and the recently created congestion initiative.

 

The model legislation is available on the Internet at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ppp/legislation.htm.

 

-END-

Columbusite said:

 

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?

 

I think they'll have something soon, but look for more later, too.

"The Ohio Constitution was amended in 1947 to restrict the use of passenger vehicle license fees and “fuels used for propelling such vehicles” for highway construction, reconstruction, maintenance and repair only."

 

That is your issue there. Whether it is ODOT or the state deadlocking the discussions, that should be taken up as a cause for change. An old amendment that needs to be changed for the future.

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.

 

We had a hullaballu here in Louisiana, back in the late summer, when someone from Gov. Blanco's office floated out a proposal to toll I-12 between Baton Rouge and Hammond (or was I-10 between BR and New Orleans?)

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.

 

Well then we're a forum of slackers because from what I see, we average out one Letter-to-the-Editor a month.

 

Like my signature says, "What did YOU do for the Revolution today?!"

 

Slightly off topic - but still related.

 

From the Feds:

The model legislation is available on the Internet at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ppp/legislation.htm.

 

-END- [/size]

 

Actually, that's very relevant for this thread. In fact, I'll argue that the model legislation, if adopted by Congress and the Ohio Legislature could be one of the most important changes to transportation policy in a long time.

 

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.

 

Well then we're a forum of slackers because from what I see, we average out one Letter-to-the-Editor a month.

 

Like my signature says, "What did YOU do for the Revolution today?!"

 

 

I posted tons of silly shit on urbanohio.

 

And you?

Magyar just likes to challenge others to cause change so he won't have to.

Magyar just likes to challenge others to cause change so he won't have to.

 

No, I just challenge people to act upon what they wish for wistfully here on UrbanOhio.

Kingfish wants people to send letters to their editors everyday.  We're three days behind.

It's OK to wish wistfully for things, even if the person never does a thing about it.

 

I suspect people fall into three basic groups with lots of gray areas between them -- those who are active advocates for what they wish for, those who wish for things but have other priorities in their daily lives, and those who have no wishes for their communities, state, nation or world because they are living their own lives. I'll leave it to others to guess what percentages of people fall into each oversimplified category.

I will honesty and readily admit to falling into the category of "those who wish for things but have other priorities in their daily lives." Because of school and my job that pays for school, I haven't got much time for advocacy.

Most of us have this problem and that's what makes advocacy a frustrating business. Life always gets in the way!

A letter a day across the entire forum is entirely doable. In fact, it's probably done. Counting sunshine susie and DILDOZ2U, we've easily got 47,000 members, give or take.

 

I sent a letter to the Dispatch in response to their asinine COTA editorial about a month ago, which, incidentally, never saw print. I'm due for another, I suppose. This ODOT pork barrel shit is out of hand, and in light of Strickland's new ethics rules, the moment is right for a follow up...

 

(fires up the old Selectric II, savors the satisfying hum)

   

I will honesty and readily admit to falling into the category of "those who wish for things but have other priorities in their daily lives." Because of school and my job that pays for school, I haven't got much time for advocacy.

 

Ditto. I also devote much time to photography, writing and documentation, which leaves very little for anything else.

I will honesty and readily admit to falling into the category of "those who wish for things but have other priorities in their daily lives." Because of school and my job that pays for school, I haven't got much time for advocacy.

 

Ditto. I also devote much time to photography, writing and documentation, which leaves very little for anything else.

 

Photography, writing and documentation ARE advocacy. Putting it into writing and sending it off to the local paper is icing.

So now we are at the end of the "Proctor Show" with a season ending cliff-hanger.

Hmmm, what's going to happen next season.

 

 

 

Actually, I am really interested in seeing what happens next, particularly for the innerbelt.

Are we to expect business as usual?

Love your little graphics, Musky.

Thanks

It's a Firefox extension. "Smiley Xtra"

The 1st step toward change has been taken. :clap:

 

Strickland signals for change at ODOT

GOP-appointed district heads replaced

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Aaron Marshall and Sarah Hollander

Plain Dealer Reporters

 

Columbus -- Hit the road, Jack. And take Bill, Mike and Dave with you, too.

 

Such is life under a Democratic regime at the Ohio Department of Transportation, where incoming Gov. Ted Strickland, who took office Monday, is replacing all 12 district directors who served under Republican Gov. Bob Taft.

 

Five of the district directors left before Strickland took over, and the other seven were asked to step down Monday.

 

"They were replaced with new acting directors," said Keith Dailey, Strickland's press secretary.

 

Dailey said the head-rolling is all part of a "clear call for change" in state government that Strickland rode into office.

 

............

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1168422103322880.xml&coll=2

^

So now we are at the end of the "Proctor Show" with a season ending cliff-hanger.

Hmmm, what's going to happen next season.

 

 

 

Actually, I am really interested in seeing what happens next, particularly for the innerbelt.

Are we to expect business as usual?

 

Watching and waiting

Watching and waiting

This could've gone into the "what other states are doing with rail/transit" thread but I think it applies more to looking at "best practices" at other DOTs. This one is a pleasant surprise. Too bad it's not Ohio...

_________________

 

Mobilizing the Region

A Weekly Bulletin from the Tri-State Transportation Campaign

 

Number 548 January 22, 2007

 

At a well-attended NY Metropolitan Transportation

Council meeting last week, New Jersey assistant

transportation commissioner Mark Stout laid out the

recent policy reforms that have led NJ DOT to proclaim:

“land use is our business.”

 

The statement might seem unremarkable to anyone

unfamiliar with state transportation departments.

But the policy of complete separation of

state transportation projects and municipal development

decision-making is still proclaimed as a virtue

by some at the NY State Dept. of Transportation,

years and perhaps decades after observers of the

American landscape pointed out the dysfunction of

that arrangement, not to mention the obvious interdependence

of development patterns and transportation

systems, whether they function in harmony

or in conflict.

 

Stout’s presentation encompassed themes now

familiar to MTR readers in a well-argued package: it

is impossible for metropolitan states to keep up with

traffic congestion by building or widening roads;

local subdivision-oriented road systems often exacerbate

congestion by dumping every type of car trip

onto state highways, management of access to state

highways can be done more aggressively without

terrible consequences, and state DOTs are in the

land use business for better or worse whether they

admit it or not.

 

NJDOT’s new planning perspective seeks partnership

with municipalities to address these problems

regardless of whether they result in major capital

projects on state road systems. Rebuilding or forging

new grid systems in towns is an effective congestion

reliever and improves cycling and walking

circulation in the bargain. Several DOT town planning

initiatives—in Warren and Gloucester counties

– are attempting to get ahead of development

curves so that state roads are not overwhelmed (or

disfigured, along rural Route 57 in Warren County)

when growth occurs, and several others are downsizing

city highways to make their vicinities more

attractive for urban development. Stout’s overall

message was that “Better planning and design will

reduce vehicle miles of travel” (or at least restrain

its growth). DOT has won municipalities’ cooperation

by sending the message that it is more likely to

invest planning and capital resources in those areas

where a productive partnership exists.

 

Unfortunately, the leaders of the suburban divisions

of NYSDOT who most need to learn about

the direction taken by NJ DOT did not attend the

NYMTC session (NYSDOT’s Poughkeepsie office

was in the newspapers explaining the need to widen

Route 22 through the highlands in Putnam County).

 

Governor Spitzer called during his election campaign

for “incentives for counties and towns to ensure

that land use and transportation planning are

integrated…smart growth involves a planning process

with a vision of what we want our communities

to look like in a few years’ time, and then thinking

comprehensively about the housing, commercial

development, transportation and environmental

infrastructure needed to make that vision a reality”

(MTR #529). That sounds remarkably like the

DOT-led smart growth efforts in New Jersey.

 

Some municipal leaders are in fact in front of New

York State agencies on integrated planning — local

and county officials in Rockland County have urged

transportation agencies looking at options for the

Tappan Zee corridor to fund complementary town

land use plans (see MTR #547). 

2 Transit related RFP's

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/CONTRACT/consultant.htm

 

Click on "ODOT postings"

ODOT's Mission Statement:

ODOT's 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.

 

I'd say ODOT is failing to fulfill anything in this mission statement because of their roads-only approach to providing transportation throughout the state. 

 

Just look at their strategic initiatives (http://www.dot.state.oh.us/BusinessPlan0607/ bottom right of page):

 

  - One – Deliver the Jobs and Progress Plan

  - Two – Refine, Re-focus and Respond To Ohio’s High-Crash Locations

  - Three – Complete the Highway Technician Comprehensive Training Program

  - Four – Continuously Improve County Operations By Using Business Tools

  - Five – Continuously Improve the Pavement Management Process

 

Every one of these is related to roads. (primal scream emoticon needed...) 

Untrue! Let's look at the mission statement one more time:

 

ODOT's mission is to provide a world-class transportation system cars and trucks exist around the world: check! that links Ohio to a global economy the global economy includes cars and trucks: check! while preserving the state’s unique character no other state has done such an aggressive job of carving up its urban neighborhoods with superflous innerbelt exchanges and consistently widening its highways every ten years while supressing alternative transit, arrogantly thumbing its nose at citizen oversight and the fair bid process: double check! and enhancing its quality of life technically, "cheapening" would be an enhancement.

I'm hearing that the decision on a new ODOT Director has been greatly complicated by the fact that Gordon Proctor and his crew made commitments to more projects than there are $$$$ to start or complete them.  That leaves the Strickland Administration having to play the role of being the ones who now have to tell local interests that their highway projects either will be delayed or not done in the forseeable future.

 

It's going to take a new ODOT Director with both the diplomatic skills to take on the task of saying "no".... and the vision to come up with some alternatives (factoring in rail and transit) and identify new or alternate funding sources.

^ Actually sounds like step 1 of the peak oil prophecy.  Oil prices go up, road maintenace costs go through the roof, proverbial shit hits fan.  This might actually cue the start of a reasonable discussion about alternatives to highways and autos.

Like I've said to others, this just goes to show how fragile the current system really is. Any shift (higher construction costs due to higher oil prices, alternatives to gas that are exempt from the gas tax) puts the whole thing on the ropes and we are not even really in a peak oil situation yet. What then?

 

Under almost any scenario, the gas tax will decline as a source of funding, meaning that other sources will have to be found (demand pricing, toll roads, higher registration fees , etc) to support highways and than emphasis will have to shift away from any new construction. We will be hard-pressed to maintain what we already have.

 

At the same time, we will have to develop other modes of transportation. None of this will be easy.

I'm hearing that the decision on a new ODOT Director has been greatly complicated by the fact that Gordon Proctor and his crew made commitments to more projects than there are $$$$ to start or complete them.  That leaves the Strickland Administration having to play the role of being the ones who now have to tell local interests that their highway projects either will be delayed or not done in the forseeable future.

 

It's going to take a new ODOT Director with both the diplomatic skills to take on the task of saying "no".... and the vision to come up with some alternatives (factoring in rail and transit) and identify new or alternate funding sources.

 

Perhaps Strickland should be the one to take the lead here and just put a blanket moratorium on new highway projects?  California has gone quite far in this regard in that they have declared that they will build no new highway miles. 

 

No easy decisions here no matter what. 

 

 

No major highway miles in California. This means, you will not see any new major interstate or interstate-quality highway projects in the state, sans for bypasses, upgrades of existing routes to expressways and other capacity improvements (which can add a lot of interstate-lane-miles).

 

As for Ohio, it's a mixed bag. There are still many needy projects that were cut, like the OH 7 bypass. See my writeup of the Chesapeake and Proctorville bypass. There is a lot of through-traffic, especially trucks heading to the East Huntington Bridge, that is delayed because it must travel through the communities of Chesapeake and Proctorville which is woefully congested. The reason? Suburbs. Huntington expanded not only east, but north, into the former apple orchards.

 

Another needy project that is thankfully still funded is the Portsmouth (OH 823) bypass which will relieve much of Portsmouth from heavy truck and auto traffic. Currently, most traffic travels from US 23 north/US 52 west to US 23 north and vice versa as it is a critical north-south link for the state of Ohio to the interstates and ports of the south. Unfortunately, there is a lot of congestion, residential neighborhoods, many traffic signals, narrow lanes, inadequate turning radii, etc. to deal with. Many motorists already use a de-facto bypass that consists of a two-lane road, steep grades, switchbacks and residential roads. OH 823 will provide a four-lane roadway to serve this critical need; it is being designed as a limited-access expressway with interchanges with minimal disturbance to farmlands, that will alleviate much of the congestion and restore some calm back into the city.

 

Other projects I was in support of include the new US 33 two-lane alignment (on four-lane ROW) south of Athens to Pomeroy, and from Pomeroy east to Ravenswood, WV. It provides a critical southeast link from Columbus towards Interstate 77 and Charleston, and alleviates some traffic pressure from US 35, which is woefully congested in West Virginia. It also replaced a dangerous two-lane road with a higher-than-average accident rate.

 

But other projects, especially in suburban areas, I am questioning. Does the new road induce suburban sprawl, or does the suburban sprawl induce the new road? From the perspective down here in Lexington, it's both.

 

Like other posters have mentioned, it won't be an easy task. Highways must still be improved on, but the funding model and the law that regulates ODOT (ODOT is bound by this IIRC) must be changed. Let's not place all the blame on ODOT...

^major, new, whatever.  I meant the same thing.   

 

I don't see anyone putting all the blame ODOT.  I would suspect that sharp increases in the cost of asphalt and concrete in the past couple of years have the most to do with this funding problem-- which has already been referred to. 

 

Also no one is arguing that there are worthy projects.  It's just that when there are more projects than money, you have to make the cut somewhere. 

 

Most of the criticism of ODOT here is toward their chronic myopia and primarily roads-only approach to transportation-- a criticism that is warranted. 

 

As far as the chicken-egg question about new roads and sprawl-- I'd say it's both too. 

 

 

 

The sharp increases have also affected other projects - like the East End Bridge project, which IMO, is critical to the Interstate 64 viaduct removal in downtown Louisville, KY. While that project isn't in jeopardy (funding will come from somewhere, and it could be tolled), others could be although the state hasn't made significant cut-backs. West Virginia is hurting pretty bad and it may need to seek other sources of revenue in the future.

 

I guess I misread the posts above. I inteperted it as only pro-transit with no regard for other projects, but I see that it is more of a balance.

no new highways.  highways create decentrilization and segregation.  trains create good urbanism and centralization.  Republicans love highways, democrats shouldn't.

The problem with highways is that they are black holes that suck in all transit $$$. They cost so much to build and maintain that you never have money for anything else, it's a vicious cycle and I hope it's going to be broken. The new ODOT director is going to have to tell some people that the last director forgot to check something before promising funds: reality.

burn the mother down

My take is that ODOT for years has been a ward of the contractors for years and not surprisingly, the focus has been on highways to the exclusion of everything else. That's the whole problem. Highways are necessary and will play a pivotal role in our economy, but we need to diversify if we are to face the challenge of coming decades.

 

 

^ Now there is a constructive comment :)

it's not like there wouldn't be dollars spent on the construction and maintenance of rail.  for as much fault as everybody likes to give cleveland's rail system, rta actually spends a lot of money to keep the cars, rail, electric, signals, etc. maintained.  it seems that the contractors and odot just want to do business as usual and not really think outside the box. 

Well when there are asphalt contractors in your wallet I would doubt that you care about the construction dollars spent on rail....its all about whos paying who (unfortunately)..and this state has been owned by the automobile oriented businesses for far too long.

I'm hearing that the decision on a new ODOT Director has been greatly complicated by the fact that Gordon Proctor and his crew made commitments to more projects than there are $$$$ to start or complete them.  That leaves the Strickland Administration having to play the role of being the ones who now have to tell local interests that their highway projects either will be delayed or not done in the forseeable future.

 

It's going to take a new ODOT Director with both the diplomatic skills to take on the task of saying "no".... and the vision to come up with some alternatives (factoring in rail and transit) and identify new or alternate funding sources.

 

Perhaps Strickland should be the one to take the lead here and just put a blanket moratorium on new highway projects?  California has gone quite far in this regard in that they have declared that they will build no new highway miles. 

 

No easy decisions here no matter what. 

 

 

 

 

I am hearing (directly from NOACA) that the field is narrowed to six finalist. And it is 90% sure it will be an engineer... not that there is anything wrong with that.

I would rather have someone who knows what he/she is doing rather than someone with political connections (*cough* Kentucky).

^^bahhh...we don't need any more engineers on transportation boards!!!  Give us an Urban Planner or someone who thinks beyond the realms of moving people the quickest way possible..someone who thinks with the urban context in mind!

.....someone who thinks with the urban context in mind!

 

...and someone who views transportation not purely through a windshield!

Ha ha...I have to agree with that. What's needed is someone with a background in planning (and a solid one).  What we have today is not a transportation system at all and that is precisely because we have not planned. Besides that, even if we have a planner with excellent credentials, that won't mean a popcorn fart if they have no vision.

 

I'm afraid that an engineer, no matter how competent won't take us where we need to go and even a planner won't if he/she doesn't get it. We have some real issues here. It will take some real imagination and balls to make a difference. I hope we see that from Strickland and whoever he selects as the next head of ODOT.

no new highways.  highways create decentrilization and segregation.  trains create good urbanism and centralization.  Republicans love highways, democrats shouldn't.

 

Before highways, rivers and rails made for good borders too.

I mean how else, "the other side of the tracks" came to be.

 

My understanding has been that the Deputy Director is the position that is traditionally an engineer.  Nevertheless, I agree that we need someone at ODOT with vision and an understanding that ODOT stands for "Ohio Department of TRANSPORTATION" not the OHio Department of Highways.

I am hearing (directly from NOACA) that the field is narrowed to six finalist. And it is 90% sure it will be an engineer... not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

I'll take an architect over an engineer any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I want an architect because they tend to envision change and cause innovation. An engineer typically implements the change. If the engineer isn't instructed to design the change, then the status quo is more likely to remain.

 

And, for the past 60 years, traffic engineers have designed our cities. I think it's time to put that charge in the hands of those who regularly start each job looking at a blank sheet of paper.

Ah looks like we have more nonconstructive comments from UncleRando and Mr. Anderson, which is not surprising as they have jumped at others and at myself numerous times in this thread and elsewhere.

 

Can't take it that someone may actually find highways useful, along with mass transit and other forms of mobility? I am very much engaged in urban planning as it is a strong focus, along with urban design principles, mass transit, railroads and highways. I'm also focusing on rural mobility and character as part of my American Byways project.

 

So instead of presenting nonconstructive comments that add nothing of value to this thread, why not present your arguments and have a good and spirited debate? Sorry if us engineers or those who actually enjoy driving get in the way of that.

no new highways.  highways create decentrilization and segregation.  trains create good urbanism and centralization.  Republicans love highways, democrats shouldn't.

 

Well, I part company with you here. This is not and should not be a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats alike got us where we are today. They just went where the money was. The other part of the problem is that we are now saddled with an overbuilt highway system, parts of which never should have been built, especially in urban areas.

 

The original intent of Pres. Eisenhower was to build the Interstates like the Autobahn: city-to-city, to a ring road, but not penetrate the city centers. Europeans have superhighways, but they did not rip the hearts out of their cities to build them. The road lobby did an end-run around Pres. Eisenhower and inserted a provision in the Interstate highway act that called for building into the hearts of the cities.

 

This destroyed the fabric of urban neighborhoods, led to White Flight, left urban poor in isolated enclaves, destroyed transit and led to universal auto ownership. Great for contractors, oil companies and auto makers, but not so good for nearly everyone else. This is what must be overcome.

 

Again, tho...I say the highway is here to stay. The question is what role it will play.  As Seicer says...

 

But other projects, especially in suburban areas, I am questioning. Does the new road induce suburban sprawl, or does the suburban sprawl induce the new road?