Trucking swallowed up a lot of damaged veterans from WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Probably the Gulf Wars too but the changes in the trucking world had already started to reduce that as an option.

The socially crippled folks I referred to are the ones usually sought for long haul duties. If you're a people person, or even a normal person, that job just doesn't work for you. It requires a distinctively non-people person, someone who doesn't have much of a home and doesn't care when they get back to it.

 

You've sold me on it!

Note the reference to Senator Patton, who was the most vocal opponent of the 3-C passenger rail plan in ODOT's budget....hmmm..

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/05/no_plans_to_eliminate_i71_bott.html

No plans to eliminate I-71 bottleneck in Morrow County, ODOT says

Posted by Karen Farkas/Plain Dealer Reporter May 09, 2009 06:00AM

 

Barbara Snyder has been driving from Cleveland to Columbus since before Interstate 71 was built.

 

The 1955 Ohio State University graduate still heads south so often for OSU football games and events that she and her husband, Dick, often stay at a condominium they own near campus.

 

 

........

 

The state's rationale that Morrow County traffic doesn't support widening doesn't make sense, said Sen. Tom Patton, a Strongsville Republican who heads the Senate's Transportation committee.

 

As Patton travels to and from the Statehouse in Columbus, he gets caught in traffic bottlenecks in Morrow during morning and evening rush hours, he said.

 

"I think it's disingenuous to say the herd thins significantly in Morrow County, and picks up again when you are leaving or before you came in," he said. "If that is their response to you, that doesn't make any sense. We're not concerned about Morrow County traffic, we're concerned about Ohio traffic."

 

 

......

 

Sen. Patton is the Chair of the Senate Highways and Transportation Committee. What does he really know about what he oversees? A rational person would study the subject if elevated to such an important post. Patton should have made himself an authority on transportation, so he could make sound decisions based on the facts. instead, we have a person whose decisions are ideologically driven or unduly influenced by his campaign donors.

 

I'd be ashamed to be in his position and know so little. :-(

Sen. Patton is the Chair of the Senate Highways and Transportation Committee. What does he really know about what he oversees? A rational person would study the subject if elevated to such an important post. Patton should have made himself an authority on transportation, so he could make sound decisions based on the facts. instead, we have a person whose decisions are ideologically driven or unduly influenced by his campaign donors.

 

I'd be ashamed to be in his position and know so little. :-(

 

Have you told him that?  You truly have the right to do that and educate him.  :wink:  Be the change you want.

Ideally, that's true. But not for Patton. Brick walls don't hear very well.

Here's something from Missouri (Urban St. Louis Blog)that may be of interest:

 

May 2, 2009 | by Peter Downs, Editor

 

Roads Tussle With Other Transportation Modes for Bucks

 

Missouri’s Great Transportation Debate entered Round Two recently with Missouri Transportation Alliance spokesman Jewel Patek saying that the challenges of arriving at a consensus plan for transportation were greater in urban areas. As if to illustrate that point, the two district chairpeople of the Missouri Transportation Alliance found their call for better roads fall a little flat when they brought it to St. Louis in March. A cross section of citizens representing everyone from service workers to CEOs responded that transportation means more than roads and a transportation plan is more than a list of projects.

 

The Missouri Transportation Alliance was founded last autumn to develop and recommend a statewide transportation program for the next decade to enhance road safety, replace failing bridges, grow the economy, and create “quality” jobs. It was founded because the road construction made possible by voter approval of Amendment 3 in 2004 is coming to an end and new funding must be found to continue the same level of highway work. Construction groups, such as the Associated General Contractors, SITE Improvement Association, the Eastern Missouri Laborers’ District Council, and the St. Louis Building & Construction Trades Council are among the group’s core “stakeholders.”

 

The Missouri Transportation Alliance was founded just in time to face the recession and get caught in the crossfire of a dispute over the spending of extra federal highway money made available by the “stimulus” act – the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. So, when Bill McKenna and Susan Stauder opened up the transportation alliance’s second round of public hearings with a meeting in the student government chambers at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, they encountered some push back.

 

At a meeting in the Student Government Chamber at the University of Missouri – St. Louis on St. Patrick’s Day, McKenna and Stauder displayed maps showing how little road construction is planned for the Missouri Department of Transportation’s (MoDOT) District 6 in the 2009-2013 period compared to how much construction took place from 1999-2008. District 6 consists of St. Louis city and county, and St. Charles, Jefferson, and Franklin counties.

 

McKenna also displayed graphics showing how much truck traffic has increased on roads in the state in the last ten years, and said Missouri could become a regional distribution hub if the state could maintain and improve its roads. According to McKenna, Missouri is within a 10-hour drive of half of the country's population. With improvements to the state's highway system, river ports and railways, “it could become the nation's premier central distribution point and bring tens of thousands of additional jobs to the state,” he said. But if Missouri does not invest more in its infrastructure, it could lose the competitive battle for distribution center jobs to Kansas or Illinois, he added.

 

Many people in the audience of about 55 expressed more interest in moving people than in moving products, however, and they expressed more interest in alternatives to the use of private autos on public roads than they did in building more roads.

 

Garry Earls, chief operating officer of St. Louis County, said the county’s top goal is expanding the region’s light rail system, MetroLink. Representatives of the Service Employees International Union said bus service is crucial. Bob Baer, president and CEO of Metro, said his agency wants money to operate buses and the light rail system.

 

“We should be talking about growth goals and revitalizing the built cores,” said Thomas Shrout, executive director of Citizens for Modern Transit. “We need density at transit stops. Your report has to include how zoning and laws have to encourage that vision. A bridge in Tuscumbia is not part of a vision. It is just a project,” he said.

 

Bicycle enthusiasts also criticized the highway department for focusing only on cars and called for incorporating bicycle lanes in highway and bridge designs.

 

But the torrent of demands also raised concerns about cost. “The cost of road transportation is tremendous. Then add in mass transit, ports, and railroads and the tax needed to fund it all is exorbitant. How will you decide what is to be included,” asked Steve Hoven, corporate vice president – public affairs of SSM Health Care?

 

But Bill McKenna, statewide chairman and District 6 co-chair of the Missouri Transportation Alliance is an old hand at dealing with those sorts of questions and controversies. As chairman of the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, he faced tugs-of-war every time funding came up, said Tom Stevener, vice president of business development at Horner & Shifrin, Inc. “There is always contention over how much money goes to rural areas and how much goes to urban areas,” Stevener said. “Outstate people always feel they are getting the short end of the stick and mobilize behind the Farm Bureau to get more,” he said.

 

Patek is familiar with those controversies, too. In 2004, he successfully managed a campaign to amendment the Missouri Constitution to dedicate all state motor fuel taxes and vehicle user fees to roads and bridges, effectively taking about $130 million out of the general fund and redirecting it to road construction and maintenance. The promise of Amendment 3, as it was called, was that the money would be used to make roads safer and smoother and to fix failing bridges. The newly-dedicated tax stream leveraged bonds that financed a $1.7 billion gusher of projects that quickly raised that quality of Missouri’s state roads from among the worst in the nation to among the best, and also reduced traffic deaths, but little of the money was directed towards fixing failing bridges. All the bond money will have been spent by the end of this year, however, and Amendment 3 revenue will be unavailable for any new projects for many more years to come as it is dedicated to paying off that bond. It is the exhaustion of the Amendment 3 bond that prompted the formation of the Missouri Transportation Alliance.

 

Listening to county and municipal agencies and finding compromises between local agencies and a common ground on which to erect a transportation plan is the task that McKenna and the transportation alliance have set for themselves. McKenna displayed the skills that will help him do that at the meeting at the University of Missouri – St. Louis. Over the course of the forum, it became clear that there was broad and deep support for mass transit among the St. Louis attendees.

 

Susan Stauder, co-chair of District 6 and vice president - infrastructure and public policy for the St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association (RCGA), expressed that support when she said, “There is a very great need to look at mass transportation. It is one of the things we need in our toolbox to get people around…We have a very successful mass transit system, but we’re losing about 1/3 of the service at the end of the month. We need to fix it. It is a real jewel. We need to preserve and expand it.”

 

McKenna first explained that the Missouri Department of Transportation and the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, despite their names, cannot fund transit. “The problem with the existing system is that the transportation department is funded like a highway department: taxes go into a road fund and the constitution says that money cannot be used for anything but roads and bridges,” McKenna said.

 

When Earls pushed back, saying that if the purpose of the forum was to find out what were local priorities for transportation, then St. Louis County’s priority is expanding Metrolink to double revenue miles and reach 95 percent of the county’s population. McKenna shot back: “It has to be something that is saleable statewide.”

 

But after several more speakers weighed in to back Metrolink, McKenna accepted that for metro St. Louis, transit has to be part of a statewide transportation plan. “Obviously, mass transit is important to St. Louis. That is a sea change. We’ve never had state funding for mass transit before,” he said.

 

 

These guys sound like Transportation Matters here in Ohio. They talk multimodalism but their highway agenda is very much pro-highway contractor. There simply is no logical argument for expanding highway capacity in the U.S. anymore, least of all in a no-growth state like Ohio.

There simply is no logical argument for expanding highway capacity in the U.S. anymore, least of all in a no-growth state like Ohio.

 

Well, just to play devil's advocate for a second, (forgive me it's a Monday) if you think that a lack of growth is a reason for not expanding the highway system, why do you think a lack of growth is not a reason for not expanding the rail system? 

I don't think a lack of growth is reason to not expand highways. Until a couple of years ago, Ohio traffic volumes (vehicle-miles traveled) were expanding faster than Ohio's population. The lack of travel options kept fostering sprawl, and sprawl caused people to drive farther, increasing VMTs.

 

This nation has enough highway capacity to last it for decades, if not more. And we can't afford, financially, demographically, economically or environmentally, to keep expanding highway capacity in this country.

 

Financially, and as a general rule, we are seeing traffic leveling off or even declining slightly nationwide. The spike in gas prices started it and the recession continued it. When the recession is over, gas prices will go back up (already started!!). Gasoline consumption has also flattened out and even begun to slide. That means reduced gas tax revenues. Yet the highway system is aging/decaying and inflation is always a factor. Those rising expenses have quickly eclipsed the ability of the gas tax to pay for them. Thus, the federal government has had to subsidize ongoing highway system costs far in excess of the subsidies to Amtrak and public transportation (even Cleveland RTA covers 20 percent of its own costs from fares/advertising/other -- the federal Highway Trust Fund in 2010 will cover only 12 percent of its own costs from user fees like the gas tax).

 

Demographically, the future is in non-highway transportation. Young adults are less interested in having to drive everywhere as their Baby Boom parents were. Their parents considered cars sexy. Their kids consider them necessary evils. And soon, the Baby Boomers, the largest segment of our population, will be physically less able to drive. Some will lose all ability to drive. Persons 65 years and older will comprise 20 percent of Ohio's population by 2030. They will drive less which means fewer revenues for maintaining a large, aging highway system.

 

Economically, this nation is not as wealthy as it was. The days of the father being the only one to bring home the bacon for the family are long gone. The decline of well-paying industrial jobs and the rise of lower paying service jobs in the 1980s and 90s combined with the inexorable rise in costs of living required having the wife work. Now the kids have to work. Yet the prospect of owning two or three cars per household has become cost prohibitive, causing increased household debt to sustain unsustainable lifestyles. For middle- and upper-income groups, transportation is the second-largest household expense, trailing only housing. But for low-income and working-class families, transportation is their greatest expense. They must own a car to reach jobs while they rent their housing. Their chances of building wealth are reduced as long as they continue to own a depreciable asset (car) and rent the appreciable asset (housing).

 

Environmentally, the costs of driving are on the rise. A carbon cap and trade system being implemented in the U.S. is a virtual certainty. Favored legislation for implementing this system includes a 10 percent set-aside to fund public transportation, passenger rail, freight rail, complete streets, etc. while increasing costs for modes dependent on fossil fuels. Then there is peak oil and, even more important, peak exports of oil as oil-exporting nations keep more of their oil for their own use. There will be alternative sources of energy, but as yet there is no nationally agreed-upon way to pay for highway costs other than from the gas tax. Perhaps that will happen this year when the federal six-year surface transportation law is reauthorized. But even after a new way to pay for highways is found, the previous reductions in driving combined with the rising costs of maintaining highways will put that funding method under stress, too.

 

These are going to be very interesting times.

Well, Sheesh. I didn't expect an essay from you, just a clarification of what you meant by your comment. I should have known better.

 

 

I actually found this news item on the Transportation Matters website:

http://transportation-matters.org/

 

ARTBA on Obama Administration's High Speed Rail Proposal

April 16, 2009

 

Statement of ARTBA President Pete Ruane Regarding the Obama Administration's High-Speed Rail Proposal

 

"The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) shares the Obama Administration's goal of developing and expanding a U.S. high-speed passenger rail network.  ARTBA members, who design, build and maintain all modes of transportation infrastructure, including passenger rail, are eager to begin implementing the President's plan.

 

"We strongly believe, however, the proposal should be integrated into an overall strategic vision that recognizes and addresses the challenges of a transportation network that is truly intermodal in scope.

 

"The experts at the Texas Transportation Institute put the current traffic congestion price tag at $78 billion and 4.2 billion hours of lost time for motorists annually.  The Federal Highway Administration, which warns of a freight capacity crisis, says bottlenecks are costing trucking companies nearly $8 billion every year.  There is no silver bullet for this dilemma, but adding new passenger rail, highway and transit capacity are part of the solution.

 

"Boosting federal high-speed rail investment is overdue.  As deficit spending is not sustainable and high-speed passenger rail is a long-term commitment, ARTBA calls on Congress and the President to establish a dedicated user fee to finance this initiative."

 

Well, Sheesh. I didn't expect an essay from you, just a clarification of what you meant by your comment. I should have known better.

 

 

Yes, especially since I write things knowing that others will read them as well. :)

There simply is no logical argument for expanding highway capacity in the U.S. anymore, least of all in a no-growth state like Ohio.

 

Well, just to play devil's advocate for a second, (forgive me it's a Monday) if you think that a lack of growth is a reason for not expanding the highway system, why do you think a lack of growth is not a reason for not expanding the rail system? 

 

A few things to add.  Paraphrasing, KJP said that  there is no logical argument for expanding highway capacity in a no-growth state like Ohio.  And the original rejoinder essentially asked how growth or lack of growth in the state is relevant to highway vs. rail capacity.

 

I think there are a few things to add.  First, growth in vehicle miles traveled on the highways has stalled or declined and is expected to decline further.  Second, growth in passenger miles traveled has been increasing, despite low growth in rail capacity and continued growth in highway lanes.  And third, rail freight tonnage has been growing such that the rails were recently near capacity.  So, despite some of the reliance on "expectations" for the future, expansion of rail capacity seems to be very much justifiable due to growth in rail traffic.  (KJP could probably be more specific and more eloquent on these matters.)

 

I would add that a lack of growth might indicate a need for more competition between the two modes of travel, more alternatives.  My company would much rather have competitive options to ship products by road or rail.  Hopefully both modes can deliver the products, and we can simply pick the one that can provide the best price and delivery date.

 

I don't think a lack of growth is a reason for expanding the rail system. I think the factors that are putting the highway system in jeopardy are reasons for expanding the rail system.

 

And I didn't even get into the potential of the freight rail system to save highways from themselves. Think about those 80,000-pound trucks and the damage they do to roadway pavement and bridge structures. The American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials said diverting freight from highways to rails will save billions of dollars in road/bridge repair costs and thus reduce the burden on gas taxes to keep up with the repairs. And right now, gas taxes cannot keep up with them. By comparison, railroads own their own rights of way and pay for their own maintenance with company revenues, not tax dollars.

While we like like to pick on Transportation Matters (usually for good reason) they seem to be trying to push for better funding for transit, which is definitely a good thing. Laketran handed out packs of the postcards mentioned in the article to every rider earlier this week that were pre-addressed with members of the state senate leadership. They did the same thing with house leaders' office addresses about a month ago.

 

Ohio Senate Weighs Funding for Transit

May 18, 2009

 

Act Now to Support Transit Funding!

 

Lake County's state representative, Mark Schneider, and the leadership of the Ohio House Finance Committee have worked hard to insert into House Bill 1 a line item increase -- to approximately $19 million each year for public transit in the State's 2010 - 2011 budget.

 

The legislation has now moved to the Ohio Senate Finance Committee. Recognizing there is a budget deficit, but a lot of "needs" in the state, it's going to be a battle to keep the transit funding levels intact.  The only way to do it is for the legislators to hear from their constituents who need, use and benefit from public transit!

 

Public transit advocates successfully helped increase the transit budget in the House by a mail campaign to the Finance Committee's leadership. Over 2,000 post cards were sent to state representatives and the leadership of the House Finance Committee from Lake County alone!  Legislators heard from their constituents and home transit systems -- and were compelled ultimately compelled to help once they understood the woeful state of funding for transit.

 

Use this sample post card  Save Transit_May 2009 to write your own message to your representative. (LAKETRAN printed these on brightly colored card stock so that the legislators' office staffs would immediately recognize that it is a message concerning transit funding from their constituents.)

 

It is crucial the Senate Finance Committee understands the human impact of these transit cuts and the disproportionate "hit" transit has taken in the state budgets over the past 9 years. Without personal knowledge of the human impact of service reductions and fare increases, Ohio's transit systems will continue to be overlooked in Ohio's budget.  Please share your personal story of how you, a family member or friend has benefited from using public transit.

 

How many households in your city are without a car? Maybe more than you might expect!

 

http://www.bikesatwork.com/carfree/carfree-census-database.html

 

In most cities, more people are owning cars, including in cities with rising poverty. Why? Probably because they have to, what with urban sprawl continuing outward along our increasingly subsidized highways while public transportation funding is slashed.

Please attend to voice your support for Strickland's passenger rail development plans and ask for increased state funding for public transportation! Thank you!

________________________________

 

The City Club presents Governor Ted Strickland on July 24th at the Crown Plaza - Reservations Required

 

The Honorable Ted Strickland

Governor of Ohio

State of the State

 

July 24, 2009

 

**Due to overwhelming demand, we will be taking this program on the road to The Crown Plaza-777 St. Clair Ave.

 

 

Throughout his service as a minister, a psychologist, a professor and a Member of Congress, Ted worked to exemplify those simple, powerful words. That same plaque is now in the Governor’s Office, where those same words guide Ted each day.

 

As Governor, Ted believes that Ohio government must live within its means while investing in what matters. Brought together by a sense of common purpose, legislators from both parties have worked closely with the Governor to strengthen Ohio.

 

Understanding that nothing will ensure Ohio’s future prosperity more than creating a world class education system, Governor Strickland won the legislature’s support for new funding for early care and learning, primary and secondary education, and Ohio’s public colleges and universities.

 

Sponsored by: Sisters of Charity Health System

 

Make reservations:  http://www.cityclub.org/Default.aspx?TabId=260&EventID=15237

 

FRIDAY FORUM:

$18 Member

$40 Non Member

$450 Non Profit Table of 10.

$550 Corporate Table of 10.

Reservations...... Toll-Free at 888-223-6786 or locally at 216-621-0082

http://www.cityclub.org/Default.aspx?TabId=260&EventID=15237

Ohio gets stimulus roadwork approved

Monday, June 22, 2009 10:14 PM

By Doug Caruso

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Ohio passed a stimulus mile marker Friday when it received word that transportation projects totaling more than $336 million had been approved by the Federal Highway Administration.

 

........

 

 

To help meet the deadline, the state Transportation Department switched $57 million in requests for money to plan long-term regional projects, including a high-speed rail corridor, to smaller projects that were ready to go.

 

"It was made clear to us by the U.S. Department of Transportation that, while they agreed that planning and design work would have been eligible, it was their preference we use it on construction-ready projects," Varner said.

 

Meanwhile, the state will use other sources of money to pay for the planning projects, Varner said.

 

[email protected]

http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/06/22/stimulus.html?sid=101

You want to increase funding for transit in Ohio? Look for budget offsets or new revenue sources. Some are already doing just that to find funding for 3-C Corridor. But Ohio needs to also take care of the transit system it already has AND look for expansion opportunities like 3-C.

 

I'll edit my original message to avoid tipping our hand, but I want readers (especially our friends at Ohio transit agencies) to know that All Aboard Ohio has found anywhere from $25 million to $71 million per year for public transit in Ohio. That's very close to the $75 million for transit (so that each transit agency has 25 percent of their budgets coming from state sources) as recommended by the governor's 21st Century Transportation Task Force. And this can be done without increasing the gas tax or amending the state's constitution.

 

Food for thought.

^I wonder if we could do at the state level and the state gas tax like former US Senator Roth did with the "Taxpayer Relief Act" and Amtrak back in 1998/99 and get a "refund" from the Ohio gas tax on all the money it used for so many decades from non-highway gasoline receipts that it spent on highways.  The refund could be paid out over a period of years...

 

 

 

That's an interesting idea, Gildone. It would take some research to find out what that amount would be, going back all those decades, but it'd be in the hundreds of millions. The problem is that our legislature isn't an enlightened bunch (aside from a some friends) and they would have to pass a bill to make this happen.

 

Still, if 3-C startup is successful and that leads to a demand for more service, that might create enough demand to force the issue.

A few questions for all of you who post on UrbanOhio:

 

a) What is the annual budget for the Ohio Highway Patrol? My understanding is that this comes out of the general fund, not the gas tax.

 

b) What is the annual cost to ODOT for snow removal, mowing, etc? Where does this come from?

 

c) What is the annual ODOT budget for routine roadway maintenance expenses? Where does this come from?

 

I think you can see where I'm going with this. The next time some knee-jerk types roll out the "subsidy" argument, I'd like to be able to rebut.

 

Thanks.

^The most complete and up-to-date presentation of the ODOT budget is located at the link below.  This presentation was given prior to the ODOT budget passing earlier this year so these numbers could have changed.  There is nothing in there about the OHSP, but my recollection is that their budget is in the $40-$50 million range.  In the presentation, slide #34 has the revenue sources and programs.

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Finance/Pages/FinancialPresentations.aspx

Thanks! I'll check it out.

Here's some data that's worth re-posting. It shows the positive impact public transit usage has on the highway system (it also does good things for the economy and the environment, too!)......

 

Texas Transportation Institute's 2007 Mobility Study (2005 data)

 

  Unlinked        Congested      Annual            Congestion

  Passenger      Freeway,        Arterials,        System            Excess Fuel  Cost per

  Trips by        Daily Vehicle      Daily Vehicle  (percent of      Consumed  Peak Hour

  Transit/year  Miles of Travel  Miles of Travel  lane-miles)  (gallons)      Traveler_____   

 

Greater

Cleveland  67 million  18.1 million  12.2 million  27 percent  8.8 million  $240

 

Greater

Columbus  15 million  15 million  10.4 million  46 percent  15.5 million  $620

 

Greater

Cincinnati  30 million  18.6 million  12 million  51 percent  17.5 million  $502

 

This thread is BAAACK --- back from UO Purgatory!!!

BuckeyB, I think the OHP's budget comes from license and registration fees, but I'm not 100% sure...

All, please see the following rail, transit and intermodal transportation projects that are seeking funding through ODOT's Transportation Review Advisory Council....

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/news/Pages/StatereceivesApplicationsforFutureTransportationProjects.aspx

 

 

ODOT TRAC 2009 rail/transit/intermodal applications

 

DISTRICT 1

 

VLRR–Village Leipsic Railroad

Project Sponsor: Village of Leipsic

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Submitted%20Applications/2009D01-02.pdf

 

 

DISTRICT 2

 

Jones Road (CR 592) CSX grade crossing separation

Project Sponsor: City of Fostoria

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Submitted%20Applications/2009D02-10.pdf

 

Hallett Avenue (CR 1) NS grade crossing separation

Project Sponsor: Village of Swanton

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Submitted%20Applications/2009D02-11.pdf

 

 

DISTRICT 3

 

SR 58 CSX grade crossing separation (Wellington)

Project Sponsor: ODOT District 3

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Submitted%20Applications/2009D03-04.pdf

 

 

DISTRICT 6

 

Central Ohio Logistics Center

Project Sponsor: Fayette County Commissioners Office

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Submitted%20Applications/2009D06-14.pdf

 

 

DISTRICT 8

 

Cincinnati Streetcar – Phase 1

Project Sponsor: City of Cincinnati

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Submitted%20Applications/2009D08-01.pdf

 

Cincinnati Fourth Main Rail and Cincinnati Union Terminal

Project Sponsor: Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Submitted%20Applications/2009D08-02.pdf

 

Oasis Rail Corridor  Part2 Eastern Corridor

Project Sponsor:  ODOT District 8

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Submitted%20Applications/2009D08-04.pdf

 

 

 

DISTRICT 12

 

Opportunity Corridor

Project Sponsor: ODOT District 12/City of Cleveland

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Submitted%20Applications/2009D12-14.pdf

 

 

STATEWIDE

 

3C Start Up Service

Project Sponsor: Ohio Rail Development Commission

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Submitted%20Applications/2009D13-01.pdf

On the full list of TRAC applications I see nothing regarding the NorthCoast Transportation Ctr. Has any money ever been requested for that? And if not why not?

No. Preliminary engineering for NCTC is not yet complete -- it may not even be underway yet.

I love the reference to the strippers participating in "Fat Man Soup".......

 

High-ranking former ODOT officials indicted in corruption case

By Leila Atassi, The Plain Dealer

November 10, 2009, 3:04PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio — The primary targets of an investigation into corruption in the Ohio Department of Transportation's District 12 headquarters in Garfield Heights were indicted Tuesday in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.

 

Three former ODOT officials and five vendors make up the second wave of indictments stemming from the Ohio inspector general's 18-month investigation uncovering an elaborate bid-rigging and kickback scheme that prosecutors say cost the state millions.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/11/high-ranking_ohio_department_o.html

http://209.51.133.155/cms/index.php/news_releases/more/ohio_transport_report_card_2009_a_lump_of_coal/

 

Ohio Transport Report Card 2009 - A Lump of Coal!

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — November 25, 2009

Contact:

Ken Prendergast

All Aboard Ohio Executive Director

(216) 288-4883

[email protected]

 

Traveling over the river and through the woods to Grandmother’s house this holiday season is more difficult than ever for many Ohioans, according to a report-card analysis by All Aboard Ohio, a nonprofit organization which promotes improvements to passenger rail and public transportation.

 

To download the analysis “Ohio Transport Report Card” including the 1979 vs. 2009 Ohio intercity public transport maps, click:

http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Ohio%20Transport%20Report%20Card%202009.pdf

 

Because Ohio had fewer transportation choices in 2009, All Aboard Ohio said the state has earned the grade of a LUMP OF COAL. Had travel choices increased, the state would have earned a holiday candy cane.

 

Ohio urban and small city public transit systems aren’t the only ones in retreat in recent years. So are Ohio’s intercity public transportation modes – bus carriers, Amtrak and airlines – that provide essential travel between cities, towns, suburbs, and rural hamlets. They are eliminating routes and reducing the number of cities and towns where travelers can get on/off buses, trains and planes.

 

As Ohioans and visitors to Ohio partake of the busiest travel time of the year, All Aboard Ohio found that travelers lost access to once-significant intercity public transportation assets in Ohio over the past 30 years. Here are the lowlights:

 

• Bus companies like Greyhound and Continental Trailways eliminated more than two-thirds of their Ohio departures and dozens of routes between 1979 and 2004;

• In the past five years bus services have stabilized, but with some losses (Sandusky and downtown Dayton stops eliminated) and gains (Megabus adds Chicago service to Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo);

• Ohio has lost 1,000 route miles of Amtrak train service from 1979-2005 and saw service levels decline by 60 percent from 84 trains per week to 34;

• Amtrak in Ohio has also stabilized since 2005 yet offers inconvenient middle-of-the-night services on just three routes;

• Airlines have been in retreat after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, with Ohio airports losing seat-mile capacity ranging from 10-100 percent, mostly due to cuts in short-distance flights;

• Losses accelerated since 2007 due to high fuel prices and the recession. Since 2007, airports in Ohio and within 100 miles of Ohio have seen their scheduled domestic departures decrease 7-39 percent.

 

Cuts in bus, rail and airline services are especially painful for Ohio’s growing elderly population, its disabled citizens (many of whom are veterans), plus lower-income and working-class families who cannot afford to own a car or reliably maintain one to safely drive it over longer distances. And if we are to keep our younger citizens in Ohio, we must give them better transportation choices.

 

“Given the sorry state of intercity public transportation in Ohio, it’s probably better that you travel to grandma’s house this holiday season because it’s more difficult for her to visit you,” said Bill Hutchison, president of All Aboard Ohio. “While one can attribute this decline in transportation options to many factors, I believe it’s mostly due to complacency. Too many just blandly plod along and accept their fate without a fight. Well, we don’t accept it and this report is an early salvo in our fight.”

 

There is a significant market for intercity public transportation in Ohio that is not being served:

 

• Ohio is the seventh-most populous state and the ninth-most densely populated.

• Ohioans older than 65 years comprise 16 percent of the state’s population but will be 20 percent of the population by 2030, the U.S. Census predicts.

• In Ohio’s largest urban areas like Cleveland, Cincinnati and Dayton, 20-25 percent of households have no car, with 8½ percent of all Ohio households lacking a car, the Census says.

• Ohio’s public and private colleges and universities have a total enrollment of 637,000 students, according to the Ohio Board of Regents.

• And Ohio’s young adults are getting their drivers licenses later than their parents did, and getting their first cars much later their parents.

 

“Ohio is facing a serious mobility crisis,” Hutchison added. “Ohio’s public officials and transportation company executives need to recognize a problem exists and start working together to address the lack of travel options.”

 

All Aboard Ohio is offering to assist in creating more dialogue between the Ohio Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, counties, cities and, of course, the transportation carriers themselves, he said.

 

"For too many Ohioans, the basic need of reuniting family during the holidays is not being satisfied," Hutchison continued. "If we are still fortunate enough to have bus or train services to our town, it is often sold out or travels on inconvenient schedules. And if we are still fortunate to have a commercial passenger airport nearby, our travel choices from that airport are becoming meager. That doesn’t give Ohio travelers and visitors much to be thankful for in this holiday season."

 

END

A friend of mine just sent this e-mail to me:

_____________

 

Of course, other Ohio public transit agencies are in serious trouble, too. GCRTA is going to drastically cut its service, and the same thing is happening elsewhere. I gave testimony at the public hearing on the GCRTA 2010 budget yesterday morning. Most of that testimony was based upon this report:

 

http://www.nacs.net/~georgez/qew1Q09.pdf

 

The report finds that things are even worse in Dayton and Toledo than they are in Cleveland. Even Franklin County lost more retail trade jobs than Cuyahoga County lost during the recession. The $19.79 billion in lost paychecks in Ohio have caused horrible plunges in the state and local government tax revenues on a statewide basis, including both the sales tax and income tax. Further, property tax delinquencies are soaring. So, the main funding base for ALL Ohio public transit agencies is plunging, putting ALL of them under severe stress. This catastrophic problem is by no means limited to Lorain.

http://209.51.133.155/cms/index.php/news_releases/more/ohio_transit_shutdown_whos_next/

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — December 2, 2009

Contact:

Ken Prendergast

All Aboard Ohio Executive Director

(216) 288-4883

[email protected]

 

On Dec. 31, 2009, Lorain County will become the most populous county in Ohio without a public transportation system. But other systems, including those in larger counties throughout Ohio could soon be completely shut down, too.

 

A decade ago, the elimination of federal operating funding for public transit systems serving communities of more than 250,000 people (Lorain County has about 300,000 residents) forced states and local governments to make up for the federal cut. While most states dramatically increased their support for public transit, the State of Ohio slashed its by 75 percent.

 

In 2009, the State of Ohio will spend $12 million to cut the grass along its Interstates. That’s more than the $10 million Ohio will spend to support public transit and its 250,000 daily users.

 

Cuts to federal and state transit funding have forced Ohio transit agencies to rely on local sales taxes, income taxes and property taxes. Because of this overdependence on local funding, all Ohio public transit agencies are in SERIOUS TROUBLE. See:

http://www.nacs.net/~georgez/qew1Q09.pdf

 

The above report finds that things are even worse in Dayton and Toledo. Even Franklin County lost more retail trade jobs than Cuyahoga County did during the recession. The $19.79 billion in lost paychecks in Ohio have caused horrible plunges in the state and local government tax revenues on a statewide basis, including both the sales tax and income tax. Further, property tax delinquencies are soaring. So, the main funding base for ALL Ohio public transit agencies is plunging, putting ALL of them under severe stress.

 

“This catastrophic problem is by no means limited to Lorain County,” said Bill Hutchison, president of All Aboard Ohio, a nonprofit association which advocates better trains and transit services.

 

Ironically, Lorain County Transit, like other transit agencies, continue to receive federal funding (including stimulus funding) that can only be used to buy buses, build transit centers and improve facilities.

 

“So while Ohio transit systems can hire new construction workers, they’re forced to layoff bus drivers and isolate riders from reaching their jobs, the grocery store, doctors or school,” Hutchison said. “In Lorain County alone, tens of thousands of people will be put on the transportation equivalent of house arrest, even though they haven’t done anything wrong.”

 

See Lorain County isolation data at:

http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Lorain%20County%20-%20isolated%20without%20transit.pdf

 

“Congress should give local, regional and state transportation authorities the flexibility to decide whether they need their next public transportation grant to be used for capital improvements or operating assistance,” Hutchison added. “Right now they cannot decide that for themselves without breaking the law.”

 

Congress is considering an amendment to the pending six-year surface transportation spending reauthorization to allow such flexibility. U.S. Rep. Betty Sutton (D-13, Lorain) is a co-sponsor of the amendment. However the U.S. Senate is not willing to take up the transportation reauthorization for the foreseeable future.

 

For more information on Ohio’s worsening mobility crisis, please see the following resources provided by All Aboard Ohio:

 

Operation: Sustain Transit (funding suggestions for Ohio urban and intercity transit):

http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Operation-Sustain%20Transit.pdf

 

Ohio Transport Report Card 2009 (Ohio’s 30-year retreat of intercity public transport)

http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Ohio%20Transport%20Report%20Card%202009.pdf

 

Special “Save Transit” issue of the Ohio Passenger Rail News

http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/AAO%20Monthly%20Newsletter%20110109.pdf

 

Also, please distribute this “SAVE TRANSIT” flier responsibly:

http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Save%20public%20transit%20flier.pdf

 

For more information, please go to All Aboard Ohio’s Web site at http://www.allaboardohio.org. And if you aren’t a member of All Aboard Ohio yet, please join us, make a donation, or mention All Aboard Ohio when you shop at goodshop.com or at GFS Marketplace this holiday season which will help support our efforts.

 

END

I don't know if anyone has mentioned what Pennsylvania is doing at the state level, but it's pretty sophisticated for this region. My old company is the main consultant - here is a link to the introductory Powerpoint that's been used at the local and county level:

 

http://www.smart-transportation.com/assets/download/BASE-15%20Min.ppt

 

I hope some people at ODOT are following this. I guess it helps PennDOT that its director is pro-transit.

Thanks to the UrbanCincy.com blogspot for covering All Aboard Ohio's press release which led to this coverage....

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2009/12/pg_cancels_as_the_world_turns.html

 

Getting around Ohio now tougher

Monday, December 14, 2009, 11:58am EST

Rob Daumeyer

Editor

 

Even a quick glance at the two maps shown here tells the story: Ohio's transportation choices are getting narrower and narrower each year.

 

Unless you're using a car, the state's a tougher place to get around in, according to All Aboard Ohio, a non-profit group dedicated to improving public transportation through the state. Bus service is town, Amtrak service is down – even the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport has far fewer flights than it did a few year ago.

 

All Aboard Ohio makes the argument that improving the present national passenger and freight rail network as well as expanding commuter rail and local public transit is key to the state's economic viability.

 

 

 

Cross-posted from the Greater Cleveland RTA thread......

 

I thought this might be of interest.....

 

State $$ for transit (2004) in 000's

1. New York $1,811,372

2. California $1,317,934

3. Massachusetts $1,291,363

4. New Jersey $837,476

5. Maryland $789,511

6. Pennsylvania $785,151

7. Illinois $778,700

8. Minnesota $214,255

9. Michigan $209,652

  District of Columbia $208,253

10. Connecticut $200,167

11. North Carolina $154,680

12. Virginia $140,100

13. Wisconsin $109,078

14. Florida $96,504

15. Delaware $72,000

16. Tennessee  $38,532

17. Rhode Island $36,840

18. Indiana $36,201

19. Oregon $31,445

20. Washington $29,150

21. Texas  $27,741

22. Arizona $20,068

23. Ohio $18,100

24. Iowa $8,600

25. Missouri $6,600

26. Vermont $6,103

27. Kansas $6,000

28. South Carolina $5,864

29. Louisiana $4,963

30. Georgia  $4,858

31. Arkansas $2,800

32. Oklahoma $2,750

33. Wyoming $2,466

34. New Mexico $2,402

35. West Virginia $2,294

36. North Dakota $1,546

37. Nebraska $1,500

38. Kentucky $1,400

39. South Dakota $996

40. Mississippi $800

41. Maine $505

42. Montana $390

43. Idaho $312

44. New Hampshire $225

45. Nevada $125

46. Alabama $0

47. Alaska $0

48. Colorado $0

49. Hawaii $0

50. Utah $0

 

 

But I think this ranking tells the story even more accurately......

 

State funding per capita

    District of Columbia $376.23

1. Massachusetts $201.26

2. Maryland $142.05

3. New Jersey $96.27

4. New York $94.21

5. Delaware $86.71

6. Pennsylvania $63.29

7. Illinois $61.25

8. Connecticut $57.13

9. Minnesota $42.00

10. California $36.72

11. Rhode Island $34.09

12. Michigan $20.73

13. Wisconsin $19.80

14. Virginia $18.78

15. North Carolina $18.11

16. Vermont $9.82

17. Oregon $8.75

18. Tennessee $6.53

18. Indiana $5.80

20. Florida $5.55

21. Wyoming $4.87

22. Washington $4.70

23. Arizona $3.49

24. North Dakota $2.44

25. Iowa $2.91

26. Kansas $2.19

27. Ohio $1.58

28. South Carolina $1.40

29. South Dakota $1.29

30. New Mexico $1.26

31. West Virginia $1.26

32. Texas $1.23

33. Missouri $1.15

34. Louisiana $1.10

35. Arkansas $1.02

36. Nebraska $0.86

37. Oklahoma $0.78

38. Georgia $0.55

39. Montana $0.42

40. Maine $0.38

41. Kentucky $0.34

42. Mississippi $0.28

43. Idaho $0.22

44. New Hampshire $0.17

45. Nevada $0.05

46. Alabama $0.00

47. Alaska $0.00

48. Colorado $0.00

49. Hawaii $0.00

50. Utah $0.00

 

SOURCE: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_569.pdf

It would be interesting to index that to economic growth over the same time period.

Also, in addition to the above, please note the first bar graph on page 35 at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_569.pdf

 

From 1995-2004, the comparative annual growth rates in state funding fell in only six states (Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Nebraska, Florida and Iowa). And only one state (Nevada) cut funding for transit more per yearly average than Ohio did (-7.5%). A later chart suggests Ohio made up for the state funding cuts with federal funding -- but the federal funding wasn't for operating costs, it was for capital investment. And state cuts since 2004 weren't made up for with federal funding.

 

Note that 44 states INCREASED funding for transit. The average annual growth rate in state funding for all states, including the six that cut funding, was 3.9 percent.

 

If Ohio increased funding for transit at the national average growth rate, it would have provided $56.44 million in 2004 rather than just $18.1 million (or $10 million this year!). Even IF Ohio stayed no-growth in transit funding from 2005-09 rather than make further cuts like it did, Ohio's funding for transit would still rank it 9th in the nation (near to its 7th spot in national population) and, assuming the same what-if scenario, it's $4.91 per capita in transit funding would rank it 21st in the nation -- but still only barely edging out WYOMING!

 

 

    Transit is declining in Ohio. At the same time, air traffic is down, and it appears that driving is down. I guess all transportation is declining!

 

    Welcome to the age of declining mobility.

Transit in Ohio wasn't declining until the end of 2008. Granted, it wasn't doing as well here as it was in other states. But driving and flying were down since 2005 due to skyrocketing fuel costs.

 

The problem as I see it, with our over-dependence on driving and to a lesser extent flying, the next economic growth period will be short-lived. We are at or near peak oil. Unless we decouple our transportation system from oil, increases in economic activity will cause fuel prices to climb. The spike in fuel prices will wreck the next-most fragile sector of the economy, then put a stop to any economic recovery. Peak oil scientists call this the staging process of an "economic powerdown."

 

Each stage means layoffs and drops in payroll taxes, sales taxes and property taxes -- everything that supports public transit in Ohio. So when fuel prices should be causing transit ridership to spike, it falters because our economy is still dependent on fuel-inefficient cars, trucks and planes.

 

This is going to be a long and ugly reordering of America's oil-soaked economy.

Please see the Save Transit Now, Move Ohio Forward! page at:

http://www.policymattersohio.org/SaveTransitNow.htm

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — December 30, 2009

 

Contact:

Ken Prendergast

Executive Director, All Aboard Ohio

(216) 288-4883

[email protected]

 

Amanda Woodrum

Researcher, Policy Matters Ohio

(330) 780-8321

[email protected]

 

CLEVELAND – For the first time ever, a host of transportation, public policy, social service, and environmental organizations have joined forces in a campaign to reverse the decline of public transportation here and around Ohio. These 10 organizations (see the list at end of press release -- more are being added) represent tens of thousands of members and clients in Greater Cleveland and statewide. They have united under the name "Save Transit Now, Move Ohio Forward!"

 

Save Transit Now, Move Ohio Forward! has suggested initial steps to safeguard public transit users from further service cuts/fare increases and to save Ohio’s economy and environment from further decline. These include:

 

+ Overturning the state constitutional prohibition on using Ohio gas tax revenues and motor vehicle fees for non-highway purposes, thereby freeing up that revenue to be used for mass transit.

 

+ Using flexible transportation funding sources currently available in Ohio – such as gas taxes collected from off-road vehicles, farming and landscaping equipment, and revenue raised from vanity license plates – to fund mass transit.

 

+ Wherever possible, and whenever not already doing so, the Ohio Department of Transportation and Metropolitan Planning Organizations should take advantage of flexible federal highway funds and use them for public transportation.

 

Public transit is heavily used in Ohio. More Ohioans travel on buses and trains within our metro areas each day than fly in and out of Ohio’s airports. More than 350,000 Ohioans each day use buses and trains to reach jobs, medical appointments, grocery stores, day care, pharmacies, schools, job training and other services.

 

"For many people – including people with disabilities, seniors and low income individuals – public transit is the only way to get around," said Donna P. McNamee, a Laketran Trustee (who is also transit dependent due to disability), and a member of ODOT’s 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task Force.

 

The Save Transit Now, Move Ohio Forward! campaign was inaugurated in Greater Cleveland because it has as many public transit riders as all other Ohio transit agencies combined. While the need for secure, stable and low-cost public transit is greatest in Greater Cleveland, the new coalition pledges to fight for transit funding for all Ohio.

 

Despite the need for public transportation, Ohio transit agencies have been forced to slash transit services and raise fares. A decade ago, elimination of federal operating funding for public transit systems serving communities of more than 250,000 people forced states and local governments to make up for the federal cut. While most states dramatically increased support for public transit, the state of Ohio has cut funding by 75 percent since 2002.

 

Less than one percent of the Ohio Department of Transportation’s budget is spent on public transit. "In fact," says Ken Prendergast, Executive Director of All Aboard Ohio, "the State of Ohio will spend more to cut the grass along its Interstates than for public transit operations."

 

Other states do better. Ohio ranks 40th in the nation for relative commitment to public transit, despite the fact we are the seventh most populous state. Even Indiana spends three times more than Ohio, and Pennsylvania spends 33 times as much.

 

Cuts to federal and state transit funding have forced Ohio transit agencies to rely on local sales, income and property taxes, which are difficult to procure and tumbling due to the economy. Because of this overdependence on local funding, all Ohio public transit agencies are in serious trouble.

 

"Sales tax revenues in Cleveland plunged 10 percent since December 2008 and nearly 20 percent since November 2007," said Economic Research Analyst and Greater Cleveland RTA Citizen Advisory Board member George Zeller, "amounting to a $2.9 million decline per month, annualized at $35 million per year." Declines are even steeper in Dayton and Toledo.

 

"It is no accident our public transit agencies are in crisis – it is the direct result of choices we Ohioans have made on how to spend our state transportation dollars," said Amanda Woodrum, research at Policy Matters Ohio. "We can make better choices."

 

According to the American Public Transit Association, for every $1 invested in public transportation, $6 is generated in economic returns. Consider that:

 

1. Investments in public transit produce nearly 20% more jobs than equivalent expenditures in new roads or highways.

 

2. Public transportation can provide more affordable and accessible transportation. Owning, operating, and maintaining a passenger vehicle is expensive. For seniors, and people with disabilities, it may not be an option at all.

 

3. A reliable system of public transportation can reduce dependence on polluting fossil fuels largely imported from elsewhere. Nationally, public transportation allows us to save 900,000 automobile fill-ups each day, and saves 37 million metric tons of CO2 from being emitted, annually.

 

4. Transit-oriented development is more environmentally friendly, and can serve to reduce urban sprawl and revitalize our cities, by concentrating economic development. Currently, Ohio has an incoherent transportation system, putting schools, workplaces, shopping, health, and child-care centers all over the map, and leaving Ohioans dependent on passenger vehicles.

 

5. Public transportation reduces traffic congestion. Each year, public transportation saves hundreds of millions of hours in travel time nationally.

 

6. Public transit creates healthier communities, ultimately reducing air pollution, which disproportionately affects low income neighborhoods and communities of color; encouraging people to walk more; and, increasing access to jobs.

 

"Successful and livable cities around the world offer a healthy mix of transportation choices," said David Beach, director of the GreenCityBlueLake Institute. "It’s time to invest in transit and make Ohio cities more competitive and sustainable."

 

"Ohioans want and need a transportation alternative that includes safe, reliable and convenient public transportation services and we urge the Administration and legislators to move on the long term solution for transit now," said Shanelle Smith, Coordinator of the Ohio Apollo Alliance, a coalition of labor, community, environmental, and business leaders.

 

END

 

Signers:

 

• Greater Cleveland RTA Citizen Advisory Board

• Laketran

• GreenCityBlueLake Institute

• Ohio Empowerment Coalition and Contact Center

• Ohio Apollo Alliance

• Policy Matters Ohio

• All Aboard Ohio

• Environment Ohio

• Ohio Environmental Council

• Bike, Walk Ohio!

 

To join us, sign our online petition at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/transOH/petition.html

 

Additional Resources:

 

Policy Matters Ohio’s transit funding report “Committing to Ohio’s Commuters: The Transit Ticket to the New Energy Economy” is found at: http://www.policymattersohio.org/OhiosCommuters.htm

 

Complete information about the RTA’s budget situation is provided at: http://www.riderta.com/budgetchallenges/

 

Several revenue sources could be considered to address the current transit funding crisis as documented by All Aboard Ohio at: http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Operation-Sustain%20Transit.pdf

 

The Ohio 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task Force recommended in January 2009 that transit be provided a dedicated funding stream of $75 million annually in the initial year (increasing over a 6 year period to an amount representing 25% of the transit agencies’ operating costs plus 50% of the non-federal match for capital expenses). See: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/groups/tft/Pages/default.aspx

Going in a little bit different direction than some recent posts...

 

Does anyone know why ODOT doesn't paint or apply reflective materials to the snow plow trucks?  The ones that are on regular interstates are usually white (and dirty) in the winter, making them hard to see in the snow.  There are usually some small reflective pieces of tape applied somewhere. 

 

On the turnpike, the snow plows are painted yellow.  In many other states it is a very bright yellow, or the backs on the snow plow trucks have significant reflective decals applied.

 

Any idea why ODOT sticks with a dirty white color on the snow plows?

A study in the 90s actually found that white is more visible than yellow...and if white gets dirty, so does yellow. Also, white is cheaper than yellow.

 

dont know about the reflective tape "features" of ODOT versus turnpike trucks

ODOT plows also carry an array of flashing lights to make them easier to see in snow or fog.

ODOT released the 2010-11 Business Plan today (see link below).  Some folks on here ask about ODOT's revenue sources vs expenditures - it is contained in this document (PDF page 37).  This is the document that lays out the investment strategy for the next budget cycle (2 years) for the department.

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/policy/2010-2011BusinessPlan/Pages/default.aspx

 

Also, noted in the PDF document is discussion on the Transportation Futures Plan (Go Ohio).  Below is a link to information on that effort.

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/groups/goohio/Pages/default.aspx#

Here's what the report said......

 

Revenue and Program Assumptions:

 

There are a number of revenue and program assumptions inherent to the financial plan, which together has a significant impact on financial projections. It should be noted that some of the factors – such as inflation – are dynamic, so changes in factors could swing program projections widely. However, ODOT has chosen to take a financially moderate approach toward revenues and operational cost in developing its financial plan.For the Operating Program, the budget remains at 95 percent of 2008 levels in 2010 and 2011 and will remain at this level with only a 5 percent personnel costs premium and a 2 percent operating costs premium for the following five years (2012-2017). This is a purposeful decision to keep operating levels at 95 percent to encourage conservation and cost cutting at the district and statewide levels.

 

Pavement and bridge preservation programs are grown at the cost inflation levels identified in this Business Plan. As noted before, inflation prediction is challenging, but made necessary by the extreme impact of construction cost inflation on ODOT’s budget. ODOT analysts use various construction cost indices and futures prices to produce a high-medium-low range construction forecast, and the medium range is used to inflate pavement and bridge programs. It is important to note that about a third of pavement and bridge spending goes to engineering and right-of-way, so ODOT only inflates the program spending which goes to construction.

 

The Safety program, ODOT Statewide programs, and Local System Preservation were not adjusted for inflation. ODOT will monitor condition indices and cost information for these programs on a continual basis.

 

Local System Preservation programs – the pass through of federal funding to local agencies such as MPOs and county engineers – is also unadjusted for inflation. MPOs did experience a large increase in funding with the passage of SAFETEA-LU and most are carrying forward large balances of unspent funds, year to year. Further, local governments have local funding sources and revenue options to fund their programs, so that federal pass through funds rarely, if ever, form the core funding source of local infrastructure.

 

The multi-modal program is funded by non-state gas tax revenues at $6 – $7 million per year through 2017. The investments to be made with these dollars will be in transit, rail and intermodal projects.

 

Of the Recovery Act funding presented on the pro forma ($936 million), approximately $161 million is governed by the state’s eight major Metropolitan Planning Organizations.

 

Finally, there was no adjustment for inflation for the Major New Construction program, as it represents funding that is “left over” after all Fix it First, Safety, Statewide and Local Programs are funded. The FAST TRAC initiative is funded at $50 million per year through 2017. In the final table of the proforma, major new projects are readjusted for predicted inflation.

 

Based upon the department’s various programs, along with inflation and revenue forecasts, the financial plan shows that ODOT will experience a combined $1.5 billion shortfall by fiscal 2017.

 

ODOT's business plan for 2010-2011

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/policy/2010-2011BusinessPlan/Documents/ODOT2010-2011BusinessPlan-WEB.pdf

 

From which (p37) I pulled these numbers...........

 

ODOT's Major-New Program (ie: new-capacity highways)

 

COST FUNDS BALANCE CUMULATIVE

2010: $817M $1052M +$235M +$235M

2011: $332M $116M -$216M +$19M

2012: $121M $30M -$91M -$72M

2013: $573M $46M -$527M -$599M

2014: $427M $54M -$373M -$972M

2015: $127M $33M -$94M -$1066M

2016: $121M $44M -$77M -$1143M

2017: $403M $6M -$397M -$1540M

 

And, actually, I think their presumption of available funds is optimistic, especially if oil prices rise.....

 

Oil price futures (NYMEX as of Jan. 6, 2010):

 

Current:    $81.52

Dec 2010: $86.62

Dec 2011: $89.35

Dec 2012: $90.86

Dec 2013: $92.33

Dec 2014: $94.18

Dec 2015: $96.27

Dec 2016: $98.51

Dec 2017: $101.05

BTW, just to make this information more available, especially in light of local/regional transit agencies trying to fill a large void left by the near-disappearance of Greyhound and other intercity bus operators in Ohio....

 

Ohio Public Transport Map Fall 1979:

http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Ohio%20Public%20Transport%20Map%20Fall%201979.pdf

 

Ohio Public Transport Map Fall 2009:

http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Ohio%20Public%20Transport%20Map%20Fall%202009.pdf

^ WOW!!!