Author Topic: ODOT Policy Discussion (Read 122174 times)

KJP · « **Reply #735 on:** December 02, 2009, 07:08:27 AM »

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
kenprendergast@allaboardohio.org

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

Civvik · « **Reply #736 on:** December 05, 2009, 06:55:26 AM »

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.

KJP · « **Reply #737 on:** December 14, 2009, 06:40:26 AM »

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.

KJP · « **Reply #738 on:** December 23, 2009, 04:55:58 PM »

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

dmerkow · « **Reply #739 on:** December 23, 2009, 04:59:54 PM »

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

KJP · « **Reply #740 on:** December 23, 2009, 05:19:30 PM »

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!

Eighth and State · « **Reply #741 on:** December 26, 2009, 04:16:24 AM »

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.

KJP · « **Reply #742 on:** December 26, 2009, 02:06:26 PM »

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.

KJP · « **Reply #743 on:** December 31, 2009, 07:36:33 AM »

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
kenprendergast@allaboardohio.org

Amanda Woodrum
Researcher, Policy Matters Ohio
(330) 780-8321
awoodrum@policymattersohio.org

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

urbanlife · « **Reply #744 on:** January 03, 2010, 11:34:04 PM »

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?

KLF · « **Reply #745 on:** January 04, 2010, 04:55:42 AM »

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

noozer · « **Reply #746 on:** January 04, 2010, 05:23:43 AM »

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

tt342998 · « **Reply #747 on:** January 05, 2010, 01:09:50 PM »

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#

KJP · « **Reply #748 on:** January 06, 2010, 03:26:29 AM »

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

KJP · « **Reply #749 on:** January 07, 2010, 04:46:27 AM »

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

UrbanSurfin · « **Reply #750 on:** January 07, 2010, 05:59:46 AM »

^ WOW!!!

KJP · « **Reply #751 on:** January 07, 2010, 02:41:40 PM »

I'd say that about sums it up!

Sherman Cahal · « **Reply #752 on:** January 07, 2010, 04:21:38 PM »

KJP, wasn't that map based on what someone else made earlier? It is fantastic, but it is important to note that not all routes in 2009 are dailies. The Cardinal that runs between Cincinnati and Ashland (the two destinations I'd use the most) only has three-day a week service, which is insufficient. I drive between that distance in 2 hours, yet it would take 4 hours via a train, and then I'd have to take an extra day off from work because of the (lack of) service.

KJP · « **Reply #753 on:** January 08, 2010, 02:04:30 AM »

I developed those maps as part of an All Aboard Ohio report I wrote and was issued in early December. But since not everyone may be interested in downloading the report, I pulled the maps out to make them more accessible and available.

Conveying the frequency and quality of transportation services isn't the purpose of the map. And not all transportation services in 1979 were daily either. Such as the bus route east from Cleveland through my former hometown of Chagrin Falls to Warren and points east (State College, PA, etc) ran less than daily -- I think it was four days per week. And I suspect some of the other lines on that map represented less-than-daily bus services.

tt342998 · « **Reply #754 on:** January 20, 2010, 03:23:59 PM »

Draft of the Statewide Rail Plan was released today:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/StatewideRailPlan/Pages/default.aspx

KJP · « **Reply #755 on:** January 26, 2010, 08:43:28 AM »

Here's a blast from the past:

While looking at a back issue of the OARP (now All Aboard Ohio) newsletter from 1984, I came a across a tidbit that speaks volumes as to why we are where we are today.

According to the newsletter, on Feb. 15, 1984, the Ohio House passed a bill which would allow the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) to loan ODOT $10 million in transit money. The reason? ODOT wanted to money as a state share to build I-670 between downtown and the airport, because it did not have a state match for federal highway funds for this project.

Governor Celeste objected to this idea, not because it siphoned money from transit users in favor of cars, but because he wanted the money to be a gift instead of a loan! He wanted the money but didn't want to pay it back! This no doubt happened, since I-670 was indeed built shortly after that. It was evident that all the key "decision-makers" were already in favor of this, never mind that transit riders were being shafted.

Such was the state of transportation decision making in Ohio in 1984. I now know what the name "Ohio" really means:

On Highways & Interstates Only!!!

tt342998 · « **Reply #756 on:** February 12, 2010, 02:50:02 PM »

House OKs formation of regional authorities
By JIM PROVANCE
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU CHIEF

COLUMBUS - The Ohio House yesterday overwhelmingly voted to authorize regional agencies that would have the power to impose tolls or share tax revenue to make priority roads, interchanges, bridges, and other transportation projects a reality.

But first, lawmakers had to get beyond a skirmish between urban centers and suburban and rural areas over a last-minute provision that would give preference to areas that have roads, water, and sewer infrastructure in place.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100121/NEWS24/1210373/0/OPINION03

noozer · « **Reply #757 on:** February 26, 2010, 08:33:02 PM »

An excerpt from the newly released "Restoring Prosperity" report by Greater Ohio and The Brookings Institute:

Maximizing the impact of the state’s infrastructure is an important part of increasing the state’s ability to transition to the next economy, as the state needs new transportation networks and multimodal freight facilities to get state-manufactured goods to international markets. Moreover, the type of infrastructure people use to get from place to place will also have an effect on the global challenge of climate change, which has quickly emerged as the main environmental problem linked to transportation.

Ohio’s current pattern of infrastructure spending by and large is not keeping up with the changing needs of the economy. While the state has made some promising moves in the direction of a wider range of transportation infrastructure, the state must go still further and create a new transportation strategy that enables more transportation options and positions the state for a low-carbon future, through the following steps:

Elevate “fix-it-first” as the central principle guiding transportation investment decisions

Analyze and track ODOT investment decisions on the basis of greatest returns on investment

Create a state-wide sustainability challenge competition

Change how infrastructure gets funded in Ohio in order to support transformative investments

Full report at:
http://greaterohio.org/files/quick-downloads/restoring-prosperity-report.pdf

KJP · « **Reply #758 on:** February 27, 2010, 02:58:56 AM »

Good report. The ODOT recommendations are the same as what I've been preaching more and more -- stop making investment decisions wholly on the basis of traffic engineering, but on the basis of economic return and environmental impact. Making investments on long-term (decades?) criteria like net job creation and net wealth creation within a metro area, air quality contribution, energy efficiency, etc. would result in us making very different investment choices than simply moving more vehicles around more safely at higher speeds.

tt342998 · « **Reply #759 on:** March 18, 2010, 11:10:40 AM »

The new draft TRAC list was released today...Cincinnati streetcar folks should be encouraged.

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Pages/Default.aspx

gildone · « **Reply #760 on:** March 20, 2010, 12:59:30 PM »

^ "Cincinnati Fourth Main Rail and Cincinnati Union Terminal" Good news!

KJP · « **Reply #761 on:** March 25, 2010, 02:06:31 AM »

This is a bit humorous. I didn't realize we were so scary!
__________________

http://209.235.208.145/cgi-bin/WebSuite/tcsAssnWebSuite.pl?Action=DisplayNewsDetails&RecordID=1081&Sections=1&IncludeDropped=0&AssnID=OTA&DBCode=10451

03/05/2010
OTA JOINS COALITION TO FIGHT GAS TAX DIVERSION

With all the recent frenzy and federal funding of the proposed passenger rail line connecting Ohio’s biggest cities, you knew it eventually had to happen. There is a new group out there that are plotting to change Ohio’s constitution by removing the provision that requires state fuel tax dollars to go to the state’s roads and bridges. They are “Save Transit Now, Move Ohio Forward” and the group is composed of the Ohio Apollo Alliance, Policy Matters Ohio, All Aboard Ohio, and the Ohio Environmental Council.

The group’s intent is to use gas tax, vehicle registration and other user fees for mass transit and rail. It is OTA’s understanding that once the requirement is removed from the Constitution, the group will go for a fuel tax increase of ten to twenty cents per gallon dedicated to their purposes.

OTA, along with other associations like the Ohio Contractors, are forming a coalition to do whatever is necessary to prevent this amendment from passing. Initially, our coalition will be visiting editorial boards to educate state newspapers and other media as to the importance of this provision remaining in the Constitution. We will be monitoring the process by which Save Transit Now tries to put their initiative on the ballot, then become part of the opposition to the issue campaign when it arises. We’ve heard that this could be a battle for 2012, however it could arise at any time.

Watch for information in future issues of News Briefs. When this issue comes to a head we’ll need the widest possible effort to defeat it and protect the huge investment of tax dollars our industry makes for the betterment of the roads and bridges we use.

Foraker · « **Reply #762 on:** March 25, 2010, 05:33:36 AM »

Ha! As if fuel is only purchased for use on roadways. Here's an idea -- change the constitution so that roadway maintenance costs must be borne entirely by fuel taxes, registration fees and user fees!

taestell · « **Reply #763 on:** March 26, 2010, 05:26:10 AM »

If gas taxes can only be used to fund roads... then roads should only be funded by gas taxes. In other words, the tax needs to be raised so that roads require no additional subsidies from other sources.

natininja · « **Reply #764 on:** March 26, 2010, 09:02:34 AM »

Quote from: taestell on March 26, 2010, 05:26:10 AM

If gas taxes can only be used to fund roads... then roads should only be funded by gas taxes. In other words, the tax needs to be raised so that roads require no additional subsidies from other sources.

Can't you use the same argument regarding other forms of transit?

The fact is, while this sounds appealing, it would make the cost of doing business go up ridiculously. Remember what gas prices were doing to the cost of goods, prior to the recession?

That is not to say that this isn't a noble goal. I think the correct way to pursue this, policy-wise, is to incentivize using the true-value cheapest mode of transport, and slowly increase the user-funded proportion of road costs. Eventually, you may have a self-supporting auto system. Or (most likely, IMO) you might decide that a little subsidy is more beneficial than none at all.

Some countries in Europe are discussing using GPS to track the movement of people's cars, so they can charge them per kilometer of road use. I think it's a horrible idea, due to the Big Brother implications, but it's an interesting idea, and an alternative to higher gasoline taxes.

KJP · « **Reply #765 on:** March 26, 2010, 09:23:03 AM »

Quote from: natininja on March 26, 2010, 09:02:34 AM

Can't you use the same argument regarding other forms of transit?

The fact is, while this sounds appealing, it would make the cost of doing business go up ridiculously. Remember what gas prices were doing to the cost of goods, prior to the recession?

You would have to trade out one tax for another. For example, if the gas tax goes up at a per-capita level of X, the income tax would have to drop by the same amount.

And yes, if the subsidy for driving was eliminated, I would welcome eliminating the subsidy for transit. It would mean an increase in fares (probably a quadrupling), but it would also require eliminating the sales taxes and other funding sources that pay for transit.

Quote

Some countries in Europe are discussing using GPS to track the movement of people's cars, so they can charge them per kilometer of road use. I think it's a horrible idea, due to the Big Brother implications, but it's an interesting idea, and an alternative to higher gasoline taxes.

You don't need GPS to implement a per-mile usage structure. If a taxi's fare meter can calculate your fare without GPS, so can the family car. A "road meter" could be tied into your car's odometer. If you have a low balance on your car's meter, then swipe your debit or credit card through the meter and off you go.

natininja · « **Reply #766 on:** March 26, 2010, 09:56:38 AM »

Quote from: KJP on March 26, 2010, 09:23:03 AM

You would have to trade out one tax for another. For example, if the gas tax goes up at a per-capita level of X, the income tax would have to drop by the same amount.

And yes, if the subsidy for driving was eliminated, I would welcome eliminating the subsidy for transit. It would mean an increase in fares (probably a quadrupling), but it would also require eliminating the sales taxes and other funding sources that pay for transit.

It would be a major step towards immobilizing the poor, and overall increasing the relative size of our country/world. It would promote density and localizing business. It's hard to predict its effects on costs of goods, and it's definitely a killer for rural folks/farmers. It has pros and cons.

Quote

You don't need GPS to implement a per-mile usage structure. If a taxi's fare meter can calculate your fare without GPS, so can the family car. A "road meter" could be tied into your car's odometer. If you have a low balance on your car's meter, then swipe your debit or credit card through the meter and off you go.

I think the GPS is their answer to people cheating. Any device like you suggest would be subject to tampering, akin to rolling back an odometer to increase the value of a used car. That isn't to say some hackers won't figure out how to trick the GPS system.

http://www.good.is/post/the-dutch-try-a-kilometer-tax/

KJP · « **Reply #767 on:** March 26, 2010, 10:10:28 AM »

Quote from: natininja on March 26, 2010, 09:56:38 AM

It would be a major step towards immobilizing the poor, and overall increasing the relative size of our country/world. It would promote density and localizing business. It's hard to predict its effects on costs of goods, and it's definitely a killer for rural folks/farmers. It has pros and cons.

How would it immobilize the poor? The money they've saved from lower-cost purchases (from having a reduced sales tax) would be available for them to spend on transportation. Yes, I realize many would probably just buy more things and spend less on transportation. But perhaps there could be a program in which overall cost-of-living expenses (including transportation) could be subsidized for a limited period of time, such as TANF. While it wouldn't reduce the transit fare price or reduce the per-mile charge of driving, it would provide an amount of money that the needy person could use to purchase more driving miles or afford more bus/train fares.

I'm sure the "road meter" could be subject to tampering. Make the penalty for it harsh enough that people would think twice -- such as a $500 fine for the first offense and forfeiting their car for the second offense!

natininja · « **Reply #768 on:** March 26, 2010, 10:30:52 AM »

I guess the question is: would sales tax really be lowered enough to offset the increased cost of transportation for the poor? If the majority/entirety of the cuts come from sales taxes, that may be a possibility. Although, it seems to me that a significant percentage of poor people's income may go to untaxed goods (like food, or in some states clothes), so their potential for savings is less.

I also think the cost of food would rise significantly, as there's a lot of transportation involved in getting food from farms to stores. Especially if the cuts are made to sales tax, and not to taxes which affect businesses on a grander scale.

KJP · « **Reply #769 on:** March 26, 2010, 10:47:21 AM »

All are likely outcomes. And some may be good. Maybe Americans wouldn't eat so much, or require food be shipped so far (average is 1,000 miles), or promote more urban farms. If America could produce 40 percent of its food from victory gardens in World War II, why not now? Why not more?

News:

Author Topic: ODOT Policy Discussion (Read 122174 times)