RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
NBC4i.com wrote
ODOT To Change Top-Funding Formula
Thursday, Nov 20, 2008
By Patrick Preston
The Ohio Department of Transportation wants to change the way it chooses which projects get top funding priority. Meeting Thursday, the agency’s Transportation Review Advisory Council, or TRAC, was considering a new funding formula that would emphasize factors such as economic development benefits, environmental impact and local investment.
ODOT’s director said projects in motion, such as the Interstate 70/71 split, likely would continue.
Related Stories:
- ODOT Kicks Off $2.5 Billion Construction Season
- ODOT Invites All Ohioans to Join the Conversation
- Summit and Fourth Could be Going Two-Way
So is this good or bad?
hard to say without more details
hard to say without more details
See link below for the details about the new scoring critera
http://www.morpc.org/trans/funding_ProposedTRACscoring.pdf
In terms of whether the new scoring criteria is good or bad depends on your point of view. In my view, the scoring will favor bigger cities/metropolitan areas. The reasoning being the more emphasis on land use/economic development factors – these issues are dealt with or developed more in the urban areas as opposed to rural areas. The other factor that indicates a movement towards the metro areas is the criteria for Local/Private Investment levels. Bigger cities will tend to have higher levels of investment (i.e. Columbus would score higher in this area than what Deleware or Lancaster would). Metro areas would be more apt to have private investment committments as well.
IMO, the “good” is the level playing field for transit (rail or bus) investements. In previous TRAC scoring criteria, transit measures were vague. The draft TRAC criteria specifically spells out transit measures (ridership numbers, decrease in VMT, etc) and points to be assigned for those measures. The bad, well, that would be that funding levels still are bleak…
Glad to see transit really featured in the plan. Level playing fields are great.
there go the I-71/71 split caps.
is it me or did the streetcar initiative drop off the face of the earth.
is it me or did the streetcar initiative drop off the face of the earth.
In terms of state funding, I don’t think these two projects are necessarily in the same boat. However, both could possibly still qualify, depending on how the criteria are applied in practice:
(1) increase mobility,
(2) provide connectivity,
(3) increase the accessibility of a region for economic development,
(4) increase the capacity of a transportation facility, or
(5) reduce congestion.
I’d argue that streetcars qualify under at [i]least[/] 1, 2, and 5. I’d also argue they qualify under (3), assuming that there’s room to argue that a “region” can be a metro neighborhood. (There may be a legal definition that requires them to be larger areas than that–no idea, just thinking out loud here.)
(I do that.)
The freeway caps have fewer hooks, since you have to do a lot more mental gymnastics to say that they increase mobility or reduce congestion. You could argue that they provide connectivity and increase the accessibility of regions for economic development simply by removing preexisting barriers (e.g., closing the chasm between the Short North and Arena District … or, now, Downtown and German Village), but that argument will likely be overwhelmed by projects such as those to add an interchange out in a rural area onto a road that currently passes over/under the highway but has no exits. I’m sure that’s what they actually had in mind when they talked about increasing the accessibility of regions.
Also, in the list of things that the definition includes, passenger rail facilities are explicitly listed; highway caps are pretty much absent.
Therefore, I think these criteria are better news for the streetcar initiative than the cap initiative. I stand by what I said in threads a long time ago about the highway caps, when the dream plan was first announced: if you want to cap that many overpasses, there’s going to have to be private capital involved. Unfortunately, that was back before the real estate bubble burst and the capital markets froze like a Canton city street.
is it me or did the streetcar initiative drop off the face of the earth.
I don’t see the caps being effected by this new scoring criteria. From last I heard on the caps were that ODOT would use funds to “beef-up” the structures such that a cap could be placed on the bridges. The actual cap(s) (buildings, enhancements, greenspace, etc) would be at a cost to the city, MORPC, or private investment.
As for the streetcar, my thought is that we will hear more in the next year. I would have to believe Columbus is reevaluating the plan for two reasons – 1. Council was not receptive to paying for a large portion of the construction through a “benefit zone” tax and 2. All indications are that transportation funding will be more generous to transit projects than in the past. The decision makers in Columbus may be betting on an increase in availibility of transportation dollars going towards New Starts, Small Starts, intercity rail, bus projects under the new Administration and Congress. The increase in federal transportation dollars for transit means less of the cost to be paid by the local and thus, an easier pill for the Council to swallow.
If we are to see any move forward on the Streetcars, COTA needs to be able to show how the current bus lines would either integrate into the proposed route or how they could be rerouted to better serve the community. That was a huge complaint-the lack of a basic vision and an inability to answer that basic flaw.
the last time odot invented a formula to rank highway projects we ended up building a $250,000,000 interchange for mr. wexner. true story.
Hopefully this time it’s a train for mr. coleman. :D
I’d say Easton is worth it.
I’d say Easton is worth it.
If you can get there. But yes, Easton is pretty good for us as a center for some major businesses and a great employment opportunity center.
As well as a regional destination that pulls in a lot of money from well outside the community, and a nice shiny selling point for the city. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a promo video of Columbus that doesn’t include at least several shots of Easton.
I would love to see COTA improve service through there. Last bus is around 9 PM on a Saturday. Can’t imagine how the service workers up there fared when gas was @ $4.
The problem with balanced scorecards like this is that they are easily manipulated. There’s some measure of objective scoring here, which is an improvement over the past. However, I notice many things are missing and/or strange. The actual volume of traffic on the road is not a consideration, for example.
I believe that that highway funding should be concentrated on improvement of high volume, congested interstate segments in established metro areas. I-270 and the inner loop in Columbus would be prime examples of this. The problem is that the state is obligated by politics and fairness to peanut butter spread money across the state. This means truly transportation need and benefit based scoring can’t be given.
It was interesting to see that you can get the highest possible b/c score for transit without even achieving break even. That says something.
Monday, December 8, 2008
BY JAMES NASH
It might take years for Ohioans to notice the difference, but state transportation planners are getting ready to use greener, less highway-centric criteria to evaluate which projects should get funding.
Ohio isn’t getting out of the highway business. State transportation planners are, however, downgrading traditional factors that emphasize road capacity and congestion in favor of measurements of economic benefit and environmental factors.
The new rating scheme won’t affect projects already on the books, such as the rebuilding of the I-70/71 interchange in Columbus.
Ohio Department of Transportation officials said the new factors will help the state build a more modern transportation system, one that includes more rail and water transportation and is better designed to boost the economy.
“I think the biggest thing with this is that this list has become more multimodal, so we can select the best transportation project, not just the best highway project,” said James Beasley, the Ohio Department of Transportation director.
READ MORE
Who finally smacked the sense into ODOT?
Good to hear the changes are coming.
Ohio Department of Transportation officials said the new factors will help the state build a more modern transportation system, one that includes more rail and water transportation and is better designed to boost the economy.
I must have missed this when it was posted.
Wow. Maybe ODOT will start building canals again too! That could be crazy cool.