RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Columbus Dispatch wrote
Pay lanes could pave way on I-70
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
By Debbie Gebolys
Pay lanes on highways could be in central Ohio’s future. Recommendations outlined yesterday by U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters that are separately being studied by a state task force focus on new ways to pay for projects.
A new lane of I-70 reserved for trucks and rapid-transit buses is an idea already being studied by four states and federal transportation officials. The lanes would cut congestion because they would be run by private companies that charge a toll for any other vehicles to use them.
Related Stories:
- ODOT To Change Top-Funding Formula
- ODOT Kicks Off $2.5 Billion Construction Season
- ODOT Invites All Ohioans to Join the Conversation
Hmm. Generally, I’m against the concept of making any non-toll roads into toll roads; I generally wish things would go in the other direction. However, it sounds like they’re talking about building additional lanes here, and if it’s true that the additional lane(s) would siphon off all the semi traffic, I could definitely get behind that.
On the other hand, I figured you’d be getting behind privatized roads all the way ;)
How about some laying some rail down too while your at it? :)
Toll roads work pretty well, especially if EZ Pass is installed (like the Pennsylvania Turnpike). The burden of paying for new road work should be lifted from the taxpayers and placed on those who actually use the road. Maybe that actually WILL clear the way for more transportation money to go towards rail. One can always hope.
On the other hand, I figured you’d be getting behind privatized roads all the way ;)
:lol: +1
Business as usual. I wonder how less highway focused the Obama admin will be, maybe 5% less. ??? He’s at least mentioned in literature an interest in transit, rail, cycling, and even walkability, but under loads of highway improvements.
On the short list for Trans Sect. is Oregon Dist. 3 Earl Bleumenheur [sic] representing much of Portland in Congress. He’s a huge transit and cycling advocate. He is the only congressman to regularly cycles to Capitol Hill and his office is the only one not to request parking permits. I hope he gets it, and I have read no evidence to the contrary.
When ever traveling out of town, I try not use interstates. I usually have to make a compromise with whomever I am riding with, but Its a good principle none the less.
When ever traveling out of town, I try not use interstates. I usually have to make a compromise with whomever I am riding with, but Its a good principle none the less.
Why? You know interstates are the safest roads right? The fatality rate per 100 Million vehicle-miles on rural interstates is 1.11. It’s 2.22 on the next highest functional class of roads.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_18.html
On the other hand, I figured you’d be getting behind privatized roads all the way ;)
Heck no. Privatized roads would discourage driving, cutting back on how much I can annoy Cyclist and Columbusite with my business-as-usual autocentric paradigm. :wink:
A privatized highway system would also hurt the lower-middle-class commuter from Pataskala or Circleville or London far more than it would hurt the lawyer from Dublin, who would not only have more income to devote to the tolls but whose commute would be shorter as well.
When ever traveling out of town, I try not use interstates. I usually have to make a compromise with whomever I am riding with, but Its a good principle none the less.
Why? You know interstates are the safest roads right? The fatality rate per 100 Million vehicle-miles on rural interstates is 1.11. It’s 2.22 on the next highest functional class of roads.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_18.html
I’m aware. Its the idea that I’m using something I don’t really support much and most always denounce the mega bucks and resources that go into them.
How could I oppose ODOT’s re-building the split and keep using it?
How could I oppose ODOT’s re-building the split and keep using it?
How can you oppose something that you don’t understand due to lack of use?
How could I oppose ODOT’s re-building the split and keep using it?
How can you oppose something that you don’t understand due to lack of use?
Its a mystery to me? :)
I often avoid interstates too, but more to get a better sense of locale, stopping at random places along the way. It makes for better road trips, usually more scenic. A few months back, I drove Chicago-Columbus off the interstates as much as possible, and it was actually a faster drive.
I often avoid interstates too, but more to get a better sense of locale, stopping at random places along the way. It makes for better road trips, usually more scenic. A few months back, I drove Chicago-Columbus off the interstates as much as possible, and it was actually a faster drive.
That’s kind of the answer I expected to hear from Cyclist.
I almost always take US-30 from Chicago to Columbus because it’s more direct. Although the speed is slower, the travel time is about equal and I get better gas mileage going 60 MPH. I can’t say that US-30 through Indiana or Western Ohio is scenic though. It’s mostly flat cornfield and a few Wal-Marts.
I would be for this only in exchange for light rail, and sharrows/bike lanes. At the same time (looks around, don’t bring anyone to the exchange location) :wink:
Do you drive a truck or bus? If not, you won’t have to pay a toll.
I’m not sure I even remotely understand how hatred for ODOT, biking, or rail has anything to do with this article.
Those axes aren’t going to sharpen themselves.
I often avoid interstates too, but more to get a better sense of locale, stopping at random places along the way. It makes for better road trips, usually more scenic. A few months back, I drove Chicago-Columbus off the interstates as much as possible, and it was actually a faster drive.
Out of curiosity, how long did it take you off the interstate vs. using all-interstate?
my post started with I was FOR this. (though I did only skim the article and missed the part that not truck/busses wouldn’t be paying. :oops: Though it is in the scenario stage and could change) I’m still for this.
The article also mentions that less people are driving which means they are using other transportation. Roland mentioned rail, which I agree the article mentions biking.
Which is all transportation, so I concluded that and hope that in the compromising to make this happen that all 3 will benefit.
from this article; (yes it is a stretch but still it is there.)
Ohioans drove 3.6 percent fewer miles in October than the year before, she added.
Over the last 10 years, Peters said, transportation spending more than doubled but congestion quadrupled. Part of the problem is that the government doesn’t require a cost-benefit analysis, resulting in projects that don’t necessarily make sense.
“In Minneapolis, you can ride a bike to the airport,” Peters said. “Should federal dollars pay for that?”
Maybe I misread the statement, particularly about biking, but it was my understanding that she was opposed to using Federal tax dollars for situations like Minneapolis…since people cycling on those bike paths to the airport aren’t actually paying the taxes that built them (gas taxes).
Additionally, the information about less drivers on the road was setting the stage for these proposals…which are designed to find alternate ways to fund highway projects because less drivers=less money. Thus, toll roads and privatization.
Finally, the whole thing is designed to reduce congestion for drivers, which again has nothing to do with bike lanes (and possibly the reason it was brought up was to explain further how more spending resulted in twice the congestion…because it was spent on bike lanes).
I see your point,
however I might be wrong here but if the point is to reduce congestion.
Then….light rail, bike commuters (I do have a car and pay gas taxes and use roadways.) are assisting with that.
As far as paying for these bikepaths etc. This is still transportation to the airport. Transportation is transportation.
(regardless how we feel about rail/bike) I think this article and purposal is good and as I said I’m for it. As I’m for other transportation areas as well.