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
I don’t know how much hope I have on Ohio being one of those 4 states, but yes please!
(And the assertion that cyclists don’t pay the taxes is ridiculous. Not every person on a bike is car free. Kessler nails it, transportation is transportation. There should be some amount of equal funding, not the jacked up system that we currently have.)
That’s actually not my assertion. My assertion, as the one in the article is making I believe, is that spending gas tax dollars on building bike lanes along freeways…instead of spending it on projects like the ones listed…is why there is more congestion on the freeway at the expense of twice as much money. It’s also my assertion that spending gas tax dollars on “highways” that don’t generate gas tax dollars is defeatist at best.
I’m 100% in support of rail, of rapid transit buses, even of bike lanes (although not necessarily sharing freeway space)…but this article is describing a shortfall in dollars required to complete existing highway plans and alternative means to finance them. Diverting further gas tax dollars into more bike paths or rail simply expands the problem.
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.
I gathered from the article that this was just one plan under consideration.
I mentioned rail because I feel if additional lanes are to be constructed, it would be a good opportunity to also lay down some rail lines alongside. Maybe lay the groundwork for some infrastructure to span across 70.
I politely disagree Core,
My tax dollars I want shared between the 3 roads/rail/bikeways. I want my tax dollars to go to the roads/rails/bikeways that need to get me where i’m going.
The article brinks up the question should funding be used for biking to the airport specificly. I say YES.
the gas tax money needs to be used toward infrastructure. (all Inclusive) FTW!!
That is my opinion. That is all!
The article tries to stay on the roads but it brings up the topic of congestion. and the end result is to decrease it. Call me stupid but rails/bikeways aids in reduceing it not adding to the problem!!
again I politely disagree, that is my opinion and….
good day sir. :)
I don’t know how much hope I have on Ohio being one of those 4 states, but yes please!
(And the assertion that cyclists don’t pay the taxes is ridiculous. Not every person on a bike is car free. Kessler nails it, transportation is transportation. There should be some amount of equal funding, not the jacked up system that we currently have.)
Ohio is included:
http://www.corridors.dot.gov/i70.htm
I-70 cuts through downtown Columbus, Indianapolis, St. Louis, and KC. I’ll be interested to see how they plan to add truck lanes through the downtown areas. I think this would be an excellent opportunity to divert the trucks around the south Outerbelt and reduce congestion on the Split.
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.
I gathered from the article that this was just one plan under consideration.
I mentioned rail because I feel if additional lanes are to be constructed, it would be a good opportunity to also lay down some rail lines alongside. Maybe lay the groundwork for some infrastructure to span across 70.
And that is how I saw it before reading your post, agreeing with your post instead of putting a +1 or whatever I went with an actual post which included and added to, with my own thoughts relating to how I read the article. Which if someone reading this thread from ODOT or the planning committee for this plan might bring to future meetings for possibilities. Wishful thinking maybe….
I don’t know how much hope I have on Ohio being one of those 4 states, but yes please!
(And the assertion that cyclists don’t pay the taxes is ridiculous. Not every person on a bike is car free. Kessler nails it, transportation is transportation. There should be some amount of equal funding, not the jacked up system that we currently have.)
Ohio is included:
http://www.corridors.dot.gov/i70.htm
I-70 cuts through downtown Columbus, Indianapolis, St. Louis, and KC. I’ll be interested to see how they plan to add truck lanes through the downtown areas. I think this would be an excellent opportunity to divert the trucks around the south Outerbelt and reduce congestion on the Split.
Good for the truck lanes, now we have to see if COTA would look at the possibility of BRT.
Good for the truck lanes, now we have to see if COTA would look at the possibility of BRT.
Right. Hopefully it will present some opportunity for BRT. I would think that if the Feds are paying, the COTA would be happy to evaluate it :)
I was also thinking that this kind of project will take a REALLY long time to implement. Imagine how long it’s taking to add a third lane to I-71 from Columbus to Cleveland. This project is a lot longer and more complex. It will be a while.
Sec. Peters eminations sound like the last acts of desparation by an outgoing administration. She clearly still swims in the highways-only wading pool. Her administration not only did little or nothing for rail, transit and bikeways…. they actually made it more difficult to obtain federal $$$ for any kind of meaningful intermodal changes. I wouldn’t put a whole lot of “cred” now.
This is the same person who once said that bicycles are not a form of transportation and thet federal $$$ should not be used for bicycle improvements.