Multijurisdictional Coordination White Paper · Ohio Department of Transportation |...

January 2018

Multijurisdictional Coordination White Paper

| 2 Ohio Department of Transportation | Multijurisdictional Coordination White Paper

Table of Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................ 3

List of Tables ............................................................................................. 4

Executive Summary ..................................................................................... 5

Importance of Multijurisdictional Planning/Coordination .......................................................... 5

Multijurisdictional Planning and Coordination Opportunities ..................................................... 6

Introduction .............................................................................................. 7

How this Paper Links to AO45 ............................................................................................ 7

The Emergence of Multijurisdictional Coordination ................................................................. 7

U.S. Megaregions ............................................................................................................ 9

Why Apply a Multijurisdictional Framework? ....................................................................... 10

Midwest Region ........................................................................................ 14

Midwest Infrastructure ................................................................................................... 15

Multijurisdictional Planning and Collaboration Examples ........................................................ 15

Ohio’s Placement in the Midwest ...................................................................................... 17

Multijurisdictional Planning in Ohio ................................................................................... 20

Findings and Future Direction for Ohio ........................................................... 26

Appendix A: Multijurisdictional Planning and Collaboration Examples ..................... 29

Appendix B: Intraregional Cross-State Flows .................................................... 31

Cincinnati ................................................................................................................... 31

Toledo ....................................................................................................................... 33

Youngstown ................................................................................................................. 35

Transportation Implications ............................................................................................. 36


List of Figures Figure 1 – U.S. Megaregions (FHWA) ......................................................................................... 10 Figure 2 – Truck Volumes Exceeding Capacity, 2012 and 2045 Forecast .............................................. 12 Figure 3 – National Highway System (NHS) Routes in the Midwest ..................................................... 15 Figure 4 – Ohio’s Strategic Transportation System ........................................................................ 20 Figure 5 – Ohio Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) ............................................................. 24 Figure 6 – Ohio Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPO) .............................................. 25 Figure 7 – OKI Transportation Planning Area ............................................................................... 31 Figure 8 – TMACOG Transportation Planning Area ......................................................................... 34 Figure 9 – Youngstown-Warren-Boardman MSA ............................................................................. 35


List of Tables Table 1 – Cincinnati Regional Population ................................................................................... 32 Table 2 – Net Migration to Ohio Counties from Non-Ohio Counties in Cincinnati Region ........................... 32 Table 3 – Net Commutes to Ohio Counties from Non-Ohio Counties in Cincinnati Region.......................... 33 Table 4 – Toledo Regional Population........................................................................................ 33 Table 5 – Net Migration From Ohio Counties To Monroe County, Michigan in Toledo Region ...................... 34 Table 6 – Net Commutes to Ohio Counties from Monroe County, Michigan in Toledo Region ..................... 34 Table 7 – Youngstown Regional Population ................................................................................. 35 Table 8 – Net Migration From Ohio Counties To Mercer County, Pennsylvania in Youngstown Region ........... 36 Table 9 – Net Commutes from Ohio Counties to Mercer County, Pennsylvania in YOungstown Region .......... 36


Executive Summary The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) is developing the long-range transportation plan, Access Ohio 2045 (AO45). AO45 will build on ODOT’s long-established foundation of strategic transportation investment which links to broader State economic, societal, and environmental goals and promotes public resource stewardship consistent with ODOT’s Mission, Vision, and Guiding Principles.

The purpose of this paper is to help “set the stage” for AO45 development by exploring the concept of multijurisdictional planning within Ohio and between Ohio and neighboring States in the Midwest. It also describes how geographic regions which cross metropolitan and State boundaries are connected through common interests/assets and highlights future opportunities to advance multijurisdictional planning. The broader, larger-scale coordination considerations presented in this paper will inform the goals, strategies, and policies which develop AO45 and position the State to successfully navigate future challenges.

IMPORTANCE OF MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PLANNING/ COORDINATION One of the strongest reasons to think about issues on a multijurisdictional scale is economic competitiveness. Under the economic theory of agglomeration, organizations develop in areas that allow them to take advantage of efficiencies due to proximity. Thus, metropolitan regions are tied together more by economic geography than political boundaries. These regions, rather than particular cities, States or Nations, are the primary driving force in the world economy.

Viewed through this lens, States and metropolitan areas with economic ties are stronger if they function as a region rather than as smaller independent units. This framework considers not only existing political boundaries, but also the spatial level at which planning should be conducted to maximize opportunities arising from agglomerations of economic activity and population. This involves coordinated planning and decision-making across boundaries, and is the key justification for building ties among neighboring States and regions, an effort that can pose its share of challenges and take a considerable amount of time.

Ohio and neighboring States in the Midwest have a large and developed network of transportation infrastructure across all modes. Collaboration between transportation agencies in the Midwest region already is underway, with activities led by the Mid-America Freight Coalition (MAFC) and the Mid America Association of State Transportation Officials (MAASTO), as well as consortiums between States addressing automated vehicles, truck parking, and even the Hyperloop One high-speed tube transportation system.

Within Ohio, ODOT and other agencies collaborate across boundaries to develop plans and deliver a wide range of transportation projects and services. Ohio has 17 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), of which 5 are multi-State entities. The vast majority of Ohio residents live in urbanized areas served by these MPOs.


MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PLANNING AND COORDINATION OPPORTUNITIES Ohio can take advantage of its central Midwest location and sizeable transportation assets to further multijurisdictional planning. ODOT and its partners can play a lead role in this process and advance the following opportunities:

• Build on current multijurisdictional planning efforts that already are underway in the Midwest.

These include MAASTO, MAFC, advanced transportation technology partnerships, and multi-State

truck parking coordination, all of which are described in the paper.

• Develop strategic partnerships to pursue for future collaboration. Build upon established working

relationships between State agencies and Ohio MPOs to maximize collaboration. Encourage Ohio

MPOs to work with MPOs in neighboring States as appropriate. Considering that Toledo is closer to

Detroit than to Columbus, and Dayton is closer to Indianapolis than to Akron or Cleveland, these

metro areas have strong existing linkages to other MPOs within neighboring States.

• Look beyond Ohio’s boundaries when conducting statewide planning exercises. Consider broader

regional trends when developing future scenarios and identifying transportation strategies.

Broaden analyses beyond the borders of Ohio to include factors such as technological

advancements, major infrastructure investments, changes to systems of manufacturing and

distribution, and economic changes in other States. The Midwest leads the Nation, along with the

Northeast, in total number of knowledge jobs, with pockets of innovation throughout Ohio and the

broader Midwest, particularly around advanced transportation technologies. Should a turnaround

in manufacturing occur in neighboring States, benefits can accrue to Ohio due to the economic

linkages among metropolitan areas.

• Develop forums for sharing information and best practices with neighboring States and

metropolitan areas. In addition to freight and advanced transportation technology, ideal topics for

information exchange include emergency communications, coordinated safety communications

across agencies, large-scale emergency evacuation, establishing interregional alternative fuel

networks, transportation systems management and operations, transportation asset management

planning, and Intelligent Transportation Systems and vehicle automation.


Introduction HOW THIS PAPER LINKS TO AO45 The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) is developing the long-range transportation plan, Access Ohio 2045 (AO45). AO45 will build on ODOT’s long-established foundation of strategic transportation investment which links to broader State economic, societal, and environmental goals and promotes public resource stewardship consistent with ODOT’s mission, vision, and guiding principles. AO45 is an opportunity to further ODOT’s reputation as a national leader, and prepare for the future in order to successfully navigate current and future challenges and to position the State for continued prosperity.

AO45 will provide ODOT with a strategic blueprint to manage the changes facing the transportation system—and serve as a reference point to align ODOT’s ongoing policies, plans, and programs. The blueprint involves the support of partners and builds a strategy fueled by data-driven, performance-based decisions—something ODOT has worked tirelessly to establish.

The purpose of this paper is to help “set the stage” for AO45 development by exploring the concept of multijurisdictional planning within Ohio and between Ohio and neighbor States in the Midwest. It also describes how geographic regions which cross metropolitan and State boundaries are connected through common interests/assets and highlights future opportunities to advance multijurisdictional planning. The broader, larger-scale coordination considerations presented in this paper will help inform the goals, strategies, and policies which develop AO45.

THE EMERGENCE OF MULTIJURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION It is vital to understand and define multijurisdictional coordination and its planning significance for the purpose of this paper and AO45 consideration. Until recently, the term “megaregion” was used by U.S. DOT (and other states, MPOs, and researchers) to describe large geographic regions that span multiple State or local jurisdictions connected by common interests, assets, or resources. As of January 3, 2018 no additional guidance has been issued by USDOT to redefine or redescribe this concept. Therefore outside of describing its historical context the term “megaregion” will be referred to as “multijurisdictional” to characterize the concept of broader, larger-scale transportation planning/coordination within, across, and outside of Ohio’s borders. Previously defined Midwest “megaregion” boundaries also will be referred to as simply the Midwest “region.”

Defining and Characterizing Metropolitan Areas The concept of megaregions is an evolution in how we think about and define the relationship between metropolitan regions. The U.S. Census Bureau first began to apply criteria to define metropolitan districts on a nationwide basis during the 1910 census. The districts were defined in terms of civil divisions, such as townships or election districts, and boundaries were based primarily on population density.

In determining where a metropolitan area “ends” the Census Bureau refined methods over time in recognition that populations in many areas interact with each other, typically through commuting patterns. In 1949, the


Bureau of the Budget (the predecessor to the Office of Management and Budget) developed the “standard metropolitan area” definition. This was changed to “standard metropolitan statistical area” (SMSA) in 1959.1

The term “core-based statistical area” (CBSA) was first applied to the 2000 census. This represents a core area containing a substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core. CBSAs are either “metropolitan statistical areas” (having an urban core with a population of at least 50,000) or “micropolitan statistical areas” (having an urban core with a population between 10,000 and 50,000). In recent years, the concept of “combined statistical area” was introduced to recognize larger regions in which the component CBSAs are socially and economically integrated, but to a lesser extent than within each CBSA.

While these Census terms capture integration among pockets of population centers within a specified geographic region, to many, they do not adequately capture interactions between metropolitan regions on a large enough scale. The megaregion concept is intended to do just that.

Defining a “Megaregion” The origin of the megaregions concept can be attributed to geographer Jean Gottman, who identified and documented the development patterns stretching through the northeastern U.S. from New Hampshire to Virginia, which he termed the “Megalopolis” in 1961. Gottman predicted that the development pattern that formed the Megalopolis represented a “new stage in human evolution” that would evolve in other parts of the country by the end of the 20th century.2

Gottman’s idea kick started a new way of thinking about the appropriate scale for which planning should be considered. U.S. Senator Claiborne Pell, who represented Rhode Island for six terms from 1961 to 1997, used this concept in the 1960s to advocate for the creation of an eight-State public governing authority charged with operating intercity passenger rail service in the northeast Megalopolis, which would have been the first high-speed rail system in the world.3 This formed early discussion on what eventually came to be known as the Northeast Corridor Commission.

In the 1960s and 1970s the Urban Land Institute extended the concept to other parts of the U.S. by identifying 21 urban areas with population of more than 1 million and a population density greater than 205 people per square mile and predicted that these would merge into 10 to 15 regions by 1980.4

In more recent times there has been extensive research to identify and delineate megaregion boundaries across the U.S. Researchers use a variety of criteria and factors to inform boundary decisions, including population growth and settlement patterns, contiguity of metropolitan areas, goods and service flows, commuting patterns, environmental systems and topography, economic linkages, and even urban light patterns as seen from satellite photos.

In 2004, the University of Pennsylvania School of Design examined population growth, growth patterns, and constrained infrastructure to identify eight “SuperCities” or regions that could benefit from increased

1 See https://www.census.gov/history/www/programs/geography/metropolitan_areas.html. 2 Gottman, Jean. 1961. Megalopolis: The Urbanized Northeast Seaboard of the United States. Cambridge: MIT Press. 3 Pell, Claiborne. 1966. Megalopolis Unbound: The Supercity and the Transportation of Tomorrow. New York: F. Praeger. 4 Pell, Claiborne. 1966.

https://www.census.gov/history/www/programs/geography/metropolitan_areas.html


economic and political cooperation. The Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech built on this research by looking at spatial connectivity. It defined the geographic unit by looking at strength of connectedness, defining megaregions as “clusters of counties that combine at least two metropolitan areas and have a total of more than 10 million residents by 2040.”5

The Regional Plan Association (RPA), an independent research and advocacy organization with significant influence on the topic of megaregions, defines a megaregion as a “large network of metropolitan regions that share several or all of the following: environmental systems and topography, infrastructure systems, economic linkages, settlement and land use patterns, and culture and history.”6

The Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development (CQGRD) at the Georgia Institute of Technology approaches megaregions as a tool to address multiple social, economic, and environmental challenges faced by major metropolitan areas, with much of their research focused on approaches to coordinated transportation planning. In 2009, CQGRD identified 10 emerging megaregions across the U.S. using a mathematical model to measure commodity flow relationships between metropolitan areas.7 In subsequent research for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), CQGRD developed a conceptual framework that incorporates the megaregions concept into existing transportation planning processes.8

Working Definition of Megaregions In its simplest form, a megaregion is a group of geographic locations and/or regions that are combined because of specific commonalities and mutual interest in resolving any essential barriers. The number of megaregions nationally and specific boundaries of each are of less importance than the overall organizing framework, and the boundaries will change according to the issue of interest.

This paper uses the definition provided by FHWA in its Technical Report on Multimodal Planning at the Megaregional Scale, which defines megaregions as “networks of metropolitan areas that share economic, environmental, and cultural features, as well as infrastructure and geographic connections.”9

U.S. MEGAREGIONS Figure 1 presents a map of 13 U.S. megaregions adapted from the 2009 CQGRD research and frequently used by FHWA.10 As a whole, more than 243 million residents live on the nearly 700,000 square miles of land comprising the nation’s 13 megaregions. This accounts for more than 76 percent of the U.S. population, while occupying only 22 percent of the land area in the contiguous 48 States. The population density of these

5 Lang, Robert E. and Dawn Dhavale. 2005. “Beyond Megalopolis: Exploring America’s New ‘Megapolitan’ Geography.” Metropolitan Institute Census Report Series (05:01, May 2005). Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech.

6 Regional Plan Association. 2006. America 2050: A Prospectus. New York, NY: Regional Plan Association. 7 Ross, Catherine L., Myungje Woo, Jason Barringer, Jiawen Yang, Mike Meyer, and Adjo Amekudzi. 2009. “Megaregions:

Delineating Existing and Emerging Megaregions throughout the United States.” Prepared for Federal Highway Administration. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development.

8 FHWA. December 2014. Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Transportation Planning for Megaregions. 9 FHWA. June 2017. Multimodal Planning at the Megaregional Scale. FHWA-HEP-17-091. 10 In this map, FHWA identifies 13 separate megaregions; three more than the CQGRD research. California is divided into

two megaregions (a Northern and a Southern), and the Front Range and Mid-South Megaregions are added.

https://www.spia.vt.edu/faculty-research/mi/

http://www.rpa.org/


megaregions is approximately 350 persons per square mile, while for the rest of the contiguous States it is less than 32 persons per square mile. This population density in the U.S. megaregions is higher than that of Western Europe, which has a density of 300 persons per square mile, although settlement in U.S. megaregions is more dispersed than in Europe.11

FIGURE 1 – U.S. MEGAREGIONS (FHWA)

WHY APPLY A MULTIJURISDICTIONAL FRAMEWORK? One of the strongest motivations to pursue a multijurisdictional scale or framework approach to planning is economic competitiveness. Under the economic theory of agglomeration, organizations develop in or relocate to areas that allow them to take advantage of efficiencies due to proximity. Efficiencies may include a specialized labor force, adequate infrastructure, or research and development institutions, among others. This economic theory explains why, generally, larger regions attract a higher level of talent and corporate investment than smaller regions. Research suggests that clustering of industries and ability to make large-scale investments helps these larger regions become more economically competitive than individual cities or regions. Stated another way, the geographic units that are important to economic growth and development are not individual States or metropolitan areas, but rather agglomerations of regions that are bound together

11 Nelson, Arthur C. 2017. Megaregion Projections 2015-2045 with Transportation Policy Implications. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Volume 2654.


through business and economic interactions and dependencies. Thus, coordination among jurisdictions in these regions is important to maximize economic benefits.

“Many observers have suggested that the economic geography of the U.S. is now best understood in terms of megaregions. These are assumed to be large regional areas, often cutting across State lines, which are normally centered on major metropolitan hubs and include an orbit of smaller subcenters.”12

Viewed through this lens, States and metropolitan areas with existing economic ties are stronger if they function as a large region rather than smaller independent units. This is a key justification for coordination among neighboring States and regions. This framework considers not only the existing political boundaries of a State or metropolitan area, but also the spatial level at which planning should be conducted to maximize opportunities arising from agglomerations of economic activity and population. This involves coordinated planning and decision-making across jurisdictional boundaries for the mutual benefit of residents across the larger region.

The power of this planning framework is that it is flexible; it can be adapted to particular issues and regions; it can involve short-term or long-term partnerships; and it can involve informal or formal working agreements.

Although multijurisdictional coordination is not new, policy-makers, planners, and businesses increasingly accept it is as a valuable approach to address challenging transportation issues and opportunities that extend beyond the boundaries of existing institutions for planning and decision-making. From a transportation perspective, coordination across jurisdictions can be defined around transportation factors that support mobility and accessibility needs in terms of economic connectivity, efficiency, movement of both people and goods, the geographic concentration of industry clusters, or key corridors.

Freight planning is a natural fit for multijurisdictional coordination because freight networks are large, spatially dispersed, and because freight flows routinely cross regional, State, and international borders. Freight and logistics decisions have large impacts on local and regional transportation systems and communities that may be better understood by examining issues on a large scale.

Figure 2 presents truck volumes in the Midwest for 2012 and forecast for 2045. There were some congested conditions in 2012 as shown in red. By 2045 congested conditions are forecast to increase significantly. Ohio fares better than many of the other States in the Midwest. However, from an economic perspective, the congested conditions in neighboring States is likely to impact Ohio and may be a factor when companies decide where to locate or invest. Ohio has an economic stake in the infrastructure decisions made by the other States, individually or collectively, within the Midwest.

12 Dash Nelson G, Rae A. 2016. An Economic Geography of the United States: From Commutes to Megaregions. PLoS ONE11(11): e0166083. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166083.


FIGURE 2 – TRUCK VOLUMES EXCEEDING CAPACITY, 2012 AND 2045 FORECAST13

U.S. DOT Interest in Multijurisdictional Coordination Multijurisdictional coordination is a topic of considerable interest to U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), including the following efforts:

• U.S. DOT’s Beyond Traffic 2045 initiative conducted a series of discussions in 11 cities across the

Nation in 2015. U.S. DOT’s goal was to start a conversation about how national trends over the

13 Data Source: FHWA Freight Analysis Framework, Version 4 (FAF4). FAF integrates data from numerous sources to create a picture of freight movement among States and major metropolitan areas by all transportation modes. Data for 2012 truck volumes in Figure 2 incorporate the 2012 Commodity Flow Survey (CFS), international trade data from the Census Bureau, and activity in several economic sectors. The 2045 FAF4 forecasts are developed from the 2012 baseline using macroeconomic, regional, inter-industry, and intrastate forecast models. The 2045 freight volume forecasts do not assume implementation of advanced transportation technologies. The truck volumes shown in Figure 2 are not consistent with the 2013 Ohio Statewide Freight Study, which used FAF Version 3.


next 30 years will play out in each large region, and to help build relationships among

organizations in the regions to promote collaboration on transportation issues on a

multijurisdictional scale. The Midwest event took place on October 21, 2015 in Indianapolis. U.S.

DOT’s report on the effort States that “a greater portion of Federal funding could be dedicated to

competitive grant and financing programs with criteria tied to national objectives. Or, the

Federal government could be given less control over Federal funding; investment decisions could

be transferred to States, or to other governance structures, including new institutions, perhaps

organized around emerging megaregions.”14

• FHWA held a series of Megaregion Workshops throughout the Nation in 2016 and 2017 to identify

how FHWA, State DOTs, MPOs, and the private sector can enhance multijurisdictional coordination

and collaboration to address transportation needs.15 Workshops were held in Phoenix,

Philadelphia, Memphis, Atlanta, Providence, and Chicago, and future workshops are being planned

in 2018 for Ohio, Texas, and Kansas City. FHWA intends to provide pilot funding for State DOTs and

MPOs that have completed a workshop through a competition that will be announced in early 2018.

• Several FHWA-funded studies addressing the role of MPOs and regional planning organizations in

planning across boundaries; multimodal planning at the large regional scale; organizational

structures and financing of multijurisdictional initiatives and the implications for transportation

planning; and multijurisdictional coordination peer exchanges.

14 U.S. DOT. Beyond Traffic: 2045 Final Report. January 2017. Accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/policy-initiatives/beyond-traffic-2045-final-report.

15 See https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/megaregions/workshops/.

https://www.transportation.gov/policy-initiatives/beyond-traffic-2045-final-report

https://www.transportation.gov/policy-initiatives/beyond-traffic-2045-final-report

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/megaregions/workshops/


Midwest Region The Midwest, as defined in Figure 1, is the largest “megaregion” in terms of population (55.2 million) and land area (205,450 square miles). For the purposes of this white paper, the Midwest region includes portions of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Economic activity in this region centers on several large metropolitan areas that serve as transportation and economic hubs. The Chicago metropolitan area is the largest economic, transportation, and freight hub in the Midwest, and one of the largest in the U.S. In addition to the City of Chicago, major cities in this region with a population greater than one million include:

• Indianapolis, IN;

• Louisville, KY;

• Detroit, MI;

• Minneapolis, MN;

• St. Louis, MO;

• Cleveland, OH;

• Cincinnati, OH;

• Columbus, OH;

• Pittsburgh, PA; and

• Milwaukee, WI.

Much of the United States’ transportation activity passes through this region. It features some of the country’s busiest airports and inland ports. Approximately 25 percent of all freight trains and 50 percent of all intermodal trains operating in the U.S. pass through metropolitan Chicago, heading to points in the rest of the Midwest and across the U.S.

The Midwest region is the largest of the 13 megaregions defined by FHWA (until new guidance or terminology is issued) as measured by both population and geographic size. There are 359 counties, 4,353 municipalities, and 73 MPOs in the Midwest Megaregion.16 The large number of jurisdictions poses a challenge to collaboration and partnerships. However, many of the MPOs are contiguous, clustered, or are located fairly close to other MPOs, possibly making it easier to facilitate planning across boundaries.

Illinois is the most populous State, followed by Ohio and Michigan. Illinois also has the highest number of employed workers, followed by Ohio and Michigan.17 Megaregions are projected to account for 81 percent of the change in knowledge sector jobs nationally between 2015 and 2045.18 The Northeast and Midwest Megaregions lead the Nation in total knowledge jobs and will continue to do so through 2045, although growth in this sector will be higher in other megaregions.19

16 FHWA. 2011. Literature Review of Organizational Structures and Finance of Multijurisdictional Initiatives and the Implications for Megaregion Transportation Planning in the U.S.

17 U.S. Census Bureau (population); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (employment). 2015. 18 Knowledge sector jobs are those in Information; Professional & Technical Services; Education; and Health Care. 19 Nelson, Arthur C. 2017.


MIDWEST INFRASTRUCTURE The Midwest has a large and developed network of transportation infrastructure across all modes. The region is well served by Interstate Highways, State highways, and U.S. routes, which form a web-like network throughout. The highways converge and connect with each other around several major metropolitan areas, including Chicago, IL; Indianapolis, IN; Louisville, KY; Detroit, MI; St. Louis, MO; the Quad City region, IA-IL; Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN; Cleveland, OH; Cincinnati, OH; Columbus, OH, Pittsburg, PA, and Madison and Milwaukee, WI. Figure 3 shows designated National Highway System (NHS) routes for the region.

Within the region, Michigan and Minnesota border Canada. The busiest international truck freight crossings are between Ontario in Canada and the cities of Detroit and Port Huron, both in Michigan. The Detroit, MI—Windsor, ON bridge crossing is the busiest border crossing in North America. Much of the exported goods Ohio sends to Canada go through the Detroit bridge crossing.

Inland waterways serve the region, with several barges operating on the Mississippi, Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri Rivers handling a large portion of the bulk commodities, such as grain and coal. The U.S. Marine Transportation System (MTS) consists of the Inland Waterway System (IWS) and deep-water international waterways. The region has extensive access to both systems. The U.S. Great Lakes Navigations System is part of the greater international Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway, an international waterway classified as a deep waterway. Both waterways connect ports in the region to external seaports.

The Midwest is one of the few places in the country served by all seven American and Canadian Class I freight railroads and many short-line railroads, with significant operations by CSX and Norfolk Southern within Ohio. Railroads provide connectivity for passengers and freight movement across the country, and from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Railroads link cities with seaports along the Great Lakes and provide connections for barge traffic along the Inland Waterway System.

MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PLANNING AND COLLABORATION EXAMPLES Numerous megaregional planning initiatives and multijurisdictional arrangements have been documented in research and case studies prepared for U.S. DOT. Appendix A provides several examples that involve State

FIGURE 3 – NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS) ROUTES IN THE MIDWEST


DOTs and MPOs and convey lessons learned that may be of interest to ODOT. The following examples directly relate to ODOT or represent active coordination activities.

Mid America Association of State Transportation Officials (MAASTO) MAASTO is one of AASHTO’s four geographical regions. The goal of MAASTO is to foster the development, operation, and maintenance of an integrated and balanced transportation system that adequately serves the transportation needs of the 10 member States, which are primarily located in the Midwest. They include Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. MAASTO has formed several committees to address critical transportation issues among the member States. These include reauthorization, rural programs, revenue sources, workforce diversity, motor carrier concerns, freight, and harmonization of truck permitting requirements, research, and autonomous vehicles.

In April 2017, MAASTO convened a summit on intermodal freight. The purpose was to establish new MAASTO initiatives, with the goal of strengthening the Midwest economy and improving the mobility of goods and people. During the summit, discussion focused on two themes:

• Capital Priorities: Identify priority freight corridors/ bottlenecks and capital projects with Midwest

benefits for targeted/ shared investment and related advocacy.

• Eliminating Borders and Barriers: Determine collaborative opportunities for MAASTO DOTs to

create a seamless freight environment that better meets private sector needs.20

Mid-America Freight Coalition (MAFC) MAFC is a regional organization that cooperates in the planning, operation, preservation, and improvement of transportation infrastructure in the Midwest. This region includes 10 States (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin) that share key interstate corridors, inland waterways, and the Great Lakes. These States signed a Memorandum of Understanding in October 2006, demonstrating their willingness to meet freight demand through regional cooperative efforts. The MAFC work plan includes funding for projects addressing multimodal and freight planning issues in the 10-State region.

Completed MAFC projects include assessment of freight bottlenecks and alleviation strategies for the region, development of performance measures for evaluating multi-State projects, aligning State Freight Plans to enhance State collaboration and establish regional and national harmonization of freight priorities, and more. A MAFC Regional Freight study (RFS) was initiated in 2010 to address rapidly changing economic, logistics, and transportation policy and infrastructure issues in a multimodal, multi-State approach that maximizes the economic benefit from the region’s freight transportation and logistics network.

Truck Parking Information and Management System (TPIMS) Project This multi-State collaboration among Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin, funded by a $25 million Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant and additional funds from each State, will reduce the time commercial truck drivers spend searching for parking along major freight corridors. TPIMS will allow drivers to monitor parking availability and make

20 MAASTO April 2017 Intermodal Freight Summit Summary. Accessible at http://www.maasto.net/meetings.html.

http://www.maasto.net/meetings.html


decisions as they near the limit of their Federally mandated hours of service. The project will be operational in 2019.

Alternative Fuel Corridors FHWA is establishing Alternative Fuel Corridors for vehicles that are fueled with compressed natural gas, electricity, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). These corridors have alternative refueling sites along a designated route on the National Highway System. Some routes in the Midwest are eligible for highway Alternative Fuel Corridor signage, while others are waiting for additional facilities. Ohio has both signage ready and signage pending routes. The Ohio Development Services Agency has a program that provides financial assistance to organizations for purchase and installation of alternative fuels facilities.

Autonomous vehicle partnership The Smart Belt Coalition (SBC) is a collaboration of multiple agencies in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, including ODOT and the Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission, to work toward a connected and automated vehicle multijurisdictional corridor. The priorities identified for completion by 2021 include work zone traveler information system, truck platooning, connected vehicle applications, intelligent and connected work zone detection, and smart truck parking.

Hyperloop One Hyperloop One, a startup that has developed a high-speed tube transportation system, has selected a 488-mile Chicago-Columbus-Pittsburgh route as 1 of 10 sites for consideration for development of its system. The system would provide a direct connection between the three cities which does not currently exist on a rail system. Hyperloop One’s vision is to connect cities through extremely high-speed transportation of people and freight.

OHIO’S PLACEMENT IN THE MIDWEST The region’s ports, highways, railroads, airports, pipelines, and intermodal connections will need continued investment to transport agricultural produce, manufactured products and raw materials to their final destinations. Coordinated, comprehensive transportation planning activities are necessary to ensure that the region can effectively compete in the global economy.

Ohio is strategically located in the U.S., within a one-day drive to major Midwestern, northeast, southern, and Canadian markets, including Atlanta, Charleston, St. Louis, Boston, New York City, and Toronto. Based on 2016 population estimates, there are 186.4 million U.S. residents that live within a 600-mile radius of Ohio. This equates to 57.7 percent of the U.S. population. Based on 2016 Census of Population, Statistics Canada, 20.7 million Canadian residents live within a 600-mile radius of Ohio, which equates to 59 percent of the Canadian population.

Recent trends are increasing the importance of intercity/interregional travel and transport in Ohio. Nationally, the distribution and logistics industry is experiencing rapid change and Ohio has been a leading State preparing for this change. Ohio is a global leader in research, testing, and producing smart transportation technologies (details are provided in the technology white paper).


Transportation Assets Ohio is a national leader in iron and steel manufacturing; 11 percent of the dollar value added by the U.S. iron and steel industry originates in Ohio, making the State the 3rd largest overall source for such products at $5.72 billion according to the latest economic census.21 Manufacturing, logistics, and distribution companies require an integrated transportation system. Ohio’s intermodal transportation system assets are spread across the State and include the following:

• Ohio ranks 6th with 2,486 miles of Interstate, free and express highways, and has the 8th most

extensive road system at 122,926 miles.

• 4 dedicated air cargo terminals, more than any other Midwestern State.

• 209 ports and terminals along the Ohio River and Lake Erie, and the only Great Lakes Port with

service to Europe via the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Army Corps of Engineers ranks Ohio 9th in total

waterborne cargo at 83.7 million tons.

• 10 major rail yards and 13 intermodal terminals connected by the 4th largest railroad network. The

most common items shipped by rail include chemicals, coal, nonmetallic minerals, petroleum, iron

and steel products, and transportation equipment. In Ohio, 29.1 percent of freight cars used are

part of intermodal logistics according to the American Association of Railroads.

These economic assets within Ohio are important to the economy of the State, as well as to surrounding States in the Midwest region.

Educational/Institutional The region has, on average, higher educational attainment than the U.S. average and some of the largest research universities in the world, such as The Ohio State University, the University of Michigan, and the University of Wisconsin.22 According to the Ohio Department of Higher Education, Ohio’s public colleges, universities, and adult education programs serve almost 600,000 students. These institutions include 14 universities with 24 regional branch campuses, 23 community colleges, and more than 120 adult workforce education and training centers statewide.

Tourism Tourism is economically important to Ohio. TourismOhio markets the State to potential visitors and developed a strategic plan to support the tourism industry. In 2015, tourism was a $42 billion industry in Ohio. Most of the State’s 207 million visitors in 2015 came from within a one-day drive to the State, many of these from within the Midwest. Of these 207 million visitors, 41 million, stayed overnight in Ohio. The tourism industry

21 U.S. Census & Economic Analysis Bureaus (2017). 22 Delgado, E., D. Epstein, Y. Joo, R. Mann, S. Moon, C. Raleigh, E. Rhodes & D. Rutzick. 2006b. Through a Wider Lens:

Re-envisioning the Great Lakes MegaRegion. Ann Arbor: Urban and Regional Planning Program, The University of Michigan.


supported 420,000 full-time, part-time, and seasonal jobs in Ohio, and the State sales tax revenue from tourism-related industries totaled $892.2 million in 2015.23

Key Corridors—Connections between Metropolitan Areas Ohio has the fourth-largest (by lane miles) interstate system with 8,129 lane miles and the fifth most annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of 200 million. The State also has the second largest inventory of bridges with 43,412 bridges over 10 feet. The State also has a robust multimodal system, including 62 public transit systems, 4,000 miles of bike path facilities, 7 commercial airports, the third-highest amount of active rail lines in the U.S., and 716 miles of Marine Highways.

Ohio’s strategic location within one day’s drive (or 600 miles) of about 60 percent of the U.S. and Canadian population makes it an important link in the North American transportation network. As part of Access Ohio 2040 ODOT identified the State’s Strategic Transportation System (STS) to highlight Ohio’s most utilized and valuable transportation assets based on various criteria (traffic volume, multimodal and ports connectivity, etc.). The infrastructure identified in the STS represent the backbone of Ohio’s transportation system, and includes ports, intermodal freight facilities, bicycle routes, trails, airports, intercity bus service, bus rapid transit system, and highways, all of which can form a starting point of larger scale State, regional, local coordination. Figure 4 shows the STS.

Appendix B contains an analysis of intraregional cross-State migration and commuting flows in the regions surrounding Cincinnati, Toledo, and Youngstown, as these areas are representative of the demographic trends affecting bi-State and/or multi-State metropolitan regions. The analysis considers net movements between Ohio counties and non-Ohio counties within each of the three regions, and was conducted for the Demographics White Paper. The implication for transportation planning is that for all three regions, the cross-State intraregional migration and commute patterns will require coordination with Departments of Transportation and local planning agencies in Ohio’s neighboring States.

23 Ohio Development Services Agency. 2016 Update. Plan to Win: Tourism Ohio Strategic Plan 2015–2018.


FIGURE 4 – OHIO’S STRATEGIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PLANNING IN OHIO Governance in Ohio, as well as throughout the Midwest and the nation, is set up to focus on local or metropolitan issues. Transportation policies, funding programs, and regulations correspond to existing governmental institutions and their boundaries. There are few formal institutions to address issues that transcend jurisdictional boundaries beyond cities and counties, regional planning areas, and State boundaries. Multijurisdictional transportation planning may entail new cross-jurisdictional governance, but will not entail a new level of formal government for planning and decision-making. The focus should be on improving results through better planning and collaboration, which can take many forms. Recent successful examples of services and assets which have resulted from robust coordination include:


Ohio Statewide Bicycle Route Network • ODOT has been developing statewide and interregional bicycle routes, working at the national

level with AASHTO and with local and regional agencies within Ohio. Ohio developed a statewide

bikeways and trails map that contains regional routes as well as those that are integrated with

national routes.

Rural Transit Tech Ohio Grant • ODOT’s Transit Tech Ohio project will help Ohio’s 34 rural transit systems operate more efficiently

and expand broadband access in Ohio. Additional details are available in the Technology white

paper.

Gohio Commute • Gohio Commute is a travel demand management collaboration that helps commuters across the

State explore their commute options. Gohio Commute is funded and operated by Ohio’s regional

councils.

Greater Cincinnati Raven911 System • Cincinnati’s Regional Asset Verification and Emergency Network (RAVEN911) is an electronic

mapping system developed by OKI and the Hamilton County Emergency Management Agency (EMA)

and used by first responders. The single portal provides emergency responders in 12 greater

Cincinnati counties a unique communication and logistics tool that can quickly identify and

disseminate information during a crisis or a disaster through a variety of mediums, including social

media.

Cross jurisdictional and statewide planning across agencies, which result in such activities, include:

Ohio Metropolitan Planning Organizations • Ohio has 17 MPOs. Of these, 5 are multi-State. They range in population size from around 83,000

to just over 2 million.

• The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) is the 24th largest MPO in the Nation

with an MPO population of 2.07 million, and the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of

Governments (OKI COG) is the 26th largest, with an MPO population of 1.95 million.24

• The urbanized land area in Ohio served by MPOs comprises 10.8 percent of all land area and

contains 78 percent of the population. A map of Ohio MPOs is presented in Figure 5. Many of the

MPOs are contiguous, with 4 clusters that, combined, include 12 MPOs. Generally, contiguous

MPOs have greater opportunity to coordinate planning if they choose to do so.

24 FHWA MPO Database. https://www.planning.dot.gov/mpo.asp. Accessed October 2017.

https://www.planning.dot.gov/mpo.asp


• Multi-State MPOs in Ohio address the challenges of planning for a metropolitan area that falls

under the jurisdiction of two or more States. They coordinate planning activities, funding sources

and differing policies, project selection, and investment decisions across political boundaries at

the State level. Coordination is fostered by formal agreements, informal cooperation,

cooperation, local contractual agreements, interstate compacts, and other means. There are five

multi-State MPOs in Ohio:

o Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, located in Cincinnati and serves

eight counties in three States—Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana.

o KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission, located in Huntington and serves six counties and

three cities in three States—Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia.

o Belmont-Ohio-Marshall Transportation Study, located in Wheeling and serves two counties in

West Virginia and one county in Ohio.

o Wood-Washington-Wirt Interstate Planning Commission, located in Parkersburg, serves one

county in West Virginia and potions of Washington County in Ohio.

o Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Metropolitan Planning Commission, located in Steubenville, serves

two counties in West Virginia and one county in Ohio.

Ohio Non-Metropolitan Transportation Planning • ODOT coordinates transportation planning with nonmetropolitan area local officials through Ohio’s

Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) Program. The RTPO Program was initiated in

July 2013, with five regional planning agenices establishing transportation planning programs

covering 34 Ohio counties. In July 2016, a sixth central Ohio region pilot RTPO was established

covering an additional seven counties. Figure 6 presents Ohio’s RTPO areas.

• Each RTPO includes committee structures, comprised of local elected officials and other regional

transportation stakeholders, to direct and provide oversight for the region’s transportation

planning process. RTPOs also include a technical staff to support the committees.

Ohio Association of Regional Councils (OARC) • OARC comprises 24 regional councils in Ohio serving more than 1,500 municipalities, villages,

townships and counties and representing over 10 million Ohio residents. It coordinates voices at a

State and Federal level. Through OARC, regional councils in Ohio collaborate to address issues of

mutual interest in the areas of transportation, economic development, housing, environment, and

land use planning within the framework of State policy. The regional councils work closely with

ODOT districts, FHWA, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the U.S. Maritime Administration.

Most of Ohio’s regional councils house Ohio’s MPOs and RTPOs, and all are thus partners with

ODOT in metropolitan or nonmetropolitan transportation planning. Six of the councils are

Areawide Water Quality Management Planning Agencies, designated under the Clean Water Act

and certified by the Governor of Ohio.


Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium (NEOSCC) • The NEOSCC was established in January 2011 to oversee a Federal Partnership for Sustainable

Communities Grant awarded to NOACA as the lead agency for Consortium partners. The group is

comprised of agencies in Northeast Ohio, including four MPOs, six counties, five cities, three

metropolitan housing authorities, several non profit organizations, and Cleveland State University.

The NEOSCC worked to develop a coordinated and integrated approach to planning efforts for land

use, transportation, economic and workforce development, and infrastructure investments in the

region.

Statewide Transportation Plans Ohio has developed several transportation plans at the statewide level, listed below. A shift towards multijurisdictional coordination implies that Ohio’s statewide plans give more emphasis to interregional travel between Ohio and neighboring States.

• Ohio Maritime Study. The Ohio Maritime Study informs ODOT as it seeks to best leverage Ohio’s

maritime transportation system to enable Ohio’s economic competitiveness and growth.

• Ohio Statewide Rail Plan. Developed by ODOT and the Ohio Rail Development Commission, the

2010 Rail Plan describes and evaluates rail improvement needs and formulates a State vision for

rail in the future and strategies to achieve that vision. The plan was developed with extensive

public participation and involvement by the State’s railroads and rail users.

• Ohio Statewide Freight Plan, Transport Ohio. Transport Ohio, finalized in January 2017, informs

and supports infrastructure investments on Ohio’s multimodal freight network to retain and

attract jobs and commerce. The plan is based on analysis and findings developed through AO40

and a Statewide Freight Study completed in 2012. The plan’s recommendations reflect those in

AO40.

• Ohio Transit Statewide Needs Study. This year-long study, completed in 2015, assessed Ohio’s

statewide transit needs and developed recommendations to address them and to strengthen the

statewide program.

• Ohio Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The SHSP is a comprehensive statewide plan that

identifies the greatest causes of serious injuries and deaths on Ohio roads. It establishes common

goals, priorities and strategies using data; identifies and tracks investments across organizations;

and helps Ohio leverage and maximize its resources to prevent injuries and save lives. The plan

was developed in collaboration with local, state, federal and private sector organizations.

• Ohio Transportation Systems Management & Operations Plan (TSMO). The TSMO Plan will serve

as a road map to guide ODOT as it continues to integrate operations, asset management and

preservation into the organization. The Plan will also serve to form a basis for statewide policy

and process changes aimed at increasing the focus and execution of traffic operations to better

meet future system needs.


FIGURE 5 – OHIO METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS (MPO)


FIGURE 6 – OHIO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS (RTPO)


Findings and Future Direction for Ohio It is difficult for jurisdictions to think about multijurisdictional coordination when they have pressing local challenges. Agencies need to be responsive to the needs of residents and stakeholders within their planning areas, and they must meet Federal and State planning requirements with limited planning resources that may not be sufficient to devote resources to planning across jurisdictional boundaries. Planners are more likely to coordinate across jurisdictions if there is a clear and tangible benefit. In light of this, some of the benefits of addressing issues on a multijurisdictional scale include:

• Assisting agencies with meeting existing responsibilities, such as completing regional or statewide

freight plans and collecting useful data from neighboring jurisdictions.

• Providing forums to coordinate and discuss important cross-jurisdictional issues, such as

interregional or interstate travel and economic development.

• Focusing on key economic and transportation infrastructure links between metropolitan regions

that are outside an agency’s planning area.

• Coordinating statewide plans with neighboring States that share economic ties.

• Coordinating transportation solutions and communication between agencies within and among

States.

In addition a robust and regular level of multijurisdictional planning can enhance statewide system goals, enhance longer distance multimodal considerations, and leverage scarce planning resources which benefit and advance multiple agency initiatives. The following opportunities should be considered within the development of goals, strategies, and policies which inform AO45 development and leverage the benefits of multijurisdictional coordination for the State, ODOT, and its partners.

Build on current multijurisdictional planning efforts (such as involvement in MAASTO and MAFC).

MAFC has taken a leadership role in addressing the requirements of the FAST Act with regards to freight corridors. Specifically, MAFC completed a survey to determine member States’ progress in designating critical freight corridors. The preliminary findings from the survey illustrate that States are in different stages of corridor selection, and also have taken diverging approaches to designation. Greater coordination across the MAFC States can encourage systematic plans to improve freight infrastructure and connectivity. Participants in the April 2017 MAASTO freight summit supported the level of coordination among States.

U.S. DOT’s interest in a multijurisdictional approach to transportation policy and programs, and perhaps even a future funding source identified by the U.S. Congress, suggests that it is worthwhile for Ohio to be actively engaged in collaboration with neighboring States on transportation issues that cross State borders. MAASTO’s collaboration on freight issues across the Midwestern States, including truck parking, weight studies, and harmonization of oversize/overweight requirements, position the organization in the event that future funding is available through a new Federal program or an existing discretionary grant program.

Maintain partnerships focused on advanced vehicle technologies.

As demonstrated in the technology white paper, there is a significant level of uncertainty about when new transportation technologies will take hold and what the changes will mean for mobility in Ohio. Ohio has


positioned itself very well by developing partnerships with Michigan and Pennsylvania (and others). Maintaining these partnerships is key to being prepared for the future of vehicle automation and technology.

Develop strategic partnerships to pursue for future collaboration.

Multijurisdictional planning partnerships are an opportunity to more effectively advocate for solutions to transportation policy challenges and to produce a more powerful political force to advocate for key issues. Build upon established working relationships between State agencies and Ohio MPOs to maximize collaboration. Encourage Ohio MPOs to work with MPOs in neighboring States as appropriate. Considering that Toledo is closer to Detroit than to Columbus, and Dayton is closer to Indianapolis than to Akron or Cleveland, these metro areas have strong existing linkages to other MPOs within the Midwest.

Incorporate a broader scale into statewide plans and Ohio scenario planning exercises.

In any scenario planning exercises Ohio undertakes, consider broader regional trends when developing future scenarios and identifying transportation strategies. The Midwest region leads the nation, along with the Northeast, in total number of knowledge jobs. The pockets of innovation throughout Ohio and the broader Midwest, particularly around advanced vehicle technologies, have laid the groundwork for further innovation. Should a turnaround in manufacturing occur in neighboring States, benefits can accrue to Ohio due to the economic linkages among metropolitan areas.

Basic statewide plans or scenarios address demographic and economic trends within the State, and their implications. A further step in creating a more robust process is to broaden analyses beyond the borders of the State to include factors such as technological advancements in neighboring States, major investments in infrastructure, changes to systems of manufacturing and distribution, and economic changes.

Develop forums for sharing Information and best practices with neighboring States and other jurisdictions.

Regular forums devoted to information exchange are an effective way to collaborate without requiring a high commitment of time and resources. Over time partnerships may develop in response to needs or opportunities that arise. In addition to freight, the following topics are ideal for these types of exchanges across jurisdictional boundaries:

• Unified or interoperable emergency communications systems, such as Cincinnati’s RAVEN911

system, which can maximize the efficiency of communications in emergency situations and

increase system safety for all users.

• Coordinated and standardized safety communications and messaging across agencies, such as

through dynamic message signs, which ensure that travelers receive a consistent message about

transportation safety or work zones.

• Large-scale emergency evacuation, which may force people to move between regions. This can

address evacuation routes, multimodal evacuation options, identify efficiencies or potential

conflicts, and test for effective communication of information to the public. Efforts can build

upon “game plans” developed by ODOT district offices to address emergency evacuation, road

closures, and other incident management needs, with a focus on collaborative advance planning

with neighboring states along major corridors.


• Coordination to establish interregional alternative fuel networks, spaced at intervals to facilitate

alternative fuel vehicle travel between metropolitan areas.

• Transportation systems management and operations, and truck parking systems, which can help

maximize the efficiency of projects and strategies across metropolitan and state boundaries.

• Transportation asset management planning, which can help extend the life of existing

infrastructure by ensuring that the agencies responsible for managing transportation assets across

regions develop coordinated and management strategies.

• Intelligent Transportation Systems and automation, which can increase the efficiency of the

existing transportation system and maximize limited funds. Strategies include harmonization of

technology standards and practices that enable new technologies to integrate system and traveler

information across jurisdictional boundaries and sharing data among members of a

multijurisdictional coalition.

• Sharing resiliency practices among states and coordinating advance planning to create resilient

communities that are able to respond and rebuild quickly after major natural events.


Appendix A: Multijurisdictional Planning and Collaboration Examples Piedmont Alliance for Quality Growth—A coalition of government, academic, and business leaders dedicated to building interregional alliances to improve the economic competitiveness of the Piedmont Atlantic States in the global market. The three major topics addressed are transportation, water, and energy.

Fifty Forward Metropolitan Atlanta—A long-term visioning process led by the Atlanta Regional Commission, the MPO for Atlanta, Georgia, to develop a 50-year vision for the Atlanta metropolitan area and the wider region. Topics addressed include transportation, health, energy, land use, and environment.

Planning at the Edge—A collaborative effort between nine MPOs in the Northeast, stretching from New York City to Baltimore, to identify and address cross-boundary transportation planning issues. The group has addressed diverse topics, including regional transit, climate change considerations, and developing a shared long-range transportation vision.

I-95 Corridor Coalition—A large alliance of transportation agencies, toll authorities and their partners, focused on improving long-distance transportation in the I-95 Corridor. The coalition originally focused on the Northeastern portion of I-95, and concentrated on transportation management and operations issues. The coalition has expanded to include the entire length of I-95 and has begun to address multimodal transportation and policy issues as well.

Central Jersey Transportation Forum—This collaboration between the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, which serves the greater Philadelphia area, and the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority began with a joint corridor study spanning the two regions, and has continued for more than 15 years, addressing numerous issues of joint concern, including coordination of land-use planning with transportation and transit service coordination.

Bi-National Transportation Coordinating Group—In 2001, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and Ontario Ministry of Transportation convened a summit to begin binational transportation planning collaboration. This led to the creation of a working group to oversee the development of a Bi-National Transportation Strategy, which addresses existing and future border crossing conditions, connectivity to population, economic and recreational centers, mode choice availability, and network redundancy and capacity.

Cooperative Corridor Planning—The Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Commission, the MPO in Buffalo, New York, works with neighboring MPOs in New York State and authorities in Ontario to study and improve major transportation corridors leading into and out of the Buffalo-Niagara region on both sides of the international border.

Niagara International Transportation Technology Coalition—A highway operations coalition dedicated to improving highway efficiency and safety. Member agencies include NYSDOT, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, local governments, transit providers, and bridge and toll authorities that work together to coordinate Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and traffic incident management services.


Building a Quality Arizona (BQAZ)—A Statewide effort to project long-term travel demand and infrastructure needs, with a focus on interregional travel. BQAZ promotes the use of a common modeling platform, originally developed by the Maricopa Association of Governments, the MPO in Phoenix, Arizona, to standardize data formats and improve the ability of MPOs, COGs, and Arizona DOT to collaborate on large-scale transportation issues. BQAZ has helped prioritize statewide transportation planning and investments and identified the need to develop alternative transportation options in the Sun Corridor region. By shifting the focus to a larger scale, local governments in Arizona are beginning to identify the transportation investments needed to make the Sun Corridor region more competitive globally.

Intermountain MPOs—A forum for 12 MPOs from 7 western States (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington), which meet to share ideas and coordinate efforts.

Front Range Express (FREX)—Several MPOs, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), transit providers, and local governments partnered to develop an intercity commuter bus service between the town of Monument, Colorado Springs, and Denver, as an affordable alternative to developing new passenger rail service. The new service provides alternatives to private vehicle transportation while helping alleviate congestion.


Appendix B: Intraregional Cross-State Flows The Demographics White Paper includes an analysis of historic and projected future population changes within Ohio. The data utilized for the demographics analysis was limited to Ohio’s 88 counties. A number of Ohio cities, namely Cincinnati, Belpre, Bridgeport, Ironton, Steubenville, Toledo, and Youngstown that are located near the Ohio border have metropolitan areas that extend beyond State lines.

This analysis will focus on intraregional cross-State migration and commuting flows in the regions surrounding Cincinnati, Toledo, and Youngstown, as these areas are representative of the demographic trends affecting bi-State and/or multi-State metropolitan regions. The analysis considers net movements between Ohio counties and non-Ohio counties within each of the three regions. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) was used for both the Migration Flow and Commute Flow analysis. The most recent comprehensive migration dataset (including all counties in the U.S.) available is the County-to-County Migration Flows: 2011–2015 ACS. The most recent comprehensive commuting dataset available (including all counties in the U.S.) is the 2009–2013 5-Year ACS Commuting Flows. Regions typically extend across multiple jurisdictions and do not generally have universally accepted geographic limits. For example, a region could be defined by the census-designated Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) boundaries or by the service area of the local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or Council of Governments (COG). A description and justification of the geography considered in the analysis is provided for each region in the following sections.

CINCINNATI

Regional Geography for Analysis The Ohio Kentucky Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI) is the COG and the MPO for the Cincinnati region. The geography used for the Cincinnati cross-State flows analysis is the same as the OKI transportation planning area and includes Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties in Ohio; Dearborn County in Indiana; and Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties in Kentucky (see Figure 7).

The total population for the eight counties in the OKI transportation planning area is 2,205,711 (see Table 1). Cincinnati is located within Hamilton County, Ohio which accounts for approximately 40 percent of the regional population.

FIGURE 7 – OKI TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AREA

Source: OKI, 2017.


Migration Flows An analysis of cross-State migration patterns between the OKI counties in Ohio (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren) and the OKI counties outside of Ohio (Dearborn in Indiana and Boone, Campbell, and Kenton in Kentucky) shows that Ohio lost a net 1,558 residents (less than 0.01 percent of the region’s total population) to Indiana and Kentucky due to intraregional cross-State migration (see Table 2). All four Ohio counties in the region experienced a net loss of population to non-Ohio counties in the region. Hamilton County experienced the greatest net population loss (-781) and Clermont County experienced the greatest percentage net population loss (-0.22 percent).

County (State)

Net Migration to Ohio Counties from Non-Ohio Counties

Dearborn (IN)

Boone (KY)

Campbell (KY)

Kenton (KY) Total

Butler (OH) 12 -50 -61 64 -35

Clermont (OH) 0 59 -146 -351 -438

Hamilton (OH) -88 -223 -7 -463 -781

Warren (OH) 18 -85 -141 -96 -304

Total -58 -299 -355 -846 -1,558

TABLE 2 – NET MIGRATION TO OHIO COUNTIES FROM NON-OHIO COUNTIES IN CINCINNATI REGION

Source: County-to-County Migration Flows: 2011–2015 ACS.

County (State) Population

Butler (OH) 372,538

Clermont (OH) 200,285

Hamilton (OH) 804,194

Warren (OH) 219,916

Dearborn (IN) 49,679

Boone (KY) 124,617

Campbell (KY) 91,475

Kenton (KY) 163,007

Total 2,025,711

TABLE 1 – CINCINNATI REGIONAL POPULATION

Source: ACS 2011-2015 5-Year Estimates.


Commute Flows Over 29,000 more people in the Cincinnati region commute from Indiana or Kentucky into Ohio than from Ohio into Indiana or Kentucky for work. Approximately 75 percent of the net cross-State, intraregional Cincinnati commuters entering Ohio for work live in Kentucky (22,003) which means that they are likely to be traveling over one of the bridges crossing the Ohio River.

County (State)

Net Commutes to Ohio Counties from Non-Ohio Counties

Dearborn (IN) Boone (KY)

Campbell (KY) Kenton (KY) Total

Butler (OH) 762 -80 550 329 1,561

Clermont (OH) -22 -1,398 -70 -1,390 -2,880

Hamilton (OH) 6,511 1,749 11,548 10,864 30,672

Warren (OH) 210 -107 282 -276 109

Total 7,461 164 12,310 9,527 29,462

TABLE 3 – NET COMMUTES TO OHIO COUNTIES FROM NON-OHIO COUNTIES IN CINCINNATI REGION

Source: 2009-2013 5-Year ACS Commuting Flows.

TOLEDO

Regional Geography for Analysis The Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG) is both the COG and the MPO for the Toledo region. The geography used for the Toledo cross-State flows analysis includes the three counties that are within the TMACOG transportation planning area: Lucas and Wood Counties in Ohio and Monroe County in Michigan (see Figure 8).

The total population for the three counties in the TMACOG transportation planning area is 715,582 (see Table 4). Toledo is located within Lucas County, Ohio which accounts for approximately 61 percent of the regional population.


Lucas (OH) 436,261

Wood (OH) 128,885

Monroe (MI) 150,436

Total 715,582

TABLE 4 – TOLEDO REGIONAL POPULATION



Migration Flows An analysis of cross-State migration patterns between the TMACOG counties in Ohio (Lucas and Wood) and the TMACOG county outside of Ohio (Monroe County, Michigan) shows that Ohio lost a net 91 residents (less than 0.01 percent of the region’s total population) to Michigan due to cross-State migration (see Table 5).

Commute Flows Over 9,000 more people in the Toledo region commute from Monroe County, Michigan into Ohio for work than commute from Ohio into Michigan. Over 90 percent of the net cross-State, intraregional commuters work in Lucas County (see Table 6).

County (State) Net Commutes to Ohio Counties from Monroe (MI)

Lucas (OH) 8,560

Wood (OH) 693

Total 9,253

TABLE 6 – NET COMMUTES TO OHIO COUNTIES FROM MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN IN TOLEDO REGION


County (State) Net Migration to Ohio Counties from Monroe

(MI)

Lucas (OH) -113

Wood (OH) 22

Total -91

TABLE 5 – NET MIGRATION FROM OHIO COUNTIES TO MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN IN TOLEDO REGION


FIGURE 8 – TMACOG TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AREA

Source: TMACOG, 2017.


YOUNGSTOWN

Geography for Analysis Eastgate Regional Council of Governments (Eastgate) is both the MPO and the COG for the Youngstown region. Eastgate’s transportation planning area is entirely within the State of Ohio, limited to Mahoning and Trumbull counties. However, the Youngstown-Warren-Boardman MSA extends into Mercer County, Pennsylvania. The geography used for the Youngstown cross-State flows analysis includes Mahoning and Trumbull Counties in Ohio and Mercer County in Pennsylvania (see Figure 9). The total population for the three counties in the Youngstown-Warren-Boardman MSA is 556,243 (see Table 5). Youngstown is located within Mahoning County, Ohio which accounts for approximately 42 percent of the regional population.


Mahoning (OH) 234,550

Trumbull (OH) 206,373

Mercer (PA) 115,320

Total 556,243

TABLE 7 – YOUNGSTOWN REGIONAL POPULATION


FIGURE 9 – YOUNGSTOWN-WARREN-BOARDMAN MSA

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.


County (State)

Net Migration to Ohio Counties from Mercer (PA)

Mahoning 59

Trumbull (OH) 135

Total 194

TABLE 8 – NET MIGRATION FROM OHIO COUNTIES TO MERCER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN YOUNGSTOWN REGION


Migration Flows An analysis of cross-State migration patterns between the MSA counties in Ohio (Mahoning and Trumbull) and Mercer County, Pennsylvania shows that Ohio gained a net 194 residents (approximately 0.03 percent of the region’s total population) from Pennsylvania due to intraregional cross-State migration (see Table 8).

Commute Flows Around 1,500 more people in the Youngstown region commute from Ohio into Pennsylvania for work than commute from Pennsylvania to Ohio. Approximately 98 percent of the net cross-State, intraregional commuters live in Mahoning County, Ohio (see Table 9).

TRANSPORTATION IMPLICATIONS Ohio counties in the Cincinnati region have experienced a small net loss in population to Kentucky and Indiana. In turn, there are almost 30,000 more commuters entering Ohio from Indiana and Kentucky than commuters traveling in the opposite direction. The Toledo region also has experienced a small net population loss from the Ohio counties in the region to the non-Ohio county (Monroe County, Michigan). Over 9,000 more commuters in the Toledo region commute from Michigan into Ohio than commute from Ohio to Michigan. Unlike Cincinnati and Toledo, Youngstown has more regional commuters leaving Ohio for work than entering Ohio for work.

For all three regions, the cross-State intraregional migration and commute patterns will require coordination with Departments of Transportation and local planning agencies in neighboring States. In addition, transportation plans for the Toledo and Cincinnati regions will need to account for both the Ohio-based population and the additional 9,000 to 29,000 commuters entering Ohio for work.

County (State) Net Commutes to

Ohio Counties from Mercer (PA)

Mahoning (OH) -29

Trumbull (OH) -1,554

Total -1,583

TABLE 9 – NET COMMUTES FROM OHIO COUNTIES TO MERCER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN YOUNGSTOWN REGION


Date post:	30-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Multijurisdictional Coordination White Paper · Ohio Department of Transportation |...

Documents