By Kenneth F. Reed
Guest columnist

I want to thank Professor Haynes Goddard for his comments on the OKI 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan ("Does planning at OKI place region at risk?" June 13). The plan, which was approved by the OKI board on June 10, is an example of regionalism at its best. For more than a year now, OKI staff has been asking the public and their elected representatives for thoughts and opinions. They have been meeting with various community organizations, along with holding nearly two-dozen public input workshops which have provided valuable insight into what the public wanted out of their transportation system.

As you can see, the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan was not put together by a group of technicians in a back room at the OKI offices. Each step along the way included extensive input from regional leaders and the public with regular updates to our Board.

After reading Professor Goddard's op-ed, I think that there are a few problems with his assessment of the OKI 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan that need to be discussed further.

First, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) requires the Plan be "fiscally constrained," meaning we must show a way to pay for the projects. As Mr. Goddard is aware, the voters of Hamilton County soundly defeated the rail initiative in 2002. Without having a reasonable funding source USDOT does not permit us to include rail in this update.

Also, because rail should remain an option for future development, additional funding has been made available to purchase right-of-way. This will help assure that if funding for a regional rail system were approved, the issue of purchasing land at future dollars will not be a deterrent. It should also be noted that a regional rail system is called for in a chapter that identifies needed transportation projects for which funding has yet to be identified.

Further, more than 1,000 bus route miles, 19 new transit centers and 24 miles of new rail line are included in this plan. Professor Goddard's assertion that OKI has ignored transit in our long range planning process is clearly incorrect.

Professor Goddard's point about cost-benefit analysis is a good one. OKI does need to develop better cost benefit analysis tools for this kind of project. However, these systems are very expensive. For this reason we have chosen to focus resources toward analysis within defined corridors which we have done quite well. As the professor is well aware, OKI Executive Director, Mark Policinski has been working to find a cost-effective modeling system that would accomplish this level of analysis on broader projects. OKI will continue improving its planning processes and procedures but we must never place the results of a computer model ahead of the will of the public.

---

Kenneth F. Reed is president of the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments.