What potholes? Study ranks Ohio's highways among the 10th best in the nation
Ohio has the tenth best highways in the nation in terms of cost-effectiveness and condition, according to a new report from The Reason Foundation.
The Buckeye State's new rank is an improvement from Reason's last annual report, which ranked Ohio as 17th.
Every year, The Reason Foundation —a libertarian think tank— ranks the nation's state highway systems on cost effectiveness, condition and a slew of other metrics. The data for this year's report, titled the 28th Annual Highway Report, is from 2022.
Ohio received top ten rankings on three metrics: rural arterial pavement condition, rural fatality rate and capital and bridge disbursement rate.
The state's rural arterial highways —two to four-lane highways connecting cities or regions— have the ninth-best pavement condition, with just 0.36% of these roadways in poor condition.
Ohio's fatality rate on the state's rural highways is the ninth lowest at a rate of 0.86 deaths per 100 million rural vehicle miles.
Ohio's capital and bridge disbursement rate is the sixth lowest at 0.55. The ratio comes from the expected cost of bridge and highway construction divided by the amount Ohio actually spends. A lower ratio means the state manages to complete construction for less money than expected.
Ohio received bottom-twenty rankings in three categories: urban interstate pavement condition, urban arterial pavement condition and other fatalities rate.
The condition of Ohio's urban interstates came in at rank 32 with 4.15% of these roadways in poor condition.
The condition of Ohio's urban arterial roadways —four to eight lane highways that connect different parts of an urban region— came in at rank 36 with 12.88% of these roadways in poor condition.
Ohio's fatality rate on "other" roadways —defined by The Reason Foundation as minor arterial, collector and local roads— was ranked 31st at 1.56 deaths per 100 million vehicle road miles on these roadways.
Ohio's overall highway performance is better than Kentucky's, Indiana's, Michigan's, West Virginia's and Pennsylvania's, according to The Reason Foundation.
When compared to other states with similar population sizes, its highways are worse than Illinois' but better than Georgia's.
NHart@dispatch.com
@NathanRHart
This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Study: Ohio's highways are among the top 10 in the nation
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Yahoo
Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline
A privately owned company is proposing a pipeline across five states. While some of the state governments appear to be on board, the project is facing backlash from a large and formidable population: property owners. The pipeline, known as Summit Carbon Solutions, would span 2,500 miles and transport carbon dioxide (CO2) captured at 57 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and the Dakotas to a permanent underground storage site in North Dakota. Construction of the $9 billion pipeline is expected to begin this year, with operations kicking off in 2026. In June 2024, the project received regulatory approval from the Iowa Utilities Commission, despite landowner protests. Julie Glade and her husband, Paul, are Iowans who oppose the project because of its use of eminent domain. Their property aligns with the proposed route, and in 2022 the couple was visited by a land agent. "The guy who came to our door wanted us to sit down and sign it without reading it," Glade tells Reason. "They swooped in and tried to contact as many people as possible right away before the people knew what the consequences were. It's very unethical." Several other landowners in the state share the Glades' worries. During a hearing conducted by the Iowa Utility Commission, landowner Joan Gaul testified against the pipeline, which she said would cross a large portion of her farmland. Gaul said Summit Carbon Solutions mailed two easements, which would give the pipeline a legal right to her land, to her without notice. "This letter came telling us about taking our land using eminent domain. It was a difficult pill to swallow," she said. Gaul said she didn't accept the easements and has indicated that she will continue to fight the project. The Glades visit the Iowa Capitol nearly every week to voice their opposition to the pipeline. They are joined by what the couple calls a diverse coalition united by their concern for the basic constitutional right to land ownership. "We have MAGA Republicans and we have lefties. We put our differences aside and we work together," she says. The Glades' efforts could soon pay off. In May the state Senate passed House File 639, which would prevent CO2 pipelines from using eminent domain unless the company proves the pipeline meets the definition of public use. The bill would also prevent CO2 pipelines from operating longer than 25 years. The bill is awaiting the signature of Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, who is reportedly weighing opinions from pipeline supporters and detractors. If passed, the bill would represent a significant win for the rights of Iowa property owners. It would also be the latest setback for the Summit Carbon Solutions project. After the company launched a blitz of eminent domain lawsuits in South Dakota, Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed a bill into law in March preventing carbon dioxide pipelines from receiving eminent domain permission in the state. The post Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline appeared first on
Yahoo
07-06-2025
- Yahoo
How Tariffs Are Breaking the Manufacturing Industries Trump Says He Wants To Protect
When President Donald Trump announced a sweeping set of tariffs on nearly all imports, he promised that April 2—what the White House dubbed "Liberation Day"—would "forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn." That's not the way Michele Derrigo-Barnes sees it. Trump's tariffs are "killing" small American manufacturers like hers, she tells Reason. As CEO of Plattco Corporation, a small business that makes industrial valves, Derrigo-Barnes runs the sort of blue-collar industrial production shop that Trump and his allies say they want to help. Instead of being helped, she found herself dealing with fallout from the tariff announcement: canceled orders, higher prices, and enough uncertainty to put on hold a planned expansion of the company's Plattsburgh, New York, manufacturing center on the banks of Lake Champlain. What would she tell Trump if she got the chance? "Stop the nonsense. We've worked hard to get us to a place where we can perform well and we can take care of our customers, and this is putting that in jeopardy." The few dozen workers at Derrigo-Barnes' company won't be the only ones in jeopardy if Trump's tariffs remain in place for the long haul. Hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs will be lost and only about a fifth as many created, according to an estimate by investment bank Goldman Sachs. Tariffs create higher prices for inputs, which in turn can reduce sales for manufacturers' outputs, leaving companies worse off. While large companies such as Apple have already successfully lobbied the White House for special treatment, smaller operations such as Plattco have little choice but to eat the costs or pass them along to consumers. The gap between Trump's and Derrigo-Barnes' understanding of how tariffs affect American businesses is even larger than the gap between D.C. and Lake Champlain. Trump's global trade war has illustrated the folly of central planning, even when carried out by supposed populists who claim to be guided by the best interests of working-class Americans. It has revealed how little the president understands about the economy that he believes he can control, and how his protectionist impulses are hurting the very industries he claims to be helping. *** In an interview with Time to mark his first 100 days back in the Oval Office, the president offered a telling illustration of how he views the American economy. "We're a department store, a giant department store, the biggest department store in history," Trump said. "Everyone wants to come in and take from us. They're going to come in and they're going to pay a price for taking our treasure, taking our jobs." There are so, so, so many things wrong with this analogy. America does not resemble a department store. The 170 million people in the U.S. labor force are not the president's employees. It is not the president's job to set prices or decide what can be bought and sold. But an even more telling and terrible analogy is hidden inside that bizarre conception of how the economy works. Trump seems to be suggesting a successful department store would be one that raises prices without regard for the consequences on its employees or customers. In his version, a store that makes a lot of sales is giving away its "treasure." Walmart did not become the world's largest retailer by trying to punish its customers or limit sales. The people who run successful businesses understand something that Trump does not: Voluntary trade is a mutually beneficial arrangement. That's true regardless of whether the deal is between a store and its customers or a factory and its suppliers. It's also true even if one of the traders is located abroad. Trump will fail as the country's department store manager in chief for the same reasons that central planners always fail. It's simply impossible for the White House to understand and manage trillions of dollars in cross-border trade more efficiently than individuals and businesses do. Trump certainly has no clue what equipment the Plattco Corporation needs to build its annual supply of valves, to say nothing of the millions of other transactions that are essential to building cars, appliances, and other gadgets at factories all over America. In many cases, those transactions involve items that can't be sourced domestically. "Whether it is coffee, bananas, cocoa, minerals or numerous other products, the reality is certain things just can't be produced in the United States," Suzanne P. Clark, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, explained in a statement released in late April, as the organization was urging the White House to grant tariff exemptions for small businesses. "Raising prices on those products will only hurt families struggling to pay their bills." Trump may fail for new reasons too. The White House has spent weeks pivoting between the claim that tariffs will allow the federal government to collect trillions of dollars in new revenue and the claim they are a negotiating tool to be removed once the other countries have knuckled under. Both cannot be true at once. There is also an alarming lack of forethought on display. The day the "reciprocal" tariffs were meant to take effect, one week after they were first announced, Trump suddenly announced a three-month pause in their implementation. That decision, according to The Wall Street Journal, was made after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent cornered Trump while tariff-crazy trade adviser Peter Navarro was temporarily indisposed. Economic data suggest the tariffs are already discouraging investment and slowing imports. Higher prices and supply shortages loom on the horizon. For businesses that depend on imports, the chaos and uncertainty are creating huge headaches. Victor Owen Schwartz, the owner of VOS Sections, a New York–based importer and distributor of wines and spirits, says the tariffs have made it impossible for him to plan ahead. (He is also a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in April that challenges the administration's authority to impose tariffs without congressional approval.) "Could you imagine if I had a supplier and every time I talk to them, they gave me a different price?" he told Reason in an April interview. "This is the equivalent of that." And that's no way to run a department store—or a country. *** International trade is essential to American manufacturers like Plattco, whose industrial airlock valves are used by other blue-collar industries, such as mining and shipping operations. About half of the company's 55 employees work in the plant, explains Derrigo-Barnes, while the rest handle sales and overhead. The products they sell are convenient metaphors for a large swath of American manufacturing in the third decade of the 21st century: advanced pieces of engineering that link other equipment, all working seamlessly to allow the efficient transfer of goods from place to place. Plattco's valves themselves contain dozens of different parts: a body, an arm, a cover, a seat, a flapper, air cylinders, ball bearings, a shaft, bearings and bearing screws, air hoses, a plug, a rod end, more screws, pins, a link, gaskets, washers, and more. Many of those parts are manufactured abroad, and the final product is assembled at the company's facility in Plattsburgh. "We do not have the space, the machinery, or the people to be able to meet all of our demand," Derrigo-Barnes explains. Imports help fill the gap, so Plattco can sell more than what it produces domestically. Those extra sales benefit the company's bottom line, pay salaries, and allow more customers to get what they need for their own businesses. "The only way we would be able to make everything in-house would be millions of dollars of investments, which would take us years and a lot of money," she says. "I understand the philosophy that we want to have everything American-made, but it's not something that anybody is going to be able to just pick up and do tomorrow." The same is true of America's manufacturing economy as a whole. More than half the imports to the U.S. are raw materials, intermediate parts, or equipment—the stuff that manufacturing firms need to make things—rather than finished goods. Those imports are essential to American manufacturers—which are flourishing, despite the narrative of doom and decline that many politicians have been pushing. Domestic manufacturing output is higher today than it was in 1994 (when the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed) and higher than it was in 2001 (when China joined the World Trade Organization). Meanwhile, average wages for manufacturing workers (excluding managers) have doubled since 1999, outpacing inflation. It's true that manufacturing employment has declined in recent decades. In fact, the decline isn't even all that recent—the raw number of U.S. manufacturing jobs dropped steadily from the late 1970s through the early 2010s, due to a combination of factors including automation, outsourcing, and the simple fact that fewer Americans want factory jobs when higher paying, less backbreaking work is available. The number of manufacturing jobs has been increasing over the past decade, but tariff advocates don't want to talk about that either. Higher tariffs on raw materials and component parts will put all of those positive trends at risk. The "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump unveiled on April 2 would, if they're fully implemented, reduce the economy by about 0.8 percent and cost an estimated 671,000 jobs, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation. A constant flurry of changes, pauses, and exemptions makes the damage hard to predict, though. They may have been amended, postponed, reimplemented, reconfigured, or canceled entirely by the time you are reading this—it is impossible to know what the White House will decide on a whim. In its April survey of manufacturers, the New York Federal Reserve reported "a level of pessimism that has only occurred a handful of times in the history of the survey." In the section of the report dealing with what the Federal Reserve calls "forward-looking indicators"—that is, what businesses expect the next six months to look like—the results were particularly grim. Manufacturers expected to see fewer orders, longer delivery times, declining inventories, and lower levels of employment. About the only lines pointed upward were their expectations for prices, which tariffs will inflate. In a separate survey of manufacturers by the Institute for Supply Management, responses to the tariffs were overwhelmingly negative. "Tariff whiplash is causing us major issues with customers," including fewer orders, one machinery firm reported. (Businesses that respond to the survey are kept anonymous.) "There is a lot of concern about the inflationary impacts from tariffs in our industry. Domestic producers are charging more for everything because they can," said a fabricated metal producer. Overall, the institute concluded that "demand and production retreated and destaffing continued, as panelists' companies responded to an unknown economic environment." Looking ahead, Trump's tariffs will increase American manufacturers' costs by 5 percent to 15 percent, an April analysis by Goldman Sachs concluded. As supply chains shift in response, American manufacturers could add about 100,000 jobs, the same study found—but those gains would be swamped by an estimated 500,000 jobs lost in other industries due to higher costs throughout the supply chain. By mid-April, those job losses were already starting. Mack Trucks, a century-old Pennsylvania-based manufacturer of big rigs and other heavy-duty vehicles, announced plans for up to 350 layoffs. A company spokesperson said the decision was driven by "market uncertainty about freight rates and demand" and "the impact of tariffs." The outcry from manufacturers inverts the traditional model for understanding how protectionist policies get enacted. Historically, tariffs would be sought by domestic producers who want protection from foreign competition. What's happening now is different. Trump is forcing his tariffs on American companies that, by and large, were not asking for them, do not want them, and are now begging the White House for exemptions from them. "Many manufacturers in the United States already operate with thin margins," Jay Timmons, head of the National Association of Manufacturers, noted in a statement about Trump's tariff announcement. "The high costs of new tariffs threaten investment, jobs, supply chains and, in turn, America's ability to outcompete other nations and lead as the preeminent manufacturing superpower." *** Trump does not seem to be listening. Asked in that same Time interview whether he'd be pleased if tariff rates of 20 percent or more lasted for five years or longer, the president said he would consider that outcome a "total victory." Perhaps Trump should have tried running a department store or a factory before deciding he could centrally plan the entire economy from the Oval Office. Amid the shifting, contradictory justifications for the trade war emanating from the White House, bear in mind that Trump's fantastical beliefs about tariffs are deeply held. He will be one of the last people in the country to accept reality, long after rising prices, slower growth, increased job losses, and a sagging stock market have convinced the rest of America that high tariffs are a mistake. Trump's tariffs, like all policies, must be judged by their results and not their intentions. The president is not guiding a rebirth of American industry. He is overseeing a ritual sacrifice to the false god of central planning. The post How Tariffs Are Breaking the Manufacturing Industries Trump Says He Wants To Protect appeared first on
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Yahoo
This Virginia Small Business Is in Limbo As Owner Sues To Stop Trump's Tariffs
Even after scoring a huge victory against President Donald Trump's tariffs in federal court last week, David Levi still isn't sure if his small business will survive the trade war. "It's just been exhausting how uncertain it is," Levi, who started MicroKits in 2020 to get more kids interested in the hands-on science of electrical engineering, tells Reason. Imports are essential to the kits that Levi and his one employee assemble in a warehouse near Charlottesville, Virginia. For example, a kit that teaches kids how to build a small theremin requires a circuit board, resistors, capacitors, bits of wire, and plastic molding to hold batteries and other pieces in place. "I don't have millions and millions of dollars to spin up my own circuit board assembly line, and plastic mold injection, and everything," Levi says. Though he is running a small, niche operation, Microkits is in many ways a microcosm of American manufacturing. Levi provides the ideas and designs, and he oversees the final assembly of his products in America, but those products combine parts sourced from around the globe. About 60 percent of his inputs come from China, Levi says, which puts him more or less in line with American manufacturing as a whole. More than half the imports to the U.S. are raw materials, intermediate parts, or equipment—the stuff that manufacturing firms need to make things—rather than finished goods. It is those supply chains that the trade war is jeopardizing. He's had to put on hold plans to offer a new kit that would allow kids to build a musical synthesizer powered by the electrical current found in bananas (which are also getting more expensive, thanks to tariffs). "It's not a question of 'oh do you build the kits entirely in America or with international parts?'" Levi says. "It's a question of do you build the kits with international parts versus you don't build these science kits at all. And then, instead of kids getting a cool science project at Christmas, they just get another app on their iPad that they already have." Levi and MicroKits are plaintiffs in the lawsuit that briefly blocked many of Trump's tariffs last week when the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the president did not have the legal authority to impose those tariffs. Less than 24 hours later, that injunction was put on hold by a federal appeals court—leaving the tariffs in place, for now, and business owners like Levi in limbo. Next week will be pivotal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave the Trump administration until Monday to file its briefs for the next stage of the legal process. A full ruling on the merits of the case could take weeks or months, but the first thing the appeals court will have to decide is whether to maintain the temporary order blocking the lower court's injunction against the tariffs, says Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, which is representing Levi and several other business owners in the lawsuit. "I'd be shocked—and disappointed, honestly—if they don't make a decision [regarding the stay] before Friday of next week," Schwab tells Reason. "So by next week at this time, hopefully we'll know." The post This Small Business Is in Limbo As Owner Sues To Stop Trump's Tariffs appeared first on
