Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Transportation Interchange Repeal topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sponsor seeks repeal of budget language requiring new I‑71 interchange at Boston Road

5557112 · February 26, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 31 would remove a prior transportation-budget provision that directed ODOT to build an interchange off I‑71 at Boston Road in Brunswick; the sponsor told the committee the provision advanced without local approval and before a traffic study demonstrated clear benefits.

Senator Romanchuk told the Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee that Senate Bill 31 would remove language in a previous transportation budget requiring construction of an interchange off Interstate 71 at Boston Road in Brunswick.

The sponsor said the budget provision was added over local government objections and without Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) approval. He said a subsequent traffic study published after the budget shows minimal benefit in reducing congestion or crash frequency and cited a September 15, 2023, letter from ODOT’s director to the governor concluding the study did not provide an obvious solution to the stated problems.

Romanchuk told the committee the requirement risks wasting public dollars and bypasses technical review processes administered by the Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC). He referenced Ohio Revised Code language governing TRAC and said the General Assembly included limits on legislative involvement in transportation project selection because legislators lack technical expertise.

The sponsor said his repeal would also require completion of the traffic study so the MPO would proceed; he said the current study process had been delayed until the legislative language is changed. Committee members asked about the timing and whether removing the provision would free up safety funds for other projects; the sponsor responded it would.

No committee vote occurred; the hearing consisted of sponsor testimony and follow-up questions.