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
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Did 'Activist Judges' Derail Trump's Tariffs?
In the immediate aftermath of Wednesday's federal court ruling that blocked the Trump administration's tariffs on nearly all imports, the president's allies have turned to a predictable excuse for the sweeping legal defeat. "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency," said Kush Desai, the White House's deputy press secretary, in a statement. "President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness." "With activist judges, what is even the point of having a president?!" posted conservative pundit Charlie Kirk (in a tweet that inaccurately characterized just about every aspect of the legal ruling). "The judicial coup is out of control," wrote Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, on X. These reactions are as inaccurate as they are lame. In Miller's view, apparently, a "coup" occurs when judges tell the president that he has overstepped the bounds of his powers under the law—rather than when a president seizes those expansive powers. That's a very silly definition of a coup. More importantly, it's also a misleading description of what the Court of International Trade ruled on Wednesday. In this case, it was the Trump administration, not the court, that was claiming to be able to exercise unlimited, unchecked power by invoking a law. Trump had used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on nearly all imports to the U.S., even though that law narrowly authorizes presidential actions only in response to "an unusual and extraordinary threat." International commerce is plainly neither of those things, as the court concluded in its ruling. "We do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President," the judges wrote. "We instead read IEEPA's provisions to impose meaningful limits on any such authority it confers." By reviewing the actions of the executive branch to ensure they comport with the underlying law, the Court of International Trade merely fulfilled the constitutional role of the judiciary. "This ruling reaffirms that the President must act within the bounds of the law, and it protects American businesses and consumers from the destabilizing effects of volatile, unilaterally imposed tariffs," Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, the public-interest law firm that represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit before the Court of International Trade, told Reason in a statement. In short, that's the opposite of a coup. The claim that these were "activist judges" also doesn't stand up to scrutiny. For starters, one of the three judges who issued Wednesday's unanimous ruling was appointed by Trump. Judge Timothy Reif was nominated in June 2018, during the first Trump administration. The other two judges who decided the case were appointed by Presidents Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. That seems like a pretty fair panel: A liberal, an older conservative, and a Trump appointee. All three agreed that Trump had overstepped his authority with the tariffs. Additionally, the court's ruling leaned on two bits of jurisprudence that conservatives have long championed as a way for courts to check executive authority: the "nondelegation" and "major questions" doctrines. The former says, in effect, that Congress cannot delegate its core lawmaking authority to other branches of the government. The latter says the same thing in reverse: That major questions of policy must be decided by Congress, not the other branches. The court found that Trump's tariffs failed on both counts. In the ruling, the three judges wrote that "an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government. Regardless of whether the court views the President's actions through the nondelegation doctrine, through the major questions doctrine, or simply with separation of powers in mind, any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional." The idea that these judges—a majority of whom were appointed by Republicans and who were exercising a pair of conservative legal theories in evaluating Trump's tariffs—were somehow unfairly biased against the president is simply laughable. There may be some questions about the basic legitimacy of the Court of International Trade, which most Americans have probably never encountered. Let's put those to rest too. The court was created by an act of Congress in 1980 to adjudicate disputes exactly like this one. Like in all federal courts, rulings from the Court of International Trade can be appealed—and the Trump administration has already indicated that it will appeal Wednesday's sweeping tariff ruling. It's also somewhat telling that the Trump administration's lawyers have been trying to move other tariff-related cases into this court. Rather than viewing the Court of International Trade as illegitimate or biased, it seems like the administration believed that the court would be the friendliest legal venue for reviewing the president's claimed tariff powers—at least until Wednesday evening. (That belief was shared by many trade policy observers, including myself, who were skeptical that the courts would be willing to intervene in such a direct way to block tariffs imposed under the IEEPA.) Whether as a legal matter or a practical one, Trump's allies are simply wrong when they claim that the administration is the victim of judicial activism in the tariff ruling. The Court of International Trade's decision to strike down the tariffs and draw clear lines around the president's emergency economic powers is well-reasoned and appropriate. It's also the sort of ruling that conservatives would be universally cheering if it were brought down against a Democratic president's power grab. This isn't a judicial coup or an unfair result. Trump exceeded the limits of the power granted to him by Congress, and the courts put a stop to it. That's exactly how our constitutional system is supposed to work. The post Did 'Activist Judges' Derail Trump's Tariffs? appeared first on
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Texans work the most hours per week. See average hourly pay in Texas, how yours compares
Do you make more money than the average Texan? The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released its total private average hourly earnings by state, along with the average weekly earnings and the average number of hours Americans work per week. Here are the average hourly and weekly salaries for Texas, average weekly hours, and how these figures compare to those in other states, as of April 2025. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total private average hourly earnings in Texas are $34.25 as of April. That hourly rate is not seasonally adjusted. The data shows that the average gross weekly earnings are $1,239.85. Extrapolated over 52 weeks, that weekly earnings figure equates to $64,472.20 per year, Texas' average hourly earnings rank in the middle among states, with its average weekly earnings falling in the upper-middle category. Employees in the nation's capital of Washington, D.C., earn the most money with an average hourly pay of $52.25 per hour. This is a full $18 above Texas' average. Mississippi lands in last place as the state that earns the least on average. Its average hourly earnings are just $27.88, which is $6.37 less than Texas'. Washington, D.C.: $52.25 Massachusetts: $42.21 Washington: $41.61 California: $40.69 Colorado: $39.10 Minnesota: $39.04 New York: $38.50 Connecticut: $38.43 Hawaii: $37.84 New Jersey: $37.68 Mississippi: $27.88 New Mexico: $29.13 Louisiana: $29.38 Arkansas: $29.69 West Virginia: $29.90 Kentucky: $30.07 Tennessee: $30.68 Iowa: $30.75 Oklahoma: $30.76 Alabama: $31.08 At 36.2 hours per week, the average Texas employee spends the most time at work compared to those in other states. This is nearly four hours more than the average employee in South Dakota, with the fewest weekly hours. Texas: 36.2 hours Louisiana: 36.0 hours Mississippi: 35.6 hours Alabama: 35.3 hours Oklahoma: 35.2 hours West Virginia: 35.0 hours North Dakota: 34.9 hours Kentucky: 34.8 hours Arkansas: 34.7 hours Arizona: 34.6 hours South Dakota: 32.4 hours Delaware and New York: 32.5 hours Hawaii: 32.6 hours Wisconsin: 32.7 hours Minnesota: 32.9 hours Colorado, Maine and New Hampshire: 33.1 hours Montana: 33.2 hours — The Columbus Dispatch's Alex Perry contributed to this report. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: What's the average hourly pay in Texas? See how your paycheck compares
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Yahoo
An End to Tax on Tips
Passed the Senate: Yesterday, the Senate passed the No Tax on Tips Act 100–0, which "creates a federal income tax deduction of up to $25,000 a year for certain types of cash tips for eligible employees," per The Washington Post. ("Cash tips" include tips given not just in cash but also via credit and debit cards.) This applies to employees earning $160,000 or less annually. Waiters, bartenders, delivery drivers, strippers, taxi drivers, and many others stand to benefit from this. But isn't the obvious outcome customers simply tipping less, realizing that the workers they were tipping now get to keep more of what they earn (if they were reporting it as taxable income at all in the first place)? Other fun ideas here: If you actually wanted to help the household budgets of working-class people, the best thing you could do is refrain from imposing 10 percent across-the-board tariffs (and more for goods imported from China). It's not clear to me that no taxes on tips, though President Donald Trump touted it repeatedly from the campaign trail, will do all that much, or that there was a ton of accurate tip-reporting happening in the first place. But it makes sense that Trump—always politically minded—pursued this: "Trump is right to want to get rid of taxes on tips, primarily because it's a heavy paperwork load and it generates practically no revenue," writes Jared Dillian for Reason. "Promising to get rid of it was a downright genius political move because it appealed to the 4 million workers in tipped occupations, and he was buying those votes for practically nothing." But it also creates an opportunity for people to try to categorize their normal income as tips, and how much they can now get away with remains to be seen. Lab-grown meat discourse: Please forgive me, it's all playing out on X, and I'll attempt a synopsis—with heavy excerpting—here, because I think discussions of lab-grown meat bans sometimes fail to convey the deeper fears present. "RWers in red states are banning lab grown meat because it will be used as a a cudgel against them in the future," wrote an anon on X. "There is no faith that lab grown meat will be on an even playing field in the market. It will be used for Dekulakization if the opportunity presents itself." You can't ban beef cow farmers, he adds, but you could do carbon emissions offsets, mandate more humane treatment of animals raised for slaughter, or harass farmers in a bunch of other ways so that their old models are no longer economically viable. And the alternative is right there! "Lab grown meat is just *slightly* worse," he adds. "Just a tiny tiny bit. How can you assure me this isn't the food version of shutting my engine off at the red light, of making my dish washing machine/washing machine/dryer just slightly worse?" It's true: Under the guise of environmentalism, we've been forced to accept slightly worse alternatives—paper straws, those crappy coffee-cup lids that don't actually work, paper bags in lieu of plastic, A.C. mandates (mostly in European countries) that force businesses and public buildings to be kept just a little hotter to reduce energy consumption—in blue cities and states especially. It's never too big of an imposition for people to revolt, but it makes life marginally worse. "This is a really good thread of why people are disinclined to permit lab-grown meat," writes PoliMath. "It feels like a back door to banning real meat and people are really sick of being tricked and forced into accepting shitty things they don't want." But this is classic conservatism, counters The Atlantic's Derek Thompson, who summarizes the PoliMath position as "I'm afraid that the emergence of new things will mean I won't be able to enjoy my old things." "'If we allow this new thing to develop, the state will eventually ban this old thing I like, so we have to smother the infant tech in the crib' is a very very anti-progress position to take, in any field," adds Thompson. "You're basically endorsing incumbent bias as a first principle because of a make-believe fear that Democrats are on the verge of banning steak." PoliMath counters that the fear isn't make-believe, that eradicating the meat industry is the explicit, stated goal of pretty much every lab-grown meat company, and that people who seek to ban lab-grown meat aren't unreasonable to fear that wholesale replacement of the meat industry is the ultimate goal—something they'll be forced to accept for the greater good. The Justice Department, having closed its inquiry into Mayor Eric Adams' possible corruption, has opened an inquiry into Adams' mayoral race opponent (and current frontrunner), Andrew Cuomo, for his handling of COVID as governor. Some people are criticizing this as "election interference," but it's worth asking: Do we actually have any indication that this hurts Cuomo's chances with likely voters? (Or that it's even considered relevant at all?) All this aside, the mayoral field is mighty weak this time around. It's like we get the honor of picking between bad, big government, corrupt mayor No. 1, bad, big government, corrupt mayor No. 2, or a legit socialist who wants government-run grocery stores. I'll sit this one out, thanks. "I don't think Thomas Massie understands government," said President Donald Trump to reporters, calling himself a fiscal hawk. "I think he's a grandstander, frankly. He'll probably vote [no]—we don't even talk to him much. I think he should be voted out of office. And I just don't think he understands government. If you ask him a couple of questions, he'll never give you an answer, he just says 'I'm a no.'" This is an amusing take on Massie because—of all the politicians we've interviewed on Just Asking Questions—Massie has, in my experience, been the most likely to actually give in-depth reasoning for his no votes. Maricopa County taxpayers are still paying for Sheriff Joe Arpaio's immigration crackdown, eight years after he left office. Polygraphs don't really work, so why is Homeland Security head Kristi Noem using them? Tim Walz says, "We had the most qualified person who'd run for president in this country's history at the top of the ticket." This is the way: The post An End to Tax on Tips appeared first on
