It seems like it would respond to temperature change better but would wear down faster.

Isn't a lot of the wear-and-tear on traditional sidewalks temperature-related? I mean, have you ever seen a slab of concrete worn clear through from footsteps? If you have, I'll show you a zillion that had to be replaced because of freeze-thaw damage, and a zillion more that cracked because they weren't poured properly in the first place. Also, would rubber sidewalks even need expansion joints? In addition to being less prone to causing trips and falls, a continuous surface would be less prone to grabbing the blade on your shovel when you're clearing away snow, right?

 

Also, rubber sidewalks would be comfy to lay on if you were drunk, homeless and/or emotionally vulnerable.

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/news/2006/12-29-06.htm

 

SLC: While scouring the site today, this caught my eye (I haven't been keeping up on PRs for a while.) Other states, such as Kentucky, offer Transportation Enhancement projects which are used for a variety of purposes. One of these that I am most familiar with is the Ashland KY riverfront project which is being funded through this. Utility burials, streetscape enhancements, park improvements, etc. are often funded with this as well.

 

See this link for further information --

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/local/

 

 

ODOT TO ACCEPT APPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY PROJECTS

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Director Gordon Proctor today announced ODOT will begin accepting funding request applications on Jan. 1, 2007 for Transportation Enhancement, Small City and Municipal Bridge projects. The programs provide approximately $27 million in federal funding, through ODOT, for a variety of local transportation infrastructure projects throughout the state.

 

“Every year these programs provide core funding to Ohio’s small cities and municipalities,” Proctor said. “Whether it’s for an enhancement project or a bridge replacement, this funding helps to advance projects that are important to our communities.”

 

Transportation Enhancement Program – The Transportation Enhancement Program makes available $11 million in federal funding to preserve historic transportation sites, provide landscaping and other scenic enhancements to local roadways and add pedestrian bicycle and walking paths throughout Ohio. Local governments outside the boundaries of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are eligible for program funding. Additionally, local governments within Allen, Belmont, Licking and Washington counties that are within an MPO region can also apply to receive project funding. Citizen groups or other private organizations can also sponsor a project by coordinating with the local government having jurisdiction over the transportation facility involved. The funding will be provided for projects to be awarded in State Fiscal Year 2010. The application process will begin Jan.1, 2007 by submitting a Letter of Interest (LOI) to the respective ODOT district office by Feb.1, 2007.

 

Small City Program - The Small City Program provides approximately $8 million in federal funding to cities with populations between 5,000 and 24,999. Currently, there are 58 small cities statewide that meet these criteria. This program may be used by the incorporated localities for any road, safety or signal project on the Federal-aid highway system. The funding will be provided for projects to be awarded in State Fiscal Year 2010. The application process runs from Jan.1, 2007 through March 1, 2007.

 

Municipal Bridge Program - The Municipal Bridge Program provides approximately $8 million in federal funding to municipal corporations and transit authorities for bridge replacement or bridge rehabilitation projects. Bridges must carry vehicular traffic to be eligible for funding. Bridges that exist solely for railroad or pedestrian facilities are not eligible for funding. The funding will be provided for projects to be awarded in State Fiscal Year 2011. The application process is from Jan.1, 2007 through March 1, 2007

Transportation enhancement funds were at least part of the funding source for the "makeover" of Morse Road in Columbus between Indianola Avenue on East toward Cleveland Avenue.  That included the complete re-landsacping of the Morse Road- I-71 interchange.

Did this go by the old Northland Mall? I remembered construction last summer when I took Morse Road out to Easton. Nice work but way low density!

this is from the nytimes:

 

 

Architecture

Rehabilitating Robert Moses

By ROBIN POGREBIN

Published: January 23, 2007

 

FOR three decades his image has been frozen in time. The bulldozing bully who callously displaced thousands of New Yorkers in the name of urban renewal. The public-works kingpin who championed highways as he starved mass transit. And yes, the visionary idealist who gave New York Lincoln Center and Jones Beach, along with parks, roads, playgrounds and public pools.

 

Robert Moses, here in a 1938 photograph taken for a magazine article, is the subject of three new exhibitions that reconsider his work as New York’s master builder, which in recent decades was judged somewhat harshly.

 

The Cross Bronx Expressway, one of the roads Moses built.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/arts/design/28pogr.html?ex=157680000&en=111bdae28f84a406&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

i saw this on a blog -- holy wrong headed batman:

 

 

5 February 07

 

MAKING CARNEGIE EVEN MORE FUN…And you thought the traffic cameras were annoying. How about Blazing Saddlesesque toll booths on every major artery leading into Cleveland? No. That’s not Mayor Frank Jackson’s plan, that’s President George Bush’s plan to ease rush-hour traffic. I can’t think of a better way to strangle our cities and make sprawl a national policy.

 

In a surprise that could foreshadow how Mr. Bush might reach out to Democrats — and disappoint conservatives — for the rest of his term, the centerpiece of the traffic plan involves an initiative that some critics say amounts to a tax, a plan depicted by administration officials as “congestion pricing.”

 

The administration will award $130 million in grants starting this spring to help cities and states build electronic toll systems that would charge drivers fees for traveling in and out of big cities during peak traffic times.

 

The money also could go to other congestion strategies such as expanded telecommuting, but administration officials make it clear they think congestion pricing is the most powerful tool they have. The White House will seek an additional $175 million for congestion initiatives in next year’s budget.

 

If the plan was going to spend a few billion on mass-transit to move people in and out of the city, I might get behind this. But as it is, it is nothing more than a recipe to drain cities.

 

 

Filed under: Politics Cleveland Governing— Jeff Hess @ 0634

 

http://havecoffeewillwrite.com/?p=2873

 

MAKING CARNEGIE EVEN MORE FUN…And you thought the traffic cameras were annoying. How about Blazing Saddlesesque toll booths on every major artery leading into Cleveland? No. That’s not Mayor Frank Jackson’s plan, that’s President George Bush’s plan to ease rush-hour traffic. I can’t think of a better way to strangle our cities and make sprawl a national policy.

 

Too late.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117064116425197878.html?mod=ITPWSJ_1

You may not be able to see it online since I am a subscriber, but here is the article anyhow --

 

SLC: Toll roads are making a comeback in the United States, as traditional funding methods for new roadways or roadway expansions are coming up with far too few dollars, especially at a time when construction prices are rising through the roof. It also goes in-depth with rush-hour-only tolls, similar to London, which would encourage carpooling, slugging, and mass transit.

 

More money is needed though...

 

Bush Plays Traffic Cop in Budget Request

President Suggests

'Congestion' Tolls

To Ease Rush Hour

By JOHN D. MCKINNON

February 5, 2007; Page A6

 

WASHINGTON -- With much of his domestic agenda stalled by Congress, President Bush is embracing a new cause he is hoping will cross party lines and leave him with an end-of-term accomplishment: easing rush-hour traffic. In his annual budget blueprint to be unveiled today, Mr. Bush intends to showcase a highway "congestion initiative," according to White House documents, with grants for state and local governments to experiment with anti-jam strategies.

 

For more information, please click the link.

While I agree with congestion pricing from a free-market perspective (apparently, the so-called "conservatives" are starting to realize the massive subsidies inherent in driving), it's long-term prospects are bunk.  Very quickly, tolls will have to rise enormously to cover the costs of driving--to the point where only the very wealthy will be able to drive on a highway.

 

I don't care how many adjustments we make, as long as we rely on cars, we're economically screwed--foreign oil dependency or not.  To think otherwise is just shell-game logic.  Read Jim Kunstler's blog entry for today:

 

www.kunstler.com

If the plan was going to spend a few billion on mass-transit to move people in and out of the city, I might get behind this. But as it is, it is nothing more than a recipe to drain cities.

 

Hell...I would even prefer spending just the $175 million on transit projects.  That could get streetcars up and running in probably a half a dozen cities of various sizes (2 cities Cincy/Cbus size, then the rest would have to be smaller systems).  At least you would be investing in a proven system, and one that doesn't continue to place the utmost importance on the personal vehicle.

 

  Aside from the technical issue of having to stop traffic for toll booths, congestion pricing does, in fact, reduce congestion.

 

    I'm not sure why the grants are needed, though. As long as the toll revenue exceeds the cost to collect the tolls, states should be able to come up with the money to get it started.

There is little need for stopping when you utilise electronic toll tags that are widely accepted today.

Congestion pricing only makes sense in cities with good public transit (and bicycling) alternatives.  If there are few options to get where you need to go, you'll still have the traffic.  It would work better in Cleveland (but even Cleveland needs more alternatives)than Columbus, but it would work far better in cities like Boston, Portland, NYC, etc. 

 

Interesting that Bush is suggesting congestion pricing when his ambassador to Britain--refuses to pay the congestion charges in London.

 

    That's the first photo of Robert Moses that I've ever seen and he's not what I imagined. He looks like he could be a nice guy.  :-)

Interesting that Bush is suggesting congestion pricing when his ambassador to Britain--Wendell Cox (the more roads at all costs and absolutely no transit or trains)--refuses to pay the congestion charges in London.

 

Wendell Cox is Bush's ambassador to Britain???

he looks like the guy thatplayed the 40 year old virgin?

I'm sure Robert Tuttle (and William Farish before him) would be surprised to learn that!

 

I'm assuming you meant that in some ironical way, or some Bush's Personal Representative way or something?

 

Congestion pricing only makes sense in cities with good public transit (and bicycling) alternatives.  If there are few options to get where you need to go, you'll still have the traffic.

 

Your absolutely right...except I think traffic may still decrease in cities where transit is not very abundant.  Instead of driving into the inner-city businesses and residents will eventually change their ways and move out to avoid the constant tolls.  Maybe it would be a stretch for residents, but businesses who have a large chunk of their workers commuting from the 'burbs might look at this as a tipping point to where they say time to move out to cheaper land, parking, and commuting for their workers.

He looks vaguely like Cleveland Planning Director Bob Brown.

Sure this new exhibit/book is correct in its recognition that Robert Moses accomplished a great deal for NYC.  He accomplished a lot in such a short time...something that will most likely never be seen again.  But the fact still exists that he was able to do all of this through shear brute force and by ignoring anyone/everyone who stood in his way.

 

He blasted out inner-city neighborhoods like there was no tommorow and for what??  Better automobile access, some more parks, etc.  These neighborhoods are irreplaceable, but the infrastructure that Robert Moses created could have still been accomplished in a more civil manor with respect to the individuals/neighborhoods where he wanted them to exist.

 

Sure he was a public servant, but for which segment of the public and for how many people in that public??  Its interesting that NYC and other cities are trying to rebuild what people like Robert Moses blew out, while at the same time we are continuing to build our infrastructure...only with more checks and balances with more respect to those who are affected.

 

Wendell Cox is Bush's ambassador to Britain???

 

I'm sure Robert Tuttle (and William Farish before him) would be surprised to learn that!

 

I'm assuming you meant that in some ironical way, or some Bush's Personal Representative way or something?

 

Well, I was wrong about ambassador, but I could swear I saw his name in an article about it.  There was an article a month or so ago about how he refuses to pay London's congestion charges.  I wish I can remember where I saw it.  It may have been here or on energybulletin.net or planetizen. 

 

Now I'm wondering if it was someone besides Cox.  I know I read the article and I know it mentioned some well known US transit hater.  I'll try to dig it up...

US diplomats refuse to pay congestion charge:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4359566.stm

 

Cox not mentioned, however, the article speaks for itself about the Bush administration's double standard.  I know I saw an article with Cox's name or some other well known US transit hater.  Nothing at planetizen or energybulletin.  I'm not crazy! at least I don't think I am... :?  Sorry everybody.... :?

 

boy I feel stupid now...

it seems difficult to implement in a city with multiple entries.  obviously the highway exits could be done, but the cost (in cleveland, for example) to pick up all of the eastside feeders seems huge - Rt2, lakeside, marginal (n and s), hamilton, st. clair, superior, payne, chester, euclid, carnegie, chester, etc.

 

anyway, this proposal doesn't really seem to help cleveland anyway as we are not that congested and don't have many alternatives as others have mentioned.

You can always read the 1,000 page odessy that is The Power Broker by Robert Cairo (published in 1980 IIRC). 25+ years later, still the definative story on Robert Moses (and covers the other cities he drew up plans for, besides NYC)

boy I feel stupid now...

 

Oh, don't - your point is still well-taken regarding the double-standard, which I took to be your main point...

 

That is certainly depressing reading for urban lovers....Robert certainly knew how to clear out the old and make room for new  :|

I would think that by increasing the cost of driving, you reduce the extent of sprawl. If the cost hits the wallet hard enough, people may be tempted to change their lifestyles by moving closer to work, changing jobs to one closer to where they live, telecommuting, carpooling and yes, taking transit. None of those are bad outcomes with respect to energy, environmental, congestion and related issues.

 

Now, if the money raised from the congestion pricing were used to help fund transit and clean up brownfields which prevent urban redevelopment, then it might be worth doing. But something tells me these yahoos in D.C. will probably want to use the money for more hair of the dog, er, lanes on the road.

He looks vaguely like Cleveland Planning Director Bob Brown.

 

Are you kidding?? Bob Brown has a mop of a hairdo and darker, wider face.

I would think that by increasing the cost of driving, you reduce the extent of sprawl. If the cost hits the wallet hard enough, people may be tempted to change their lifestyles by moving closer to work, changing jobs to one closer to where they live, telecommuting, carpooling and yes, taking transit. None of those are bad outcomes with respect to energy, environmental, congestion and related issues.

 

All very positive goals, really.  The catch is that those who already live out in the 'burbs will be sure to complain.  They'll say, "We can't afford to live closer to the city!"  As if 3000 sf and an acre of land are entitlements.  This argument needs to be diffused before you can start encouraging people to live closer to town. 

I said vaguely!

White House slams carpooling, new road fees better

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Carpooling won't do much to reduce U.S. highway congestion in urban areas, and a better solution would be to build new highways and charge drivers fees to use them, the White House said on Monday.

 

For more information, please click the link.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070212/pl_nm/bush_economy_report_transportation_dc_1

Congestion pricing is a great idea.  Building new highways is not, generally.  Congestion pricing would give people an incentive to shift non-essential or flexible trips to non-peak hours.  It would induce carpooling and transit use, both of which have environmental benefits in addition to the obvious congestion alleviation effect.  Most of our urban and suburban highways see only a small fraction of their capacity used during non-peak hours.  Alleviating peak hours congestion using market techniques like this would actually reduce the need to expand highways.  It is ridiculous to spends the millions and billions required for highway expansion (yes, highways are fantastically expensive to build and maintain, contrary to what anti-rail advocates want you to believe), when in many cases slight behavioral changes are all that is required to keep people moving.

 

Congestion pricing is regressive, as noted in the article, but perhaps that could be addressed in the fee structure.

It's just a ploy to lay more concrete and keep us dependent on oil. I trust that bunch in the White House about as far as I can throw the Leveque Tower. :x

I stopped reading after "build new highways"... this country is definitely going in the wrong direction when it comes to transportation.

Carpooling is not the answer but adjustable rate toll roads? Perhaps a trip down Miami's Dolphin Expressway or Regan Turnpike is in order for such a ludicrous idea (albeit the rates are not adjusted).

 

An exclusive route for only the people that can afford it is just one issue for an idea that is wrong on so many levels.

this country is definitely going in the wrong direction when it comes to transportation.

 

What an understatement, but then again I don't know if I could put into words the distaste I have for this country's transportation system and the direction its heading in....truly despicable!

when in many cases slight behavioral changes are all that is required to keep people moving.

 

Like slowing down or stopping to pay a toll? :wink:

It's just a ploy to lay more concrete and keep us dependent on oil. I trust that bunch in the White House about as far as I can throw the Leveque Tower. :x

 

Yo, hands off LeVeque.

 

Sorry. Freaked out a little bit.

 

Here's an alternative to carving up urban centers and charging a toll: stop subsidizing suburban development. Once Johnny McExecutive has to pay to park in the office lot and hire a truck to transport his latest purchase from The Great Indoors, he'll fall out of love with his 4,000 sq ft starter castle real quick.

What in the name of Robert Moses was I thinking? I shoulda said "as far as I can throw the ODOT headquarters building." Is that better? :-D

They say they want to put tolls on highways going into cities. In a place like Cleveland, wouldn't that just be another reason for people to stay in the suburbs?

What in the name of Robert Moses was I thinking? I shoulda said "as far as I can throw the ODOT headquarters building." Is that better? :-D

 

Considering what will come wriggling out from underneath it, I'd say leave ODOT HQ alone.

Guess I'll just have to settle for throwing my car around.

Or just throwing up. 

Frankly, I think the idea of "congestion pricing" is a good idea given the fact that highway users will be able to spend money to drive on these lanes of luxury.  However, I can envision a system that would allow these "congestion priced highways" to be built from government expense but maintained from "user fees" only later to be heralded as the next breakthrough in transportation technology.

 

My solution would be to remove ALL subsidies to the road building cronies.  I'm saddened that the administration doesn't see my way on this issue, the president's most recent budget calls for an INCREASE in highway spending by about 8%.  Now, call me crazy but some people tell me all the time that highways pay for themselves...<cough>

Here is my 20 in 10 plan, quadruple the federal gasoline tax and use the money to finance more mass transit, or we can research some unproven technologies or go with Ethanol and make iowa happy.

This article points up the challenge any peak pricing idea would face. The approach makes a lot of sense, but the uproar would huge and I don't think our leaders are willing to take the heat over the issue---yet.

 

At the same time, it is becoming clear that the gas tax is coming up short and that ODOT has leveraged itself to the point where some painful solutions are going to have to be imposed. That means many projects will be deferred and maybe never built at all. It also means that new sources of income will have to be found just to maintain what we have, as well as to develop alternatives to the auto.

 

We may end up with a bouquet of new taxes, fees and tolls to make ends meet, especially if the cost of gas increases and people drive less, thus paying less gas taxes. A "fix-it-first" policy might become "fix-it-only" with regard to roads and we might see rural freeways converted to toll roads to bring in more revenue. Urban freeways are another issue and it is here where demand pricing makes the most sense, but privacy concerns will have to be addressed in such a way that the public feels comfortable with the idea.

Take My Emissions, Please

 

There is a section devoted to Carbon Economy, with photographs and other readings. A chart details out several carbon-offset companies. Overall, a very encouraging read! (Plus: Example from Ohio.)

 

Article information: "Take My Emissions, Please, By LAUREN TARA LACAPRA, March 1, 2007; Page D1, Wall-Street Journal"

 

--

 

Take My Emissions, Please

Options Expand for Consumers

To Offset Their Energy Use;

Where Do the Payments Go?

 

By LAUREN TARA LACAPRA

March 1, 2007; Page D1

 

Calling herself an environmentalist "in a lazy sort of a way," Jen Sader pays about $6 more on her monthly bills from Bowling Green Municipal Utilities to put toward renewable energy. She opts for paperless bank statements and paid extra to offset carbon emissions for a flight she booked on Expedia.com. "All you have to do is click this box and pay $6 -- why not?" says Ms. Sader, a 36-year-old graduate student in Toledo, Ohio.

 

With a winter that brought snow to Tucson, Ariz., and 70-degree weather to New York City -- along with an Academy Award for the global-warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" -- climate change has become more ingrained in the public consciousness. Not everyone may be willing to overhaul their lives to accommodate the environment, but more people are opting for the rising number of options offered by companies to neutralize their "carbon footprints," meaning the amount of energy they consume...

 

 

Does urban U.S. need new Moses to lead?

BY STEVENSON SWANSON | CHICAGO TRIBUNE

March 19, 2007

 

NEW YORK - Huge swaths of New Orleans are still devastated a year and a half after Hurricane Katrina. The effort to rebuild the World Trade Center site has sputtered for more than five years. Across the country, projects remain on the drawing board for years while studies, hearings and court cases play out in the bureaucratic equivalent of super-slow-motion.

 

Does America need another Robert Moses?

 

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/nation/16932947.htm

We don't dictators.  We need charisma and people skills.