^and we have no idea what the global oil supply will be ten years in the future.

^and we have no idea what the global oil supply will be ten years in the future.

 

That doesn't really matter anymore with the invent of ethanol...

EROEI

^I'm not sure what that means...but I started laughing as soon as I read it.

energy returned on energy invested,

 

if it takes more energy to make and transport the seed and fertilizer, grow the corn, transport the corn, convert the corn into ethanol, transport the ethanol and dispense it,

 

than there is energy in the ethanol it will never be a viable energy source.

I thought you picked up on my tongue in cheek comment...I guess not.

you tend to use emoticons for tongue in cheek comments, when you don't it throws people off.

you tend to use emoticons for tongue in cheek comments, when you don't it throws people off.

 

Good advice.  :-D    :clap:

Even my proudly car-centric self would agree that if the highway was there first, it should be the builders paying.  If the freeway was built later (like 480 in Garfield Heights for example), then its a different matter

what is the standard noise reduction of sound walls?

 

Well according to MO DOT, the answer is  A sound wall can reduce noise levels from five to 10 decibels.

 

 

Remember that decibels are on a logarithmic scale rather than a linear one, so a sound wall's 10db reduction vs. trees 4db reduction is actually four times quieter. 6db reduction = 1/4 the noise. Listen, I'm not advocating sound walls; I hate them. What I am saying is that as long as idiots want to build next to the freeway yet complain about the noise (I don't mind freeway sound, I think it's relaxing), sound walls will go up because there won't be any room for an effective amount of separation -- that would hopefully include trees.

 

Separation is by far the most effective noise mitigator, while also being the most aesthetically pleasing.

Why can't ODOT plant some ivy or other climbing vine at the bases of these walls - I think they'd look a lot better covered in greenery like Wrigley Field's outfield wall...maybe road salt is too harsh for a green approach?

 

I agree that people who build new houses up against the highway should not expect sound-mitigation walls.  There's a few new construction houses right along I-90 on the eastern part of Avon - do the buyers not see the highway 50 feet out the back window when they buy - of course that's why the lot is $40k instead of $75k - there's a frickin freeway in the back yard!!!  These same idiots will then complain about how disruptive the freeway noise is when they want to entertain/play in the back yard... and ODOT will slap another wall up at taxpayer expense.  It's lunacy.

I'm guessing the only time these people go outside is to adjust the satellite dish.

I did a brief write up about this on UrbanCincy:

http://urbancincy.blogspot.com/2007/08/nimby-tip-of-week.html

I do like the Ivy idea!     Would look a little better.

 

On a side note yet related, I have always wondered why the state doesn't plant wildflowers within the grass medians.  I see it alot down south and not only does it look better aesthetically, but hey no more mowing.   

I think in Ohio we prefer garbage in our medians.

Ivy?  Maybe we could rename the Ohio Turnpike the "Wrigley Field Expressway"?

:laugh: