April 5, 200916 yr Also, in Atlanta the medians (especially in the middle) are much narrower than 10 feet. Which makes all the "Move Accident Vehicles from Roadway" signs even funnier. Move to where? Using Google Maps to measure at multiple points, it looks like the lanes in downtown Atlanta are between 11 and 11.5 feet wide (probably closer to 11). I doubt that, they most likely 12' wide, that requirement is as old as the Interstate system itself I remeasured. I-75 at Windy Hill Rd. north of I-285 is approximately 83.5 feet wide for 7 lanes by my measurement, so with the error in using the measuring tool, that could easily be precisely 12 feet per lane. I-75/I-85 downtown measures 78.9 feet for 7 lanes. It is impossible that these highways are the same width, even with measuring error, unless these satellite images are way off. To get to 83.5 feet even, you have to extend over half a lane into the outer median. My Google measuring tool skills aren't that far off. What's even more interesting is that I noticed that the left two lanes (leftmost regular lane and HOV lane) looked a little wider than the rest. I then measured the right 5 lanes and got almost exactly 55 feet, and measured the left 2 and got almost exactly 24 feet. My point is that these rules seem to not be set in stone if there is a compelling need to bend them. Interstate highway standards are bent in many other cases. I'm not saying it's a good idea, just that it most likely *can* be done.
April 8, 200916 yr The 12' wide lane on the interstate system is set in stone, (Unless an existing road was 'grandfathered' into the system, which there should be very few exceptions now, since a lot of the system has been rebuilt and widened) There also could be protection errors in the Google image, especially near bridges and retaining walls (I-75/85 in that area is in a trench, no?). The aerial photo is "flattened" to correspond to the mapping plane, which may distort the image near differences in elevation. Check it out near high bridges and you can see what I mean. I can assure you those lanes are 12' wide <edit> I stand corrected, those are 11' lanes on 75/85 in DT Atlanta! See this bridge site plan for the 14th St Bridge http://app5-trex-web.dot.state.ga.us/trex_external/designstore/DesignStore/0001298/Construction/0001298_0711.tif I thought there would be no way in heck there could be 11' permanent lanes on an interstate, but there they are.
April 10, 200916 yr I have to admit, I haven't looked at the section of 75 in Atlanta, but in general, standard lane widths are more important where there are curves in the road and where there are high truck volumes. I think much of 71 is too curvy for 11' lanes to be deemed safe by the feds.
April 12, 200916 yr The 12' wide lane on the interstate system is set in stone, (Unless an existing road was 'grandfathered' into the system, which there should be very few exceptions now, since a lot of the system has been rebuilt and widened) There also could be protection errors in the Google image, especially near bridges and retaining walls (I-75/85 in that area is in a trench, no?). The aerial photo is "flattened" to correspond to the mapping plane, which may distort the image near differences in elevation. Check it out near high bridges and you can see what I mean. I can assure you those lanes are 12' wide <edit> I stand corrected, those are 11' lanes on 75/85 in DT Atlanta! See this bridge site plan for the 14th St Bridge http://app5-trex-web.dot.state.ga.us/trex_external/designstore/DesignStore/0001298/Construction/0001298_0711.tif I thought there would be no way in heck there could be 11' permanent lanes on an interstate, but there they are. Damn, aren't design exceptions fun? Probably had to have 11' lanes to keep the limit of disturbance to a minimum. Of course, there are plenty of quirks of the interstate, but for a recent design to have nonstandard widths is pretty impressive. Either way, for a design exception to occur is rare, and requires massive justification for doing so. I imagine in Atlanta's case it was to keep an extra block from being leveled for the highway. Don't want a repeat of what happened to the West End in the 50s, that's for sure.
May 5, 200916 yr <edit> I stand corrected, those are 11' lanes on 75/85 in DT Atlanta! Thanks for finding that. I thought my Google Maps measuring skills were better than being off that far. :) I searched high and low (wasted about 3 hours) trying to find info on that section of the freeway and couldn't.
May 11, 200916 yr Heads up: Rybolt Road changes http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090511/NEWS01/305110043/1055/NEWS/Heads+up++Rybolt+Road+changes+ Beginning Thursday, May 21, work will begin to close the westbound portion of Rybolt Road at Harrison Avenue in preparation to reconfigure Rybolt to one-way eastbound. This one-way eastbound configuration will be in place from the Interstate74 off ramp to Harrison Avenue.
May 11, 200916 yr It's not unfinished; just very poorly designed. Four decades later, city still hopes to finish I-75 interchange By Jessica Wehrman, Dayton Daily News, May 11, 2009 The motto on West Carrollton’s city Web site reads: Welcome Home. It could just as well read: You just try and leave. For more than 40 years, an unfinished exit off of Interstate 75 has caused city officials countless headaches, not to mention economic development officials and anybody in a car trying to find a way to head south on I-75. When the interstate was built in the early 1960s, transportation officials never bothered to finish the interchange at West Carrollton.
May 11, 200916 yr I bet the intersection of Rybolt and New Rybolt Road becomes a high accident location once this project is wrapped up if it has not become one already.
May 19, 200916 yr The KYTC does have a point. Since the other alternatives, which would involve looping the SB I-471 ramp under the interstate and looping it to the current NB I-471 ramp at Rivera Drive involve taking away park land (I had no idea it was a park!), the EPA would put a halt to that since alternative 1 being considered is functional and operational if built-out. It's not a matter of the state at this point, but the city and KYTC can draw out an appeal to the EPA on this. I-471 exit might remain in East Row Other alternatives more expensive By Scott Wartman, Cincinnati Enquirer, May 18, 2009 NEWPORT - Many residents in Newport aren't happy with the direction of the project to improve the congested intersection at Ky. 8 and Interstate 471. Data gathered by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet seems to favor a plan for improving the Ky. 8 interchange on Interstate 471 that would keep the exit where it is today, in a residential neighborhood in Newport's East Row.
May 19, 200916 yr It's a dog park not much bigger than the land currently occupied by the existing ramp. It could easily be relocated after construction to the freed up land two blocks away. Also, the current ramp is very dangerous for the residents of 2nd Street, and especially for the few residents of Park Avenue who have driveways that front the ramp directly. It would be safer to just close that ramp completely and force traffic off at 10th Street/Memorial Parkway.
May 19, 200916 yr The official goal of the project is to reduce back-ups on the bridge, but I would have thought that the secondary goal would be to eliminate the ramp in that residential area. What's the point in doing massive reconstruction if you're not going to eliminate that ramp?
May 20, 200916 yr Bridge flaw delays Buttermilk project By Cindy Schroeder • [email protected] • May 18, 2009 http://nky.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20090518/NEWS0103/905190336/ CRESCENT SPRINGS - Completion of the Buttermilk Pike lane extension has been delayed about three weeks after a state design error resulted in inadequate clearance between the Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge and the tracks below. I just saw this story on FOX19 News (which BTW in 3 mins told me none of the facts -- they spent most of the time interviewing dipsh!ts off the street about it --- WHY do they do that ?)
May 20, 200916 yr Re: 237 Work was slow to commence this spring but is now back in full-swing. The scuttlebutt is that the original contractor philandered the funds and underperformed to the point of incompetency while going out of business. Word also has it that one of the roundabouts (at Graves Road) was constructed with too small a radius to allow for wayward semi-trailers to U-turn, thus staying out of the residential district. As construction continues this looks to be untrue for Graves Road (because outside curbs are in place as well as sidewalks) but could be true for the Cardinal Way roundabout (it seems cramped!) Unfortunately for a project that has seen its fair share of coverage there is no official word on this scuttlebutt from media sources. Apparently a new GC is in charge now. Work continues on curbs, sidewalks, storm drains and light fixtures. The light fixtures above the Graves Road roundabout are sadly standard FHWA interstate issue. Surely something more in character with the residential surroundings could have been found. The bridge over I-275 is now being widened and redecked to accommodate the additional lanes. Most of the improved road will follow the existing ROW except for the section between the Cardinal Way roundabout and the Graves Road roundabout. This section appears 90% complete but is waiting on key improvements so traffic can be rerouted. North of the Graves roundabout progress is much further behind the rest of the project.
June 5, 200916 yr Re: 237 Work is progressing well. No further word on the scuttlebutt the original contractor philandered the funds and underperformed to the point of incompetency while going out of business and mis-designing the radius of the roundabouts. Further curb work has been done on the roundabouts so the mis-design is looking less likely. Nearly all light fixtures have been installed along the road and in the Park/Ride. Right in/Right out curbs are being added in the commercial section. The bridge over I-275 is just about ready to have traffic rerouted so work can begin on the other side. The section between the Cardinal Way roundabout and the Graves Road roundabout had sidewalks installed in the past two weeks. Graves Road will be closed 6/8/09 so that backfill and realignment can be done. At this point the Graves/237 roundabout should become functional and soon after 237 will be on the new alignment.
June 8, 200916 yr North Bend Road (KY 237) from I-275 to Kara Lane – As construction continues on this project, please watch for work crews along KY 237. Please watch for flaggers and be aware of trucks entering and exiting the highway. Traffic may be periodically stopped through this area to allow equipment to pass. Motorists are advised the speed limit has been reduced to 35 MPH through this area. Left turns are prohibited from KY 237 Southbound at Northside Drive. Expect delays particularly during rush hour periods. Graves Road - On Monday, June 8th, 2009 Graves Road will be closed to through traffic from Northbend Road to East of Sequoia Drive for the construction of Graves Road. Northbound traffic on Northbend KY 237 will be detoured at Worldwide Blvd. to Graves Road / Sequoia Dr. / Treetop Lane and the Southbound Lane of Northbend KY 237 will be detoured at Treetop Lane to Sequoia Drive / Graves Road / Worldwide Blvd. Graves Road is scheduled to be reopened by June 15, 2009.
July 29, 200915 yr North Bend Road (KY 237) from I-275 to Kara Lane – Work continues on curbs and sidewalks on the West side of North Bend Road as well as the Park and Ride. The final phase of resurfacing is taking place on the bridge over I-275 and involves the westernmost two lanes. ROW realignment work continues to the north near Treetop Lane and further north. Graves Road - Graves Road has now been reconfigured to flow through the partially opened roundabout as of June 15, 2009 and has been rerouted onto the new ROW.
August 14, 200915 yr South of 275 little work is being done until bridge decking is complete. Concrete pour is being completed on the westernmost lanes of redecking for the 275 overpass. This will complete the redecking. Sidewalk and curb work continue from 275 to Cardinal Way with final surfacing and striping having been done between Worldwide/Southpark and Global/Tanner. Paving/curbing and sidewalk installation is ongoing at the Park/Ride and the outline of the future roundabout is beginning to take shape. From just north of Graves to Thronwilde traffic has been shifted to the east on a temporary ROW. Westborough to Kara has also been move to a temporary ROW. All other portions are still on the old ROW.
August 19, 200915 yr U.S. 27 widening gets late start By Scott Wartman, Kentucky Enquirer, August 18, 2009 CAMPBELL COUNTY - The land along U.S. 27 in southern Campbell County near Grant's Lick has been cleared since Jan. 2007 awaiting the addition of two lanes. After delays due to lack of funds, the state announced Tuesday that it will start construction of the additional two lanes in early September with $26.5 million in federal stimulus money.
September 1, 200915 yr Hebron roundabout to open By Paul McKibben • [email protected] • August 31, 2009 The roundabout at Graves Road that is part of larger project to improve North Bend Road (Ky. 237) in the Hebron area should open in about two weeks. http://communitypress.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/C2/20090831/NEWS/908310349/
September 16, 200915 yr Highest bridge could be replaced By Eric Bradley • [email protected] • September 16, 2009 Pic included. http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090916/NEWS01/909170312/New+tallest+bridge?
September 16, 200915 yr I drive over, and canoe under this bridge frequently. It seems pretty sound to an untrained eye. Surely, there has got to be more pressing needs than this structure. Brent Spence anyone?
September 16, 200915 yr What a waste. I have a hard time believing that this thing can't be strengthened to prevent anything like what happened in Minneapolis for a lot less money than replacing it.
September 16, 200915 yr Comparing the Jeremiah Morrow bridge to the Minneanapolis bridge is a bit of a stretch. They are both deck trusses, which means that the roadway deck is above the structural steel. The comparison ends there. The Minneanapolis bridge failed due to a design error. The surprising thing is that the defect was not noticed, or at least not acted upon. You can bet that every state DOT in the country is paying more attention to the gussett plates since the Minneanapolis incident. The Jeremiah Morrow bridge is narrow, which is the same problem that the Brent Spence bridge has.
September 16, 200915 yr Take for instance the Clays Ferry Bridge, that carries Interstate 75 and more traffic than ODOT's Interstate 71 crossing -- http://bridgestunnels.com/index.php?catid=57 "In August 1946, as part of ongoing improvements to modernize U.S. Route 25, the Kentucky State Highway Department completed a new two-lane, three-span, continuous Warren-truss bridge. At the time of its completion, it was the seventh highest crossing in the United States. In 1963, a twin span was constructed when Interstate 75 was constructed through central Kentucky. Both bridges were widened and joined in 1998, to form a single six-lane freeway as part of an on-going highway widening project." 1946: 2008: You don't need a brand new span. You just need to join them together, where there is room for a full left- and right-shoulder.
September 16, 200915 yr What a waste. I have a hard time believing that this thing can't be strengthened to prevent anything like what happened in Minneapolis for a lot less money than replacing it. I don't think it would be possible to patch up steel that's been overstressed for years. I doubt the bridge was designed to carry anywhere near as many vehicles per day as it currently does. Plus, it's only 2 lanes with tiny shoulders. I've noticed that all along I-71 bridges and roadways are being widened in preparation for 3 lands of traffic throughout. This bridge would be no different. Anyways, I'll take the DOT's word for it if they say it needs replacement, and they have been saying that for years. Our infrastructure is aging and sadly most of it was designed with a 40 year shelf life in mind. That said, I don't think we'd be considering this projet at all if it weren't for the flawed stimulus bill. I've seen all sorts of low-priority projects getting bumped up because the feds are printing and handing out money. There's no way to really tell if this project is a priority or not.
September 16, 200915 yr A four-lane divided highway, two lanes in each direction, is the safest configuration for cruising. Widening existing interstates to three lanes in each direction is not the best move, in my humble opinion. Adding a whole new interstate from say, Cincinnati to Zanesville might be a better solution traffic-wise. Even better might be new passenger rail. The age of petroleum is halfway over anyway.
September 16, 200915 yr ^But automobiles will always be around, using some form of fuel, whether it is petroleum, hydrogen or other alternate sources. We have to design with what we have and what demand we have for it. As far as lane configurations go, two-lane (in each direction) interstates are optimally safe since you only have one conflicting side to deal with. But when they reach a level-of-service (LOS) of C to D, especially during non-peak traffic periods in rural areas, then it is time to think of widening the existing facility to three-lanes. That said, the LOS for Interstate 71 as it crosses the bridge is C and the area has an above-average accident rate due to the LOS, and using the average-annual traffic counts alone, three-lanes is now justified. ^Ram23, the bridge is in sound condition and can be serviceable for at least another 30 to 40 years with no major maintenance. Cheaper, pre-stressed concrete spans are the bridges with typical 30- to 40-year life spans due to intrusions of salt and weathering effects, although many in Kentucky and Tennessee are much older than that and are structurally fine. Even though it is two lanes with no shoulders, it can be widened to three-lanes with full left- and right-shoulders as the right-of-way currently exists to do that. With the Interstate 75 Clays Ferry Bridge in Kentucky, the bridge was originally two 12-foot lanes total, supplemented with an identical dual span some 20 years later. A bridge was constructed in between both, and there was enough room to give it six-lanes total with full shoulders. I don't see why it can't be done here, especially since these bridges are much newer.
September 18, 200915 yr ^ I thought the Clay's ferry spans were closer together that the I-71 spans when they were "stitched" together. The I-71 median is 84' wide, so widening 12' lanes and 10' shoulders to the inside will still leave a 40' wide median. That's too wide to have one combined pier for the median, so the option would have to be an adjacent new pier to support the widened deck- which I suspect would be too thin to be that tall (think stability issues). I am also aware that there are a couple of "suspended spans" there too, a 'bridge within a bridge'; those sections of bridge are suspended by hangers and supported from the adjacent spans
September 18, 200915 yr "But automobiles will always be around, using some form of fuel, whether it is petroleum, hydrogen or other alternate sources." I wouldn't be so sure of that. All of the so-called alternatives have some drawback compared to conventional, gasoline powered cars. Chances are that there will be cars for some time, but there will be fewer of them than there are today. Expanding highway capacity at this time might not turn out to be a wise move, especially since ODOT doesn't have the funding to maintain what they have now.
September 18, 200915 yr I'd guess that irrespective of anything else the Cincinnati/Columbus corridor is worthy of plenty of investment. If the state had to selectively disinvestment in the infrastructure I'd guess this wouldn't be the place where that would start. The lighter traveled sections of Southeastern Ohio would come before one of the primary arteries in the state.
September 19, 200915 yr "But automobiles will always be around, using some form of fuel, whether it is petroleum, hydrogen or other alternate sources." I wouldn't be so sure of that. All of the so-called alternatives have some drawback compared to conventional, gasoline powered cars. Chances are that there will be cars for some time, but there will be fewer of them than there are today. Expanding highway capacity at this time might not turn out to be a wise move, especially since ODOT doesn't have the funding to maintain what they have now. Cars aren't going anywhere, and their number isn't going to decrease. Our entire country is designed around the automobile, and our entire trade system is designed around trucking. Overcoming the drawbacks with alternative fuels is going to be simpler than redesigning our entire infrastructure. Proportionally I think we'll see more people using mass transit as individual transit becomes more expensive, but as population and cities continue to grow there are still going to be a higher total number of cars on the road.
September 19, 200915 yr I'd guess that irrespective of anything else the Cincinnati/Columbus corridor is worthy of plenty of investment. If the state had to selectively disinvestment in the infrastructure I'd guess this would be the place where that would start. The lighter traveled sections of Southeastern Ohio would come before one of the primary arteries in the state. Heh, you're right. It's been proven again and again that SE Ohio gets told that highway expansion will somehow create permanent jobs for the region but nothing ever happens. A more extreme example is West Virginia, where billions have been spent on rural highway upgrades with no discernible economic development to go with them. Obviously, this bridge project will not have an extremely high cost/benefit ratio, but it has much more potential than upgrading OH 141 between Ironton and Galliapolis.
September 20, 200915 yr "Cars aren't going anywhere, and their number isn't going to decrease." ODOT thinks that too. Actually, I think their number is decreasing right now. I don't have a reference - allow me to look for it.
September 20, 200915 yr Vehicle-miles are in fact decreasing! source: Federal Highway Administration http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/vm_202.xls Total Vehicle Miles Traveled on Interstate Highways: 1980 135,084 1981 139,304 1982 142,546 1983 145,250 1984 149,139 1985 154,357 1986 159,498 1987 170,493 1988 181,315 1989 191,085 1990 200,173 1991 205,011 1992 205,557 1993 208,308 1994 215,568 1995 223,382 1996 232,565 1997 240,255 1998 251,520 1999 260,166 2000 268,180 2001 273,619 2002 280,609 2003 269,650 2004 266,245 2005 256,642 2006 257,915 2007 256,438 Total vehicle miles traveled on Interstate Highways peaked in 2002. Vehicle miles nearly doubled between 1980 and 2000, and have declined 9% from 2000 to 2007. Total vehicle miles on all roads follow the same trend.
September 20, 200915 yr I don't see why it can't be done here, especially since these bridges are much newer. A new span alongside the existing bridge would look SO COOL from the bikeway. :) Aside: a few years ago (I think around 2000 or so) when I was riding there I saw a guy paraglide from the bridge down the Little Miami. :-o
September 22, 200915 yr Cars aren't going anywhere, and their number isn't going to decrease. Our entire country is designed around the automobile, and our entire trade system is designed around trucking. Overcoming the drawbacks with alternative fuels is going to be simpler than redesigning our entire infrastructure. Proportionally I think we'll see more people using mass transit as individual transit becomes more expensive, but as population and cities continue to grow there are still going to be a higher total number of cars on the road. I have to ask: based on what evidence? I'd like to believe this, but the more I read about alternative fuels, the energy returned on energy invested of alternative fuels, their dependency upon oil-based infrastructure extract the necessary resources, manufacture, and deploy them, and outlook for global oil production over the next 5 years (e.g.: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50175), etc, etc the more I'm not convinced.
September 22, 200915 yr Cars aren't going anywhere, and their number isn't going to decrease. Our entire country is designed around the automobile, and our entire trade system is designed around trucking. Overcoming the drawbacks with alternative fuels is going to be simpler than redesigning our entire infrastructure. Proportionally I think we'll see more people using mass transit as individual transit becomes more expensive, but as population and cities continue to grow there are still going to be a higher total number of cars on the road. I have to ask: based on what evidence? I'd like to believe this, but the more I read about alternative fuels, the energy returned on energy invested of alternative fuels, their dependency upon oil-based infrastructure extract the necessary resources, manufacture, and deploy them, and outlook for global oil production over the next 5 years (e.g.: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50175), etc, etc the more I'm not convinced. Almost 40% of the population lives in a home with an attached garage. The amount of energy we've already placed into designing around the car is too much to simply retire it. I'm all for mass transit, more park-and-ride availability, etc. That would decrease our dependency on cars, but not erase it. The huge amount of waste that would be a result of not using cars anymore is unimaginable.
September 22, 200915 yr Cars aren't going anywhere, and their number isn't going to decrease. Our entire country is designed around the automobile, and our entire trade system is designed around trucking. Overcoming the drawbacks with alternative fuels is going to be simpler than redesigning our entire infrastructure. Proportionally I think we'll see more people using mass transit as individual transit becomes more expensive, but as population and cities continue to grow there are still going to be a higher total number of cars on the road. I have to ask: based on what evidence? I'd like to believe this, but the more I read about alternative fuels, the energy returned on energy invested of alternative fuels, their dependency upon oil-based infrastructure extract the necessary resources, manufacture, and deploy them, and outlook for global oil production over the next 5 years (e.g.: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50175), etc, etc the more I'm not convinced. Almost 40% of the population lives in a home with an attached garage. The amount of energy we've already placed into designing around the car is too much to simply retire it. I'm all for mass transit, more park-and-ride availability, etc. That would decrease our dependency on cars, but not erase it. The huge amount of waste that would be a result of not using cars anymore is unimaginable. You are assuming there will be a choice to not give up cars.
September 22, 200915 yr You cannot simply say that when we (and IF) get streetcars and light rail, that Americans will simply throw away their cars. That DOESN'T happen. They supplement their options by taking other modes of transit, not dump one entirely. A ZipCar and rental car is always an option, but it's not realistic for the 320 million Americans who partake in driving every day.
September 22, 200915 yr You cannot simply say that when we (and IF) get streetcars and light rail, that Americans will simply throw away their cars. That DOESN'T happen. They supplement their options by taking other modes of transit, not dump one entirely. A ZipCar and rental car is always an option, but it's not realistic for the 320 million Americans who partake in driving every day. You are assuming there will be a choice to not give up cars.
September 22, 200915 yr The scare tactics of peak oil and congestion have been played out for decades now. If it is not oil, then it will be another fuel source. Fear mongering never presents market (realistic) solutions to anything.
September 22, 200915 yr The cost of developing more efficient/alternative fuel vehicles is way, way less than the cost of relocating most of the US's population and redesigning our entire infrastructure. We'll find a way. It's my belief that in 50 years we'll have a lot more cars on the road, all driving fewer miles on average than today. Eigth and State's post above already shows a decrease in miles, and I could only find stats up to 2003 that show a steady increase in the number of cars.
September 22, 200915 yr Sherman Cahal wrote: The scare tactics of peak oil and congestion have been played out for decades now. If it is not oil, then it will be another fuel source. Fear mongering never presents market (realistic) solutions to anything. This is a common problem in the peak oil discussion. Those who have few, if any, facts to back up their statements resort to saying things like peak oil "scare tactics", "fear mongering", etc. I'm not using scare tactics. I'm interested in factual data. I've done extensive reading on the subject of peak oil for at least 5 years now, and I pay attention to what those on both the sides of the discussion say. The crowd of so called experts out there who are on the side of "oil abundance" is very small and they do nothing more than keep repeating the same small handful of arguments without providing any hard data to back them up. The congestion problem that still exists in many areas of the country has nothing to do with "scare tactics" and everything to do with economics. There is hard data on this as to how much congestion costs our economy every year. I don't recall the exact figure, but it's not small. Recently, it was reported that Switzerland is the most competitive economy in the world. One of the reasons sited was the quality of their infrastructure-- a category where the US is behind even some developing nations, and falling farther. Ram23 The cost of developing more efficient/alternative fuel vehicles is way, way less than the cost of relocating most of the US's population and redesigning our entire infrastructure. We'll find a way. You're assuming that we can simply switch from oil to alternative fuel(s) like unplugging an old appliance and plugging in a new one. I would strongly suggest you do some research on the energy returned on energy invested of alternative fuels and what it takes to actually produce them. It's my belief that in 50 years we'll have a lot more cars on the road, all driving fewer miles on average than today. Eigth and State's post above already shows a decrease in miles, and I could only find stats up to 2003 that show a steady increase in the number of cars. No one can hang their hat on a simple belief. And, statistics showing that the number of cars on the road has been going up thus far is not enough to predict the future 50 years hence. What I've seen over the past several years is: On one side of the argument are a lot of qualified people presenting hard data on everything from the state of oil fields around the globe, to the energy returned on energy invested for everything from unconventional oil to alternative fuels, to analyses of coal fields (how much is being produced, what remains, the BTU value (energy content) of what's been produced over time frames), the food vs. fuel puzzle. On the other side I see people relying too much on beliefs and assumptions but little, if any, hard data.
September 23, 200915 yr Sherman Cahal wrote: The scare tactics of peak oil and congestion have been played out for decades now. If it is not oil, then it will be another fuel source. Fear mongering never presents market (realistic) solutions to anything. This is a common problem in the peak oil discussion. Those who have few, if any, facts to back up their statements resort to saying things like peak oil "scare tactics", "fear mongering", etc. I'm not using scare tactics. I'm interested in factual data. I've done extensive reading on the subject of peak oil for at least 5 years now, and I pay attention to what those on both the sides of the discussion say. The crowd of so called experts out there who are on the side of "oil abundance" is very small and they do nothing more than keep repeating the same small handful of arguments without providing any hard data to back them up. The congestion problem that still exists in many areas of the country has nothing to do with "scare tactics" and everything to do with economics. There is hard data on this as to how much congestion costs our economy every year. I don't recall the exact figure, but it's not small. Recently, it was reported that Switzerland is the most competitive economy in the world. One of the reasons sited was the quality of their infrastructure-- a category where the US is behind even some developing nations, and falling farther. Ram23 The cost of developing more efficient/alternative fuel vehicles is way, way less than the cost of relocating most of the US's population and redesigning our entire infrastructure. We'll find a way. You're assuming that we can simply switch from oil to alternative fuel(s) like unplugging an old appliance and plugging in a new one. I would strongly suggest you do some research on the energy returned on energy invested of alternative fuels and what it takes to actually produce them. It's my belief that in 50 years we'll have a lot more cars on the road, all driving fewer miles on average than today. Eigth and State's post above already shows a decrease in miles, and I could only find stats up to 2003 that show a steady increase in the number of cars. No one can hang their hat on a simple belief. And, statistics showing that the number of cars on the road has been going up thus far is not enough to predict the future 50 years hence. What I've seen over the past several years is: On one side of the argument are a lot of qualified people presenting hard data on everything from the state of oil fields around the globe, to the energy returned on energy invested for everything from unconventional oil to alternative fuels, to analyses of coal fields (how much is being produced, what remains, the BTU value (energy content) of what's been produced over time frames), the food vs. fuel puzzle. On the other side I see people relying too much on beliefs and assumptions but little, if any, hard data. I never said a switch would be simple, just that it would be easier and more efficient than relocating the hundreds of millions of people that live in a place that requires a vehicle to live a standard life. You're completely ignoring the amount of embodied energy invested in our infrastructure in your assumptions. The hard data is every suburb and small town in America. Tackling the food vs fuel debate, maximizing efficiency, and solving problems with the development of renewables are all much easier than moving a majority of the population into new locations that can utilize mass transit.
September 23, 200915 yr The overall US population is not growing quickly (although it does shift from area to area and from country to city) and almost everybody that wants a car has a car. The only people who don't have cars that want them are under 16, very poor, or have their licenses suspended. While the growth of Cincinnati and Columbus's metros would contribute some traffic to this bridge, the effect would be minimal short of a doubling of Cincinnati's population to 4 million and Columbus to 3.5 million. The real threat to the viability of the bridge is large-scale Fields-Ertel sprawl north of the bridge. The economic growth necessary to fuel such sprawl won't happen before the cheap oil runs out. The amount of developable land between Kings Island and the bridge is massive -- dozens of square miles. It's not going to happen. If they do replace the bridge, it should be tolled.
September 23, 200915 yr gildone, you are under the assumption that everyone wants to live in a city and wants to take public transit. In actuality, everyone doesn't. How do you think we will be getting our food to the tables if we just dump the auto? Haul produce via mass transit? Load it all on trains? What about the people living in the small towns? How do you think they will get from town to town, or from town to their neighbors house miles away? Horse and buggy? I'm not for sure what you are suggesting here. Peak Oil is something that will eventually happen, given that oil is not an infinite resource. No one is debating that. But the scare tactics -- yes, it is a scare tactic -- include stating that oil will run out in 5, 10 or 15 years. The same thing was said during the oil embargo of the 1970s, only to die down when peak oil didn't occur. And it started up again during the mass speculation of the 2000s, only to die down when peak oil didn't occur. And it didn't occur on both occasions because oil wasn't running out. It was artificially increased in the 1970s due to OPEC. It was artificially increased in the 2000s due to rampant speculation on the futures. Not because of peak oil. A new technology will eventually be mass produced so that it phases in a replacement for the gasoline engine. To believe this will not happen is to abandon all faith in free and fast movement. There is a reason why automobiles advanced past the horse and buggy age, and why we advanced from merely walking around everywhere -- people want to get to point A to point B in their own personal vehicle in a faster manner than before. That mode is supplemented by other modes of transport -- light rail, for instance. Mass transit will never replace the automobile or whatever free-flowing mode of transit exists after that.
September 23, 200915 yr "I never said a switch would be simple, just that it would be easier and more efficient than relocating the hundreds of millions of people that live in a place that requires a vehicle to live a standard life." How do you know what will be easier in the future? Or, what makes you think that they need to be relocated?
September 23, 200915 yr "A new technology will eventually be mass produced so that it phases in a replacement for the gasoline engine." The gasoline engine is tough to beat. I won't say it won't happen, but given the fact that folks have been trying for 100 years, I have my doubts. Anything without the properties of a standard car is not really a replacement.
September 24, 200915 yr I've moved the energy discussion here: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,20773.new.html#new
September 25, 200915 yr The new highway will run northeast from this location to Turfway Park and will supplement KY 18 and Houston Road. New Boone highway materializing By Amanda Van Benschoten, Kentucky Post, September 24, 2009 BURLINGTON - A planned four-lane highway from Ky. 18 to Turfway Road is much closer to reality. The design work for South Airfield Road is expected to be finished within the next month, and most of the funding has been secured. "The amount of work that's gone into this project has just been immense," said Boone County Judge-executive Gary Moore. "But we're nearing the next phase of the project."
Create an account or sign in to comment