Slashdot Mirror
Iowa Makes a Bold Admission: We Need Fewer Roads
An anonymous reader writes: During a recent Urban Land Institute talk, the director of the Iowa Department of Transportation, Paul Trombino, told an audience that the road network in Iowa was probably going to "shrink." Calling for fewer highways isn't what you'd normally expect from a government transportation official, but since per capita driving has peaked in the U.S., it might make sense for states to question whether or not to spend their transportation budgets on new roads.
It certainly doesn't make sense to plow money in to maintaining roads that are not being used. But there is also a cost with abandoning roads, so the overall benefit must be determined on a road by road basis. But that certainly is a departure from the general assumption that we must maintain all roads.
Do you shut down a road, or let it die a slow death?
I for one applaud this trailblazing official who is paving the way by providing a roadmap for other officials to follow while going down the road to more efficient government and leading the drive towards a more fiscally responsible America.
Now if only somone could give us a car analogy
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Even if per capita driving has peaked, the population is increasing, so total driving is still increasing.
The article talks about how "per-capita driving has peaked," but that's not the whole issue. It makes sense to stop building roads when the total amount of driving has peaked. For that to happen, one of several scenarios needs to occur:
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Where we're going, we don't need roads!
Happy 30th, Back to the Future!
"I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
Washington State could use a few more roads... Or rather, we really need some more lanes on our jammed inner corridors, particularly around the I-5 and I-405 corridors in the greater Seattle area. Our WS-DOT is infatuated with massive projects that cost billions but won't substantially reduce congestion. They're putting an expensive new tolling system on 405's commuter lane that will dynamically increase tolls in response to increases traffic so that it stays clear for busses, and 3/4 of the revenue is going to a private company in another state. Of course, that's actually going to make the normal 405 traffic *worse*, because they're simply pushing the traffic into the normal lanes. And of course, the Seattle Convention Center was built over the main freeway (I-5), limiting future lane expansion. Hey, why would we ever need more than two lanes on the only freeway running through a major metropolis, right?
The article mentions Washington State without pointing out the current traffic problems. The traffic in the greater Seattle region is pretty horrible, and there are few practical options other than using a car to get from point to point for most people. The common refrain as to why we didn't build those lanes before is that "they'll just fill up as more people move in, so why bother?", or "You can't build your way out of congestion", with the apparent solution being that we're all supposed to live in downtown high-rises in some urban planning utopia. Well what do we say now? As it turns out, traffic apparently has a peak, because our population is peaking. Who'd have figured?
Do I sound bitter? I try not to be, because I love this area, but the leadership at DOT tends to grate on me at times when I'm stuck in a freeway-shaped parking lot, and I think about the years in Washington State when we actually had a budget surplus and didn't invest in our infrastructure at that time.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
According to TFA 'peak driving' happened in 2004. more than a decade later states are waking up to empty highways. I think this is happening for a few reasons:
intractable recession: The US, in general, is a declining superpower and its starting to show. our skin-and-bones transportation budget, crumbling bridges, and pothole ridden highways are so common as to be a feature. A decade of intentional federal gridlock by republicans clammouring for austerity measures in the face of a housing market crisis and educational loan crisis didnt help. and a decade prior our zeal to fight the war without end amen depleated a lot of our reserves from the clinton adminstration that could have been used to shore up what 60 years ago was a mark of american achievement...namely our highway infrastructure.
Driving sucks: Millenials like myself hate driving. car companies assumed it was their cars, and raced to put cellphones and wifi computers in our cars hoping we would buy them all up, only to realize we're crippled by inexorable college debt and newfound levels of unaffordable housing. regular maintenance and gas, insurance and most importantly our general penchant for unemployment after the housing decline means we arent really interested in a car. if we get one, it will be a beater from a used lot. we're also mostly service sector employees, or we work from home because OAP's and boomers turned our economy into a giant mechanical turk. Combine this with our urban brethren and we have everything from groceries to the latest blu-ray delivered to us through the mail. we dont shop strip malls, we just buy what you ask for off the list you make online.
Good people go to bed earlier.
In these flat agricultural states, a vast network of farm roads have been built over the years. The hallmark of over-roaded areas is the use of four-digit state route numbers in places that are mostly rural. Now that family farms are consolidating into large agribusiness operations, fewer access points are needed. Meanwhile, the cities need more roads and maintenance, so these states needed to reprioritize.
Uh rail roads are far from dead. In fact many rail roads are at capacity, or are running dangerously over capacity. The problem is they've torn up so many existing lines because they weren't needed at one point, now they're needed and they don't want to lay the track for it. You also seem to have forgotten that the points where rail can be laid as a distribution point have changed. Those years you're talking about are when rail or horse traffic were the only real ways to get around.
Om, nomnomnom...
I'm a Californian. Nothing in this discussion makes any sense to me. The idea that you may not need more roads is... completely foreign. Do I need a visa to move to Iowa? It sounds great.
About time.
Iowa has more roads than you would believe. Every mile on the mile except where pre-existing towns or rivers made it impossible there is a little gravel agricultural road.
I live in the Canadian prairies. Around here we have a whole grid of gravel roads (roughly every mile or so). These roads are not for providing access to homes, but rather for providing access to *fields*.
Back in the day farms were a lot smaller than they are now. Since then there has been a lot of consolidation, so they could probably remove a bunch of roads going in one direction (north/south or east/west) but they'd have to leave the roads going the other direction to continue to provide access to the fields.
more than a decade later states are waking up to empty highways.
"Empty highways"? Even allowing that your statement includes hyperbole it doesn't fit with the fact that the US population is growing. Personally outside of some of the most rural parts of the US I've NEVER seen "empty highways". Most in fact seem to need more lanes than they have.
The US, in general, is a declining superpower and its starting to show.
Spare me. People have been spouting this nonsense as a political meme for most of my life. Every out of power politician declares that "we need to make america great again", thereby implying that somehow the country isn't great. They then follow it up by declaring the US to be "the greatest country in the world". So which is it? The US has the largest economy, the largest military, leads the world in scientific research, and does so with just 5% of the world's population. Declining? I've been around for a half century and can't say I see the evidence. Things are better in the US than when I was born. Just because some other countries have been doing well (China etc) doesn't mean things are going in the shitter here.
our skin-and-bones transportation budget, crumbling bridges, and pothole ridden highways are so common as to be a feature.
Any shortfalls can be solved overnight by simply reallocating some of the ludicrous amount of money we spend on our military to domestic infrastructure. More money could be saved by going to a single payer health care system like most of the rest of the civilized world. We have the money but our leaders have chosen to spend it poorly. We like to pretend we need to spend more on our military than the next 17 largest countries combined. We like to pretend that socialized medicine is somehow evil when in fact avoiding it is the unethical thing to do. Not to mention that we already have it (Medicare) and are in denial about it.
Millenials like myself hate driving.
Better get over that. Not being snarky, it's just a reality of living in most parts of the US. Most of the country is simply not accessible without a car and that isn't going to change anytime soon. You don't have to love to drive but it's going to be a part of your life most likely whether you like it or not.
we're crippled by inexorable college debt and newfound levels of unaffordable housing. regular maintenance and gas, insurance and most importantly our general penchant for unemployment after the housing decline means we arent really interested in a car.
That sounds like a lot of excuses to me. Adjusted for inflation gas is cheaper now than it was when I was a child. You can avoid a lot of college debt by not going to expensive private colleges you cannot afford. Spend a year or two at a community college and finish up at your state college. You can get a great education and not be in the poor house. Insurance? You can be covered by your parents until you are 26. If you can't get a job by then with unemployment at 5% then you probably are doing something wrong.
Other generations have had it harder than you. Would you have preferred to grow up during the Great Depression or WWII? How about as a minority 50 or even 25 years ago? I assure you things were harder then.
I've lived in Iowa all my life. I've lived in Northwest, Northeast and Southeast. I've traveled across the state many times and I can tell you- there is not an "excess" of highways. There is really only two major roads going East-West I-80 and US-HWY 20 and two North-South I-35 and I-380. That is it.. One of them isn't even classified as an interstate but at least it is 2-lane and 65 MPH. If your going anywhere in the state you pretty much take a county highway to get onto one of those four roads and then travel the majority of your journey on those roads. I am going to assume they are thinking about all of these local county highways. Let me tell you, once you get out of a city, off one of those 4 major roads I listed there is only county highways left. This is how you get to all those those shrinking towns Iowa is dotted with. You get off those and you are putting some gravel in your travel.
If the data doesn't include the past two years or so, then yes but only because the price of gasoline was artificially high. Now that it's come back down out of the clouds, people are driving more. Furthermore, you have to call into question the opinion of anyone who lives in a major city who has never lived in a rural area particularly people living on the East Coast. Those folks can't really comprehend long distance driving and how necessary it is.
Regarding the mountains - realize that some parts of Iowa are so flat that on a clear day, a person with good eyesight can look out toward the horizon and see the back of his own head.
Everyone I've known who grew up in Iowa and moved away wanted to move back, if that tells you anything
So why didn't your uncle simply get his driver's license back when he was 16? They should have solved the problem in the previous generation!
The only way this matters is if the percentage of people sharing your cousin's circumstances is large or increasing, and I see no reason to believe that's the case. It's not as if these requirements are new, after all.
Furthermore, I suspect that in the vast majority of cases where the parent lacks a license, it's because the family lives somewhere like Manhattan where the child doesn't actually need one either.
In other words, this is a non-issue that you only think is important because one of the tiny number of people who are affected by it happens to be somebody close to you.
No, I'm saying it's not the State's responsibility to let unqualified people have drivers' licenses just because their parents couldn't be bothered to teach them, or to subsidize their parents' fuck-up!
And by the way, "resort[ing] to paying $50 per hour for a driving instructor" is a false dichotomy: just because your uncle can't/won't help, doesn't mean that's the only other choice. What about your aunt; can't he drive with her? What about your cousin's uncle (i.e., your dad)? What about over-25 family friends? What about a random neighbor, who is not an "instructor" and therefore probably would charge much less than $50/hour? What about you?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Pedestrian friendly neighborhoods are the most oppressive tool in the despot's bag. Fight back! Tear up a sidewalk today.
They've been closing roads in much of the rural areas, in the name of "protecting the environment". Next step: Make it a public policy to abandon or close non-wilderness rural roads.
Sounds like you're a member of the Pave the Whales Foundation...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I'm not a millennial, but I've definitely seen their struggle. I can attest that they have to work twice as hard for half what their parents had. I look at all the opportunities to prove myself I was given as a borderline gen-x before 9/11 and the financial crash and there's not a snowballs chance anyone would get that today.
Millenials are an abused generation - no doubt. Unfortunately, they were abused by well meaning people and their own parents, who thought they were were doing the right thing for them.
I've worked with a lot of them, and usually in their first job after entering the workforce. This was when in their early 20's, they were just breaking free from their helicoptering parents, full of self esteem, and ready to show the world how its done right.
The results in general were horrifying, to those older folks, and especially to these poor kids. Their carefully cultivated self esteem took a real hit after discovering that Facebook was not a job skill, that the older people were not their servants, and thos stupid old people actually knew more about computing and computers than they did, and that you don't get promoted to manager after 1 year, or get congratulations for coming in on time.
The results were usually a huge crash and burn after reality hit them hard in the chops. Some became really depressed, and a fair number quit and moved back with mom and dad.
And I don't blame it on them, but on the abuse they endured from parents and a society that refuesd to allow them to become adults.
I can attest that they have to work twice as hard for half what their parents had.
Yeah, my father and others who went through the depression had it so easy. No generation ever in the course of history has it as bad as these poor millennial do. My generation, it was laughably easy, the 70's was a great time of 100 percent employment for young people. And the money? I was rolling in it
Sarcasm indeed, but ridiculous claims get ridiculed.
Guess what. I worked really, really hard all my life. Early on I worked some menial jobs. Worked through junior high and high school. My parents both worked really hard, at a time when women were supposed to stay at home, my mother worked all her life. We knew how to work. I need a river cried for me. But I don't need nor want one.
This still comes back to the unrealistic expectations these poor kids were inculcated with. Of the many millenials we hired, only one or two would ever come in early, or stay past five. Just as an example, one millenial we hired, had some work to get done for the next day for use in the biggest meeting of th year. At 10 till 5, he stopped working, told us his mom was waiting for him in the parking lot, and left us hanging. I had to complete his work that evening.
And that is just one anecdote among many, not to mention the young lady unionjunior illustrator, who when someone would give her a job, she would come over to me and plead she was so busy. I took a job for two to help her, then found out her work overload was spending the day on Facebook - no doubt telling her friends how busy she was.
Or the guy who went apeshit on me because I touched the screen of his computer. And actually I hadn't, I pointed at it, and he apparently thought fingerprints could jump. Ot the guy who insisted that all my discussions with him take place via texting.
Many more anecdotes, but you get the gist of my experiences.. We did not have these experiences with the GenX'ers. There were better or worse workers, but no trend like with the millennials. All in all, its people on the bottom of the food chain thinking they can hand out the orders to the people they work for. Which is sadly enough, just how they were raised.
This always result in howls ot outrage from the millenials, as they react in the manner of people who hold themselves in high esteem, yet have no real achievements. They get mad. I'll ge
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
We've been cutting taxes on the 1% while cutting wages for the only folks left to tax for 40 years. We're running out of money. Not because it isn't there but because we can't seem to give it to the rich fast enough.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I would love to live in a walking neighborhood personally. Unfortunately my job and region are extremely car-necessary?
Replying to both your comments together, because the second surely expounds on the first.
Straight out of page 48 of Agenda 21 [un.org].
So, before I respond to the content of that, let's address the elephant in the room: this is the hallmark of conspiracy theory, which isn't an immediate dismissal of an idea but is surely an alarm bell to look closer at some claims. So, I did look closer, at page 48 of Agenda 21, and I came to the following conclusions:
1. No, it's not straight out of that page of that document. The only way it seems remotely relevant is that it seems you're preoccupied with that document.
2. Page 48 of Agenda 21 is pretty lame fodder for this kind of paranoia. It is basically suggesting that certain existing transportation funding be reallocated to better address need, which is entirely consistent with UN public policy so we don't need to go referring to nefarious-sounding documents.
3. The only thing on that page that can remotely be construed as "car hostile" is the following: "Reducing subsidies on, and recovering the full costs of, environmental and other services of high standard (e.g. water supply, sanitation, waste collection, roads, telecommunications) provided to higher income neighbourhoods;" But it's worth noting that it otherwise flies in the face of your claim (which I'll address more directly, below) that this is designed to increase dependence on government services. If anything, the reduction in subsidies should produce a reduction in dependence, right? By reallocating those funds, the theory goes, it becomes essentially a wash.
Some people think...
Hey look. If you're going to post some black helicopters nonsense based on innuendo and fabrication, at least have the courage of conscience to avoid weasel words like "some people think". Own it, you believe this idea. That's why you're sharing it so candidly.
Some people think that this is part of a coordinated effort by governments, worldwide, to increase their own power by coralling the bulk of their populations in high-density urban areas, limiting their access to transportation, and making them totally dependent on government controlled services.
By that model, "Transit oriented developments" (i.e. no space to park a car for you - go only where and when public transit deigns to take you), "walkable neighborhoods", and "getting people over their love affair with cars" (by designing road networks to make commuting and recreational travel difficult and unpleasant) isn't enough. They've been closing roads in much of the rural areas, in the name of "protecting the environment". Next step: Make it a public policy to abandon or close non-wilderness rural roads.
[...]
You misunderstand the urban-planning term of art (which may have been chosen to sell you on that idea.)
"Walkable neighborhoods" are NOT "pedestrian friendly". They are "car hostile". They involve high-density housing with no practical automobile access. You are expected to do all your shopping by walking to the stores and carrying the groceries or other goods back home.
The stores, of course, have a small, captive, clientele. So they don't have the economy of scale of, say, a supermarket, and are priced like a convenience store. (Imagine only being able to get groceries from your local 7-11 and having to carry them home.)
If your home is in a "transit-oriented development" - and it actually HAS some transit - you can try carrying your groceries back on a bus or (if you're VERY lucky, aren't working, and can time your shopping trip for rush hour) a commuter train.
(Of course such high-density developments are primarily constructed in low-income neighborhoods. So the transit agencies get their bond measures through by promising the higher-income cities they serve that they will refuse to serve the developments, to avoid becoming a commuter-service for petty thieves and burglary rings into their ri