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.

23 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. It all depends.... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:It all depends.... by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If a road is abandoned, who gets the rights to that property? If it is public land then does the public still have access to it? If they do does the government have responsibility to keep it safe? If they public isn't allowed on it, how will this be enforced?
      If the land goes to the adjacent private property kinda like a reverse eminent domain, does the land holder have to pay for this land, do they get it for free. Will this extra land area raise their property taxes. What about getting rid of the old pavement?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:It all depends.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      heck, we still marvel at the roads the roman empire abandoned.

    3. Re:It all depends.... by thaylin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you know they are not? In addition, he did not say highways, he said roads, unless you are in an urban area I am sure it is safe to say that virtually all regular roads provide direct access to someones home.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    4. Re:It all depends.... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Like abandoned railbeds, they can become hiking trails. In Europe, I have seen Roman roads that are still used as trails.

    5. Re:It all depends.... by SargentDU · · Score: 4, Informative

      In North Dakota, the road authority has an easement to use the edge of the landowner's property. When a road is closed, abandoned or not wanted, the road authority can let the landowner take over control of the easement to use for their needs. A road authority is either a Township Board, a County Highway Department, or the State Highway Department. The turnover usually has to be initiated by a petition from the landowner after the road authority has closed or stopped maintenance of the road.

    6. Re:It all depends.... by thaylin · · Score: 4, Informative

      That is not what he wass talking about. The 114k miles of roads that he considers too many includes all of the city roads, the county roads. They have a total of 114k miles included in all of that. In fact if you just look at what the DOT owns, out of the 114k, is less than 8% at 8,883 miles. The vast majority include county roads at 89,824, then municipalities at 14,965, next DOT and then parks and institutions and federal agencies.

      So please tell me, where do you exactly think these cuts are going to come from, the relatively small number of DOT responsible roads, of the huge number of country roads that is safe to say provides direct access to homes?

      http://www.iowadot.gov/about/R...

      PS whoever used comas in a URL should fired.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    7. Re:It all depends.... by bangular · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I still admire roads with no homes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  2. Let's get the puns out of the way by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  3. "Per capita?" by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Informative

    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:

    • Per-capita driving peaks and population peaks too
    • Per-capita driving continues to increase but population declines enough to offset it (maybe the situation in the rust belt?)
    • Population continues to increase, but per-capita driving decreases fast enough to offset it.
    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    1. Re:"Per capita?" by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

      Note that, absent immigration, US population is declining.

      Note also that if current trends continue, we should see population declines in many States even if we include immigration.

      Iowa, being essentially a big farm, is one of those States ripe for population decline sooner rather than later.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  4. Oblig by _anomaly_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  5. We'll take them by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3

    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.
  6. Kansas has the same problem by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Rails Roads by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Informative

    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...
  8. Re:the real admission is peak driving. by King_TJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think these points contribute to the problem, but there's a lot to consider here.

    For starters, we're talking about Iowa in this story. Iowa isn't exactly one of the states people flock to in droves to find employment. Don't get me wrong here... I have no grudge against Iowa. I think it just happens to be like other Midwestern states where except for a couple of major cities, it's primarily farm land and rural areas, where most of the car traffic is on interstates, traveling through the state to a destination elsewhere. It's quite possible they're just taking a good look at the situation and saying, "Hey... We could do drivers a favor by improving the quality of the roads that really matter, while just abandoning some of the lightly traveled alternate routes instead of wasting road money maintaining them."

    Out here in the metro DC area, by contrast? Our roads are jam packed with traffic at seemingly all hours -- and that's despite having a pretty extensive light rail and commuter train system in place, linked to an extensive bus system, plus various options like rental bicycles.

    Overall, I think it's short-sighted to write off the highway and road infrastructure as less important since "today's generation hates driving and can't afford decent cars anyway". (Not saying you did that in your post, but commenting in general here.) I think soon enough, we're going to see self-driving vehicles becoming commonplace. And that, in turn, is going to change a lot of things about transportation. (EG. If the car drives itself and knows how to safely get around, you no longer have to worry if it's "ok to let your friend borrow your car" over concerns he/she might wreck it.) So it'll lead to a lot more sharing of vehicles. People will buy one as more of an investment than a "huge but unfortunately necessary expense", as they make money using it to give other people rides when they're not using it themselves.

  9. California by Goldsmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  10. Re:Driving still increasing by camperdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So the homeowner isn't trying to drive down them at 70 mph in a sports car, but rather at 20mph in a pickup truck.

    I gather you've never lived in the country. Folk will be driving down them at 70 mph in their pickups.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  11. Sounds like a lot of whining to me by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Iowa has more roads than you would believe. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    That's a remnant of the WPA. Wisconsin (and to some extent, Illinois) are the same way. Class B highways every mile.

    Did you ever notice that the border foliage on the edges of the roads change when you hit state borders? That's also from the WPA days, when states ran their own "beautification" (and anti-erosion) measures. I learned this during my long-distance bicycling days. When all you have to look at for miles and miles are soybeans and corn, you tend to notice little things like road foliage. I finally asked some old dude who told me the story of the road crews that came through planting the foliage.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  13. Re:Iowa Immigration Requirements by tomhath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  14. Re:Non-driver parent by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    So should parents be held responsible for driver's education of their children in the same way that they are held responsible for the child getting to school and back? For example, should it be considered neglect on the parent's part to either A. not hold a driver's license or B. not take the child out for practice driving?

    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

  15. Re:I would be too by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.