Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Government The Almighty Buck

Iowa Makes a Bold Admission: We Need Fewer Roads 285

Posted by samzenpus from the if-you-don't-build-it-they-will-come dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Iowa Makes a Bold Admission: We Need Fewer Roads More

Iowa Makes a Bold Admission: We Need Fewer Roads

Comments Filter:

  • It all depends.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Friday July 10, 2015 @07:21AM (#50080893)
    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?

  • Let's get the puns out of the way (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Friday July 10, 2015 @07:30AM (#50080925)

    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

    • 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

      Driving off a cliff?

  • Driving still increasing (Score:3)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Friday July 10, 2015 @07:35AM (#50080947)

    Even if per capita driving has peaked, the population is increasing, so total driving is still increasing.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • "Per capita?" (Score:5, Informative)

    by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Friday July 10, 2015 @07:38AM (#50080965)

    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.

    • Re:"Per capita?" (Score:5, Informative)

      by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Friday July 10, 2015 @07:54AM (#50081033)

      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.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • And this has what, exactly, to do with what I wrote?
          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward

              US fertility rate is 1.89 (replacement rate is ~2.1).
              http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/fertility-rate

          • I think his point is that a lot of immigrants move to rural areas, so your intuition that Iowa will decline in population more rapidly because of its ruralness is probably not accurate. He/she didn't express hiimself very well, though.

      • Note that, absent immigration, US population is declining.

        No, it's not. It's just not true, not even close. Natural increase (i.e. births minus deaths) is still positive, and is expected (by the Census) to remain so through their entire forecast period (through 2060). Natural increase is also currently a bigger source of population growth than net immigration.* By 2023, the Census expects immigration to exceed natural increase as a source of growth.

        *And yes, the Census figures include both legal and illegal immigration.

        See table 1 at the below link:
        http://www.c [census.gov]

  • Oblig (Score:5, Funny)

    by _anomaly_ ( 127254 ) <{moc.stibkeeg} {ta} {ylamona}> on Friday July 10, 2015 @07:43AM (#50080985) Homepage

    Where we're going, we don't need roads!

    Happy 30th, Back to the Future!

  • Rural roads will be abandoned...Rural land, especially family farms, will lose value...Family farms and rural housing will sell for much less due to poor access...Corporate entities buy the land and make a large farm or put up a factory..."This is good for Iowa. So, as the head of the Iowa Department of Transportation, I'll make sure these abandoned roads get as much money as possible to put them back up into working order." ---- Lets see the roads in question on a map, who owns the land next to them, and w
  • Specific areas that are experiencing population and/or economic growth will probably still need new roads, even if the rest of Iowa doesn't.

  • We'll take them (Score:4)

    by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Friday July 10, 2015 @08:01AM (#50081061)

    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.

  • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Licensing barriers: Nowadays, in many states, it takes 50 hours of driving on a learner's permit, supervised by a licensed driver 25 years of age or older. Indiana in the United States requires 50; some states in Australia require 120. With fewer people already driving, new drivers are finding it harder to find another suitable licensed driver with the time to supervise their driving. Some have resorted to paying $50 per hour for a driving instructor, and few recent graduates can afford $2,500 to $6,000 wor

      • You've mentioned that as if it's a problem in two different stories now, and I don't understand. All that requirement means is that the parent of the new 16-year-old driver certifies that they've let the kid drive around for 50 hours with the parent in the car when he had his learner's permit, which is a low bar to hurdle.

        Obviously, that's harder to deal with for an adult trying to get his driver's license, but the easy solution to that is simply to get the damn thing at 16 instead of waiting for no reason!

        • You've mentioned that as if it's a problem

          It is a problem for my cousin.

          All that requirement means is that the parent of the new 16-year-old driver certifies that they've let the kid drive around for 50 hours with the parent in the car

          That's a crime if the parent is also a non-driver, and it's easier said than done if the parent lacks the money to pay for the classroom portion of driver's ed or the time and money to take the child out for practice driving afterward. My cousin tells me his father lacks the time.

          the easy solution to that is simply to get the damn thing at 16 instead of waiting for no reason!

          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 conside

          • Re:Non-driver parent (Score:4, Insightful)

            by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Friday July 10, 2015 @09:46AM (#50081763)

            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?

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 )

      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.

      Driving sucks:

      Apparently Millenials are way ahead on one thing though. It used to take people 6o years or more to get that bitter.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:I would be too (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Friday July 10, 2015 @11:48AM (#50082827)

          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

      • Apparently Millenials are way ahead on one thing though. It used to take people 6o years or more to get that bitter.

        No, they're behind on that. Gen X was bitter from at least age 11 and remain that way today.

        Anyway, TFA is about Iowa. Maybe Iowa doesn't need so many roads (and railroads, note they were included in his statement). Other places, places where a lot of people live, we need every road we have and then some. That's large chunks of the Eastern seaboard and much of the West Coast for starters.

    • Re:the real admission is peak driving. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Friday July 10, 2015 @08:36AM (#50081253) Journal

      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.

      • 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.

        FYI, every state is like that, except maybe for Alaska (because there aren't many roads) and Hawaii (because there aren't any other states to drive to).

        Every other state, including Maryland and Virginia (w

        • Connecticut is one big suburb.

          Most of the states that 'BostiYorkDCadelphia' sit on are mostly suburb.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by chihowa ( 366380 )

            Most of the states that 'BostiYorkDCadelphia' sit on are mostly suburb.

            MA maybe, but NY MD VA PA are overall pretty sparsely populated.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by fnj ( 64210 )

              Only eastern Massachusetts is densely populated. The Berkshires are not.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by bws111 ( 1216812 )

            Have you ever been to any of those states? Drive on I80 through PA and tell us how suburban it is. Or I87 (north of I84) through NY up to Canada. Or I90 across NY.

    • Sounds like a lot of whining to me (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Friday July 10, 2015 @09:12AM (#50081501)

      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'm just sitting back eating popcorn, curious to see what generation z will be like. "Can you believe it took 14 minutes to 3d print my jetpack? Fuck the man, that is bullshit."

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ichijo ( 607641 )

        Personally outside of some of the most rural parts of the US I've NEVER seen "empty highways".

        Mostly empty highways then. Can you name one that moves even half of its daily capacity (peak hour capacity times 24)? Good luck! Ha ha!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dasunt ( 249686 )

      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

      • To oversimplify: Every time we extend infrastructure, we add two drains on budgets. The first is depreciation - basically a way of budgeting for the cost of replacement years down the road.

        Depreciation is a way of accouting for the initial cost, not the cost of replacement. Counting both the initial expenditure and depreciation is double-counting.

        Say you put in a big box store such as Walmart. Big box stores, as a general rule, aren't the best producers of tax revenue per square foot. You're frequently be

    • our general penchant for unemployment

      You you prefer unemployment? I don't think penchant is the word you wanted. It does means something like "tendency", but with strong overtones of preference.

  • Kansas has the same problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Friday July 10, 2015 @08:16AM (#50081149)

    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.

  • California (Score:5, Funny)

    by Goldsmith ( 561202 ) on Friday July 10, 2015 @08:47AM (#50081315)

    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.

    • No special requirements

      You just have to be used to the Central Valley, without mountains within day-trip range, with incredible humidity in summer and cold, snowy winters.

      • Re:Iowa Immigration Requirements (Score:5, Interesting)

        by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Friday July 10, 2015 @09:22AM (#50081591)

        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

        • Everybody I know that grew up in Missouri or Kansas that has the job skills to get out has.

          We typically go back to visit in the spring of fall. Never in Winter or Summer.

  • Iowa has more roads than you would believe. (Score:3)

    by gweeks ( 91403 ) on Friday July 10, 2015 @08:53AM (#50081347) Homepage

    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.

    • Re:Iowa has more roads than you would believe. (Score:5, Informative)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Friday July 10, 2015 @09:12AM (#50081503) Journal

      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.

    • I'm up in the Canadian prairies...farming country. We've got a 1-mile grid road system here too, and we could probably get rid of some of them as well.

  • 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

  • What's the "per capita" term based on? (Score:3)

    by RogueWarrior65 ( 678876 ) on Friday July 10, 2015 @09:19AM (#50081567)

    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.

  • Just drove from Missouri Valley, IA to Denison, IA on Hwy 30 the other day. Other than a few stretches of cement roads, the rest is horrible old potholed blacktop. Fix that shit you lazy bastards.

  • "since per capita driving has peaked in the U.S.,"

    As the population gets older, there will be more driving going on - not less.

    There may be a peak but I don't see when that would be.

    That's a huge assumption to make with no backup.

    That said, for Iowa it may well make sense to reduce the number of roads, perhaps expanding some others...

    Just on a side note, no-one really thinks about Iowa but I had the please of driving through a few years ago and it's one of the more beautiful states to drive through.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Close