Quick HWY 30 Question
- Thread starter wartknight
- Start date
Thanks. I knew that they had built eastward to the bridges, but there was still a big jump up to old 20 for several years until they completed the connection.
Spent a lot of time at Pine Lake at one time...
I remember 20 being finished from CF to Fort Dodge. It's a lot nicer than the drive used to be, that's for sure, though I do miss driving through Iowa Falls. Much of US-20 between I-35 and Fort Dodge is turning to crap, though. It's got maybe another 3-4 years left before it will be in need of major repair, and who's going to pay for that? I rarely see enough traffic on that road to justify it's existence. Even less traffic going west to Sioux City.
Well, the much of the grading for 30 has been done for decades. It just hasn't had highway on it. And it's already half complete.
Adding a third lane to 80 would mean starting from scratch. And wedging more traffic cross state though Des Moines. Driving 80 regularly, I have to say it has more than enough truck traffic as it is.
Diverting any traffic to 30 might mean that you have to repave 80 every twenty years, rather than fifteen. It might only be every sixteen, but anything would be an improveent.
Besides, you looked at it from the standpoint of Chicago outward, but which route do you suppose Ball Plastic or Barilla, for example, would take to Chicago?
Think of getting around OWA City the day of the OWA-ISU football game is one reason to drive HWY 30 over to to Hwy 38 and back down to I-80, then on to Peoria, for one reason.:yes:
So we should build a road that is less useful because it's easier to build? And we should maintain twice as much road that's less useful to support a few trucks and industries that already exist?
US-30 and I-80 are apples and oranges. The last thing we need to do right now is dump money into infrastructure that will be little used.
US-30 (and US-20) are bridges to nowhere.
Have you guys noticed how much money we are spending on road repairs?? Enough that they want to raise the gas tax, and this is after they already increased registration costs. The reason for all this.... We already have to many roads. Not just that, but paved roads that serve no purpose that need repaired every year after hard winters.
We don't need more 4 lanes. We will only be spending more money on more repairs. Yes they are nice to have, but they aren't as beneficial as you think.
Plus the 4 lane HWY 20 is a crock. They are by-passing alot of towns that the current Hwy 20 runs through. If you take the traffic out of these towns, you are going to see alot of gas stations and diners going under. Not smart business for the state.
Hwy 20 will be running 3 to 4 miles north of Sac City (my hometown), Rockwell City, and Early. Neither will benefit.
We don't need more 4 lanes. We will only be spending more money on more repairs. Yes they are nice to have, but they aren't as beneficial as you think.
Plus the 4 lane HWY 20 is a crock. They are by-passing alot of towns that the current Hwy 20 runs through. If you take the traffic out of these towns, you are going to see alot of gas stations and diners going under. Not smart business for the state.
Hwy 20 will be running 3 to 4 miles north of Sac City (my hometown), Rockwell City, and Early. Neither will benefit.
Not what I said at all.
If 30 diverted even 10% of the traffic from 80 it would pay for itself, simply in maintenance costs.
Constantly repairing , resurfacing and repaving i-80 is one heck of a lot more expensive than maintaining secondary arteries.
How's how it works. I've seen it this way in my hometown, and elsewhere.
A. A bypass is built. Restaurants and gas stations languish and wither over the next twenty years.
B. Someone gets a bright idea, usually only fifteen or twenty years later, after those businesses have died, and says "Hey! We should build some businesses out on the bypass!" Those businesses take off, and the next thing you know, everyone is looking to find a niche to take advantage of all of the cars streaming by their town.
It's an issue of marketing. In some towns it's antiques. In others, some tourist attraction; zoos, a garden, or some natural feature. The point is, it works, and you just have to work at it.
Don't ask me why there is a delay, there just is. I've seen it happen in Muscatine, in other towns, and when I lived in Jacksonville (IL), it had happened that way when the Interstate went by. It just took time for people to build restaurants and gas stations and motels "out on the bypass".
True, but you forgot the most important part of that. Whoever owns the land out by the exits on the bypass is the one who gets rich! Cha Ching! $$$
That too. usually why there's a tussle over just where the bypass goes--with the farmers first reacting in horror, demanding for it not to go their way.
+ 10,000, The sooner 20 gets 4 laned to Sioux City the better. But the eastside bias is killing the state.
That's gonna be real difficult since they would have to build a new bridge across the Mississippi at Clinton. Don't think that's happening anytime soon.
I think I-80 SHOULD be 6 lanes all the way across Iowa. It's a national corridor and the semi truck traffic on a daily basis IMO justifies it.
While expanding Hwys 20 & 30 to 4 lanes across the state will be nice, I just don't see it significantly reducing traffic along I-80. First, I-80 is a national corridor, and the biggest problem with congestion is the semi truck traffic - something expanding 20 & 30 isn't going to alleviate. Second, 7 of Iowa's 10 largest cities and 4 of the 5 are within 30 miles of I-80. While expanding 30 to 4 lanes would help travel between Cedar Rapids-Ames, from what I gather the lack of 4 lanes isn't causing people to hop down to I-80 just to avoid driving on 30 - that and the expansion of 30 does nothing to aid a trip from Davenport to Omaha, which I've just pointed out are where the population centers in the state happen to be located.
I'm not saying it's not a good idea to expand 20 and 30 across the state - just don't fool yourself into thinking it's going to have any impact on the congestion of I-80, because it's not.
The thing is though it won't divert 10% of I-80's traffic - an expansion of US 30 will only benefit its current users and won't add significantly more "long-term" users. As I said in a previous post, 4 of Iowa's 5 largest cities and 7 of 10 are within 30 miles of I-80. Granted, Cedar Rapids and Ames are connected by 30, but those folks aren't hopping down to I-80 to avoid 30 in the first place. And no one is going to hop up on 30 from Davenport, Iowa City, Des Moines, or Council Bluffs to get to Ames or Cedar Rapids - it's much more convenient to travel I-80 to I-35 (for Ames) or I-380 (for Cedar Rapids). Another significant advantage I-80 has over US 30 is the speed limit - you can drive 70 on I-80, only 65 on 30. Also, until they build a 4-lane bridge and supporting infrastructure in Clinton capable of handling significant truck traffic in and around Clinton, you're not going to see heavy logistical use of US 30 from Chicago, especially, when a trucker has two different options of crossing the Mississippi River in the Quad Cities (I-80 and I-280).
"Eastside bias is killing the state"? Seriously?
I think investing in the building and maintenance of useless and unused infrastructure is killing the state far more than any perceived "eastside bias".
I would have NO problem with building out US-20 across northern Iowa, if people in northern Iowa want to pay for it. The problem is, the population and industry isn't there to support it, so you're basically asking for welfare from the rest of the state to support the ability to drive on a 4 lane road from Fort Dodge or Waterloo to Sioux City.
We're in Ames. I wouldn't say we avoid Highway 30 when we travel to the east/south, but I-35 and I-80 are much better roads for traveling that direction than 30. If 30 was 4-lane, we might choose it.
Does that mean that, if your plan was followed, only those who paid for the "upgrade" should be allowed to drive on it?
Where do you plan on traveling to, though?
Everyone I've ever talked to, if traveling between Ames and Cedar Rapids, drove US 30 regardless of how much it sucked. It just wasn't worth adding the extra 30-45 miles of hopping down to I-80 and then back up to US-30 just to avoid driving on it. And someone like me who practically lives right on I-80 isn't going to jump up to US-30 just to avoid I-80.
I'm talking about traveling south of Grinnell. I agree: people already near I-80 almost without reservation won't go to U.S. 30 (even if it's 4-lane) to avoid I-80. I'm saying that, if U.S. 30 was 4-lane, we might choose to drive it east to say, Marshalltown or LeGrand, and then go south.
The cities/towns/villages/unicorpoarated are too far from the road except for ****.
