Quick HWY 30 Question

[jdoggivjc]

Building wider highways only creates a greater demand for driving and thus creates a greater demand for foreign oil. This is the old way of thinking.

We need to look at getting back to rail transportation for both freight and passenger service.

I disagree that building highways creates a greater demand for driving - wider highways are built to accommodate demand that is already there.

I agree that freight rail can be used more than it currently is, although it's used a lot more than people want to give it credit for (anyone who went to ISU knows freight trains pass through every 20 minutes or so). That being said -

1. You can't attach everything with rail - it's not economically feasible to do so. You need a viable trucking industry to fill in the gaps.
2. According to an economics professor in my MBA program that also used to be a forecaster for the rail industry, this nation already has significantly more rail than it needs, so much so that it blows past economies of scale and is actually a drain on the system because track has to be maintained that just isn't used.

Blindly saying "more rail" simply isn't the entire answer - you can "rail yourself" into bankruptcy by trying to force a system that just won't work.

 

[GoCy]

Blindly saying "more rail" simply isn't the entire answer - you can "rail yourself" into bankruptcy by trying to force a system that just won't work.

The rail system works in Europe, where there is sufficient population density to support every mile of track. In Iowa, (and most of the US) that is not the case. Also, most places don't have sufficient public transportation from the train terminal to the rest of the city. If you wanted to travel from Ames to Chariton, what do you do when you get to the Chariton terminal, which won't have any public transportation? Even the public transportation in major cities is pretty spotty. That means that you probably need to rent a car when you get there, or take a taxi everywhere. I just don't see it as an option that people will choose on their own, meanaing that it will be another big government program propped up by massive amounts of tax dollars.

 

[KezClone]

Thanks for putting me in my place. It's not clearly possible for someone without a transportation engineering degree to have an opinion on how my tax dollars should be spent.

I'm sure the Gravina Island Bridge and Gravina Island Highway made sense to someone somewhere too. And if the 50 people on Gravina Island want to pay for it, I'd be more than happy to see it built. I'm also sure it was approved somehow by the Alaska DOT.

Let's put it this way, if US-20 was a toll road between Fort Dodge and Sioux City, how long would it take to pay for itself?

Honestly, my intent wasn't to put you in your place.

 

[Ms3r4ISU]

Honestly, my intent wasn't to put you in your place.

There's also the matter of gas/fuel taxes. Property taxes alone don't pay for roads, especially state and U.S. highways like 20 and 30.

 

[jumbopackage]

The rail system works in Europe, where there is sufficient population density to support every mile of track. In Iowa, (and most of the US) that is not the case. Also, most places don't have sufficient public transportation from the train terminal to the rest of the city. If you wanted to travel from Ames to Chariton, what do you do when you get to the Chariton terminal, which won't have any public transportation? Even the public transportation in major cities is pretty spotty. That means that you probably need to rent a car when you get there, or take a taxi everywhere. I just don't see it as an option that people will choose on their own, meanaing that it will be another big government program propped up by massive amounts of tax dollars.

I suspect, over time, a mile of railway is cheaper to build and maintain than a mile of road in Iowa. And if everyone put what they pay for a car into a public transportation "hopper" every month, it would certainly be economically viable.

I think it has more to do with the "individualism" mentality in the US than it does with economics. Having lived in the midwest all my life, but traveled extensively, I can see the merits to both. I actually prefer the metro in DC, for example, to any other form of transportation there. I'd love to be able to have that sort of freedom in Des Moines.

Unfortunately, it stops running at midnight, and doesn't start up again until 6:30 or so. So even that's not perfect.

Honestly, my intent wasn't to put you in your place.

My bad, then, for misinterpreting.

 

[jumbopackage]

There's also the matter of gas/fuel taxes. Property taxes alone don't pay for roads, especially state and U.S. highways like 20 and 30.

And that's great. I have 0 problem distributing that money in proportion to actual road usage.

 

[Havs]

Personally, a Des Moines person should want a four lane from NW Iowa to Des Moines, which would bring more Northwest Iowans into the Capital City for shopping, business, etc.

 

[capitalcityguy]

I disagree that building highways creates a greater demand for driving - wider highways are built to accommodate demand that is already there.

I agree that freight rail can be used more than it currently is, although it's used a lot more than people want to give it credit for (anyone who went to ISU knows freight trains pass through every 20 minutes or so). That being said -

1. You can't attach everything with rail - it's not economically feasible to do so. You need a viable trucking industry to fill in the gaps.
2. According to an economics professor in my MBA program that also used to be a forecaster for the rail industry, this nation already has significantly more rail than it needs, so much so that it blows past economies of scale and is actually a drain on the system because track has to be maintained that just isn't used.

Blindly saying "more rail" simply isn't the entire answer - you can "rail yourself" into bankruptcy by trying to force a system that just won't work.

Likewise, blindly saying more lanes creates less congestion is a misnomer as well (even though at first glance it seems reasonable) . I suggest you read: : http://www.amazon.com/Suburban-Nation-Sprawl-Decline-American/dp/0865476063/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231359294&sr=8-1

If you encourage more personal vehicle travel, then people tend to chose that route. If you make mass transit a more attractive option (than hopping in your own vehicle) , than people will gravitate towards it.

The problem is that since the 1950's we've been funneling tax dollars into building more and more roads which in the end, can't be sustained without great costs . Unfortunately we're living those costs now with our military men and women over in the MiddleEast and again probably in the near future as gas prices will most likely start rising again.

 

[jumbopackage]

Personally, a Des Moines person should want a four lane from NW Iowa to Des Moines, which would bring more Northwest Iowans into the Capital City for shopping, business, etc.

They already have it, for the most part. Fort Dodge to Des Moines is all 4 Lane. Sioux City to Des Moines is all 4 lane. The only folks that are forced to travel down those horrible 2 lane roads are in that little region between Sioux City and Fort Dodge. Considering the population density in that area is less than 1 person per square mile, and that most people there travel to Sioux Falls or Sioux City for their shopping and whatnot anyway, I don't see that it makes that much difference.

I don't know many people that have ever said "oh, well, I'm not going to go there for business since it's a 2 lane highway instead of a 4 lane highway!", and the etc (I'm assuming you're talking about tourism type stuff). they would likely do anyway since Des Moines is where the etc is happening in the first place. Again, I don't know many people that have ever been held up about going somewhere they want to go because it's only a 2 lane road instead of a 4 lane. Now traffic, on the other hand, is a reason people wouldn't want to go somewhere. It's not like traffic on rural 2 lane highways is exactly "bad" though.

Also, I used to commute daily from Fort Dodge to Des Moines. The fastest way to West Des Moines from Fort Dodge is Hwy 169.

 

[CrossCyed]

We can all agree on one thing.

ANYTHING is better than I-80 through Nebraska.

What a godforsaken stretch of road. I mean, the road itself is nice, but you have to imagine people just get so bored driving through that state that they jerk the steering wheel to the right to alleviate it.

Plus the state never seems to ******* end.

 

[HILLCYD]

I would take a four lane all the way to Okoboji. That is one hell of a drive from Des Moines.

 

[1100011CS]

Thanks to whomever started this thread and jinxed me. I had to drive to CR today for the first time in about a year:sad: That last stretch of 2-lane before CR is a nightmare. It's so rough my DVD player kept skipping, which is not good with kids.

 

[jumbopackage]

I would take a four lane all the way to Okoboji. That is one hell of a drive from Des Moines.

I drove it every weekend for a year or two. 141 to 169 to 18 is not THAT bad of a drive. It's just a long ways anyway. Even if 71 was 4 lanes all the way from Spencer to I-80, it would still be a 3.5 hour drive.
You can always take I-35 to I-90. It's maybe 30 miles or so out of the way, though.