Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iowa Makes a Bold Admission: We Need Fewer Roads

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 146 posts

Re: Iowa Makes a Bold Admission: We Need Fewer Roads

#101

Post by sophacles »

computmaxer wrote: post #53
sophacles wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huge chunks of the midwest are a paved checkerboard of roads spaced at 1 mile intervals. Many of these get 3-5 cars passing a day, if that. There is no need for a lot of these to be paved, as they serve as field access roads. The houses off these roads are farm houses, and most of the farmers I know don't mind either way if it's a gravel or paved road. Some actually prefer gravel, as in the winter, when it is icy, th…

That's a bit of an exaggeration - there are definitely roads checkerboarded at 1 mile intervals, but most are gravel in between some paved ones.

This may vary state to state. I know that in IL it seems that well over half of them are paved, or tarred gravel. The southern end of IL has less of this tho... but the amount paved is increasing. When I was a kid visiting relatives, I learned to drive on a lot of gravel roads, but heading down there for a funeral not long ago, most of the gravel I learned to drive on is paved now.

Re: Iowa Makes a Bold Admission: We Need Fewer Roads

#103

Post by innguest »

s73v3r wrote: post #98
innguest wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hi, my name is s73v3r and I'd like to interrupt this discussion to say that I, s73v3r, have been brainwashed through Pavlovian Conditioning to react with repulse to the word "communism" whenever that word is found in an argument I cannot counter". FTFY.

You need to have an argument before someone can counter it.

Here I delineate my argument more clearly.

Originally responding to the issue of trucks and roads:

"(...) it seems to me that if heavily loaded trucks are causing a disproportionate amount of damage they should be taxed at a rate which allows for proper maintenance of those roads"

I made the following points, implicitly or rhetorically, now listed in earnest:

1 - the above argument is supported by the notion that taxation should be proportional to usage/consumption

2 - that notion is simple and reasonable and one might expect that because of that, this issue would already be resolved by law

3 - that to expect that this issue already be resolved by law is laughable as one can easily see from a cursory glance at extremely current issues, e.g. the supreme court having just ruled on ObamaCare's constitutionality

4 - that the way we come to make these bad decisions is by calling people trolls, pretending not to see their arguments, or reacting emotionally when they point out an inconsistency in our thinking, instead of offering a refutation based on reason; in this specific case, the counter argument could be some crucial differences between the "trucks and roads" scenario and the "women and healthcare" scenario, both of which rely on the structural notion that taxation proportional to usage/consumption is the fair choice

5 - that if the notion cannot be applied to one analogous scenario then it cannot be applied to any analogous scenario

6 - that (5) is the intellectual rut that leftists live in, which contributes to bad decisions like healthcare that taxes the genders equally

So my claim is that those bad decisions (like trucks taxed as much as cars) come from people who are not able to see that the notions that support claims such as "if trucks cause more damage they should be taxed more" are either universally valid or invalid, which is why emotional arguments are offered to defend those decisions, and why you see this kind of reaction to people like me.

Re: Iowa Makes a Bold Admission: We Need Fewer Roads

#104

Post by ccurtsinger »

protomyth wrote: post #18
mholt wrote: post #3

I'm from Iowa. There are a handful of population centers, and a sprinkling of homes and small communities between miles and miles and miles of farmland. The thing is, most people don't travel between the small communities - most driving takes people to or from town. If they're not going to town, they're going to visit neighbors or their fields, in which case gravel roads work great. Gravel roads work better than dete…

I'm from North Dakota, and yeah, I would rather drive on gravel than ill-maintained pavement. ND has had to go the other way in the west because of the large amount of traffic[1] and pave and maintain some roads that would normally not merit it. I am actually a little ticked that the northern states are not doing research on alternate materials / surfacing technology. 1) western North Dakota now has traffic such that…

Minnesota does a significant amount of research on road surface materials. There is a section of I94 northwest of the Twin Cities that has three segments of highway, and traffic can be diverted onto one of the segments to test new road surfaces. Here's the MN DOT site with some test videos: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnroad/testcells/mainline.html (thrilling stuff).

Now that I'm in MA, I have heard several people say that concrete highways do not last through the winter, despite the large number of concrete-type highways in good condition in MN. Maybe this is the result of careful local road surface research? Roads are certainly better in MN than they are in MA, even though MN has colder and snowier winters. That could just be anti-highway spending sentiment from the big dig though...

Re: Iowa Makes a Bold Admission: We Need Fewer Roads

#105

Post by kevinr »

ccurtsinger wrote: post #104
protomyth wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from North Dakota, and yeah, I would rather drive on gravel than ill-maintained pavement. ND has had to go the other way in the west because of the large amount of traffic[1] and pave and maintain some roads that would normally not merit it. I am actually a little ticked that the northern states are not doing research on alternate materials / surfacing technology. 1) western North Dakota now has traffic such that…

Minnesota does a significant amount of research on road surface materials. There is a section of I94 northwest of the Twin Cities that has three segments of highway, and traffic can be diverted onto one of the segments to test new road surfaces. Here's the MN DOT site with some test videos: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnroad/testcells/mainline.html (thrilling stuff). Now that I'm in MA, I have heard several people say…

Another Midwesterner transplant to MA here -- colder in the winter is actually better for highways. Up and down around the freezing point all winter like Massachusetts does produces massive frost heave that Minnesota roads just don't need to contend with.

Re: Iowa Makes a Bold Admission: We Need Fewer Roads

#106

Post by mholt »

usaphp wrote: post #79
mholt wrote: post #3

I'm from Iowa. There are a handful of population centers, and a sprinkling of homes and small communities between miles and miles and miles of farmland. The thing is, most people don't travel between the small communities - most driving takes people to or from town. If they're not going to town, they're going to visit neighbors or their fields, in which case gravel roads work great. Gravel roads work better than dete…

The problem with gravel roads is that after a heavy rain a lot of potholes appear and some of them can be pretty big, it's relatively ok during the day travel, but driving at night will most certainly cause a lot of car damage and accidents in a long run.

You're right. But the cost is still lower than fixing potholes in asphalt due to wear & tear, freezing and thawing, and slippery ice is less of a problem too.

Not surprisingly, most Iowa folks are good drivers in bad weather. Generally it's avoided altogether. When it has to be done, most people are smart enough to slow down and be careful, or pull over and wait it out. There will still be accidents, but less cars slide off icy gravel roads since they seldom exist.

Re: Iowa Makes a Bold Admission: We Need Fewer Roads

#107

Post by CalRobert »

hn9780470248775 wrote: post #99
CalRobert wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Higher speeds generally increase traffic rather than decrease it, as following distance increases (or, if it doesn't, traffic due to wrecks will slow you down anyway). That being said, I live in CA and would love a model much like Germany, with unrestricted freeways in the rural areas and speed limits around 15-20 mph in towns and cities. Going down I-5 to socal? Sure, do 150. Driving in a town where there could be p…

The German Autobahn (equivalent to Interstate highways here) is entirely limited-access, high-speed (minimum speed limit 100 km/h; often no speed limit). The German Bundesstrasse (equivalent to U.S. or state highways?) does have highly variable speed limits, as you describe, and I found them correspondingly maddening to drive on, due to the incessant need to accelerate or decelerate.

Indeed - in my view this correlates to one of the best places in the world to drive. Variable limits seem more logical than assuming one speed can always be the best for current conditions. Road throughput (vehicle-miles per hour) can be maximized at a lower speed when traffic is heavy, so limits are reduced. Conversely, when traffic is light the minimization of individual travel time can be prioritized, so limits can be raised.

Re: Iowa Makes a Bold Admission: We Need Fewer Roads

#108

Post by douche »

ccurtsinger wrote: post #104
protomyth wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from North Dakota, and yeah, I would rather drive on gravel than ill-maintained pavement. ND has had to go the other way in the west because of the large amount of traffic[1] and pave and maintain some roads that would normally not merit it. I am actually a little ticked that the northern states are not doing research on alternate materials / surfacing technology. 1) western North Dakota now has traffic such that…

Minnesota does a significant amount of research on road surface materials. There is a section of I94 northwest of the Twin Cities that has three segments of highway, and traffic can be diverted onto one of the segments to test new road surfaces. Here's the MN DOT site with some test videos: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnroad/testcells/mainline.html (thrilling stuff). Now that I'm in MA, I have heard several people say…

Building good road-bed underneath helps enormously. Comparing the roads in Maine and Quebec, in Maine it's a mess of frost-heaves and constant repavement. In contrast, the Canadians rip up an old road down to ledge and build back a solid foundation - when a section of road gets rebuilt, it lasts 15-20 years.

Re: Iowa Makes a Bold Admission: We Need Fewer Roads

#109

Post by toomuchtodo »

mark-r wrote: post #102

I've always thought that total vehicle miles are capped by the availability of gas. Since fracking has expanded that supply, at least in the short term, I'd expect those mileage charts to start upticking again.

Total vehicle miles are goverened by both oil prices and demographics. You're seeing a huge shift in demographics currently in the US, which will drive down vehicle miles.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2015/03/dot-vehicle-miles-...

> However gasoline prices are just part of the story. The lack of growth in miles driven over the last 7 years was probably also due to the lingering effects of the great recession (lack of wage growth), the aging of the overall population (over 55 drivers drive fewer miles) and changing driving habits of young drivers.

Re: Iowa Makes a Bold Admission: We Need Fewer Roads

#110

Post by douche »

ryen wrote: post #69
mholt wrote: post #3

I'm from Iowa. There are a handful of population centers, and a sprinkling of homes and small communities between miles and miles and miles of farmland. The thing is, most people don't travel between the small communities - most driving takes people to or from town. If they're not going to town, they're going to visit neighbors or their fields, in which case gravel roads work great. Gravel roads work better than dete…

When it snows, how effective is it to shovel the gravel roads?

Better, in many cases actually. The gravel mixes with the snow, and for added traction you just run a sander in your road plows (with actual sand, not that calcium chloride/salt mix they mostly use on pavement now). Fun fact about putting salt on the roads to melt snow and ice: when it gets cold enough, it starts refreezing and gets slippery than a bastard.
Post reply on HN