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

61–70 of 146 posts

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

#61

Post by bduerst »

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 spent some time doing work in rural NW Iowa, and I remember the sheer number of gravel roads that are run between the fields. (They are great for running on too)

How does the maintenance per mile between gravel roads and paved roads compare? Does this article apply to both?

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

#62

Post by scarmig »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #28

A bit old, but still relevant - http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf I'm no expert on the topic, but 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.

You know all those weigh stations you see on the road and don't have to stop at?

They're not decorative.

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

#63

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

maxerickson wrote: post #39
Alupis wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both gravel and blacktop are lower cost options that can be used in low traffic areas though Blacktop is asphalt (what roads are normally made of). And requires an underlying concrete layer to lengthen it's lifetime (asphalt is a lot "softer" than concrete and more susceptible to ground movement, erosion by the elements and friction from tires, etc...)

Asphalt roads are a type of concrete. In my area, paved, minor county roads certainly don't have a Portland cement concrete base layer, when they are paving they might add some gravel during the surface preparation and grading, but that is about it. As you say, the ground movement shows through, and they are more susceptible to erosion.

Here too. One of the gravel roads near me was recently paved and they simply flattened it, added some sort of cement + water spray (as opposed to the usual multiple inches thick layer of concrete) and the asphalt placed on top of that. It is definitely better than gravel, but it's already showing some wear in places.

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

#64

Post by gtCameron »

amyjess wrote: post #52
gtCameron wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

North Carolina does not have the most maintained roads of any state, they have "largest state maintained highway network in the United States." This is a function of them choosing to maintain roads at the state level instead of the county level. If you look at road miles by state [0] regardless of the actual entity that maintains them, they are 16th. [0] http://blog.cubitplanning.com/2010/02/road-miles-by-state/

Their highway network is still pretty large, though. Texas also has an all-state-maintained system (except for toll roads, which are private, but the free service roads are still state-maintained... and Texas tends to favor adding service roads wherever possible), and their road network is the second -largest state-maintained highway network in the US. When you compare the physical size of the two states, NC really c…

Texas as roughly 5x the size of NC by landmass, and has approximately 3x the number of road miles. However, NC is more densely populated than TX. If you look at it by road mile per person they are almost identical.

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

#65

Post by wtallis »

amyjess wrote: post #52
gtCameron wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

North Carolina does not have the most maintained roads of any state, they have "largest state maintained highway network in the United States." This is a function of them choosing to maintain roads at the state level instead of the county level. If you look at road miles by state [0] regardless of the actual entity that maintains them, they are 16th. [0] http://blog.cubitplanning.com/2010/02/road-miles-by-state/

Their highway network is still pretty large, though. Texas also has an all-state-maintained system (except for toll roads, which are private, but the free service roads are still state-maintained... and Texas tends to favor adding service roads wherever possible), and their road network is the second -largest state-maintained highway network in the US. When you compare the physical size of the two states, NC really c…

And North Carolina places a particular emphasis on paving every road. It's pretty much impossible to find a public road in NC that has street signs and stop signs but is unpaved. The only ones I can think of offhand are in state parks. By contrast, on a recent trip through western Maryland there were about two major roads that were paved for their entire length and the rest reverted to gravel in the more remote areas.

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

#66

Post by jordan0day »

innguest wrote: post #38
AcerbicZero wrote: post #28

A bit old, but still relevant - http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf I'm no expert on the topic, but 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.

Yes, and women should pay more for health insurance since they go to the doctor more often. However neither of those things will happen because common sense and communism are polar opposites despite their shared etymological roots. EDIT: sophists can downvote but what they can't do is cope, or they would engage my arguments. EDIT 2: for the slow, the argument is that it is natural to want those who use a resource the…

I feel like people need multiple-pass compilers for their logical arguments.

On the face of it, your analogy kind of makes sense. Both trucks and women (Allegedly. I don't know if your claim is actually based on fact? edit: link in parent seems to back up this claim) use a disproportionate amount of a shared resource, so they should be made to pay more for that use.

The second pass of your compiler should catch the little hitch here, though: Truck drivers and transportation companies can choose to exit the market (or not enter the market in the first place), if the costs of doing business are too burdensome. I don't really think that kind of option exists in the same way for women?

Unless you're suggesting that women should similarly "exit the market" (Hurry up and die? Become men?). At least, I certainly hope that's not your proposed solution.

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

#67

Post by fennecfoxen »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #46
jff wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lots of other ones are vestigial organs of some long forgotten economy and would better disappear. In a big city with rising rents, people who already live somewhere ~have a right to be there~ and shouldn't have to go. In a small town, apparently, there's no possible reason people would want to stay.

I don't think I heard him saying that incumbent renters in a city have a legally-enforceable right of any kind to their apartments.

Maybe he didn't say that, but the War Emergency Tenant Protection act does say otherwise, at least in the Empire state. (Which war emergency? Why, World War II, of course.) San Francisco's pretty similar.

Not that this has too much direct impact on roads, though :P

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

#68

Post by vonmoltke »

Alupis wrote: post #31
bigtunacan wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL; you are right there. I was of course I young wreckless driver at the time. Depending on the road condition, visibility and area speeds on gravel probably should be anywhere from 25 to 50mph during good weather. Both gravel and blacktop are lower cost options that can be used in low traffic areas though. There are certainly large stretches of very low traffic high maintenance roads all over Iowa.

> Both gravel and blacktop are lower cost options that can be used in low traffic areas though Blacktop is asphalt (what roads are normally made of). And requires an underlying concrete layer to lengthen it's lifetime (asphalt is a lot "softer" than concrete and more susceptible to ground movement, erosion by the elements and friction from tires, etc...)

> And requires an underlying concrete layer to lengthen it's lifetime

Depends on the underlying soil. In north Texas it's common when asphalt is laid to pour a Portland cement concrete base, though many roads and highways are just straight concrete. In south Florida, the roadbed is usually just packed limestone, because the land has a rock layer no more than 50 feet down and the sandy soil is pretty incompressible, unlike the constantly expanding and contracting clay in Texas.

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

#69

Post by ryen »

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?
Post reply on HN