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 deteriorated pavement and have much lower maintenance costs.
I think "the entire system is unneeded" is a bit of a stretch, but I agree that, outside of cities, most routes don't need to be paved - you can safely travel 50 mph on a flat, straight gravel road. Of course the main arteries - Hwy 52, Hwy 20, I-80, and many others need to stay maintained. But there are so many small roads that, although quaint and a pleasure to drive, are probably unnecessary from a utilitarian/practical point of view.
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.
I live on a gravel road, and I can tell you one thing for certain. Vehicle maintenance costs are noticeably higher when routinely driving on gravel roads. I have to replace brakes and suspension components much more frequently than friends and family who live on paved roads. Also, if you are not careful about washing your vehicle to routinely get the rock dust off, your vehicle will be prone to early rust issues.
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 I find Minneapolis / St. Paul during rush hour relaxing in comparison. I would hope for more rail, but they seem to keep crashing and I guess a pipeline isn't going to happen.
> I think "the entire system is unneeded" is a bit of a stretch
I read that differently than you, I think. I read it not as "we don't need roads" but as "we don't need all of the roads we currently have, we can get rid of some of them." I don't know if that's true, even with reduced demand, there are a lot of small towns that only have one main road going in or out of them. (I also am from Iowa.)
My first thought on reading the post was to ask whether an analysis of roads strictly in terms of aggregate capacity even makes sense? It seems to me you have to ask where people are, where they need to go and why. Between any two travel points you can perform a capacity analysis, but doing so in the aggregate would, I think, shortchange a lot of smaller places.
Fellow Iowan here. I have traveled much faster than 50 mph on gravel roads; straight or not. Definitely a cheaper option that should be preferred in some cases. Even in in the more populated cities, CR, Des Moines, etc... existing road maintenance is always terrible.
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?
An untraveled gravel road is likely more expensive to maintain than a paved one, long term, when you factor in watersheds, plant growth, and vehicular damage caused by the road.
You also need to take into account that many of these roads are used to transport agricultural products, so the roads are in effect an agricultural subsidy (though not necessarily a bad one).
I also grew up in Iowa, and the difference between the gravel roads I took to get to my friends houses there, and the gravel roads we have here in AZ is night and day.
I'm from Wisconsin. We don't seem to have a problem keeping our roads paved and functional. Assuming I didn't screw up any math reading these tables:
Iowa: 114,429 miles of roads
Wisconsin: 115,145 miles of roads
Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2013/hm10.cfm
Unpaved Functional Length:
Iowa: 13,363 miles
Wisconsin: 566 miles
Paved Functional Length:
Iowa: 81,273 miles
Wisconsin: 102,482 miles
Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2013/hm51.cfm
I think you need a better Department of Transportation, because even the population difference shouldn't really account for that huge of a gap.
Population:
Iowa: 3.107 million
Wisconsin: 5.758 million
Source: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=iowa+wisconsin+population
Square miles:
Iowa: 56,270 sq mi
Wisconsin: 65,500 sq mi
Source: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=wisconsin+square+miles
Source: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=iowa+square+miles
That's what's happened in the city of Toronto and surrounding areas; some of the roads are gravel but for the most part they're paved and it's a pain in the butt when you drive on pot-holed roads. There's some suburban streets that would do better to be gravel.
"The [Iowa] primary highway system makes up over 9,000 miles (14,000 km), a mere 8 percent of the U.S. state of Iowa's public road system." [0]
So while laudable, it would be very nice if North Carolina followed suit with its ~79,000 miles of maintained roads (largest of any state) [1]. But I doubt that would happen, my friend at NCDOT says the culture emphasizes building new roads (or the ones that get wiped out by hurricanes out on the outer banks), and change intersections in a manner that borders on the whimsical.
We like to build roads in challenging places, it seems [2].
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.
At one point in time an extensive road system is a competitive advantage. At another, it makes less sense.
The same thing happened with Railroads during their heyday. I remember seeing an old railroad map with stops at all these small towns in Nebraska. Now, railroads are almost entirely commercial with very few passenger stops in small towns.
It makes sense that at some point you just don't have the need for so many roads. If more people move to urban or even suburban city centers, things like public transportation, ride sharing, Uber, and even self-driving vehicles start to make a lot of sense and cut down a lot on driving volume and the need for roads.
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, the gravel can provide better traction, and the county doesn't do a good job plowing.
Iowa's road map was drawn from afar, before any surveyors could look at it, so there are a lot of bridges keeping the road grid continuous over rivers, creeks and dry streambeds.
Yep, it's unclear how it's measured and if the metric applied correctly. For example, in Seattle traffic jams get only worse over years. Clearly it hasn't "peaked". Yet map from the article shows that it peaked in the Washington state as a whole.
I think the a lot of places should focus on expanding major roads/thoroughfares, and cities.. But look into bricks/dirt/gravel for country/side roads. would be nice if after self-driving cars, comes self-flying aerocars, cause then we won't need roads at all except in the city where air traffic would get super bogged down.
Related: I need to confirm the trend held, but as of a year or two ago, US FAA RITA data showed peak aviation fuel in 2000. Total departures and passenger miles have been higher since, but due to smaller and more fully loaded aircraft.
By 2010- 2012 or so, actual fuel use was ~50% of year 2000 forecast estimates.
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.
> 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.
This may make sense in Iowa but it makes no sense in California. Gravel roads would would slow the effective max speed down to a crawl which would further exasperate traffic. If anything we need a higher driving speeds.
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 people walking, cyclists, vehicles stopping often, etc,? Maybe 15 makes more sense.
Of course, not giving a license to just anyone with a pulse would be a start. My grandmother (lovely woman, but 91 and clearly past her driving years) failed her written driving test a few weeks ago. What did the DMV do? They _extended_ her license another two months, for reasons that escape me. "You can continue to drive despite a demonstrated ignorance of driving law" is pretty much what we're saying there.
Also, California is big. A lot of it probably resembles Iowa more than SF in terms of road infrastructure - ever head out to the more remote parts?
Really does depend on the location of the road. Yeah, turning I-80 to gravel would be a bad idea, but what about the multitudinous little mountain roads? Speed limits there tend to be in the 25-35mph range anyways, and are lightly traveled. There would be little effect on traffic aside from concentrating the expensive parts of maintenance on the roads that actually need it.
One thing I learned, whether accurate or not, from the original SimCity is road maintenance is expensive. I almost invariably ended up peaking city size as the roads entered a constant state of disrepair.
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.
Trucks are taxed more already. The problem is legislatures using those tax revenues for other pork and then claiming to not have enough money for roads.
[+] [-] mholt|10 years ago|reply
I think "the entire system is unneeded" is a bit of a stretch, but I agree that, outside of cities, most routes don't need to be paved - you can safely travel 50 mph on a flat, straight gravel road. Of course the main arteries - Hwy 52, Hwy 20, I-80, and many others need to stay maintained. But there are so many small roads that, although quaint and a pleasure to drive, are probably unnecessary from a utilitarian/practical point of view.
[+] [-] usaphp|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vidanay|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|10 years ago|reply
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 I find Minneapolis / St. Paul during rush hour relaxing in comparison. I would hope for more rail, but they seem to keep crashing and I guess a pipeline isn't going to happen.
[+] [-] cwyers|10 years ago|reply
I read that differently than you, I think. I read it not as "we don't need roads" but as "we don't need all of the roads we currently have, we can get rid of some of them." I don't know if that's true, even with reduced demand, there are a lot of small towns that only have one main road going in or out of them. (I also am from Iowa.)
[+] [-] markbnj|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigtunacan|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bduerst|10 years ago|reply
How does the maintenance per mile between gravel roads and paved roads compare? Does this article apply to both?
[+] [-] debacle|10 years ago|reply
You also need to take into account that many of these roads are used to transport agricultural products, so the roads are in effect an agricultural subsidy (though not necessarily a bad one).
[+] [-] blhack|10 years ago|reply
I also grew up in Iowa, and the difference between the gravel roads I took to get to my friends houses there, and the gravel roads we have here in AZ is night and day.
[+] [-] sprucely|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] feld|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyre|10 years ago|reply
You obviously haven't lived on a gravel road in the middle of nowhere. People book through there are much faster than 50mph. ;)
[+] [-] jdhendrickson|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omouse|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryen|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eveningcoffee|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] w1ntermute|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cjslep|10 years ago|reply
So while laudable, it would be very nice if North Carolina followed suit with its ~79,000 miles of maintained roads (largest of any state) [1]. But I doubt that would happen, my friend at NCDOT says the culture emphasizes building new roads (or the ones that get wiped out by hurricanes out on the outer banks), and change intersections in a manner that borders on the whimsical.
We like to build roads in challenging places, it seems [2].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Primary_Highway_System
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Highway_System
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Highway_12
[+] [-] gtCameron|10 years ago|reply
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/
[+] [-] programminggeek|10 years ago|reply
The same thing happened with Railroads during their heyday. I remember seeing an old railroad map with stops at all these small towns in Nebraska. Now, railroads are almost entirely commercial with very few passenger stops in small towns.
It makes sense that at some point you just don't have the need for so many roads. If more people move to urban or even suburban city centers, things like public transportation, ride sharing, Uber, and even self-driving vehicles start to make a lot of sense and cut down a lot on driving volume and the need for roads.
[+] [-] angersock|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kylec|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|10 years ago|reply
As long as those drivers can afford the tax burden to maintain the aging infrastructure, sure.
[+] [-] darkstar999|10 years ago|reply
What kind of roads would they abandon? I didn't click through to all the references, but this article doesn't give any solutions.
[+] [-] sophacles|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ocschwar|10 years ago|reply
Iowa's road map was drawn from afar, before any surveyors could look at it, so there are a lot of bridges keeping the road grid continuous over rivers, creeks and dry streambeds.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jsonne|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] raldi|10 years ago|reply
I'm really curious about whether this has happened in San Francisco.
[+] [-] vl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gremlinsinc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dredmorbius|10 years ago|reply
By 2010- 2012 or so, actual fuel use was ~50% of year 2000 forecast estimates.
[+] [-] mark-r|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] cossatot|10 years ago|reply
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=19191
[+] [-] closetnerd|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CalRobert|10 years ago|reply
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 people walking, cyclists, vehicles stopping often, etc,? Maybe 15 makes more sense.
Of course, not giving a license to just anyone with a pulse would be a start. My grandmother (lovely woman, but 91 and clearly past her driving years) failed her written driving test a few weeks ago. What did the DMV do? They _extended_ her license another two months, for reasons that escape me. "You can continue to drive despite a demonstrated ignorance of driving law" is pretty much what we're saying there.
Also, California is big. A lot of it probably resembles Iowa more than SF in terms of road infrastructure - ever head out to the more remote parts?
[+] [-] Sanddancer|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dataker|10 years ago|reply
Relying on friends and "taxis", I had to go through negative temperatures to get a simple can of soda.
After that, I could never complain about BART.
[+] [-] bkjelden|10 years ago|reply
But on the plus side, cars are a lot easier to own in those areas. Parking is usually free/cheap. Traffic is very low, etc.
[+] [-] ashmud|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AcerbicZero|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] scarmig|10 years ago|reply
They're not decorative.
[+] [-] ams6110|10 years ago|reply