Nebraska Roads (Omaha, Lincoln, Grand Island: home, to move, transportation)

[downthathighway]

Originally Posted by Chris19

I find Nebraska to have decent roads but wish that a few streches would be widened. I personally would like to see US 81 widened between Yankton, SD and Norfolk and from Columbus to York. Also, NE 35 from South Sioux City to Norfolk and the Heartland Expressway in Western Nebraska.

I find I-80 to be nice and smooth and most other streches to be pleasant to drive. I do not like driving on US 20 in South Sioux City (rough in spots). Most roads I come across in Nebraska appear to be well-maintained or in good condition.

I find it wierd that Nebraska has just one interstate and South and North Dakota each having two a piece and Wyoming and Montana having even more.

I recall a trivia question a few years ago, Nebraska is the ONLY state in lower 48 that lacks a N-S Interstate. (Bypasses and loops into Lincoln, Omaha & S. Sioux don't count)
I do not see the roads in Nebraska being too bad either. They are much much better than what I used to drive in Michigan, 'Orange Barrel' capital. Roads all potholes, under construction or as soon as they were rebuilt, then being repaired again. Always seems to be the same contractors and unions working on their roads, they 'advertise' proudly at construction sites.
Norfolk has been waiting for years to get 4 lane access to the rest of the state and to an interstate( 35 to So. Sioux & 81 up to Yankton) When/if those roads are done, Norfolk will really be booming, being the only large town in NE Nebraska.

[star_gazer]

Well... technically... I'd say at LEAST Maine (not a real surprise) and Nevada would fall under the category of having no N-S interstate.

It would have made no sense to put I-29 on the Minnesota side opposite North/South Dakota because of the presence of these states largest cities... and it would have made no sense to put I-29 on the Nebraska side... because of the presence of Sioux City and Council Bluffs. So, I don't think it's like Nebraska was snubbed by the feds or anything... it just didn't make sense for a N-S segment.

There are actually alot of other states in which one could argue there is basically no 'N-S' or 'E-W' interstate as well... with only small segments which don't connect one end of a state to the opposite end.

[downthathighway]

Originally Posted by star_gazer

Well... technically... I'd say at LEAST Maine (not a real surprise) and Nevada would fall under the category of having no N-S interstate.

It would have made no sense to put I-29 on the Minnesota side opposite North/South Dakota because of the presence of these states largest cities... and it would have made no sense to put I-29 on the Nebraska side... because of the presence of Sioux City and Council Bluffs. So, I don't think it's like Nebraska was snubbed by the feds or anything... it just didn't make sense for a N-S segment.

There are actually alot of other states in which one could argue there is basically no 'N-S' or 'E-W' interstate as well... with only small segments which don't connect one end of a state to the opposite end.

It is obvious I-29 could not be practical West of the Missouri through Nebraska thus I did not say as much. That little loop of I-76 into Colorado was designated as N-S by the Feds to ensure Nebraska had a N-S Interstate (all 3 miles). Because of the vast length to traverse E-W the N-S routes proposed were not funded. US 81 and 275 were proposed 40 years ago, They were thinking of future(now) needs.
But what do I know?
When I saw that trivia a few years back, I DID do a little research.
Nevada DOES have a major NS Interstate, I-15, vital to Las Vegas. Though that Interstate does not traverse the entire state, only S. Nevada where Vegas is. Maine lacks an E-W Interstate, all the major Interstates and Toll Roads are N-S.
Nebraska Roads: The Roads Log

[tpabes]

Originally Posted by star_gazer

Contrast the widening of I-80 to 3 lanes between Omaha and Lincoln to a Phoenix and Tucson stretch of I-10 which is still 2 lanes!?! Unbelieveable... I actually think we probably could have spent the money on better things.

Well from what I hear Arizona is way behind on roads infrstructure, especially in Phoenix, so maybe it isn't on the priority board yet. You also have to account for truck traffic, overall I would say widening I-80 between the cities was a smart project. Now west of Lincoln, I'm not to sure, maybe to York, but I don't see it feasible to go west of there for awhile. It probably won't happen anyway because of lack of funds. Also the plan was eventually to go to Minden exit in like 2035, I always wondered why they wouldn't plan on going the extra nine miles to Kearney.

Nebraska roads seem to be pretty decent compared to most states, but who knows what the future holds. I remember in Texas parts of I-35 were privately maintained, does anyone knows how this work. Is it just the government paying a company to do this? Might have to do some research. Nebraska needs to go some out of the box thinking for funding. Maybe we should sell naming rights to I-80 like they do stadiums. You could take the Viagra freeway from Lincoln to Omaha, we could let them paint a big Viagra emblem on the road and if you drive on it for more than 4 hours we make you pull over and consult medical help!!!!!

[Chris19]

I have two theoretical ideas. One would be to have I-76 follow I-80 to North Platte and have it go northeast through Broken Bow, Norfolk, NE, Yankton, SD, Sioux Falls, SD and up to Minneapolis, MN. It certainly improve transportation between Minneapolis and Denver.

Another idea would be having a freeway starting in Omaha and follow 275 up to Norfolk and go up through O'Niell, Winner, SD and meet up with US 83/I-90 juction in Vivian, SD or have the freeway go from O'Niell through Bassett, Valentine, Martin, SD and cross the Badlands up to Kadoka or Wall. It will be handy for those in the Omaha and Lincoln area to visit the Black Hills area and will help Rapid City, SD.

[tpabes]

Actually a state senator proposed a few years ago an interstate from Sioux City to McCook to spur development. Of course it never even got a sniff because of funding issues.

[Chris19]

Originally Posted by tpabes

Actually a state senator proposed a few years ago an interstate from Sioux City to McCook to spur development. Of course it never even got a sniff because of funding issues.

Is it called the Snowbird Trail? I have read about that idea and I understand that it is more in the concept phase. Other than improvements on NE 35 in the next five or so years, I do not forsee much else happening for ten years. It would take time to push the issue and then do the environmental studies and get the funding lined up to build the road.

In South Dakota, the Heartland Expressway (from Rapid City to the Neb. border), US 83 (from Pierre to I-90), SD 37 (from Huron to Mitchell), and US 12 (from Aberdeen to I-29) were pushed as ideas heavily in the early 1990s and most of the highway was built in the 2001-2006 time frame with stretches of the Hearland Expressway being worked on in South Dakota (which most of it is done but some work is being done around and south of Hot Springs).

If the proposed highway goes to McCook, then the interstate should go to Colby, KS to hook up with I-70. From my perspective of being from Sioux Falls area, this will be nice. It would cut at least 150 miles off of a 700-mile trip to Colorado Springs and would save at least two hours off of an eleven-hour trip. It would encourage more people from Eastern South Dakota, Minnesota, Northern Iowa, Wisconsin, and Upper Michigan (and possibly the Canadians from Manitoba and Western Ontario) to travel through Nebraska more often.

This would help a number of smaller towns affected with people stopping for gas, food, RV supplies, and lodging. This would be good sale tax revenue for the small towns and additional economic opportunities such as transportation-related businesses and major employers (locating with better highway access).

I proposed similar ideas in the Highway Ideas post in the South Dakota forum and would like to see better connections between South Dakota and Nebraska and better connections from Sioux Falls to Des Moines and Watertown/Aberdeen to Minneapolis.

Funding may be a challenge. The leaders in the 1950, including Eisenhower, had a bold idea called the Interstate idea. They found a way to make it work. Why not have bold ideas and find the creativity and ingenuity to make it work and come up with creative solutions. The "can do" attitude can certainly help Nebraska, South Dakota, and other Midwestern state forge forward in good shape in the 21st century.

[downthathighway]

Originally Posted by Chris19

I proposed similar ideas in the Highway Ideas post in the South Dakota forum and would like to see better connections between South Dakota and Nebraska and better connections from Sioux Falls to Des Moines and Watertown/Aberdeen to Minneapolis.

.

I am surprised more work has not been done on US 81. It seems an almost necessary link to Interstates and other communities for Columbus, Norfolk, and Yankton. It also would come close enough to Lincoln and Vermillion to be a 'shortcut' to UN or USD.

[SCGranny]

I live in what was once a very rural part of the State. After the Interstate was built thru here in the 70's, little businesses sprung up to cater to the travelers. Then FL had it's Baby-boomer boom, and suddenly we are being developed at a prodigious rate. The problem is that property taxes do not pay for infrastructure improvements - they never have and never will, because if they did they would be too high for most of us to pay. Development and growth come with a very high price, and you may not be willing to pay it once you know all of it. It isn't just the people who come - it is their prejudices, their attitudes, their good and bad and their demands that it be just like where they left. This means that they will demand all sorts of commercial growth, as well as roads and recreation and police and fire protection that will adversely impact the finances of any rural area. This also means that they will ordinance out your backyard garden, your backyard chickens, or that horse you have next door on your 2 acres, because they don't like the smell/proximity/noise. They want rural - but only with fluffy bunnies and cute things.

You have to elect savvy people who have seen what bad development can do to destroy an area, and who know to charge developers up front for every single improvement to the infrastructure. We were nothing but trees and swamp with an interstate running thru us, and you would not believe the number of people who came thru with "developments" that they expected rural people to pay for! We instead made them all sign PDD (Planned Development District) agreements to 'donate' land inside their developments for greenspace and drainage and recreation and schools, as well as to charge impact fees per house to pay for the increased demands - 11 different accounts, police, fire, roads, etc. They had to build their own internal roads as well, and pay our town to hire engineers and building inspectors to supervise their construction. Since the monies came directly to us, we could hire whomever we chose - and we hired the people that would make them toe the line. Because of this we are able to add on an interstate exchange, widen the interstate where necessary, as well as provide all of the infrastructure and land for that development's increased demands on our infrastructure without impacting current citizens. No agreement, no construction. Period.

If you want development, you will have to give up a lot. Our neighboring county did not charge anything, and is now a mass of hardscape and unconnected developments, and will have to literally double the taxes to pay for the new peoples' demands on infrastructure, especially roads. Because the folks that developed were not required to set aside properties for roads, they are now charging the DOT per square foot for property to widen or add roadways. One fella got over $1 million for a strip 97 feet long, and five feet wide, of property that bordered the highway. This is why it costs so much to improve or build roads.

And ya'll wonder why I want to move to a place with NO interstates, no chance of development! This is hard work and it takes some very firm resolve from elected officials to make all incoming developers with dreams to pay fairly for the impacts that they will cause.

[Chris19]

Very good point, SC Granny. I am not opposed to new development, as long as it is done right. The developers of newly built areas should bear the cost of new roads and other items so that it does not place an unfair burden on rural residents or older parts of a community (who also need decent roads and infrastructure too). PPDs are a good idea and allow growth to happen, but in an orderly fashion and is better financially and socially in the long run.

In the Sioux Falls area, Lincoln and Minnehaha counties limit rural residential development outside of city limits to one house per 40 acres and have other restrictions to prevent runaway rural development and to shift growth to the cities and towns, who are more efficient and better able to manage the growth. Also, it keeps farmland from being devoured by 1 plus acres acreages as opposed to having plats on 1/3 acre plots of land more common in town (which utlizes the land better). Sioux Falls has developers share the burden of putting in infrastructure and there is a plan for the developers to pay a fee to the city that would go towards road improvements and placement of water mains. The developers in the area often set aside land for park. The city and local governments have planning committes in place to allow growth but keep it from being too hard to manage. Many cities in the Sioux Falls area have a comprehensive plan determining where growth should go and how the land will be zoned. The local governments work with developers but they scrutinize the develops along with the planning commissions and committees to make sure that there is logic and it is done right.

I bet that the neighboring county did not have much for zoning and planning on a local level. The thought of haphazard development and taxes having to go up seem like gross mismanagement to me. I bet that the people wish that the growth would have been planned better. There needs to be a joint effort by local municpalities and counties to work together on development.

I think with planning and common sense, there can be growth (good growth) and still a preservation of an area's character and integrity. The runaway development, I agree, is not good.