From Rep. Linda Upmeyer –
There is no doubt that quality, reliable, and safe infrastructure is a key element for Iowa’s economic growth and prosperity. It is our vast network of roads that allows for the movement of goods and people on a daily basis. A high quality transportation system is essential in serving the day-to-day needs of motorists across the state. Iowans should have an assurance that our public infrastructure is dependable and trustworthy. With summer vacation travel coming to an end, I thought now would be a good opportunity to have a discussion about the condition of our state’s roads and infrastructure.
Iowa’s public roadway system is comprised of over 114,000 miles of roadways with approximately 25,000 bridges. Nationally, Iowa ranks fifth in the number of bridges and 13th in miles of roadway, yet the state ranks 30th in population and 23rd in land area.
We are fortunate to have an extensive roadway system throughout Iowa, which allows for individuals to enjoy our rolling hills and beautiful scenery, in addition to maintaining an efficient flow of commerce. However, maintaining these roadways comes with a hefty price tag, and due to many factors such as aging infrastructure, decreased buying power, changing demands on the system (increased large vehicle travel) and severe weather (mainly floods), the cost of sustaining our vast network of roads is only expected to rise year to year. At the same time, increased fuel efficiency and alternative fuel use is making it difficult to sustain the traditional revenue stream.
The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT), reports that much of Iowa’s public roadway system was built or modernized in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. This means there is currently a wave of infrastructure needs that require significant updates and reinvestment due to a road’s limited lifecycle. In fact, a 2006 study of the Road Use Tax Fund (RUTF)- the fund used to pay for our state’s infrastructure needs- projected a $27.7 billion shortfall in revenue to meet all current and future infrastructure needs over the next 20 years, with a funding shortfall of $200 million per year for our most critical needs. With each passing year, we fall further and further behind in our obligation to maintaining our public roadways.
The evidence is clear that additional funding is needed to improve the safety of our roadways, but the source of revenue remains up for debate. I realize a lot of Iowans have concerns about increasing our state’s fuel tax to pay for our infrastructure needs. I also know the conditions of our roads are deteriorating. We must figure out an ongoing, sustainable funding mechanism to meet the needs of our aging roads and bridges.
Alternatives to increasing the fuel tax that have recently been mentioned include, but are not limited to, earmarking a portion of our state’s sales tax revenue, raising the one-time registration fee for vehicles, or using surplus gambling revenue to fund our roadways. The Governor has recently asked Paul Trombino, the Director of the DOT, and his team to review all options for possible transportation funding and report back to him with their recommendations.
20 thoughts on “Upmeyer’s “thoughts turn to our infrastructure needs””
First, I can tell you 50 tomatoes a year, at least for myself is quite low.
I can tell you it is labor intensive since they require attention and planning to have a good crop. From seedlings, to transplanting and proper care you need understand what the plant needs, how it grows and best prospers. How to fight pests and blight without chemicals. And not every variety will suit all tastes or dishes.
Lastly, not every property has the proper soil or space to grow tomatoes correctly, at least with any kind of expectation of decent yields or taste.
Then of course you need to learn to can those tomatoes in a way to retain their taste and nutrients. Canning takes time to do it right. Many a good tasting tomato is ruined by poor canning.
Put government in charge of food? I think they made a movie about that. It was called “The Hunger Games”
HAHAHA Compete with government. That’s a good one.
The bottle and the price.
It wasn’t a yield. I was pointing out that they are two different products and priced differently.
Taste! San Pellegrino versus the ummmmm stuff in Mason City is the difference between night and day. You can embalm me with tap water, but you cannot make me drink it.
I have never bought water that comes out of a tap from a private company. Tap water is not bottled water. And yes, water is water.
And I have never bought it.
Peter, the point of contention is that definition of infrastructure, or at the very least, it’s common convention.
No one is disputing that food is important to humans. However, it has been, and continues to be a matter of private enterprise to supply, and up to the individual to gather.
Given recent statistics by states like California, Wisconsin, and North Dakota, one acre of land might not be sufficient to feed a single person for a year. Much less a greenhouse or two.
That represents a lot of labor, not only just to raise crop, but process it. Typically, when historians look at home live in rural states, they noted that such labor was sufficient to entail the time of one person a great deal of the day.
Given the evolution of our society, not only is that historic pattern quite unlikely today, most lack the discipline required.
@Observer-what you say makes good sense as usual. The reason people used to have as many children as they did (and rural Mexicans still do) is because they needed the help raising their own food. It would be almost impossible today with the work ethic of the young people. You need the big farms to pay for the equipment needed to make the job easier. As good a idea as it is that Peter has I don’t think it would work here anymore. Other parts of the world maybe, but not here. Peter-you need to think about what I just wrote.
Peter, what about the beef, pork, chicken meat that I neeed to go with that salad and tomatoes that I can grow here for less then half a year? Are you also planning on a milk cow, a few head of cattle, and pigs and chicken coops in Clear Lake too? You said “this is what we need to do when the trucks stop rolling.” Are we also going to be alowed to do our own meat processing at our homes? Or, do you want us to limit our diet to salads when the trucks stop rolling in your world?
Infrastructure – taxpayer funded – more than a few rich people with lobbyists create these positions that cost about 1.5 million dollars per year per job created and then take a solandria. Phooey – put the money into private small busisness and watch our economy grow.
OK Peter L., Lets talk about your comment: “I respectfully disagree with Linda’s narrow definition of infrastructure, and would move to include greenhouses, solariums, and other sources of year long food production.”
Is that really a function of government? I don’t think so. There is a large green house for sale in Mason City across the street from the high school. They went out of business. If you think it is a good idea, why don’t you buy it and don’t ask us to buy it for you. They couldn’t make it there because of market forces but maybe you could. I say go for it Peter, it is there for your taking and ready to go but don’t expect the tax payers to buy it for you!
@John-That large green house you were talking about couldn’t make it due to markets forces, but more than that was the depression. Some called it a recession. It was a damn shame as it had been there for a long, long time. It had the third or fourth generation of that family making a living there and a nicer family you will not find. They did a lot for the people of this city over the rears and look at the thanks they got for it. What a shame.
I agree LVS. I didn’t want to mention thier name in a rebutle to Peter L.
LVS, I loved the place and nicer people you will never meet. It is a shame that another Mason City staple is now gone.
LVS, their plant stock was the best in the area, almost no disease, or bugs. While understanding some items requested were a bit exotic, I appreciate their efforts.
That kind of service cannot be found at many other retailers today.
I will also agree with John, government should not be in the business of building things like greenhouses except perhaps for research (in some cases there are private companies who do a great deal of research both for private entities and Academia). That’s why there is private enterprise.
Peter, again in response, I do not diasagree with your idea but you stated, “Unfortunately I do not possess the money to purchase the property or I would.” that is the free market Peter. If you don’t have the funds, find someone that will invest in your idea and give them a business plan that will pay off and you will be up and running, no problem.
Until that happens, stay out of my back pocket as a tax payer. Government money is not free, we pay for it. If I want to throw more tomatoes in the ground I will but I will not ask you to pay for them.
@John and Observer-I too did not want to mention their name as I went to school and church with both of them. Back in the day I worked in the greenhouse and Skyland Pool when I was a lot younger. They were very nice, hard working people.
Peter, you seem to respond to your own posts so many times that you become, how should I say this…. OK I won’t. We will still need the roads for other goods and services. I am not saying that it is not good to grow food. Don’t expect me to pay for it, buy a green house and do it on your own if you think it is a good idea.