According to local lore,* four decades ago, the federal government was trying to figure out where to put Interstate Highway 29. The feds were sure they wanted I-29 to connect Sioux Falls and Watertown; the only question was which way to go. The main options were to angle northwest toward Madison then straight north to Watertown or go straight north to Brookings then angle northwest to South Dakota's Rising Star. Madison's city fathers considered fighting to bring I-29 here, but then said no way, out of fear that fast, four-lane access to our neighbors would funnel Madison's shopping and sales tax dollars straight to Sioux Falls.
The result: I-29 as you see it today. While a claim of causation calls for much deeper study, a comparison of census data (neatly compiled at wikipedia) shows that since the construction of I-29, Brookings County has experienced population growth in every decade since 1960, with a total growth of 40.8%, (from 20,046 in 1960 to 28,220 in 2000). Over the same period, Lake County lost population in every decade but the 1990s, with a net decline of 4.0% (from 11,764 in 1960 to a low of 10,550 in 1990, recovering to 11,276 by 2000).
Now I recognize the complete lack of proof of causation there. I-29 was completed in the 1970s, and I include the 1960s population data to note that the population trends above might already have been well underway before the concrete was poured and cured. But I offer the hypothesis that access to a nice four-lane highway is a positive selling point for a community trying to draw tourists, residents, and businesses. Just imagine: had Madison drawn I-29 its way, might we have lured Twin City Fan in 1984, or the Lowe's store a couple years ago? Might DSU have had an easier time recruiting students following its mission change in the 1980s?
Coulda woulda shoulda—who has time for that? Not the new generation of Lake County's business leaders. Evidently 30 years of local folks going to Sioux Falls to shop even without I-29 right at our doorstep has convinced the local business community that it has nothing to lose and everything to gain from a better transportation link to Sioux Falls. With increased commuter and recreational traffic from development around the lakes, plus increased truck traffic from the Dakota Ethanol plant by Wentworth, there's a push to expand Highway 34 from two lanes to four east from Madison all the way to I-29 east of Colman. The "Four for the Future" committee has been lobbying the state Department of Transportation since last April to approve this project. The committee has numbers showing that Highway 34 from Wentworth to I-29 has more traffic than some stretches of South Dakota highways that have already been expanded to four lanes.
Alas, even after Lake County did Governor Rounds the favor of ousting District 8 Democratic legislator Gerry Lange last November in favor of the GOP's next big thing Russ Olson (who also helps lead Four for the Future), the governor told a deputation from the Madison Chamber last winter that the state just doesn't have the money for expanding Highway 34. Secretary of Transportation Judy Payne has been saying since last summer that South Dakota already has a backlog of $600 million worth of road projects. Without intervention more divine than our beatifically smiling governor is willing to offer, Madison won't see four lanes to Colman for 15 years, if not longer.
In the meantime, though, given the argument from Four for the Future that the number one reason for expanding Highway 34 is safety, maybe we need to think of some alternative solutions. If we can't get the governor or the federal government to shower funds upon us, what could we do short of a full four-lane highway to keep accidents from happening?
The simplest solution could be imposing speed limits in the highest traffic areas. Lower the speed limit to 55 or lower on the three-mile stretch of Highway 34 from 461st Avenue to 464th Avenue. That area includes the ethanol plant and the main turns to Chester, Wentworth, and The Lakes Golf Course. Speed limit signs would cost a few hundred dollars, and the speed zones would generate revenue that could be put toward the ultimate highway expansion project. (Our friends in Colman—speed limit 35—could attest to the money-making power of a couple speed limit signs.)
If we can get some highway dollars, maybe we can look at turning lanes at the key intersections. Widen the road a little, move the stripes a quarter mile on either side of the major intersections, and presto! We can move the big corn trucks and boat trailers in and out of traffic with significantly less disruption of traffic flow.
I know neither lower speed limits nor turning lanes are as good as four lanes of freewheeling fun. A four-lane highway would add another ace (or at least a jack) to our hand in the economic development game. But if we can't shake loose the funds for economic purposes, let's do what we can for safety first.
----------------------------------------
*For years I've heard this story about local isolationism in the 1960s. Unfortunately, I've never found any documentary confirmation of the story. The Madville Times welcomes submissions from anyone who was there or has old newspapers, meeting notes, or correspondence that would eithr confirm or deny this interesting tidbit of local history.
Update: Madison Daily Leader editor Jon Hunter provides exactly that documentary confirmation!
Drinking Liberally Update (11/15/2024)
-
In Politics: Nationally: The Election is over and the wrong side won. I
have nothing to contribute to the barrels of ink being used by Pundits to
explain a...
3 days ago
From Ivan Baker, corporate services consultant, Pollina Corporate Real Estate, "There's Profit in Locating Off the Beaten Path," January, 2003:
ReplyDelete"Well-maintained two-lane highway interconnectors within 60–100 miles of interstate highways often provide the interstate 'access' needed, as long as other critical location factors are achieved."
Proceed with caution, though: among "other critical location factors," Baker cites lots of government incentives. We want business, but we also don't want to mortgage our tax base to big corporations.