On Wed. May 10, 2006 there is a public meeting the Iowa DOT is holding in regards to the upcoming changes to I-29, between the Floyd Blvd & Riverside Blvd interchanges.

Part of the current river front multi-use recreational trail is on the DOT right of way between the Missouri River & the interstate. The DOT wants to add a 3rd lane on each side of I-29. In doing so they will either take the trail away & not put it back or re-route it to the other side which is no nearly as scenic & will be right along side the rail road tracks. Which will not be a very pleasent place to ride because of the noise from a freight train.

The Siouxland Trails Foundation is going to attend the meeting to protect the trail to the best of our ability. We will voice all of our concerns & opposition to this idea.

Here is some of the things that may help protect the trail:
1. The amount of people that use it on a daily basis.
2. It is part of the historical Lewis & Clark Route.
3. For many this is the only easy & safe link between the westen edge & downtown Sioux City.
4. There will be a questions as to whether or not I-29 really needs to be expanded. We do not have a rush hour here. The only time traffic is at a crawl is when they have one lane blocked due to construction, which is not that often. There is no grid lock on a daily basis. This entire community, including all of the blanket communites equal maybe a total of 105,000 at best. Not a lot of traffic on I-29 to worry about.

If we need to we will contact the Iowa Bicycle Coalition for help to see what they can do.

I will welcome any other ideas that I can take to the meeting to help the trails foundations cause in opposing this foolish venture by the DOT.

The DOT wants to add a 23rd lane on each side of I-29.

46 lanes of traffic! No wonder you have no rush hour. And to think that we have to ride chip seal in Texas because there's not enough highway money. I'm gonna have to write my congressman about this.

Oops, sorry, should say 3rd lane.

If they widen the road will they have to use eminent domain to take edges from citzens' land? I mention this because if you wish to oppose making the road bigger the best attack is to raise the eminent domain issue. Private citizens have become irate about its use of late because of the Kelo v. New London case originating in New London, CT last summer. You'll have more friends if people find out their land will be reduced as a result of the expansion, even if the state plans on paying. And they have a right to be heard if the state wants to take part of their land for the highway. No one deserves to have their land taken for an un-needed lane of traffic.

If they widen the road will they have to use eminent domain to take edges from citzens' land? I mention this because if you wish to oppose making the road bigger the best attack is to raise the eminent domain issue. Private citizens have become irate about its use of late because of the Kelo v. New London case originating in New London, CT last summer. You'll have more friends if people find out their land will be reduced as a result of the expansion, even if the state plans on paying. And they have a right to be heard if the state wants to take part of their land for the highway. No one deserves to have their land taken for an un-needed lane of traffic.

I believe the OP stated that the trail was already on DOT right of way. I assume this means that the DOT already owns the land and no eminent domain is required.

I believe the OP stated that the trail was already on DOT right of way. I assume this means that the DOT already owns the land and no eminent domain is required.


Is this part of the expansion or the whole thing that is on the right of way? I'm not clear on whether he meant part, most, or all. If it's all then no eminent domain and there won't be as many people to support.

The part of the trail that I know for sure is on the DOT right of way is the section between the Hamilton Blvd & Riverside Blvd interchanges.

The section from Hamilton to Floyd Blvd's are far enough off of the interstate to not be affected by this. This sections also has a roadway called Chris Larson Rd, the Anderson Dance Pavillion, the Arogsy Casino, the Sgt Floyd Museum & Welcome Center, the Lewis & Clark Interpritive Center, the Sioux City Marina, the public boat launch, a resteurant & soon a new hotel, plus Chris Larson Park. All of this stretches from Floyd almost all the way to Hamilton. But not so far as to be affected by the DOT's project. All of this is public property, except for the casino but it is a public establishment. The area is called the Sioux City River Front. It is a really nice area that thankfully won't be affected by the DOT.

As I said it is the section from Hamilton to Riverside that will be affected. This section is really close to the interstate with nothing but an embankment, a fence & guard rails seperating the 2. The trail is at a low enough elevation from the interstate to not be affected by traffic & the high enough from the surface of the water to not be effected by any flooding that might happen. It really is a pretty & scenic ride along the trail.

My opinion is if they're going to force someone to move they should move the damn rail road elsewhere, not the trail.

There is no concern of eminent domain anywhere along the trail. At least not to residents & I doubt the commercial businesses have anything to worry about.

Interesting thing is Sioux City was just named one of Iowa's Great Places. Part of the reason is the improving trail system that has a lot of potential to be expanded upon. Now the DOT wants to take it away. Sioux City beat cities like Des Moines to ber named a Great Place. As I said there is a lot of potential here. We have no where to go but up in terms of community improvments.

Expanding the interstate is not an improvment. This much I learned from reading Asphaly Nation.

One of the things the Siouxland Trails Foundation will be doing this year is a survey of the existing city street bike route system & the potential for new bike routes on the roadways. The philosophy we are going to use is called Complete Streets.

While there is not prescribed design for Complete Streets a C.S. is a roadway that accomidates motor vehicles, pedestrians & bicycles.

Right now the section of I-29 between Hamilton & Riverside could be considered a Complete Street. If the trail is taken away it will cease to be that & only accomidate motor vehicles.

After learning what a Complete Street is I realized never before had an interstate been or could be considered such. Granted I have not looked into or researched this but this section of I-29 could be the only interstate in the country that could be considered a Complete Street.