California's poor governing makes bad roads expensive...LOL!

[NE2]

You're an idiot...LOL!

[nexus73]

Thanks for the shade NE2....LOL!

Rick

[AsphaltPlanet]

But the plan collided with the burgeoning environmental movement. The Sierra Club and others sued to block the project in 1972, sparking an epic legal and political fight that reached a climax in 1996 when county voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure in favor of a tunnel.

1972, during the tenure of Ronald Reagan, Republican, as governor.

Seeing as the discussion got political and all, LOL.

[coatimundi]

Let me retort!  Since you libs love HuffPost, I believe you'll accept a part of an article from them as the purest Gospel of all.

I'd be a little surprised if anyone here regularly read Huff Post.
Lemme just re-state here: you're not interesting. Your viewpoint is not unique. Your ideas are not unique. You are not interesting and are wasting space. Please, at the least, learn how to properly to use the "quote" BB tag because your posts are confusing.
Say what you want about him, but at least ACSC Scott had somewhat relevant topics in his wastes of space. This is just awful.

Moving away from this failure of the nation's mid-century social and educational system, I wanted to get back to the costs that Caltrans tends to saddle, as well as the sort of unique structure Caltrans tends to have. Someone (not a roadgeek) told me, years ago, that Highway 1 was the most expensive highway to maintain in the country on a per mile basis. Considering the state of the highway on this rainy day during this rainiest of winters, with its multiple closures due to slides, I can see where that idea would come from. The fact is that the section south of me, around the Monterey/SLO County line, does not need to be connected. The relatively small population could be served by roads that cut through easier terrain to reach the coast while the most problematic sections between those minor population centers could be closed. But closing Highway 1 would severely disrupt economic activity in a number of communities on and around the coast in the two counties. So the Caltrans burden there is offset to an extent by the various taxes that the tourism brings in. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the state gets a bit of money from all the stickers, t-shirts and other schwag with the iconic Highway 1 shield. If they're not, then that seems silly to me since it should be trademarked, just as the interstate shields are.

[myosh_tino]

Let me retort!  Since you libs love HuffPost, I believe you'll accept a part of an article from them as the purest Gospel of all.

I think that says it all.

WTF does the HuffPost have to do with this discussion?!?  At no point was the HuffPost mentioned until YOU brought it up.  Was trolling the whole point of this topic?  If so I guess I fell for it hook, line and sinker. LOL.

Mods, please lock this!

[Quillz]

I don't think the miner's spade is copyrighted, actually. Nor are the US highway shields. I see tons of trinket shops selling CA-1 and US-101 stickers, magnets, etc. I don't think there would be as many if they had to give royalties to Caltrans.

[J N Winkler]

Let me retort!  Since you libs love HuffPost, I believe you'll accept a part of an article from them as the purest Gospel of all.

I don't ordinarily read HuffPost, since I have my doubts about its reliability, but I'd observe the article you are quoting is syndicated from the San Mateo Times.

Now that we have established the Sixties as the start time for the project and 1972 as the year those environazis from the Sierra Club came out of the mist to sue, sue and sue some more, you can CLEARLY see those 40 years are covered.

I linked to a Wikipedia article that gave 1958 as the start of planning for the relocation.  So, yeah, the 40 years are covered, in the same sense the 64 years between Emperor Norton's proclamation and opening of the Bay Bridge are covered.

Now compare that Californicated timeline to the one for the construction of the entire Alcan Highway.  Hey, if you like getting screwed, blued and tattooed for the taxes you pay Winkler, that is your privilege. I prefer a much more efficient performance from my government at all levels.

So you want to go with the Alcan Highway in 1942 as an example of efficient construction?  That was seven months to build a barely motorable road that was not opened to public travel until 1948 and not paved throughout its entire length until several decades later, in part because many segments of the original construction were on top of permafrost that thawed and formed thermokarsts.

One of the purposes of planning is to save money by allowing potential obstacles to initial construction and subsequent trouble-free service (many of which, in the case of roads, are hidden until surveys are done) to be identified early enough to develop efficient ways of tackling them.  If you would like to rush in and build without careful study, I'm more than happy to let you pay for the do-overs.

[Max Rockatansky]

Say what you want about him, but at least ACSC Scott had somewhat relevant topics in his wastes of space. This is just awful.

You know...I agree somewhat (extreme emphasis on somewhat), at times he would have a diamond in the rough about some local level stuff or would say something that would generate some substantial conversations.  Granted it was difficult to understand what the hell he was trying to say sometimes.  I would have been curious to see his thoughts on 41 closing from a mudslide.

Really I'm not getting the point of this thread.  I mean come on...California in general is an easy low hanging target for a lot of things.  Really the conditions of the roads can be spun whatever way by whatever angle someone wants to see things.  I've been critical of road conditions and signage in California on this board before but really there isn't really much to go on here with this thread.  At least some mileage statistics got brought up, that definitely is part of the equation in regards to spending.

On the flip side anyone can probably pick a certain thing about any state DOT to have an issue with.  In Arizona it could have been something like being stingy on road stock or being overly aggressive in pursuing ROW, or you could have something like Oregon with the absurdly low speed limits.  I would still talk California road maintenance over something like Michigan though, those were some brutal winters at the low point when the roads were truly in a dire state of disrepair.

[nexus73]

Let me retort!  Since you libs love HuffPost, I believe you'll accept a part of an article from them as the purest Gospel of all.

I'd be a little surprised if anyone here regularly read Huff Post.
Lemme just re-state here: you're not interesting. Your viewpoint is not unique. Your ideas are not unique. You are not interesting and are wasting space. Please, at the least, learn how to properly to use the "quote" BB tag because your posts are confusing.
Say what you want about him, but at least ACSC Scott had somewhat relevant topics in his wastes of space. This is just awful.

Moving away from this failure of the nation's mid-century social and educational system, I wanted to get back to the costs that Caltrans tends to saddle, as well as the sort of unique structure Caltrans tends to have. Someone (not a roadgeek) told me, years ago, that Highway 1 was the most expensive highway to maintain in the country on a per mile basis. Considering the state of the highway on this rainy day during this rainiest of winters, with its multiple closures due to slides, I can see where that idea would come from. The fact is that the section south of me, around the Monterey/SLO County line, does not need to be connected. The relatively small population could be served by roads that cut through easier terrain to reach the coast while the most problematic sections between those minor population centers could be closed. But closing Highway 1 would severely disrupt economic activity in a number of communities on and around the coast in the two counties. So the Caltrans burden there is offset to an extent by the various taxes that the tourism brings in. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the state gets a bit of money from all the stickers, t-shirts and other schwag with the iconic Highway 1 shield. If they're not, then that seems silly to me since it should be trademarked, just as the interstate shields are.

If I am not interesting to you, don't waste your time reading and responding to my posts!  Simple stuff to learn, know and do. 

Rick

[nexus73]

Let me retort!  Since you libs love HuffPost, I believe you'll accept a part of an article from them as the purest Gospel of all.

I don't ordinarily read HuffPost, since I have my doubts about its reliability, but I'd observe the article you are quoting is syndicated from the San Mateo Times.

Now that we have established the Sixties as the start time for the project and 1972 as the year those environazis from the Sierra Club came out of the mist to sue, sue and sue some more, you can CLEARLY see those 40 years are covered.

I linked to a Wikipedia article that gave 1958 as the start of planning for the relocation.  So, yeah, the 40 years are covered, in the same sense the 64 years between Emperor Norton's proclamation and opening of the Bay Bridge are covered.

Now compare that Californicated timeline to the one for the construction of the entire Alcan Highway.  Hey, if you like getting screwed, blued and tattooed for the taxes you pay Winkler, that is your privilege. I prefer a much more efficient performance from my government at all levels.

So you want to go with the Alcan Highway in 1942 as an example of efficient construction?  That was seven months to build a barely motorable road that was not opened to public travel until 1948 and not paved throughout its entire length until several decades later, in part because many segments of the original construction were on top of permafrost that thawed and formed thermokarsts.

One of the purposes of planning is to save money by allowing potential obstacles to initial construction and subsequent trouble-free service (many of which, in the case of roads, are hidden until surveys are done) to be identified early enough to develop efficient ways of tackling them.  If you would like to rush in and build without careful study, I'm more than happy to let you pay for the do-overs.

Whatever Winkler.  I found the article where I found it.  Got something intelligent to add?  Of course not.  It would take some to contribute some!

Rick

[nexus73]

Let me retort!  Since you libs love HuffPost, I believe you'll accept a part of an article from them as the purest Gospel of all.

I think that says it all.

WTF does the HuffPost have to do with this discussion?!?  At no point was the HuffPost mentioned until YOU brought it up.  Was trolling the whole point of this topic?  If so I guess I fell for it hook, line and sinker. LOL.

Mods, please lock this!

Myosh, thy name is butthurt.  Typical Californian, shut down and shout down what you don't like.  Buddy, those days are over and PC is dead as of Election Day 2016. 

Rick

[NE2]

Conservative meltdown...LOL!

[AlexandriaVA]

Presumably the OP will welcome increased use of toll roads, which is expected to be the new administration's primary means of funding road projects (in order to avoid raising taxes).

[Bickendan]

Let me retort!  Since you libs love HuffPost, I believe you'll accept a part of an article from them as the purest Gospel of all.

I think that says it all.

WTF does the HuffPost have to do with this discussion?!?  At no point was the HuffPost mentioned until YOU brought it up.  Was trolling the whole point of this topic?  If so I guess I fell for it hook, line and sinker. LOL.

Mods, please lock this!

Myosh, thy name is butthurt.  Typical Californian, shut down and shout down what you don't like.  Buddy, those days are over and PC is dead as of Election Day 2016. 

Rick

What the fuck is your problem?

[Rothman]

Ruh roh.  Mod's brought the can of whoop-***.

[LM117]

[jeffandnicole]

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/

This right-wing news URL is now broken, if it ever did actually work.

This is a really awful post. I mean, take out the fiscal conservatism and right-wing slant, and it's still a really bad post. Is the point to convince those of us in California that Caltrans' spending habits are the root of all the state's woes? Then the rest of the post goes on a rant about the minimum wage increase. What does that have to do with roads?

You have to realize with this stuff that you're just harping on traditionally conservative talking points. You're not offering any new insights or information and no one is going to have their mind changed by this. I've heard this exact sort of thing before, as I'm sure most people have. This is not interesting or unique.

Hey, if you have a problem with the link, please do feel free to take it up with the webmaster for the site, mmkay?  Tnx.

Rick

Typically, when informed of a link that doesn't work, most normal people will try to figure out why, or locate another source, to back up what they're talking about.

But, that's just a suggestion. 

[kkt]

Blatant propaganda leads to escalating flame wars... who could have predicted that?

[myosh_tino]

Let me retort!  Since you libs love HuffPost, I believe you'll accept a part of an article from them as the purest Gospel of all.

I think that says it all.

WTF does the HuffPost have to do with this discussion?!?  At no point was the HuffPost mentioned until YOU brought it up.  Was trolling the whole point of this topic?  If so I guess I fell for it hook, line and sinker. LOL.

Mods, please lock this!

Myosh, thy name is butthurt.  Typical Californian, shut down and shout down what you don't like.  Buddy, those days are over and PC is dead as of Election Day 2016. 

Rick

I guess that answers my question... Troll!