News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Westside Parkway & Centennial Corridor (CA 58 realignment, Bakersfield)

Started by bing101, January 07, 2014, 10:51:19 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

BakoCondors

Quote from: sparker on May 24, 2017, 01:32:00 AM
But seriously....have any actual physical plans for the freeway been released as of yet? -- such as will it primarily be at ground level, on a berm, sunk, or a combination of all of the above?  I can't imagine those adjacent property owners being too thrilled with the prospect of a ground-level freeway through their midst (fumes, noise, etc.); it's more than likely that very high sound walls will be an integral part of this project.   

There's quite a bit of data online at http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/gov/depts/public_works/bakersfield_freeways/centennial_corridor.htm, including grades, sound walling etc. for about two-thirds of the route, between the stub end of 58 at Real Rd. and California Ave.


sparker

Quote from: BakoCondors on May 24, 2017, 11:29:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 24, 2017, 01:32:00 AM
But seriously....have any actual physical plans for the freeway been released as of yet? -- such as will it primarily be at ground level, on a berm, sunk, or a combination of all of the above?  I can't imagine those adjacent property owners being too thrilled with the prospect of a ground-level freeway through their midst (fumes, noise, etc.); it's more than likely that very high sound walls will be an integral part of this project.   

There's quite a bit of data online at http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/gov/depts/public_works/bakersfield_freeways/centennial_corridor.htm, including grades, sound walling etc. for about two-thirds of the route, between the stub end of 58 at Real Rd. and California Ave.

Now that's a real roller-coaster profile for such a short distance: looks like coming off the 99 interchange, it's elevated -- then it dips down through the middle of the affected neighborhood, then comes up again on an overpass at California Ave. -- the whole thing can't be more than 0.7-0.8 miles over that stretch.  The only part that's street level is at the midpoint going into and out of the below-grade alignment.  And lots of sound walls!  At this point in time -- and with all the various objections -- this project looks like it's all about the mitigation!  Welcome to roadbuilding 2017!

rte66man

I noticed there are no EB 58 to NB 99 and SB 99 to WB 58 ramps.  Was there a stated reason for omitting those movements or was it a cost savings measure?
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Bobby5280

Maybe they'll add those interchange movements at a later date. It reminds me of when the TX-121 and I-35E stack was first built in Lewisville, TX. Only four of the eight ramp movements were initially built. Now, years later, the other four ramps are being built to complete the five-level stack.

sparker

Quote from: rte66man on May 25, 2017, 09:25:49 AM
I noticed there are no EB 58 to NB 99 and SB 99 to WB 58 ramps.  Was there a stated reason for omitting those movements or was it a cost savings measure?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 25, 2017, 01:52:26 PM
Maybe they'll add those interchange movements at a later date. It reminds me of when the TX-121 and I-35E stack was first built in Lewisville, TX. Only four of the eight ramp movements were initially built. Now, years later, the other four ramps are being built to complete the five-level stack.

Because of the very acute angle at which the 58/Centennial extension alignment curves through the area -- and the need to take as few properties as feasible -- it was decided to omit the EB>NB and SB>WB connectors.  Aside from these issues, it was surmised that much of the eventual through traffic on 58 would be coming from SB I-5 or to NB I-5 and that a "reverse" connector to NB 99 wasn't necessary (and vice-versa as well).  Local traffic to the west side of Bakersfield could continue to use the California Ave. and Stockdale Blvd. interchanges as with current practice (I would predict, given Caltrans practice, that the California Ave. exit from SB CA 99 will have auxiliary signage indicating "TO CA 58 West", with corresponding directional signage on EB 58).

That being said, one set of plans for the connector prior to the one under discussion being adopted (and now cleared!) had ramps extending down the side of the Kern River riverbed east to 99; so there's a possibility that if the need for such connectors emerges in the future, they could be deployed on this alternate alignment (they would have to also bridge the BNSF yard perpendicular to CA 99 as well).  It'd be tricky, a tight fit, and by no means cheap -- but it is within the realm of possibility.     

Bobby5280

They would need to do something like straddle the missing connector ramps over the BNSF yard to CA-99 in the event either or both CA-58 and CA-99 were to receive Interstate designations. In the case of CA-58, I-40 would seem like an eventual, foregone conclusion. I mean, why go to all that trouble upgrading that corridor to Interstate standards completely between I-5 and CA-99 and the existing CA-58 freeway in Bakersfield if it won't have an Interstate designation?

Even without the scenario of building some long ramps over the BNSF rail yard, in the long term Caltrans could buy out the extra property needed to build a complete directional stack interchange at CA-99 and CA-58. That may be less expensive than the BNSF rail yard concept.

Occidental Tourist

Or you could have a surface connector on Truxton with a loop ramp for the 99 north on-ramp and a right turn only off-ramp.  The biggest costs would be the bridge over the canal for the loop ramp and the need to add auxiliary lanes on 99 between Truxton and Rosedale Highway.

Bobby5280

Surface connectors? It wouldn't be freeway/Interstate quality. It would be a way of having a partial exit built for Truxton Ave. In that scenario they would only be able to build a half-diamond exit due to the close proximity of ramps for the California Ave. exit on the other side of the railroad tracks. Any flyover ramps or cloverleaf ramps would require just about as much property acquisition as flyovers from the the limited access concept Sparker described.

Occidental Tourist

#108
If the eastbound to northbound movement was a loop ramp, the only land acquisition would be an easement over the existing canal.  And an auxiliary lane should take care of the proximity of both the California Avenue on-ramp and the Rosedale Highway off-ramp.  Particularly if that loop ramp is metered.

Admittedly, it's not ideal, but it's cheap.  And there are lots of circumstances where interstates use surface routings for seldom-used acute angle interchanges, e.g., southbound 15 to eastbound 40 is an exit to Main Street and two stoplights.

LM117

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 25, 2017, 10:30:53 PMIn the case of CA-58, I-40 would seem like an eventual, foregone conclusion. I mean, why go to all that trouble upgrading that corridor to Interstate standards completely between I-5 and CA-99 and the existing CA-58 freeway in Bakersfield if it won't have an Interstate designation?

Because Caltrans. :pan:

I agree that extending I-40 is a no-brainer, considering CA-58's importance as a major freight corridor and, combined with existing I-40, links the Southeast with the S.F. Bay Area and the Pacific Northwest (via link to I-5), while also acting as a bypass of the heavily congested Los Angeles metro.

I think once the entire corridor between Barstow and I-5 is finished, there will be some movement among local officials along the corridor to extend I-40. Whether or not Caltrans will listen is another matter. Caltrans isn't interested in new interstates except I-710's extension.

If Caltrans had the same attitude as TX and NC, you'd better believe that "Future I-40" signs would be plastered all over CA-58.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

mgk920

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 26, 2017, 12:15:50 AM
Surface connectors? It wouldn't be freeway/Interstate quality. It would be a way of having a partial exit built for Truxton Ave. In that scenario they would only be able to build a half-diamond exit due to the close proximity of ramps for the California Ave. exit on the other side of the railroad tracks. Any flyover ramps or cloverleaf ramps would require just about as much property acquisition as flyovers from the the limited access concept Sparker described.

Well, making the inbound to outbound turns (either direction) at the I-90/94 Edens/Kennedy split on Chicago's northwest side requires using city streets.

:nod:

Mike

sparker

Quote from: LM117 on May 26, 2017, 08:11:47 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 25, 2017, 10:30:53 PMIn the case of CA-58, I-40 would seem like an eventual, foregone conclusion. I mean, why go to all that trouble upgrading that corridor to Interstate standards completely between I-5 and CA-99 and the existing CA-58 freeway in Bakersfield if it won't have an Interstate designation?

Because Caltrans. :pan:

I agree that extending I-40 is a no-brainer, considering CA-58's importance as a major freight corridor and, combined with existing I-40, links the Southeast with the S.F. Bay Area and the Pacific Northwest (via link to I-5), while also acting as a bypass of the heavily congested Los Angeles metro.

I think once the entire corridor between Barstow and I-5 is finished, there will be some movement among local officials along the corridor to extend I-40. Whether or not Caltrans will listen is another matter. Caltrans isn't interested in new interstates except I-710's extension.

If Caltrans had the same attitude as TX and NC, you'd better believe that "Future I-40" signs would be plastered all over CA-58.

This is the reason why any Interstate-designation activity for this or any other CA corridors will likely have to come from the legislative quarter -- likely both state assemblypersons and/or senators from the districts affected by such an action as well as the congressional delegation from the same region -- prompted, of course, by local promoters and officials.  Caltrans won't take the lead on this for this simple reason that they don't want to add additional projects that will disrupt their priorities (they function via a 6-year STIP with projects selected years in advance -- and have enough trouble just keeping to published schedules).  But while they'll initially piss and moan if indeed a corridor is established without their input, they'll subsequently go about their business getting it done -- although projects to do so will be spread over time. 

vdeane

Of course, even if it gets done, that doesn't mean they'll bother with the paperwork and resigning once it's complete (see: CA 210, CA 905).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

sparker

Quote from: vdeane on May 26, 2017, 10:31:53 PM
Of course, even if it gets done, that doesn't mean they'll bother with the paperwork and resigning once it's complete (see: CA 210, CA 905).

True, but here we're dealing with a 150-mile intercity corridor, not a truck route/border crossing or an extension of a 3di.  If there's enough political pressure amassed to get this done, you can bet your life savings there will be follow-through that will override Caltrans' lack of such.  Tellingly, there never have been "Future I-210" signs along the state-signed portion of that corridor, although there is (or was as of 2010, the last time I was down that way) "Future I-905" signage along that corridor; IIRC, it was eastbound just east of I-805 and, curiously, was in the form of a white project information sign rather than the standard green stand-alone roadside rectangle.  Nevertheless, in the case of those two routes, the benefits were there regardless of the designation; it's likely that CA 58 will remain a "hybrid" facility (part freeway, part expressway) unless Interstate designation is sought.
 
What I'm getting at here is that while Caltrans probably won't actively seek out Interstate designation for CA 58 or any other corridor, they will allow themselves to be dragged kicking & screaming into the activity once political support for the concept has been demonstrated.  Standing by while getting dragged underneath the bus isn't their nature -- and if the support for Interstate designation is both reasonably vocal and relentless, they'll probably even try to take some of the credit; above all else, they're survivors! 

mrsman

Quote from: sparker on May 27, 2017, 02:40:32 AM
Quote from: vdeane on May 26, 2017, 10:31:53 PM
Of course, even if it gets done, that doesn't mean they'll bother with the paperwork and resigning once it's complete (see: CA 210, CA 905).

True, but here we're dealing with a 150-mile intercity corridor, not a truck route/border crossing or an extension of a 3di.  If there's enough political pressure amassed to get this done, you can bet your life savings there will be follow-through that will override Caltrans' lack of such.  Tellingly, there never have been "Future I-210" signs along the state-signed portion of that corridor, although there is (or was as of 2010, the last time I was down that way) "Future I-905" signage along that corridor; IIRC, it was eastbound just east of I-805 and, curiously, was in the form of a white project information sign rather than the standard green stand-alone roadside rectangle.  Nevertheless, in the case of those two routes, the benefits were there regardless of the designation; it's likely that CA 58 will remain a "hybrid" facility (part freeway, part expressway) unless Interstate designation is sought.
 
What I'm getting at here is that while Caltrans probably won't actively seek out Interstate designation for CA 58 or any other corridor, they will allow themselves to be dragged kicking & screaming into the activity once political support for the concept has been demonstrated.  Standing by while getting dragged underneath the bus isn't their nature -- and if the support for Interstate designation is both reasonably vocal and relentless, they'll probably even try to take some of the credit; above all else, they're survivors!

I think the case can be made that an interstate designation here would be highly beneficial for the economy of the SJ Valley.  It will make it stand out as a better bypass of the LA area. 

And given that there is a push in the area for an interstate 9 designation (for the 99) we know that the area understands the importance of the interstate designation for the local economy.

sparker

Quote from: mrsman on May 28, 2017, 11:33:33 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 27, 2017, 02:40:32 AM
Quote from: vdeane on May 26, 2017, 10:31:53 PM
Of course, even if it gets done, that doesn't mean they'll bother with the paperwork and resigning once it's complete (see: CA 210, CA 905).

True, but here we're dealing with a 150-mile intercity corridor, not a truck route/border crossing or an extension of a 3di.  If there's enough political pressure amassed to get this done, you can bet your life savings there will be follow-through that will override Caltrans' lack of such.  Tellingly, there never have been "Future I-210" signs along the state-signed portion of that corridor, although there is (or was as of 2010, the last time I was down that way) "Future I-905" signage along that corridor; IIRC, it was eastbound just east of I-805 and, curiously, was in the form of a white project information sign rather than the standard green stand-alone roadside rectangle.  Nevertheless, in the case of those two routes, the benefits were there regardless of the designation; it's likely that CA 58 will remain a "hybrid" facility (part freeway, part expressway) unless Interstate designation is sought.
 
What I'm getting at here is that while Caltrans probably won't actively seek out Interstate designation for CA 58 or any other corridor, they will allow themselves to be dragged kicking & screaming into the activity once political support for the concept has been demonstrated.  Standing by while getting dragged underneath the bus isn't their nature -- and if the support for Interstate designation is both reasonably vocal and relentless, they'll probably even try to take some of the credit; above all else, they're survivors!

I think the case can be made that an interstate designation here would be highly beneficial for the economy of the SJ Valley.  It will make it stand out as a better bypass of the LA area. 

And given that there is a push in the area for an interstate 9 designation (for the 99) we know that the area understands the importance of the interstate designation for the local economy.

Getting that across to the Congressional delegation representing the area through which both the CA 58 and CA 99 corridors run might not be as easy as one thinks; their party's line strongly discourages support of domestic spending (and the House majority leader hails from Bakersfield, the crux of the matter) -- this is the "reddest" part of CA.  OTOH, since most of the Congressional seats in question are being targeted by the other party for other transgressions that ostensibly negatively affect constituent pocketbooks (this same area includes some of the least affluent areas in the state), there may be local seniment from the delegation at large to demonstrate that they have the best interest of those same constituents at heart.  If the latter scenario prevails in the "best case", there might be some push for designation of a new HPC/future I-40 along CA 58 -- and possibly, as a bonus, a numerical I-designation for the previously-designated (2005) HPC 54 along CA 99 -- with a manifesto for near-term signage.  However, if the party line holds fast, don't expect much until after the 2018 election; since the (D)'s from the Valley tend to be more centrist than in the coastal urban areas, the corridor concepts have a possibility of revisiting at that time if enough of the districts change parties. 

As an observational aside, it's little wonder that road transportation issues have reached an impasse in most jurisdictions (with states such as TX and NC being the exception that illustrates the issue) -- one party is increasingly dominated by activists who discount and disparage automotive travel and even road-bound commerce, while the other is more and more influenced by ideologues who view spending on items not connected to national defense and/or expression of authority is at best unwise and at worst unconstitutional.  They both function in a knee-jerk fashion; one cannot seem to distinguish between the needs of dense urban regions and those of the rural areas in between, while the other wants to wield a broad defunding sword to as many public programs as possible regardless of the consequences.  Meanwhile, inflation continually eats at the effectiveness of whatever funding makes it through the gauntlet, exacerbating the problem.  As a lifelong functioning utilitarian (and registered independent), the whole process is increasingly disheartening as well as dysfunctional. 

Let's just hope the folks on the ground in the affected areas can impress some common sense on their representatives and actually accomplish something useful despite the political posturing they're likely to encounter.       

kkt

Perhaps the people in the San Joaquin Valley and desert along 99 and 58 are taking a more nuanced point of view than you give them credit for.  They could support projects that substantially improve safety and capacity like town bypasses and two lanes each way.  At the same time, they could oppose projects that would cost a lot without noticeably improving safety or capacity, like eliminating access to ranch roads and widening shoulders to meet interstate standards.  After all, any way those projects might be funded in today's world would include a large local share.


sparker

Quote from: kkt on May 29, 2017, 04:33:28 PM
Perhaps the people in the San Joaquin Valley and desert along 99 and 58 are taking a more nuanced point of view than you give them credit for.  They could support projects that substantially improve safety and capacity like town bypasses and two lanes each way.  At the same time, they could oppose projects that would cost a lot without noticeably improving safety or capacity, like eliminating access to ranch roads and widening shoulders to meet interstate standards.  After all, any way those projects might be funded in today's world would include a large local share.



Actually, that's essentially what's happening right now -- on a step-by-step basis.  CA 58 is indeed being gradually elevated to a divided 4-lane facility; about 85% of the corridor fits this description right now, with a large portion of that being full freeway.  In an earlier post, it was pointed out that there's currently not much in the way of ranch access to 58 over the Tehachapi range, just maintenance access to the adjoining RR tracks and a gated turnoff to a nearby radar installation -- nothing that would impede or conflict with an upgrading process; this sort of situation exists on the 99 corridor as well regarding RR access, even within full-freeway segments.  It's a little different out in the flatlands east of Mojave; between that city and the beginning of the Boron bypass freeway there are multiple access points; some have been turned into channelized intersections, while others remain infrequently-accessed gates to nearby acreage.  But once again, there's nothing particularly vital or that would arouse much in the way of ire out that way as well. 

The point is that there's no evident local opposition to upgrading CA 58 to Interstate standards; there would be no more than marginal disruption to existing usage patterns.  And out in the flat desert, "joisting" off currently gated access to periodic interchanges -- considering the lack of actual commercial enterprises along the route -- would likely be as much welcomed as criticized.  The objections to any such upgrading effort would emanate from the usual suspects -- fiscal hard-liners who generically object to any public effort beyond minimal maintenance, and observers who just don't assign any particular value to such upgrades or designations. 

The full CA 58 corridor east of I-5 will see improvement to at least expressway standards in the near term -- that's being done or planned as we speak/write.  Whether that evolves into an eventual Interstate upgrade remains to be seen; if enough locals -- and those with power/influence in the region -- want it done, we'll all know soon enough! 

pderocco

Quote from: sparker on May 29, 2017, 09:18:34 PM
The point is that there's no evident local opposition to upgrading CA 58 to Interstate standards; there would be no more than marginal disruption to existing usage patterns.  And out in the flat desert, "joisting" off currently gated access to periodic interchanges -- considering the lack of actual commercial enterprises along the route -- would likely be as much welcomed as criticized.  The objections to any such upgrading effort would emanate from the usual suspects -- fiscal hard-liners who generically object to any public effort beyond minimal maintenance, and observers who just don't assign any particular value to such upgrades or designations. 

The big obstacle is that it would be a huge expensive project to upgrade 58 going up the canyon from Bakersfield into Tehachapi. And all you'd end up with is a somewhat less curvy road with wider shoulders, but still just as steep with trucks crawling up at 40mph. But if they don't upgrade all of it from I-5 to I-15, it won't become part of I-40.

pderocco

Quote from: sparker on May 19, 2017, 09:46:24 PM
Regardless of the rationale behind the construction of I-5 as it is today, there is more than a little residual resentment emanating from cities along the 99 corridor; this resentment has, on occasion, promulgated the various proposals to elevate CA 99 to Interstate status -- one of which, of course, resulted in the designation of HPC #54 and its future-Interstate status back in 2005.

It's odd that I-5 up the west side has existed for almost half a century, yet no significant development has taken place along it. It is used almost completely for long haul transportation, basically LA to SF or Sacramento. Given the heavy traffic on 99, fueling a constant demand for more lanes, I can't imagine the residents of the cities along that route "resenting" that the long haul traffic got diverted to the other side of the valley. They should be counting their blessings.

kkt

Quote from: pderocco on May 31, 2017, 03:04:06 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 19, 2017, 09:46:24 PM
Regardless of the rationale behind the construction of I-5 as it is today, there is more than a little residual resentment emanating from cities along the 99 corridor; this resentment has, on occasion, promulgated the various proposals to elevate CA 99 to Interstate status -- one of which, of course, resulted in the designation of HPC #54 and its future-Interstate status back in 2005.

It's odd that I-5 up the west side has existed for almost half a century, yet no significant development has taken place along it. It is used almost completely for long haul transportation, basically LA to SF or Sacramento. Given the heavy traffic on 99, fueling a constant demand for more lanes, I can't imagine the residents of the cities along that route "resenting" that the long haul traffic got diverted to the other side of the valley. They should be counting their blessings.

There's been roadside services developed.  Back in the day, there were very few gas stations, fast food places, or hotels along I-5.  Now most exits have at least gas and food.

The land next to I-5 is not very useful for agriculture.  Not enough water and poor soil, unlike the valley floor.

sparker

Quote from: kkt on May 31, 2017, 01:25:04 PM
Quote from: pderocco on May 31, 2017, 03:04:06 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 19, 2017, 09:46:24 PM
Regardless of the rationale behind the construction of I-5 as it is today, there is more than a little residual resentment emanating from cities along the 99 corridor; this resentment has, on occasion, promulgated the various proposals to elevate CA 99 to Interstate status -- one of which, of course, resulted in the designation of HPC #54 and its future-Interstate status back in 2005.

It's odd that I-5 up the west side has existed for almost half a century, yet no significant development has taken place along it. It is used almost completely for long haul transportation, basically LA to SF or Sacramento. Given the heavy traffic on 99, fueling a constant demand for more lanes, I can't imagine the residents of the cities along that route "resenting" that the long haul traffic got diverted to the other side of the valley. They should be counting their blessings.

There's been roadside services developed.  Back in the day, there were very few gas stations, fast food places, or hotels along I-5.  Now most exits have at least gas and food.

The land next to I-5 is not very useful for agriculture.  Not enough water and poor soil, unlike the valley floor.


North of Coalinga, I-5 is sited on the east alluvial of the Coast Range; this, as KKT states, is very poor soil (mostly pulverized rock) for agricultural purposes; however, south of there down to just about the 5/99 split, the typical land is loam soil, good for crops such as cotton, hay, and some deciduous fruits and nuts (purportedly very good for pistachios, almonds, and even cherries).

But the north segment on the alluvial is seeing another form of activity: "overflow" suburbs spilling over from the Bay Area -- and, because of the distances involved, priced considerably lower than even Tracy or Manteca, the longstanding centers of long-distance commute action.  Normally isolated towns such as Patterson and even Gustine have seen tract development between I-5 and CA 33.  I suppose since nothing else profitable will grow in these locations, may as well plant houses! 

kkt

Houses where people commute to the Bay Area, but too far and not dense enough to serve by public transit, so they end up in horrible SOV commutes.  I feel sorry for them.

sparker

Quote from: kkt on May 31, 2017, 03:47:32 PM
Houses where people commute to the Bay Area, but too far and not dense enough to serve by public transit, so they end up in horrible SOV commutes.  I feel sorry for them.


After newcomers to the area see the prices of real estate in the Bay Area, they're often relieved to see 2500-3000 square feet available east of the Coast Range for $275K or thereabouts.  Gustine's a bit of a stretch by any means (usually this appeals to folks working from San Jose south to Hollister who can use 152 & 33 to get home), but folks from Patterson north can get themselves up to the Tracy ACE station and take the train into Silicon Valley -- and now there's solid plans afoot to extend the ACE service down to Modesto, Turlock, and even Merced (now that's an uber-commute!).  Shopping for other things besides groceries is presently a bit of a pain in the ass (according to a friend who lives in Patterson) -- usually done by "trip-chaining" the leg from the train station to home.  But if these "outer exurbs" continue to grow, expect the larger chain stores to deploy outlets nearby.  Not an ideal situation by any means, but to fiscally strapped homebuyers, one of the few avenues available to acquire property. 

Bobby5280

Quote from: sparkerAs an observational aside, it's little wonder that road transportation issues have reached an impasse in most jurisdictions (with states such as TX and NC being the exception that illustrates the issue) -- one party is increasingly dominated by activists who discount and disparage automotive travel and even road-bound commerce, while the other is more and more influenced by ideologues who view spending on items not connected to national defense and/or expression of authority is at best unwise and at worst unconstitutional.  They both function in a knee-jerk fashion; one cannot seem to distinguish between the needs of dense urban regions and those of the rural areas in between, while the other wants to wield a broad defunding sword to as many public programs as possible regardless of the consequences.  Meanwhile, inflation continually eats at the effectiveness of whatever funding makes it through the gauntlet, exacerbating the problem.  As a lifelong functioning utilitarian (and registered independent), the whole process is increasingly disheartening as well as dysfunctional.

Our nation's leadership is suffering from a lot of self-inflicted wounds. Congress' ban on earmarks is one such example. Pork-barrel spending has no stopped despite the earmark ban. However, the earmark ban itself has eliminated a lot of the deal-making activity that allows opposing party members to reach across the aisle to get things done. It has also allowed those on the political left and right to become more extreme and hard-lined in their views (mostly whoring themselves to the most rabidly "pure" camps in their voting base). Sensible, practical, middle of the road leadership from moderates, centrists and independents is disappearing. Sadly I only see this getting worse as our voting public continues to get dumber and more emotional by the minute.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 10-20 years. The United States' position as the world's top global and cultural power will be challenged. China would love to supersede the US. They're currently out-building the hell out of us on road and rail infrastructure. But how long can they sustain it? Their national debt is 2.5X their GDP. Meanwhile America is trying hard to price itself out of being able to build any big things. The far ends of the political left and right have their own issues with infrastructure spending. But they've lost touch with the fact Americans have historically put a lot of national pride into our ability to build big things.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.