Condition of California highways

[ACSCmapcollector]

Oh.  Right.  I meant 52%.  I misread your original criterion.

52% of California highways and roads within the Caltrans Districts 1 through 12 have new pavement/asphalt, when compared to the other 48%.

Except you don't live in California, kphoger.  Plus being a blue state for a Democrat since 1992, something has to be done in Governor Brown's plan to put more funding for California's highways and roads like a VMT, Vehicle per Mile Tax as of now into 2017 & 2018.

I think the percentage is more like 51% as of now, when I did my research online for California.

[coatimundi]

Oh.  Right.  I meant 52%.  I misread your original criterion.

52% of California highways and roads within the Caltrans Districts 1 through 12 have new pavement/asphalt, when compared to the other 48%.

Except you don't live in California, kphoger.  Plus being a blue state for a Democrat since 1992, something has to be done in Governor Brown's plan to put more funding for California's highways and roads like a VMT, Vehicle per Mile Tax as of now into 2017 & 2018.

I think the percentage is more like 51% as of now, when I did my research online for California.

No, it's 51.7%

[ACSCmapcollector]

Oh.  Right.  I meant 52%.  I misread your original criterion.

52% of California highways and roads within the Caltrans Districts 1 through 12 have new pavement/asphalt, when compared to the other 48%.

Except you don't live in California, kphoger.  Plus being a blue state for a Democrat since 1992, something has to be done in Governor Brown's plan to put more funding for California's highways and roads like a VMT, Vehicle per Mile Tax as of now into 2017 & 2018.

I think the percentage is more like 51% as of now, when I did my research online for California.

No, it's 51.7%

Well something needs to be done here with that 51.7%, or a lack of money will put more potholes and cracks on our freeways and highways.

[coatimundi]

Oh.  Right.  I meant 52%.  I misread your original criterion.

52% of California highways and roads within the Caltrans Districts 1 through 12 have new pavement/asphalt, when compared to the other 48%.

Except you don't live in California, kphoger.  Plus being a blue state for a Democrat since 1992, something has to be done in Governor Brown's plan to put more funding for California's highways and roads like a VMT, Vehicle per Mile Tax as of now into 2017 & 2018.

I think the percentage is more like 51% as of now, when I did my research online for California.

No, it's 51.7%

Well something needs to be done here with that 51.7%, or a lack of money will put more potholes and cracks on our freeways and highways.

Tonight, several pavement projects will push it up to 51.8%. KEEP ON TRUCKING

[Max Rockatansky]

Oh.  Right.  I meant 52%.  I misread your original criterion.

52% of California highways and roads within the Caltrans Districts 1 through 12 have new pavement/asphalt, when compared to the other 48%.

Except you don't live in California, kphoger.  Plus being a blue state for a Democrat since 1992, something has to be done in Governor Brown's plan to put more funding for California's highways and roads like a VMT, Vehicle per Mile Tax as of now into 2017 & 2018.

Still not shy about all this Jerry Brown talk I see and that bull shit mileage tax stuff.  Good god I hope that I get transferred out of here if that ever becomes a reality.

[ACSCmapcollector]

Oh.  Right.  I meant 52%.  I misread your original criterion.

52% of California highways and roads within the Caltrans Districts 1 through 12 have new pavement/asphalt, when compared to the other 48%.

Except you don't live in California, kphoger.  Plus being a blue state for a Democrat since 1992, something has to be done in Governor Brown's plan to put more funding for California's highways and roads like a VMT, Vehicle per Mile Tax as of now into 2017 & 2018.

Still not shy about all this Jerry Brown talk I see and that bull shit mileage tax stuff.  Good god I hope that I get transferred out of here if that ever becomes a reality.

What about a Gasoline Fund Deficit, Max?  $80 to $100 billion dollars and do  without funding what so ever. 

[noelbotevera]

Why are you so annoying and why is there so many threads about random things rather than things that matter? Getting some dzlsabe vibes.

[ACSCmapcollector]

Why are you so annoying and why is there so many threads about random things rather than things that matter? Getting some dzlsabe vibes.

Look I am not so annoying, I am being honest and straightforward with my topic of discussion.

[ACSCmapcollector]

Why are you so annoying and why is there so many threads about random things rather than things that matter? Getting some dzlsabe vibes.

And you are not from California, either... I am an Californian this subject matter really honestly matters to me because California does not have the best highways and roads in the USA.

[myosh_tino]

Why are you so annoying and why is there so many threads about random things rather than things that matter? Getting some dzlsabe vibes.

And you are not from California, either... I am an Californian this subject matter really honestly matters to me because California does not have the best highways and roads in the USA.

What difference does it make.  This is a community and he's voicing an opinion.  I'm a native Californian and I do find your many threads to be quite annoying especially when there are so many similar ones.  Does that mean my opinion carries more weight than noelbotevera?  It shouldn't.

I'll admit California's roads and highways aren't in the best of condition but why does that concern you so?  Would you be willing to have your income taxes doubled to pay for a best-in-the-nation road system?

[kphoger]

Are we settled, then? The answer to the topic question is 51.7%? Good.

[/thread]

[ACSCmapcollector]

Why are you so annoying and why is there so many threads about random things rather than things that matter? Getting some dzlsabe vibes.

And you are not from California, either... I am an Californian this subject matter really honestly matters to me because California does not have the best highways and roads in the USA.

What difference does it make.  This is a community and he's voicing an opinion.  I'm a native Californian and I do find your many threads to be quite annoying especially when there are so many similar ones.  Does that mean my opinion carries more weight than noelbotevera?  It shouldn't.

I'll admit California's roads and highways aren't in the best of condition but why does that concern you so?  Would you be willing to have your income taxes doubled to pay for a best-in-the-nation road system?

Would you please stop calling me annoying, ok I get it.  I have repeated themes in my post and threads.  To tell you the truth, do not ignore me, I am not ignorant.  I have Asperger's Autism with a high IQ, however it doesn't allow me to socialize as much except for at work and on my cell phone and via Facebook, including a growing relationship that I am having as of now.

[J N Winkler]

One complexity of arguing that a state DOT should spend more for the explicit purpose of improving pavement quality is that the actual benefit to the public on a given lane-mile of highway depends heavily on the traffic it carries.  This is a rather extreme hypothetical (and not generally realistic given the traffic-based criteria most state DOTs have historically tried to apply when deciding whether to adopt a given road as state highway in the first place), but if 80% of Caltrans' lane mileage carried only 0.5% of the total traffic while the remaining 20% carried 99.5% of it, then in terms of vehicular wear and tear it would probably be acceptable for the less heavily trafficked 80% not to be paved at all.

A related question is the proportion of California's centerline mileage that has received improvement to durable, hard-wearing standard not because the aggregate benefit of reduced vehicular wear-and-tear to traffic actually using the road has been sufficient to amortize the cost of the improvement, but because it is agency policy to provide point-to-point connectivity to at least a fairly high minimum standard along the adopted routing.

In any case, the real test of whether traversal of a given area of pavement generates undue wear-and-tear cost to motorists is its surface condition, not its age.  There are plenty of quite old pavements in excellent condition and almost brand-new pavements that are breaking up.  Cost can be deemed undue if there is an intervention such that the aggregate savings to motorists' vehicles is sufficient to defray the cost of the intervention within a repayment period that corresponds to the long-term real interest rate.

It has been argued (notably in a recent column Larry Summers contributed to the Washington Post) that the added wear and tear vehicles sustain nationally due to underinvestment in upkeep of existing highways amounts to a phantom 75c/gallon tax.  This tax is paid not at the pump, but rather at the repair shop (or auto parts store counter, or . . .) when parts replacement becomes necessary.

One of the problems a motorist faces when choosing routes to drive recreationally (e.g., while on vacation) is to identify which ones offer hidden value, such as a combination of excellent pavement quality and low traffic.  California's state highway system is underfunded and Caltrans has a strong institutional commitment to cost-benefit analysis, so this hunt for untapped value becomes quite an art in the Golden State.  The safe bets are usually rural two-lane expressways that aren't cut-throughs between major cities or approach roads to national parks (designation as a safety corridor is usually a bad sign), but even in these cases (notably SR 4 between Copperopolis and Angels Camp) it is possible to be ambushed by unimproved segments.

[Max Rockatansky]

Why are you so annoying and why is there so many threads about random things rather than things that matter? Getting some dzlsabe vibes.

And you are not from California, either... I am an Californian this subject matter really honestly matters to me because California does not have the best highways and roads in the USA.

What difference does it make.  This is a community and he's voicing an opinion.  I'm a native Californian and I do find your many threads to be quite annoying especially when there are so many similar ones.  Does that mean my opinion carries more weight than noelbotevera?  It shouldn't.

I'll admit California's roads and highways aren't in the best of condition but why does that concern you so?  Would you be willing to have your income taxes doubled to pay for a best-in-the-nation road system?

What bothers me as of late is that there is an obvious political bias.  For me, I couldn't give two craps about what party runs what.    I'm getting a little tired off reading about the holier than Jesus Jerry Brown talk and really no qualifiers why a mileage tax is necessary over something like an increase in fuel or sales tax?  I mean...come on, the state put themselves in this position years ago when they did cut backs on Caltrans budget.  It's complete crap to throw mileage tax out there when there is a budget surplus like there is now.....or really ANY tax.  Why not work on distributing those excess funds to balance the budget back out then if more money is needed THEN talk about things like increases in taxes.  The problem with this mileage tax in mind is that it has trappings of an agenda...namely one of getting cars off the road and promoting things like the high speed rail.

With that in mind, I'm all on board with legitimate logical discussion about things like funding.  I just prefer that I not have a political stance shoved down my throat in the process.  If that's the case why would something like a mileage tax work over some more tried and true combinations of sales, property, DMV, business, in addition to gas taxes?

Also...where is the Youtube video that said California had the worst roads in the country? I feel like I've been asking to see it about a million times by now.   

Why are you so annoying and why is there so many threads about random things rather than things that matter? Getting some dzlsabe vibes.

And you are not from California, either... I am an Californian this subject matter really honestly matters to me because California does not have the best highways and roads in the USA.

What difference does it make.  This is a community and he's voicing an opinion.  I'm a native Californian and I do find your many threads to be quite annoying especially when there are so many similar ones.  Does that mean my opinion carries more weight than noelbotevera?  It shouldn't.

I'll admit California's roads and highways aren't in the best of condition but why does that concern you so?  Would you be willing to have your income taxes doubled to pay for a best-in-the-nation road system?

Would you please stop calling me annoying, ok I get it.  I have repeated themes in my post and threads.  To tell you the truth, do not ignore me, I am not ignorant.  I have Asperger's Autism with a high IQ, however it doesn't allow me to socialize as much except for at work and on my cell phone and via Facebook, including a growing relationship that I am having as of now.

If that's really the case, then I'm sorry to hear that. 

[ACSCmapcollector]

What bothers me as of late is that there is an obvious political bias.  For me, I couldn't give two craps about what party runs what.    I'm getting a little tired off reading about the holier than Jesus Jerry Brown talk and really no qualifiers why a mileage tax is necessary over something like an increase in fuel or sales tax?  I mean...come on, the state put themselves in this position years ago when they did cut backs on Caltrans budget.  It's complete crap to throw mileage tax out there when there is a budget surplus like there is now.....or really ANY tax.  Why not work on distributing those excess funds to balance the budget back out then if more money is needed THEN talk about things like increases in taxes.  The problem with this mileage tax in mind is that it has trappings of an agenda...namely one of getting cars off the road and promoting things like the high speed rail.

With that in mind, I'm all on board with legitimate logical discussion about things like funding.  I just prefer that I not have a political stance shoved down my throat in the process.  If that's the case why would something like a mileage tax work over some more tried and true combinations of sales, property, DMV, business, in addition to gas taxes?

Also...where is the Youtube video that said California had the worst roads in the country? I feel like I've been asking to see it about a million times by now.   

You have to search for it yourself, Max.  And one thing additionally about the High Speed Rail project, if another ballot proposition comes out to take away the funds from High Speed Rail, it will be by the vote of people of the state of California including me and you, I don't support it neither should you Max.  There has been another proposition that is on California's Secretary of State that is proposed to take away the funds from HSR, and give it to the water projects.  Have you heard about that lately?



Mod Note: Deleted a double post virtually identical to this one. Removed excess quoting from this post.


Mod Requests:

1) ACSCmapcollector: If you're going to reference something like a YouTube video that is relevant to a conversation here (especially a thread that you've started), it would be courteous to provide a link (or at least a video title or search phrase) so others can find it.

2) Please refocus discussion back on condition of California roads. Per the Forum Guidelines, discussion of politics is discouraged–it should pertain to road-related discussion on the main road-related boards. You may take discussion of the California funding deficits, HSR, water projects, etc. to the Off Topic board if you wish to continue–please do not bring it up here.


–Roadfro

[ACSCmapcollector]

Why are you so annoying and why is there so many threads about random things rather than things that matter? Getting some dzlsabe vibes.

And you are not from California, either... I am an Californian this subject matter really honestly matters to me because California does not have the best highways and roads in the USA.

What difference does it make.  This is a community and he's voicing an opinion.  I'm a native Californian and I do find your many threads to be quite annoying especially when there are so many similar ones.  Does that mean my opinion carries more weight than noelbotevera?  It shouldn't.

I'll admit California's roads and highways aren't in the best of condition but why does that concern you so?  Would you be willing to have your income taxes doubled to pay for a best-in-the-nation road system?

Would you please stop calling me annoying, ok I get it.  I have repeated themes in my post and threads.  To tell you the truth, do not ignore me, I am not ignorant.  I have Asperger's Autism with a high IQ, however it doesn't allow me to socialize as much except for at work and on my cell phone and via Facebook, including a growing relationship that I am having as of now.

If that's really the case, then I'm sorry to hear that.

Don't be sorry for me Max, I was born with a smart high IQ.  Everything is going great for me!


Mod Note: Fixed nested quotes and removed excess (I think...). –Roadfro

[Scott5114]

When quoting others, please be sure to 1) remove all of the text you're quoting other than the text you're responding to and 2) use the "preview" button to make sure your replies are placed properly. Looking at the post immediately above, I have no idea what the hell is the response and what it's supposed to be responding to.

[ACSCmapcollector]

When quoting others, please be sure to 1) remove all of the text you're quoting other than the text you're responding to and 2) use the "preview" button to make sure your replies are placed properly. Looking at the post immediately above, I have no idea what the hell is the response and what it's supposed to be responding to.

Mod Note: Deleted a double post virtually identical to this one. Removed excess quoting from this post.


Mod Requests:

1) ACSCmapcollector: If you're going to reference something like a YouTube video that is relevant to a conversation here (especially a thread that you've started), it would be courteous to provide a link (or at least a video title or search phrase) so others can find it.

2) Please refocus discussion back on condition of California roads. Per the Forum Guidelines, discussion of politics is discouraged–it should pertain to road-related discussion on the main road-related boards. You may take discussion of the California funding deficits, HSR, water projects, etc. to the Off Topic board if you wish to continue–please do not bring it up here.

I will do that, thank you for the advice Roadfro.