AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: California  (Read 225851 times)

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1444
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:31:42 PM
    • AARoads
California
« on: July 20, 2016, 12:17:21 AM »

New thread for general California observations.

I'll begin with a column from the Sacramento Bee lamenting the slow down of highway construction in California over the past several decades, calling out the gap in SR 65, the gap in I-710 (SR 710), and the US 101 Eureka bypass.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/dan-walters/article76114332.html
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2584
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: November 14, 2021, 11:35:05 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2016, 12:55:19 AM »

I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16813
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:13:27 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2016, 10:06:13 AM »

I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.

You probably could do it on a bike or maybe running?  I've done both on the disconnected segment of the Ridge Route.  Would be a pretty conventional way of route clinching. 

I'm actually surprised an article like this came out in the current climate here in California...highway talk has become passe to say the least.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: California
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2016, 04:10:07 PM »

Dan Walters has been writing political analyses & columns for the Sacramento Bee for as long as I can remember; he was certainly doing so as a young reporter during the heyday of freeway construction during the later years of the Pat Brown gubernatorial administration ('59-'67).  He's pretty much an "old-fashioned liberal", preferring projects that benefit the larger population rather than directed toward one contingent or another, regardless of any perception of being aggrieved.  Excoriated on the right as a "tax-and-spend" proponent; and likewise on the left as insensitive & out of touch, he's been carrying on for about 50 years with no sign of slowing -- and there's hardly anyone who knows better how California government -- including the individual agencies -- really functions.  I read his column every time it's published on the Bee website; and I'm certainly not surprised to see him tackle the issue of underfunded highway development.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 04:12:48 PM by sparker »
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2584
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: November 14, 2021, 11:35:05 PM
Re: California
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2016, 04:16:18 PM »

I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.

You probably could do it on a bike or maybe running?  I've done both on the disconnected segment of the Ridge Route.  Would be a pretty conventional way of route clinching. 

I'm actually surprised an article like this came out in the current climate here in California...highway talk has become passe to say the least.
I suppose I could, but I still would love to say I've driven it. But granted, I guess no one has been able to since 1978, so it's not like I'm alone here.

I guess in general, I'm not a particular big fan of what would seem to be Caltrans' apathetical attitude towards their highways. Seems more often than not, they just want to abandon them, rather than fix them. That's certainly the correct choice economically, but as a roadgeek, really bothers me. And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4449
  • Last Login: December 07, 2021, 07:08:02 AM
Re: California
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2016, 04:31:06 PM »

And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.

Prior to the 1950s, the California State Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of Southern California signed the routes.  I wonder if they were the ones that determined the signed routings (as the routings the state was using at the time were the LRNs and not anything in the field) over the years, particularly in urban areas.

I've always felt that route numbering should be a navigational aid that a state DOT can determine (with input from local jurisdictions) regardless of route maintenance, but California has had some legislative form of numbering for a century with no sign of abandoning that system anytime soon.
Logged
Chris Sampang

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16813
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:13:27 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2016, 06:46:32 PM »

And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.

Prior to the 1950s, the California State Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of Southern California signed the routes.  I wonder if they were the ones that determined the signed routings (as the routings the state was using at the time were the LRNs and not anything in the field) over the years, particularly in urban areas.

I've always felt that route numbering should be a navigational aid that a state DOT can determine (with input from local jurisdictions) regardless of route maintenance, but California has had some legislative form of numbering for a century with no sign of abandoning that system anytime soon.

That's probably an easier fix than presented with the current reality of relinquishment.  Why not just throw a county route sign up with a route number identical to the state route?  Seems to work just fine for states like Florida and there is a current example of the practice in California with CA 59 and J59.  Now I could be talking just out of my ass but I'm running under the assumption that it would be FAR easier to mount county route signage for continuity rather than having to go through the wriggamoral of the legislature.

I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.

You probably could do it on a bike or maybe running?  I've done both on the disconnected segment of the Ridge Route.  Would be a pretty conventional way of route clinching. 

I'm actually surprised an article like this came out in the current climate here in California...highway talk has become passe to say the least.
I suppose I could, but I still would love to say I've driven it. But granted, I guess no one has been able to since 1978, so it's not like I'm alone here.

I guess in general, I'm not a particular big fan of what would seem to be Caltrans' apathetical attitude towards their highways. Seems more often than not, they just want to abandon them, rather than fix them. That's certainly the correct choice economically, but as a roadgeek, really bothers me. And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.

True....but it's not the only route like, CA 173 was similarly abandoned but it doesn't get as noticed much because it was a dirt highway.  I guess that's what I don't understand...the apathy to me just seems like legislative laziness.  I've been here for five years and worked here for another three with contract works....so there is a ton of practices in California that, at least for me seem don't seem excusable...roads being the primary one.  I guess it sort of reminds me of how bad things really got in Michigan with road maintenance and how it led to things like an entire direction of an Interstate Highway being shut down for months for repairs.  It just feels like the whole state has stagnated with all public works projects in general and there is little willpower to do anything unless something breaks.  But then again something like high speed rail somehow gets traction with all this existing infrastructure...interesting how that happens.  But then again I didn't grow up here and I'm comparing it to places that are going through population booms Texas, Arizona and Florida.  Even still, it's interesting how far places like Michigan and California have really fallen when they were once considered paragons of automotive infrastructure.

I don't know, I look at the neighboring states and with the exception of Oregon (talk about apathy for anything automotive or anything above 35 MPH) there seems to be a lot more great deal of care for highways which would include route signage.  Nevada did a renumbering in the not too distant past and Arizona is pushing to build or improve things all the time.  California probably has some of the worst signage just in general anywhere in the country...route signage is just part of it.  There are places you will literally have no clue how fast the speed limit is, it's really strange how few signs there are in general here. 

« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 06:59:01 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

ACSCmapcollector

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 388
  • Last Login: May 25, 2019, 08:53:06 PM
Re: California
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2016, 07:59:47 PM »


And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who
maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.

Prior to the 1950s, the California State Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of Southern California signed the routes.  I wonder if they were the ones that determined the signed routings (as the routings the state was using at the time were the LRNs and not anything in the field) over the years, particularly in urban areas.

I've always felt that route numbering should be a navigational aid that a state DOT can determine (with input from local jurisdictions) regardless of route maintenance, but California has had some legislative form of numbering for a century with no sign of abandoning that system anytime soon.

That's probably an easier fix than presented with the current reality of relinquishment.  Why not just throw a county route sign up with a route number identical to the state route?  Seems to work just fine for states like Florida and there is a current example of the practice in California with CA 59 and J59.  Now I could be talking just out of my ass but I'm running under the assumption that it would be FAR easier to mount county route signage for continuity rather than having to go through the wriggamoral of the legislature.

I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.

You probably could do it on a bike or maybe running?  I've done both on the disconnected segment of the Ridge Route.  Would be a pretty conventional way of route clinching. 

I'm actually surprised an article like this came out in the current climate here in California...highway talk has become passe to say the least.
I suppose I could, but I still would love to say I've driven it. But granted, I guess no one has been able to since 1978, so it's not like I'm alone here.

I guess in general, I'm not a particular big fan of what would seem to be Caltrans' apathetical attitude towards their highways. Seems more often than not, they just want to abandon them, rather than fix them. That's certainly the correct choice economically, but as a roadgeek, really bothers me. And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.

True....but it's not the only route like, CA 173 was similarly abandoned but it doesn't get as noticed much because it was a dirt highway.  I guess that's what I don't understand...the apathy to me just seems like legislative laziness.  I've been here for five years and worked here for another three with contract works....so there is a ton of practices in California that, at least for me seem don't seem excusable...roads being the primary one.  I guess it sort of reminds me of how bad things really got in Michigan with road maintenance and how it led to things like an entire direction of an Interstate Highway being shut down for months for repairs.  It just feels like the whole state has stagnated with all public works projects in general and there is little willpower to do anything unless something breaks.  But then again something like high speed rail somehow gets traction with all this existing infrastructure...interesting how that happens.  But then again I didn't grow up here and I'm comparing it to places that are going through population booms Texas, Arizona and Florida.  Even still, it's interesting how far places like Michigan and California have really fallen when they were once considered paragons of automotive infrastructure.

I don't know, I look at the neighboring states and with the exception of Oregon (talk about apathy for anything automotive or anything above 35 MPH) there seems to be a lot more great deal of care for highways which would include route signage.  Nevada did a renumbering in the not too distant past and Arizona is pushing to build or improve things all the time.  California probably has some of the worst signage just in general anywhere in the country...route signage is just part of it.  There are places you will literally have no clue how fast the speed limit is, it's really strange how few signs there are in general here. 



That is one of the reasons why the remaining segment of California state route 65 hasn't been built.  However I am sure there need to upgrade what does exist in our own state of California, what Governor Brown is proposing.  We are lagging behind Arizona and Texas for the best highways, when California's conditions of our highways are poor.
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 549
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 61
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: December 06, 2021, 05:26:44 PM
    • California Highways
Re: California
« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2016, 08:15:43 PM »

I think one thing people forget -- especially people on the east coast -- is how big this state is. Driving I-5, from the southern to the northern border, without traffic, is at least a 10-12 hour drive (I know we did LA to Berkeley in about 5 hours). Going E - W is still about 4 hours, longer if you are crossing the Sierras or the deserts. That's a lot of road miles to maintain, many in areas that are expensive to maintain. Our maintenance workers and dollars are stretched to their limits.
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16813
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:13:27 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2016, 08:17:33 PM »


And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who
maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.

Prior to the 1950s, the California State Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of Southern California signed the routes.  I wonder if they were the ones that determined the signed routings (as the routings the state was using at the time were the LRNs and not anything in the field) over the years, particularly in urban areas.

I've always felt that route numbering should be a navigational aid that a state DOT can determine (with input from local jurisdictions) regardless of route maintenance, but California has had some legislative form of numbering for a century with no sign of abandoning that system anytime soon.

That's probably an easier fix than presented with the current reality of relinquishment.  Why not just throw a county route sign up with a route number identical to the state route?  Seems to work just fine for states like Florida and there is a current example of the practice in California with CA 59 and J59.  Now I could be talking just out of my ass but I'm running under the assumption that it would be FAR easier to mount county route signage for continuity rather than having to go through the wriggamoral of the legislature.

I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.

You probably could do it on a bike or maybe running?  I've done both on the disconnected segment of the Ridge Route.  Would be a pretty conventional way of route clinching. 

I'm actually surprised an article like this came out in the current climate here in California...highway talk has become passe to say the least.
I suppose I could, but I still would love to say I've driven it. But granted, I guess no one has been able to since 1978, so it's not like I'm alone here.

I guess in general, I'm not a particular big fan of what would seem to be Caltrans' apathetical attitude towards their highways. Seems more often than not, they just want to abandon them, rather than fix them. That's certainly the correct choice economically, but as a roadgeek, really bothers me. And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.

True....but it's not the only route like, CA 173 was similarly abandoned but it doesn't get as noticed much because it was a dirt highway.  I guess that's what I don't understand...the apathy to me just seems like legislative laziness.  I've been here for five years and worked here for another three with contract works....so there is a ton of practices in California that, at least for me seem don't seem excusable...roads being the primary one.  I guess it sort of reminds me of how bad things really got in Michigan with road maintenance and how it led to things like an entire direction of an Interstate Highway being shut down for months for repairs.  It just feels like the whole state has stagnated with all public works projects in general and there is little willpower to do anything unless something breaks.  But then again something like high speed rail somehow gets traction with all this existing infrastructure...interesting how that happens.  But then again I didn't grow up here and I'm comparing it to places that are going through population booms Texas, Arizona and Florida.  Even still, it's interesting how far places like Michigan and California have really fallen when they were once considered paragons of automotive infrastructure.

I don't know, I look at the neighboring states and with the exception of Oregon (talk about apathy for anything automotive or anything above 35 MPH) there seems to be a lot more great deal of care for highways which would include route signage.  Nevada did a renumbering in the not too distant past and Arizona is pushing to build or improve things all the time.  California probably has some of the worst signage just in general anywhere in the country...route signage is just part of it.  There are places you will literally have no clue how fast the speed limit is, it's really strange how few signs there are in general here. 



That is one of the reasons why the remaining segment of California state route 65 hasn't been built.  However I am sure there need to upgrade what does exist in our own state of California, what Governor Brown is proposing.  We are lagging behind Arizona and Texas for the best highways, when California's conditions of our highways are poor.

I'm mainly just talking maintaining/improving theroutes that exist, not building something new that would plow through some lying Sierra foothills that isn't needed.  Really the northern 65 ought to just be renumbered and call it a day.  There is a surplus already that could be used for more road maintenance funding, things are certainly way better at least economically than they were when there was all that talk about shuttering most of the state parks.  You already know my thoughts on a road usage tax....pretty hard to justify something like that with the income and gas taxes being as high as they are. 
Logged

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 291
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: December 06, 2021, 08:21:09 PM
California
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2016, 10:29:53 PM »

I think this thread provides an opportunity for me to provide some background on how Caltrans is funded.  I see several people have issues with how my employer operates.  But if you were to understand the funding constraints, you might be a little more understanding as to why we don't do all the things you think we should do.

Back in 1998 there was this little piece of legislation known as Senate Bill (SB) 45 that dramatically changed the funding structure for transportation in California.  This bill, put simply, put 75 percent of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds into the hands of the counties.  The State retains 25 percent for funding of inter regional projects.  There are some other splits and limitations that I won't get into here.  But in essence, the counties dictate to Caltrans what projects will be built. 

The primary source for transportation funding here is, like most other places, the excise tax on fuel.  However, close to half of the State's counties have local sales taxes that are used for transportation.  Combine that resource with their share of the STIP and that gives them a lot of leverage. 

The STIP is used to fund road widening and major improvements.  Another fund, also paid for out of the fuel excise tax, is the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP).  These funds are used to cover maintenance needs and operational improvements.  SHOPP funds cannot be used to widen roads.  Caltrans controls the SHOPP, and those funds can be mixed with STIP funds to address multiple needs in one project.

Here in California, the fuel excise tax has not been raised in more than 20 years.  During that time, as vehicles have become more fuel efficient, people are filling up less, so there's less money coming into the coffers.  And inflation has reduced the buying power of those dollars over time.

With limited funding, and restrictions on the funds it has available, Caltrans cannot do all that it would.  It's been estimated that there's about $58 billion in unmet transportation needs in this State.   In the past, there have been general obligation bonds that have helped fund improvements, but those bonds have been issued and so that resource is gone.  The ARRA (Obama stimulus) funds are gone too.  Given this bleak picture, the California Transportation Commission made severe cuts to the STIP a few months back.  This affected both Caltrans' and the counties' shares.  In fact, there's been talk from time to time of not funding the STIP at all and putting everything into SHOPP.

The system is broke and while a fuel excise tax increase might bring some additional funds in the short term, it still won't work in the long term given the federal mandates for improved vehicle fuel efficiency.  The counties can cover some things with their sales taxes and at least two counties that I know of plan to put ballot measures up in November for additional sales taxes on top of what they already have.  But it will never be enough.  The issues with the excise tax are why there's the push for a road use charge as a replacement.  I'm participating in the pilot and I am very interested in seeing what it leads to.

Bottom line - we don't have much to spend, and so we have to prioritize accordingly.




iPhone
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 10:34:36 PM by jrouse »
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 549
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 61
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: December 06, 2021, 05:26:44 PM
    • California Highways
Re: California
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2016, 10:44:21 PM »

Joe - The one thing this bbs lacks is a like button. Well said. I don't think most people understand how government funding and processes work. I support the DoD, and I see that all the time.
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16813
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:13:27 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2016, 11:05:02 PM »

I think this thread provides an opportunity for me to provide some background on how Caltrans is funded.  I see several people have issues with how my employer operates.  But if you were to understand the funding constraints, you might be a little more understanding as to why we don't do all the things you think we should do.

Back in 1998 there was this little piece of legislation known as Senate Bill (SB) 45 that dramatically changed the funding structure for transportation in California.  This bill, put simply, put 75 percent of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds into the hands of the counties.  The State retains 25 percent for funding of inter regional projects.  There are some other splits and limitations that I won't get into here.  But in essence, the counties dictate to Caltrans what projects will be built. 

The primary source for transportation funding here is, like most other places, the excise tax on fuel.  However, close to half of the State's counties have local sales taxes that are used for transportation.  Combine that resource with their share of the STIP and that gives them a lot of leverage. 

The STIP is used to fund road widening and major improvements.  Another fund, also paid for out of the fuel excise tax, is the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP).  These funds are used to cover maintenance needs and operational improvements.  SHOPP funds cannot be used to widen roads.  Caltrans controls the SHOPP, and those funds can be mixed with STIP funds to address multiple needs in one project.

Here in California, the fuel excise tax has not been raised in more than 20 years.  During that time, as vehicles have become more fuel efficient, people are filling up less, so there's less money coming into the coffers.  And inflation has reduced the buying power of those dollars over time.

With limited funding, and restrictions on the funds it has available, Caltrans cannot do all that it would.  It's been estimated that there's about $58 billion in unmet transportation needs in this State.   In the past, there have been general obligation bonds that have helped fund improvements, but those bonds have been issued and so that resource is gone.  The ARRA (Obama stimulus) funds are gone too.  Given this bleak picture, the California Transportation Commission made severe cuts to the STIP a few months back.  This affected both Caltrans' and the counties' shares.  In fact, there's been talk from time to time of not funding the STIP at all and putting everything into SHOPP.

The system is broke and while a fuel excise tax increase might bring some additional funds in the short term, it still won't work in the long term given the federal mandates for improved vehicle fuel efficiency.  The counties can cover some things with their sales taxes and at least two counties that I know of plan to put ballot measures up in November for additional sales taxes on top of what they already have.  But it will never be enough.  The issues with the excise tax are why there's the push for a road use charge as a replacement.  I'm participating in the pilot and I am very interested in seeing what it leads to.

Bottom line - we don't have much to spend, and so we have to prioritize accordingly.




iPhone

Wow that's a lot to type on a iPhone....yikes.  Anyways, my issue isn't with Caltrans operates it's with how Caltrans is funded versus how it COULD be funded.  You mentioned some excellent points like local sales tax increases to help prioritize corridors that counties or localities may want help on quicker.  I know the issue isn't as straight forward as many other states given the high volume of routes maintained at the state level rather than county or locality.  Personally I would prefer some of the recent surplus be earmarked for highway improvements along with a increase (despite what I said earlier) in the gas tax, sales taxes or even corporate taxes....multi-pronged across the board that hits as many places as possible with a wide distribution.  I know that tends to be a dirty word these days....."tax increases" but for me I would greatly prefer something like that to reinvest into infrastructure in general than say a usage tax which Scott has been touting like crazy in these threads.  The problem goes back to what others have said....apathy...in the legislature and in the general public for which anything infrastructure (including roads) has generally fallen out of favor.  So the question is...how to promote such a push for funding increases?...is it even possible in this modern climate when things like High Speed Rail are going to get much more positive reactions out of people?  Even in states like Arizona and Nevada where there is this huge push to get a new Interstate like I-11 going you get a crap ton of push back from people when you tell them their taxes are going to increase.  That's how the whole idea of a tolled I-11 came up and honestly given the brush back that those DOTs had it really isn't a bad idea. 

I guess for me personally a usage fee just has too many questions associated with privacy concerns versus a more conventional means of generating revenue.  The problem you run into with general tax increases be it gas, sales, property or commercial is you get just as much if not more push back from the parties involved.  But then again, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who has historically driven 30,000 to 80,000 miles a year throughout his adult life.  There is actually an interesting thread in the General Section basically on highway usage taxes that I haven't opined on yet.  Yes taxes need to be increased for funding general, I would just prefer that everyone get affected as about equally as possible. Then again I don't know why I'm so invested in the topic considering on my 9th state and likely I'll be on the 10th in the next three years.  Anyways here is the thread from the General Section:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18419.0
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 11:19:53 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8771
  • Last Login: Today at 11:03:01 AM
Re: California
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2016, 11:02:49 AM »

Back in 1998 there was this little piece of legislation known as Senate Bill (SB) 45 that dramatically changed the funding structure for transportation in California.  This bill, put simply, put 75 percent of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds into the hands of the counties.  The State retains 25 percent for funding of inter regional projects. 

From here at NYSDOT, I can't believe this insanity.  NYSDOT thinks it already gives the locals/MPOs too much power and believes many other states dictate to counties/municipalities/MPOs what they will do in the STIP process.  Never knew there was a state stupid enough to actually give them more power than NYSDOT does!   :wow:

(personal opinion emphasized)
« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 11:05:15 AM by Rothman »
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6697
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:32:43 AM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: California
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2016, 11:10:08 AM »

Even with the uncompleted I-710, aren't there enough freeways in L.A. already? It used to irritate me when I lived there, but now, not so much, and in fact, I can accept that the gap in South Pasadena may never be filled in.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8771
  • Last Login: Today at 11:03:01 AM
Re: California
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2016, 11:12:36 AM »

Even with the uncompleted I-710, aren't there enough freeways in L.A. already?

Napoleon, like anyone could even know that.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3637
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 10:02:55 AM
Re: California
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2016, 11:40:38 AM »

is california 66 signed at all anywhere? 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16813
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:13:27 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2016, 11:55:55 AM »

is california 66 signed at all anywhere?

Was back in 2012 the last I saw a shield in San Bernardino. 
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3637
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 10:02:55 AM
Re: California
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2016, 11:57:05 AM »

is california 66 signed at all anywhere?

Was back in 2012 the last I saw a shield in San Bernardino.

I'm assuming it still exists, california is terrible at signing surface street state roads.
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 798
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: April 17, 2020, 12:42:35 AM
Re: California
« Reply #19 on: July 21, 2016, 11:57:36 AM »

There's a sign at Euclid, in Upland. But, of course, that's just a junction with SR 83, so I would, since they had to put up signs anyway, they just said "Oh, yeah, we've got this other state highway. I guess we should sign that too."
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3637
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 10:02:55 AM
Re: California
« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2016, 12:08:43 PM »

There's a sign at Euclid, in Upland. But, of course, that's just a junction with SR 83, so I would, since they had to put up signs anyway, they just said "Oh, yeah, we've got this other state highway. I guess we should sign that too."

This is the best they could do: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1069155,-117.6519358,3a,15y,123.2h,88.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sErhubCn50M5Hpxc6kv4Rog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4449
  • Last Login: December 07, 2021, 07:08:02 AM
Re: California
« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2016, 12:09:27 PM »

Even with the uncompleted I-710, aren't there enough freeways in L.A. already?

nothing new for above-ground routings is going to be built for the most part.  That's not news and hasn't been since the 105 project was finished ca. 1993.  (The tollways are in Orange County and even then 241 isn't going to reach 5 for the most part)

LA Metro has multiple light rail lines, several rapid bus lines (Silver Line in particular) and the two subway lines but the subway has only recently been given a green light to expand a modest distance west.  There's no money to expand it any further than that.  Light rail is a bit more flexible but also takes years to get anything done (LAX/Crenshaw for instance).

So there's no "enough" for infrastructure out there, only mitigating what existing traffic will be there regardless.  That isn't to say that capacity increases don't make a difference: I-5 through Orange County at its widest is certainly more effective at traffic flow than the narrow portion through Norwalk (which is being expanded in a multi-year project).

Logged
Chris Sampang

djsekani

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 173
  • Location: Los Angeles/Chicago
  • Last Login: November 29, 2021, 05:22:19 PM
Re: California
« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2016, 12:23:39 PM »

There's a sign at Euclid, in Upland. But, of course, that's just a junction with SR 83, so I would, since they had to put up signs anyway, they just said "Oh, yeah, we've got this other state highway. I guess we should sign that too."

This is the best they could do: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1069155,-117.6519358,3a,15y,123.2h,88.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sErhubCn50M5Hpxc6kv4Rog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That is probably the only CA 66 shield in existence on the actual road.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: California
« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2016, 07:36:58 PM »

The CA 66 signage at the CA 83 interchange has been there at least since the mid-80's; I remember first seeing it on a business trip down there circa 1984 or so.  When I worked in Ontario in the early 2000's, my bank was on that corner, so I can attest that the signage was intact back then -- in fact, somewhere around 2005 or so there were actually square signs with printed green "spade" shields for both CA 66 and CA 83 posted westbound on CA 66/Foothill Blvd. at that time.  Never took a picture of them; was always in a hurry during lunch break (missed opportunity).  My immediate thoughts were that (a) the jigs for making cutout shields were starting to deteriorate, or (b) someone in District 8 got the bright idea to follow MUTCD specs to the letter!  Sure would be nice if someone who had time to do so would have some pix of these shields -- I can't recall that square shield signage was duplicated anywhere else!

Re any future freeway development in greater L.A.: The CA 71 upgrade through Pomona is likely to be the last full freeway built in metro LA unless there's a significant change in regional transportation priorities -- and I don't see that occurring in the foreseeable future.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16813
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:13:27 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #24 on: July 21, 2016, 07:59:07 PM »

There's a sign at Euclid, in Upland. But, of course, that's just a junction with SR 83, so I would, since they had to put up signs anyway, they just said "Oh, yeah, we've got this other state highway. I guess we should sign that too."

This is the best they could do: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1069155,-117.6519358,3a,15y,123.2h,88.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sErhubCn50M5Hpxc6kv4Rog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That is probably the only CA 66 shield in existence on the actual road.

I'll have to look when I get home but I'm fairly certain the 66 I've seen was at H Street and 5th Street in San Bernardino. 
Logged

 


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.