🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2024

[Plutonic Panda]

At the end of the day the state needs leaders who will forgo whatever "environmental" rules that cause every reporter on the issue and their dog to shit their panties about freeways being widened. It's nice to see updates on California roadways but why continue to post the sam goddamn fucking article 5 times, every month, that says the same shit? Freeway x is being widened and here's why it's bad for the environment and will undermine California's climate goals. Oh and the 1000000th iteration of wording the headline "induced demand!!!!!!" here and we shouldn't widen freeways because of it.

Goddamn this shit gets old.

Well, first, I filter out a lot of the slant (hopefully, about 99% of it) when it makes it into my pages. When you have your slant filter on, you know what you can ignore.

What were you saying again?

Seriously, we're going to be getting more articles like this because traditional freeway projects will be fewer. Look at the highway page updates I just posted. Read through the next iteration of the SHOPP. Very few true widening projects -- mostly rehabilitation and active transportation. That's what you see, so that's what the articles are ... whether you like it or not. I just report the articles that I see.

Yeah because it's totally reasonable that we will get fewer widening projects yet more articles about how bad it is to widen freeways.

PS, I should add I'm not mad at you or blaming you.

[Plutonic Panda]

While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them.  I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine.  I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.

Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable.

Most of his rants seem to boil down to "I don't like these things, therefore they're bad."

I agree... I've said before that it's not some nefarious plot. Widening freeways endlessly doesn't magically solve traffic problems, it tends to increase traffic. There are decades of studies that come to this, it's not like some guy is just sitting around saying "freeways are bad, no more freeways." (Hey, didn't we just see people try this with the Marina Freeway, and it was quickly shot down?) Decisions are made based on studies, surveys, all sorts of factors. I see this oftentimes with bike lanes. People claim they never see any bikers, therefore they're bad. But are they sitting there 24/7, doing actual studies? Most people make these statements based on their own observations. But it's a big city with over ten million people. And people have different view points about what should or shouldn't be done.

And like it or not, climates are changing. We do need to respond to it. Does that mean every single person pushing a climate solution is doing it for the greater good? No, there are always grifters. But unlike some other states, at least California seems to recognize that climates are changing and that will impact things in the future, for better or for worse.

As always: why do the pro-freeway people matter more than the anti-freeway people? Or vice versa?

Yeah that's generally what a rant is going to be. I don't like this and I'm pissed. Why the fuck would I not like something that's good? What the hell kind of sense does that make? Of course if I think something is bad I won't like it. And if I don't like something I'm going to think it's bad. Is that wrong?

And furthermore you go on to claim that you support the widening of freeways but also chime in that you believe that results in the freeway being used more so what's the point? What's your point? I really don't understand it. Pick and choose. Either you want freeways to be widened or you don't. I don't mind discussing induced demand with someone but choose a position on it.

You clearly don't read my posts if you think that's all I do. Or maybe you're just hyper fixating on my rants. Oh well.

[Plutonic Panda]

There is something to be said though about how modern American life largely revolves around commuting from a suburban-like area.  While it would be "nice" to have options I tend see much of these older cities as too far gone to be really truly "multimodal." 

To that extent I can see viewing stuff like prioritizing trying to make the infrastructure more diverse as potentially frustrating to someone who has used freeways for commuting purposes much of their life.  Likewise it probably feels even more frustrating if the changes in transportation priorities tend to come off as forcing you to potentially change your mode of life.  How many people at the end of the day actually like change?...doesn't seem like many.

Max that's my problem with this whole thing in California. I would completely get behind it and support it if it was truly a goal to become multimodal. Hell I could even understand throwing freeway widenings and similar projects on the back burner until this goal was realized. But that's not the goal and you know it.

Contrary to what quills says, there is a hidden nefarious motive, which is to completely make cities hostile to cars and remove as much car infrastructure as possible while making it as expensive and hard as possible to drive.

[Plutonic Panda]

Me personally I couldn't fathom trying to make it (or function) long term as an adult in the United States without access to a car.  I'm skeptical given that newer American cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas definitely aren't built to facilitate dense urban living.  Even the recently booming cities of the Central Valley like Fresno and Bakersfield are developing largely as car centric.

I don't know, sometimes going down visit family in Mexico is a refreshing eye opener.  The town my wife's family is from is 500 years old and was built with walking everywhere in mind.  That's an actual place where you can get by with using your feet a bike rather than a car.  Outside of a handful of super dense cities like NYC or SF we really don't have that state side. 

I mean hey, I'm a distance runner and going on long distance bike rides isn't super uncommon for me.  I just don't see how any of the current measures being taken would ever permit to commute to work via anything by car.  I would totally need to change what I do for work and get off the retirement trajectory I'm on.  That would never work for me, but perhaps someone far younger in their career life?

The sort of anti car crap you see in California and New York is a not coming to Nevada or Arizona anytime soon. It may or may not come one day but not in the near future.

And regarding your other comment about moving, that very well may be in the cards for me one day but ultimately I'd rather stay and fight to protect such a beautiful and accessible place to become one ruled by anti car nuts. Admittedly I would have already failed in such an endeavor but that doesn't call for running away and moving.

We'll just see how crazy these loons get because I don't see their ability to draw a line in the sand present.

[Quillz]

While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them.  I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine.  I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.

Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable.  Nowhere is perfect and nor does it always remain the same.

So, what should we do? Happily agree with them?

Recognize that different people have different viewpoints, and calling people "stupid" because they have viewpoints you don't agree with isn't productive.

[Quillz]

Contrary to what quills says, there is a hidden nefarious motive, which is to completely make cities hostile to cars and remove as much car infrastructure as possible while making it as expensive and hard as possible to drive.

How do you know this is happening if it's hidden? What evidence do you have?

[Quillz]

The sort of anti car crap you see in California and New York is a not coming to Nevada or Arizona anytime soon. It may or may not come one day but not in the near future.

How do you know? And what about other arbitrary states? You pick a sample size of two and then offer no explanation or evidence that something will or will not happen.

[Plutonic Panda]

While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them.  I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine.  I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.

Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable.  Nowhere is perfect and nor does it always remain the same.

So, what should we do? Happily agree with them?

Recognize that different people have different viewpoints, and calling people "stupid" because they have viewpoints you don't agree with isn't productive.

I do recognize people have different viewpoints just like I recognize when those viewpoints make no sense. Once again you conveniently skirt over my point and fail to address it.

[Plutonic Panda]

Contrary to what quills says, there is a hidden nefarious motive, which is to completely make cities hostile to cars and remove as much car infrastructure as possible while making it as expensive and hard as possible to drive.

How do you know this is happening if it's hidden? What evidence do you have?

At this point in time I have no evidence other than the constant and steady removal of car focused infrastructure from METRO.

[Plutonic Panda]

The sort of anti car crap you see in California and New York is a not coming to Nevada or Arizona anytime soon. It may or may not come one day but not in the near future.

How do you know? And what about other arbitrary states? You pick a sample size of two and then offer no explanation or evidence that something will or will not happen.

Alright you'll see.

[Quillz]

While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them.  I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine.  I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.

Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable.  Nowhere is perfect and nor does it always remain the same.

So, what should we do? Happily agree with them?

Recognize that different people have different viewpoints, and calling people "stupid" because they have viewpoints you don't agree with isn't productive.

I do recognize people have different viewpoints just like I recognize when those viewpoints make no sense. Once again you conveniently skirt over my point and fail to address it.

So this demonstrates what I said earlier. You basically have the mind set of "anyone who disagrees with me is stupid or makes no sense." Fair enough, I guess. Freeway expansion is difficult and there will always be negatives to it, like eminent domain. There will always be trade-offs that have to be made. It's a complicated matter and it's not as easy as you often make it sound.

[Quillz]

Contrary to what quills says, there is a hidden nefarious motive, which is to completely make cities hostile to cars and remove as much car infrastructure as possible while making it as expensive and hard as possible to drive.

How do you know this is happening if it's hidden? What evidence do you have?

At this point in time I have no evidence other than the constant and steady removal of car focused infrastructure from METRO.

Can you show me some tangible examples of this, so I have a better frame of reference?

[pderocco]

Mind your PPs and Qs, guys.

The one thing I hear little about is cost-effectiveness. How many urban or suburban thoroughfares have been put on a lane diet, for the benefit of cyclists? (I'm not a cyclist, but I used to be an avid skater, and I used bike lanes all the time.) But when I see that done to a road, what I notice is how practically empty the bike lanes are. Look down the street a quarter mile, and you'll see dozens of cars in each lane, but usually no bikes at all. I'm talking about places like Venice and Santa Monica CA.

The same is true for public transit, outside of the densest cities. Commuter trains are usually staggeringly expensive to build, maintain, and run, when you divide that by ridership. I remember when I lived in Portland OR, and they put in a new line west out to Hillsboro, which cost about a billion dollars (in the 1990s). Looking at recent stats (2022), it appears that the AADT on US-26 west of Portland is about 122K. The total ridership on the entire Blue Line is about 26K per day, so the west side is probably about a tenth of the number of cars, and many of those cars have passengers. So I'm not surprised that we didn't notice any meaningful thinning of the traffic on US-26. In 2023 TriMet's total passenger revenue was about $33 million, and their tax revenue was about $290 million. In Oregon, about 60% of the cost of all roads comes from user fees, such as the gas tax. So transit riders are getting a much better deal than drivers are, especially when you consider that a significant chunk of the gas tax is diverted to transit.

As to widening freeways, of course widening freeways causes people to drive more. But it's not as though they're driving more for the same benefit (as if they closed a road and people had to take a long detour). They drive more because the improvements widened the range they could cover for a given cost and effort. If you widen a freeway, at first the traffic density goes down, but eventually it goes back up. But you have more people traveling on it. It gives more people who live in a particular place a wider range of choices where to work, or people who work in a particular place a wider range of choices where to live. When people drive more because driving has been made easier, they are receiving a benefit roughly proportional to whatever externality (pollution, eminent domain) results. So logic says that if you think it's not worth the benefit, then we ought to be tearing up roads to make it even harder for people to get anywhere. Can you imagine the Los Angeles area without freeways? The VMT stats would be pretty tiny, and life would be a lot more difficult.

[Quillz]

If you widen a freeway, at first the traffic density goes down, but eventually it goes back up.

This is what I was stating earlier. Widening freeways will not solve traffic issues, eventually cars will use up all the lanes and you'll still have traffic. The reasons why they will be used might be different, but no matter how many lanes you add, they will get used and you'll run into traffic and still be driving at slow speeds during rush hour. Places like Atlanta have freeways that are 20 lanes wide and they still are subject to massive traffic jams.

I have no strong opinions on freeway widening. If they get widened, great. If not, so be it. All I have been saying is that widening freeways will not solve traffic issues in the way that some people seem to think it will be.

[Max Rockatansky]

While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them.  I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine.  I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.

Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable.  Nowhere is perfect and nor does it always remain the same.

So, what should we do? Happily agree with them?

No, but the Kernals12 approach isn't the solution either.

Let me ask, you how many people who complain about things like this actually do things like petition a local representative?  It isn't many and perhaps if more did there might be actual things that come from it.  I get that some have tried, but they tend to give up if they aren't heard or aren't persistent.  It takes effort to motivate political change from a cool and logical perspective, in the end it might not even work. 

Take what I do on GN pertaining to California.  I try to present what we do in an unbiased as possible manner.  Our core message is that the history of our roads is worth knowing.  That message might not have a huge footprint but when something gets shared virally on social media perhaps someone might see something in it or change their stance?  I know we wouldn't have the same impact if I filled our articles, blogs and posts with angry personal opinions.

Me personally I couldn't fathom trying to make it (or function) long term as an adult in the United States without access to a car.  I'm skeptical given that newer American cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas definitely aren't built to facilitate dense urban living.  Even the recently booming cities of the Central Valley like Fresno and Bakersfield are developing largely as car centric.

I don't know, sometimes going down visit family in Mexico is a refreshing eye opener.  The town my wife's family is from is 500 years old and was built with walking everywhere in mind.  That's an actual place where you can get by with using your feet a bike rather than a car.  Outside of a handful of super dense cities like NYC or SF we really don't have that state side. 

I mean hey, I'm a distance runner and going on long distance bike rides isn't super uncommon for me.  I just don't see how any of the current measures being taken would ever permit to commute to work via anything by car.  I would totally need to change what I do for work and get off the retirement trajectory I'm on.  That would never work for me, but perhaps someone far younger in their career life?

The sort of anti car crap you see in California and New York is a not coming to Nevada or Arizona anytime soon. It may or may not come one day but not in the near future.

And regarding your other comment about moving, that very well may be in the cards for me one day but ultimately I'd rather stay and fight to protect such a beautiful and accessible place to become one ruled by anti car nuts. Admittedly I would have already failed in such an endeavor but that doesn't call for running away and moving.

We'll just see how crazy these loons get because I don't see their ability to draw a line in the sand present.

The reason I have stayed here in the first place largely is because I got married and my wife's family is here.  Had that not happened there is a fair chance that I would have already taken a transfer to Washington State in 2017 and then to Italy in 2020 when nobody wanted to go there. . 

That said, there are a couple other things that have kept me here.  From a financial standpoint we own a newer home that my wife was wise enough to buy at the bottom of the real estate bubble.  We just simply cannot find what we pay for a mortgage many other places in the country outside of super rural areas. 

Both of us are also a decade for maximizing our pensions.  I can take my pension in on me on transfers given I'm a Federal employee, my wife can only do so in state. 

I previously had lived in Florida and Arizona prior to moving here.  I largely moved back here because it wasn't a larger urban I transferred in the Central Valley and I had lots of recreational opportunities in all directions.  I was a home owner in both those states but I also failed to create the optimal scenario my wife and I have now. 

All of what I describe is largely internal factors which I mostly have full control over.  To me, it would be illogical to spend a bunch of time getting all riled up about forces  at play that really can't affect the scenario I built for myself.  I know that doesn't work for everyone but it did for me after I maneuvered through three states to make things fully work my way. 

[cahwyguy]

I, like Tom/Max, try to take the neutral view on things. I try to understand why things are happening, and filter out biases when I read and write things. There's stuff from Streetsblog and related organizations in my headlines post primarily because they do write about changes to highways, and I do try to focus on things related to widening and major changes. There are lots of headlines I don't include about storm related closures and resurfacing repairs, because those are ephemeral and by the time I come to do my highway page updates (which is why I started the headline posts), they are already overtaken by events.

With that said, there has been a fundamental shift in Caltrans and CTC and the Regional agency planning: SB 743. The MTC summarizes it well:

SB 743, which took effect July 1, 2020, helps reduce transportation's impacts on the environment.

Before July 1, 2020, traffic congestion levels (known as level of service, or LOS) were the main measurement to determine the negative environmental impacts of development and transportation projects.

Under SB 743, these effects are now measured according to the overall amount that people drive (known as vehicle-miles traveled, or VMT).

VMT is calculated as part of a building or transportation project's CEQA environmental review process.

They also note:

To reduce this pollution, Senate Bill 743 works with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to prioritize development and transportation projects that get people out of individual cars and into sustainable modes of transportation.

By reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), we reduce the amount of air pollution from cars.

Note that this is also true for electric cars, at least now with our current generation processes. Use less electricity, you have less non-sustainable power generation.

So the goal is not to do major widenings. They don't reduce VMT, are hard to get through the CEQA process, and are very expensive with right of way issues and litigation, unless they are in rural areas (and that's not where the need is). That's why we won't see them. Same thing with new freeways. That's a like it or not, kids. If you don't like it, get your state legislators to change SB 743.

Streetsblog is right that Caltrans still does have a widening mentality, and attempts to get around it with aux lanes and weasel wording of proposals. I don't agree with their conclusions or how they ascribe motives, or how they see things as evil plots... but they at least talk about when this is done. THey also call Caltrans to task when they seemingly target lower income areas with their plans, because those are cheap. Highways have a horrible record in that area, espec. during the major area of highway construction when poor neighborhoods were destroyed to build roads. That's a fact we have to acknowledge. It is also important to acknowledge that while highways may help remove congestion from local communities they cut through, they don't help local businesses. They benefit through traffic. So often, the local tax base loses, and the suburbs win. There are lots of moving parts here.

We can argue whether this is right or that is right all day. Doesn't change anything. Don't like it? Every time I post the legislative information changes, and on my legislative information page, I give the link to the Legislature site. Comment on bills. Talk to your assembly and senate critters. If you live in California, VOTE TOMORROW. And understand the laws we have, and filter what you read through that lens.

As with our political choices (which I've written about in my ballot analysis), we don't get want we want. We have to live and choose between what we have. And, like it or not, we are in a SB 743 world, where we need to reduce VMT. Until that gets changed, we're not going to see new projects that will have the end result of increasing VMT. When we've reduced the threat of climate change, when we've improved neighborhood livability, when we've increased sustainable transportation options, and when there's been a marked shift to vehicles that are less pollution-inducing, then the pols will change the goalposts again.

[pderocco]

I feel like my main point keeps being missed. People don't drive on a freeway at random, they drive because they receive some benefit from it. And it can be a considerable benefit, given that they're willing to put up with traffic jams in order to do it. So if a freeway is widened from eight to ten lanes, once the traffic per lane drifts back up to what it was before, the traffic jams return, but 25% more people are receiving the benefit of driving on that freeway. This huge benefit seems totally invisible to the people who are talking about VMT and Climate Change.

Also, declining to widen freeways isn't going to make any meaningful improvement to the climate. If you want to do that, build nuclear power plants all over the place, and only use fossil fuels for mobile use where they're vastly superior to the alternatives. That will actually work. Yet most of the Climate Change obsessives have a passionate nuclear power phobia. So the only way to make sense of their preferred policies is that they are expressing cultural prejudices, and largely irrational ones at that.

[cahwyguy]

I feel like my main point keeps being missed. People don't drive on a freeway at random, they drive because they receive some benefit from it. And it can be a considerable benefit, given that they're willing to put up with traffic jams in order to do it. So if a freeway is widened from eight to ten lanes, once the traffic per lane drifts back up to what it was before, the traffic jams return, but 25% more people are receiving the benefit of driving on that freeway. This huge benefit seems totally invisible to the people who are talking about VMT and Climate Change.

No, it's just that it is not a benefit from their point of view. The goal, under SB743, is to reduce VMT. You said yourself that this increases VMT -- more people are driving. Remember that benefit is defined relative to the goal, and LOS -- number of vehicles through over time -- is no longer a goal.

Further, what seems to get their skivvies in a wad is that fact that Caltrans is doing widenings without doing widenings. By that I mean that Caltrans is not adding general purpose lanes, which would trigger full environmental reviews and assessment of VMT impacts -- and require offsetting mitigations for those VMT impacts (so in addition to the widening, they need to add VMT reduction projects nearby (such as parallel bike or transit facilities), or incorporate it in the widenings (such as express lanes). What Caltrans is doing is adding short stretches of AUX lanes, which DON'T trigger the EIR requjirements and mitigations. They ascribe duplicity to that approach; I just see it as Caltrans trying to save money.

Also, declining to widen freeways isn't going to make any meaningful improvement to the climate. If you want to do that, build nuclear power plants all over the place, and only use fossil fuels for mobile use where they're vastly superior to the alternatives. That will actually work. Yet most of the Climate Change obsessives have a passionate nuclear power phobia. So the only way to make sense of their preferred policies is that they are expressing cultural prejudices, and largely irrational ones at that.

It's hard to say what will make meaningful changes to long term climate at this point. But reducing the number of conventional vehicles on the road will reduce fuel usage and the burning of petroleum for vehicles. The impact of moving to alternative fuel vehicles is less clear, because how their power is generated (electricity, hydrogen) is less clear and still have impacts. Reducing VMT also reduces gas tax revenue, which is right now the road funding source.

Oh, and preferred policies always reflect current cultural prejudices. You just don't like them because the legislative prejudices don't match your prejudices. But I'm not sure that these forums are the place to talk about those prejudices. There is a policy to reduce VMT, and VMT must be accounted for in EIRs -- like that policy or not (and if you don't, change your politicians). That policy leans to less widening and less AUX lanes, and certainly leads to no new freeways. Additionally, our understanding of the equity issues involved with widening and new construction -- that is, the impact upon the character and nature of communities, and the disproportionate impact on financially weaker communities -- has grown, and we now want to consider that impact as part of the EIRs. These things lead to different solutions.

Eras change, and societies change. At one time, the answer was to build more railroad lines. We just need that technological leap. Where are the air cars we were promised? Because where we're going, we shouldn't need roads.

[Quillz]

You just don't like them because the legislative prejudices don't match your prejudices.

That's pretty much the vibe I got from some posters here. Their complaints are basically "these things are bad because I don't agree with them." That's fine, everyone has their world view. But that means it goes both ways, that something isn't bad just because you don't agree with it. I have no doubt there are plenty of "environmental" politicians only interested in lining their own pockets, but I don't agree that the entire thing is just some giant scam. I really do think society and some agencies want to do better, but like all things in life, it's a trial-and-error process. No doubt some things that are being done now will end up not being the right course of action. But the goal is to learn and improve. As opposed to just saying "well so-and-so won't make any impact, so let's just give up altogether."

[Quillz]

Additionally, our understanding of the equity issues involved with widening and new construction -- that is, the impact upon the character and nature of communities, and the disproportionate impact on financially weaker communities -- has grown, and we now want to consider that impact as part of the EIRs.

Yes, I have commented on this before. I wonder how many of the overtly pro-freeway people have ever had to live in neighborhoods displaced by freeway building, or had their house eminent domain'd. Everything has a trade-off in life, nothing is free. Wide freeways always come at the expense of something, whether it's nature or neighborhoods. This, of course, applies to more than just freeways. Such as the neighborhood that had to be completely wiped out to build Dodger Stadium, for example. At some point, someone has to pay for the things we want.

[Plutonic Panda]

While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them.  I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine.  I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.

Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable.  Nowhere is perfect and nor does it always remain the same.

So, what should we do? Happily agree with them?

No, but the Kernals12 approach isn't the solution either.

Let me ask, you how many people who complain about things like this actually do things like petition a local representative?  It isn't many and perhaps if more did there might be actual things that come from it.  I get that some have tried, but they tend to give up if they aren't heard or aren't persistent.  It takes effort to motivate political change from a cool and logical perspective, in the end it might not even work. 

Take what I do on GN pertaining to California.  I try to present what we do in an unbiased as possible manner.  Our core message is that the history of our roads is worth knowing.  That message might not have a huge footprint but when something gets shared virally on social media perhaps someone might see something in it or change their stance?  I know we wouldn't have the same impact if I filled our articles, blogs and posts with angry personal opinions.

Me personally I couldn't fathom trying to make it (or function) long term as an adult in the United States without access to a car.  I'm skeptical given that newer American cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas definitely aren't built to facilitate dense urban living.  Even the recently booming cities of the Central Valley like Fresno and Bakersfield are developing largely as car centric.

I don't know, sometimes going down visit family in Mexico is a refreshing eye opener.  The town my wife's family is from is 500 years old and was built with walking everywhere in mind.  That's an actual place where you can get by with using your feet a bike rather than a car.  Outside of a handful of super dense cities like NYC or SF we really don't have that state side. 

I mean hey, I'm a distance runner and going on long distance bike rides isn't super uncommon for me.  I just don't see how any of the current measures being taken would ever permit to commute to work via anything by car.  I would totally need to change what I do for work and get off the retirement trajectory I'm on.  That would never work for me, but perhaps someone far younger in their career life?

The sort of anti car crap you see in California and New York is a not coming to Nevada or Arizona anytime soon. It may or may not come one day but not in the near future.

And regarding your other comment about moving, that very well may be in the cards for me one day but ultimately I'd rather stay and fight to protect such a beautiful and accessible place to become one ruled by anti car nuts. Admittedly I would have already failed in such an endeavor but that doesn't call for running away and moving.

We'll just see how crazy these loons get because I don't see their ability to draw a line in the sand present.

The reason I have stayed here in the first place largely is because I got married and my wife's family is here.  Had that not happened there is a fair chance that I would have already taken a transfer to Washington State in 2017 and then to Italy in 2020 when nobody wanted to go there. . 

That said, there are a couple other things that have kept me here.  From a financial standpoint we own a newer home that my wife was wise enough to buy at the bottom of the real estate bubble.  We just simply cannot find what we pay for a mortgage many other places in the country outside of super rural areas. 

Both of us are also a decade for maximizing our pensions.  I can take my pension in on me on transfers given I'm a Federal employee, my wife can only do so in state. 

I previously had lived in Florida and Arizona prior to moving here.  I largely moved back here because it wasn't a larger urban I transferred in the Central Valley and I had lots of recreational opportunities in all directions.  I was a home owner in both those states but I also failed to create the optimal scenario my wife and I have now. 

All of what I describe is largely internal factors which I mostly have full control over.  To me, it would be illogical to spend a bunch of time getting all riled up about forces  at play that really can't affect the scenario I built for myself.  I know that doesn't work for everyone but it did for me after I maneuvered through three states to make things fully work my way.

I've taken some time away to think about this, and reflect on what you and CAHWYGUY said. You both make very good points. I could've worded what I was trying to say better without being so aggressive. Also calling them stupid really wasn't the right word I should've said ridiculous.

With that said, I still am going to stick to the main premise of my point which is I don't think this is all random. I don't think most people agree with this sort of stuff. We did see HLE pass in LA, which could indicate that most people do agree with it. But I don't think that's the case in LA will vote for just about anything if it's labeled as progressive.

I think the stuff is being shoved down our throats. I disagree with the notion that Caltrans is widening freeways, even if they call adding auxiliary lanes and such projects to widen freeways not so.

I really can't think of very project. Caltrans is undertaking that is under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan transit authority. Most of the main widening projects are being done in Santa Clara or Orange County. LA has two which is the widening and the SR 73 expansion and upgrade. But again that is not a Caltrans endeavor. That is LA Metro. That same agency has canceled several major freeway widening.

Caltrans seems to be very much anti-freeway these days and does the bare minimum of what they can and seems very quick to shut down freeway expansions or postpone them like they have with CA 99 in several spots.

But my view is there's a small group of people who represent an anti-Car ideology and want to do everything possible to get rid of Cars and the associated infrastructure.

[Quillz]

Or maybe people did have time to read and think about HLE, as opposed to just mindlessly voting yes or no. I'm sure if it didn't pass, you'd have a different claim. Low voter turnout also suggests that a lot of people likely don't have a strong opinion on the matter. HLE also specifically applies to county-maintained roads. Things that have been relinquished (like CA-2 through Santa Monica), anything within an incorporated city, is not applicable. And it applies to future improvements, it doesn't force the county to just immediately change up roads.

And how is it "being shoved down our throats" when these things are open to public comment and votes? Again, just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's being forced on people. You're letting your biases impact your critical thinking. If people don't go to the public meetings, if they don't comment, if they don't vote in local elections, that suggest a larger problem with civic engagement, not "things being forced down our throat." Seems the larger issue is people being more concerned with national elections, even though who your mayor is has a far bigger impact on your life than who you president is. Too often I've talked to people who complain about something within the city or state, I ask them if they voted in the last election, they say no. If they're not even going to bother with engagement (and California is one of the easiest states to vote in, between mail-in and even online voting), then I find myself wondering why they complain.

[Quillz]

But my view is there's a small group of people who represent an anti-Car ideology and want to do everything possible to get rid of Cars and the associated infrastructure.

Well if they're a small group, nothing to worry about then.

[Plutonic Panda]

Dude you are so hyper focus on your theory that because I don't like something I think it's wrong. Stop with that bullshit. It's not true.

[Quillz]

Dude you are so hyper focus on your theory that because I don't like something I think it's wrong. Stop with that bullshit. It's not true.

Well given most of your posts boil down to "things I don't like are bad," and your evidence is "people just vote for progressive stuff" or "there's a nefarious plot," I have little to go on. You also ignored the things like Max and cahwyguy posted about why Caltrans has to operate the way they do. You also seem to rarely consider the trade-offs that are necessary to freeway construction or expansion. I recall when you told people who would be affected by it to "just understand it and accept it." At one point you ignored the reasoning as to why roads haven't been extended down the Santa Monica Mountains, and that some areas are desirable because of that. This winter demonstrated how difficult it can be to maintain roads in mountainous areas, adding more is only going to make maintenance even more difficult, and require intrusion into existing communities.

And I'm sorry, but it's a message board. I can respond to your viewpoints with my own. If they are true or false, too bad. If you are posting, I will comment. Just like you can do the same with me or any other user. You also didn't respond to my earlier questions about why states like Arizona and Nevada will supposedly not have anti-car/anti-freeway sentiment now or in the future, or provide any tangible examples regarding "steady removal of car focused infrastructure from METRO." Your posts are mainly just ranting that "people who are against freeways are bad." That's my interpretation, if it's wrong, well, prove me wrong.