Mod Note: Combined threads "California having the poorest roads/highways in the country?" and "Which percent (%) of California highways have new pavement/asphalt?", per request, since the threads were discussing similar topics. (Original thread titles retained on messages after merge for clarity.) –Roadfro
I have watched a video on Youtube, about California having the poorest (worst) roads and highways in the country?
Does anyone want to comment on that?
Who's video? Link it over? Regardless I'd say that's a pretty baseless opinion of someone who probably lives here. Where else in the country do you have countless traffic light free expressways along with TWO US Routes that don't have any for hundreds of miles? Basically that sounds like someone talking from the perspective of some urban slog like L.A....but I'm just saying that without even seeing the video.
Maybe I can make a Google search, Max to see who has the most poorest roads and highways in the USA.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2015/08/25/10-States-Worst-Roads?page=1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/25/why-driving-on-americas-roads-can-be-more-expensive-than-you-think/
But what's their criteria for "poor road conditions?" California wasn't even close to number one on that list and there wasn't a wiff of Michigan in regards to road quality? :eyebrow:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 16, 2016, 09:29:47 PM
But what's their criteria for "poor road conditions?" California wasn't even close to number one on that list and there wasn't a wiff of Michigan in regards to road quality? :eyebrow:
51% and $762 behind Oklahoma, and District of Columbia, Max. California is in 3rd place, the facts don't lie.
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 16, 2016, 09:36:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 16, 2016, 09:29:47 PM
But what's their criteria for "poor road conditions?" California wasn't even close to number one on that list and there wasn't a wiff of Michigan in regards to road quality? :eyebrow:
51% and $762 behind Oklahoma, and District of Columbia, Max. California is in 3rd place, the facts don't lie.
http://www.tripnet.org/docs/Urban_Roads_TRIP_Report_July_2015.pdf
Granted I looked at the first link only, but I hate these subjective top 10s. I'd say to all them stop driving in Los Angeles, San Diego, and the Bay Area and tell me what they think about the rest of the state before deciding to lob that high of a rating. Does that rating include proportions for populations in that budget analysis?...if it doesn't then things are pretty skewed given that no state really is withing 10 million people of California which means there are more cars on the road day-to-day than any other state. I'm sure they don't have "roadway design" as part of the criteria as well. A lot of states are still stuck in the dark ages of two-lane roads when it comes to anything less than an Interstate. I'm not saying that Californian roads have maintenance issues that warrants them being in the top 10. But I know damn well that there is MUCH worse out there than this state.
There you go...as you're writing this you include some Urban Trip report thing.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 16, 2016, 09:45:31 PM
Granted I looked at the first link only, but I hate these subjective top 10s. I'd say to all them stop driving in Los Angeles, San Diego, and the Bay Area and tell me what they think about the rest of the state before deciding to lob that high of a rating. Does that rating include proportions for populations in that budget analysis?...if it doesn't then things are pretty skewed given that no state really is withing 10 million people of California which means there are more cars on the road day-to-day than any other state. I'm sure they don't have "roadway design" as part of the criteria as well. A lot of states are still stuck in the dark ages of two-lane roads when it comes to anything less than an Interstate. I'm not saying that Californian roads have maintenance issues that warrants them being in the top 10. But I know damn well that there is MUCH worse out there than this state.
There you go...as you're writing this you include some Urban Trip report thing.
Until you get on the California state route 91, Riverside Freeway from Anaheim, to Riverside, CA. Max that is the number one worst freeway. And the Interstate 405, San Diego Freeway is another worst freeway in the state of California.
Mod Note: Fixed quoting. –Roadfro
And? :eyebrow: Yes the 405 is infamous for having a crap ton of traffic, the most cars by day if I recall correctly. Hence the reason why I refused to move back to L.A. when I accepted a transfer out here again. There is a lot more to this state than just the Megalopolis and it's hellish traffic conditions.
Umm....no Youtube video?
But wait Sacramento still has to finish Renovating the Beltline freeway I-80 and in Solano County the interchange between Highway 680/Highway 80 and Highway 12 is under construction as of 2016 to handle both Bay Area and Sacramento Valley Traffic. Plus some places are removing their button copy signs as of 2016.
Well some parts of California are in the process of improving their roads.
The 5 Fwy in Orange County is one of the nicest stretches of freeways I've ever driven on. Other Orange County freeways are very nice as well.
I've driven from the Oregon Border down to San Diego several times. No particular place stands out to me as being of poor quality, except the LA County freeways (though I know work is being done to expand and refinish the 5 in LA County).
That said, there are thousands of miles of roadway that I have never driven in California, so it would be foolish of me to say that California doesn't have shit roads; I simply haven't driven enough of the highways to be certain, one way or the other.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2016, 01:47:23 AM
The 5 Fwy in Orange County is one of the nicest stretches of freeways I've ever driven on. Other Orange County freeways are very nice as well.
I've driven from the Oregon Border down to San Diego several times. No particular place stands out to me as being of poor quality, except the LA County freeways (though I know work is being done to expand and refinish the 5 in LA County).
That said, there are thousands of miles of roadway that I have never driven in California, so it would be foolish of me to say that California doesn't have shit roads; I simply haven't driven enough of the highways to be certain, one way or the other.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsCpax-09BU
Except that Interstate 5, the Golden State Freeway and Interstate 405, the San Diego Freeway as well as the U.S. 101, Ventura Freeway needs to be repaved. California state route 1, Cabrillo Highway and U.S. 101 through portions of San Luis Obispo County needs to be repaved, except for city of San Luis Obispo, CA where U.S. 101 is all ready repaved due to Caltrans District 5, in my own county.
Mod Note: Fixed quoting. –Roadfro
I wonder what is the percentage (%) of California highways and roads that have new pavement/asphalt within the Caltrans Districts 1 through 12?
Any comments, please? This goes back to my earlier post on how California is #3 in poorest highways and roads.
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 02:25:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2016, 01:47:23 AM
The 5 Fwy in Orange County is one of the nicest stretches of freeways I've ever driven on. Other Orange County freeways are very nice as well.
I've driven from the Oregon Border down to San Diego several times. No particular place stands out to me as being of poor quality, except the LA County freeways (though I know work is being done to expand and refinish the 5 in LA County).
That said, there are thousands of miles of roadway that I have never driven in California, so it would be foolish of me to say that California doesn't have shit roads; I simply haven't driven enough of the highways to be certain, one way or the other.
Except that Interstate 5, the Golden State Freeway and Interstate 405, the San Diego Freeway as well as the U.S. 101, Ventura Freeway needs to be repaved. California state route 1, Cabrillo Highway and U.S. 101 through portions of San Luis Obispo County needs to be repaved, except for city of San Luis Obispo, CA where U.S. 101 is all ready repaved due to Caltrans District 5, in my own county.
You could say that ("xx needs to be repaved") about many highways, in many other states. I don't think California is unique in having several sections of highway needing repaving or resurfacing.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2016, 01:47:23 AM
The 5 Fwy in Orange County is one of the nicest stretches of freeways I've ever driven on. Other Orange County freeways are very nice as well.
I've driven from the Oregon Border down to San Diego several times. No particular place stands out to me as being of poor quality, except the LA County freeways (though I know work is being done to expand and refinish the 5 in LA County).
That said, there are thousands of miles of roadway that I have never driven in California, so it would be foolish of me to say that California doesn't have shit roads; I simply haven't driven enough of the highways to be certain, one way or the other.
I agree though too to that stretch of Interstate 5, the Santa Ana Freeway.
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 02:57:06 PM
This goes back to my earlier post on how California is #3 in poorest highways and roads.
Then you should have posted this in that discussion. There's absolutely no need to start a separate topic.
Mods, more specifically
roadfro, Can you please merge this with the one about California being #3 in poorest highway/road conditions? Thanks!
This is a meaningless thread unless you care to define "new".
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2016, 03:03:06 PM
You could say that ("xx needs to be repaved") about many highways, in many other states. I don't think California is unique in having several sections of highway needing repaving or resurfacing.
While that's a true statement, I sadly admit there are some stretches of highway in California that are in DIRE need of repaving. I-580 west from I-205 to Livermore comes to mind.
Quote from: kphoger on September 17, 2016, 03:12:40 PM
This is a meaningless thread unless you care to define "new".
Ok I get it, I am not stupid, ok?
OK.
Then the answer is 64%.
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 03:37:18 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 17, 2016, 03:12:40 PM
This is a meaningless thread unless you care to define "new".
Ok I get it, I am not stupid, ok?
And earlier someone has brought up the off subject of relationships in Summer, which is not so much needed either.
Quote from: kphoger on September 17, 2016, 03:40:57 PM
OK.
Then the answer is 64%.
Go look it up on Google search or via Automobile Club Of Southern California, to find the real percentage.
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%.
Quote from: kphoger on September 17, 2016, 03:49:41 PM
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.
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 03:58:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 17, 2016, 03:49:41 PM
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.
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 04:03:33 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 03:58:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 17, 2016, 03:49:41 PM
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%
Quote from: coatimundi on September 17, 2016, 05:15:39 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 04:03:33 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 03:58:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 17, 2016, 03:49:41 PM
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.
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 05:31:38 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on September 17, 2016, 05:15:39 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 04:03:33 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 03:58:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 17, 2016, 03:49:41 PM
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
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 03:58:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 17, 2016, 03:49:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 17, 2016, 05:38:19 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 03:58:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 17, 2016, 03:49:41 PM
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. :confused:
Why are you so annoying and why is there so many threads about random things rather than things that matter? Getting some dzlsabe vibes.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 17, 2016, 05:54:24 PM
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.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 17, 2016, 05:54:24 PM
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.
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 06:09:15 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 17, 2016, 05:54:24 PM
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?
Are we settled, then? The answer to the topic question is 51.7%? Good.
[/thread]
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 17, 2016, 06:36:24 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 06:09:15 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 17, 2016, 05:54:24 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 17, 2016, 06:36:24 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 06:09:15 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 17, 2016, 05:54:24 PM
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. :meh: 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. :eyebrow:
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 06:48:15 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 17, 2016, 06:36:24 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 06:09:15 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 17, 2016, 05:54:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 17, 2016, 09:38:54 PM
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. :meh: 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. :eyebrow:
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
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 17, 2016, 09:38:54 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 06:48:15 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 17, 2016, 06:36:24 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on September 17, 2016, 06:09:15 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 17, 2016, 05:54:24 PM
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
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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 18, 2016, 03:09:49 AM
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.