California's projected budget deficit is rising. "Gov. Jerry Brown's administration miscalculated costs for the state Medi-Cal program by $1.9 billion last year, an oversight that contributed to Brown's projection of a deficit in the upcoming budget, officials acknowledged this week," the Associated Press reported today.
California's projected deficits could have been avoided by curtailing wasteful spending. As the Reason Foundation notes, California spends more money to get worse roads than most states:
"California spends 4.7 times as much per mile of state-controlled highway as the national average. More specifically, for every $1 Texas spends on its highways, California spends $5.80. For every $1 Michigan spends on its highways, California spends $3. ... California ranks 47th for highway conditions, while Michigan ranks 30th and Texas 11th. So while spending a lot less per mile, those states are able to have much better road conditions. In fact, over the last 20 years, California's highway system and road conditions made the least amount of progress among all 50 states."
"... There is arguably more fat and wasteful spending at Caltrans than there is in any other state agency, which is saying a lot. Spending 4.7 times the national average per mile (in exchange for one of the poorest-ranked transportation systems in the county, no less) means a lot of bad decisions about spending are being made."
But left-wing special interest groups that hold sway in California block reform.
California's rising budget deficit could be reduced in future years by canceling a massive minimum wage increase that goes into effect by 2022 — an increase that economists warned against in vain.
California's legislative analyst projected last year that the recent increase in the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour will cost taxpayers $3.6 billion more a year in increased government worker pay. This is partly because already well-paid government workers sometimes have their pay pegged to a multiple of the minimum wage.
The increase will also drive up state welfare costs by wiping out many jobs. The American Action Forum predicts the increase will ultimately cost California nearly 700,000 jobs. An economist at Moody's calculated that 31,000 to 160,000 California manufacturing jobs will be lost.
Gov. Brown won't be fazed by these job losses. Back in 1995, he declared that the "conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs." In signing the massive increase into law last year, Brown admitted that "Economically, minimum wages may not make sense." But "politically they make every sense," he said.
Job losses from the minimum wage increase will also reduce state tax revenue. Meanwhile, low income workers who manage to keep their jobs despite the increased minimum wage will face increased taxes and reduced federal earned-income tax credits and food stamps. As Henry Schmid notes, "the tax implications of going from a $10- to a $15-an-hour minimum wage" wipe out much of the benefit of any increase to the affected workers. "For a family of four with both spouses making the minimum wage, their federal tax will increase from $4,106 to $7,219, payroll tax will increase from $2,579 to $3,869, their earned-income tax credit (EITC) will be reduced from $596 to zero ... and the $2,400 food-stamp credit will be lost."
Hans Bader practices law in Washington, D.C. After studying economics and history at the University of Virginia and law at Harvard, he practiced civil-rights, international-trade, and constitutional law.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/
It will be interesting to see how the People's Republic Of Californication does compared to Trump's rest of America that thought he was the better choice. Stay tuned!
Note to mods: Since transportation costs are part of politics, I do hope this thread does not wind up locked down.
Rick
Trump is a horrible person...LOL!
This article is kind of garbage...
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2017, 12:21:09 AM
California's projected budget deficit is rising. "Gov. Jerry Brown's administration miscalculated costs for the state Medi-Cal program by $1.9 billion last year, an oversight that contributed to Brown's projection of a deficit in the upcoming budget, officials acknowledged this week," the Associated Press reported today.
California's projected deficits could have been avoided by curtailing wasteful spending. As the Reason Foundation notes, California spends more money to get worse roads than most states:
"California spends 4.7 times as much per mile of state-controlled highway as the national average. More specifically, for every $1 Texas spends on its highways, California spends $5.80. For every $1 Michigan spends on its highways, California spends $3. ... California ranks 47th for highway conditions, while Michigan ranks 30th and Texas 11th. So while spending a lot less per mile, those states are able to have much better road conditions. In fact, over the last 20 years, California's highway system and road conditions made the least amount of progress among all 50 states."
"... There is arguably more fat and wasteful spending at Caltrans than there is in any other state agency, which is saying a lot. Spending 4.7 times the national average per mile (in exchange for one of the poorest-ranked transportation systems in the county, no less) means a lot of bad decisions about spending are being made."
No specifics on why California spends the most, just broad based accusations that CalTrans is useless.
Seems to me that it should cost more to build roads in California than in Michigan and Texas just based on California's geography and topography.
This article doesn't speak at all in specifics of where the money is actually going?
- Is it going to siesmic retrofit programs?
- What percentage of capital money has to go to property acquisition?
- Is litigation more of an issue in California than in other jurisdictions?
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2017, 12:21:09 AM
But left-wing special interest groups that hold sway in California block reform.
Which ones? And specifically, which reforms are being blocked?
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2017, 12:21:09 AM
California's rising budget deficit could be reduced in future years by canceling a massive minimum wage increase that goes into effect by 2022 — an increase that economists warned against in vain.
California's legislative analyst projected last year that the recent increase in the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour will cost taxpayers $3.6 billion more a year in increased government worker pay. This is partly because already well-paid government workers sometimes have their pay pegged to a multiple of the minimum wage.
And what percentage of these workers work for Caltrans?
Is collective bargaining going to take place over the next five years that will renegotiate these deals?
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2017, 12:21:09 AM
The increase will also drive up state welfare costs by wiping out many jobs. The American Action Forum predicts the increase will ultimately cost California nearly 700,000 jobs. An economist at Moody's calculated that 31,000 to 160,000 California manufacturing jobs will be lost.
Gov. Brown won't be fazed by these job losses. Back in 1995, he declared that the "conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs." In signing the massive increase into law last year, Brown admitted that "Economically, minimum wages may not make sense." But "politically they make every sense," he said.
Job losses from the minimum wage increase will also reduce state tax revenue. Meanwhile, low income workers who manage to keep their jobs despite the increased minimum wage will face increased taxes and reduced federal earned-income tax credits and food stamps. As Henry Schmid notes, "the tax implications of going from a $10- to a $15-an-hour minimum wage" wipe out much of the benefit of any increase to the affected workers. "For a family of four with both spouses making the minimum wage, their federal tax will increase from $4,106 to $7,219, payroll tax will increase from $2,579 to $3,869, their earned-income tax credit (EITC) will be reduced from $596 to zero ... and the $2,400 food-stamp credit will be lost."
Hans Bader practices law in Washington, D.C. After studying economics and history at the University of Virginia and law at Harvard, he practiced civil-rights, international-trade, and constitutional law.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/
How does this relate to CalTrans? This is the ole' bait and switch. Get people riled up about something, and then switch the topic to something else.
Plus, a healthy dose of skepticism should always be employed when articles quote think tanks like the "Reason Foundation". The "Reason Foundation" is funded by large corporations, and specifically the Koch Brothers, who are trying to legitimize their own business interests through a non-profit. It's not as if the "Reason Foundation" is set up as an altruistic agency.
There are enough seemingly valid stats to back up the conclusion Caltrans is a wasteful agency. Sorry to say I do not have enough time to go to Sacramento with an army of accountants to verify everything down to the 1/10th of 1% accuracy level. Hey, if you like bloated bureaucracy Asphalt, that is your privilege...LOL!
Rick
^ I don't like a bloated bureaucracy.
But I like when claims are backed up by facts. And, quite frankly, you should too.
I'd rather have waste than cut corners...LOL!
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2017, 12:21:09 AM
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/
This right-wing news URL is now broken, if it ever did actually work.
This is a really awful post. I mean, take out the fiscal conservatism and right-wing slant, and it's still a really bad post. Is the point to convince those of us in California that Caltrans' spending habits are the root of all the state's woes? Then the rest of the post goes on a rant about the minimum wage increase. What does that have to do with roads?
You have to realize with this stuff that you're just harping on traditionally conservative talking points. You're not offering any new insights or information and no one is going to have their mind changed by this. I've heard this exact sort of thing before, as I'm sure most people have. This is not interesting or unique.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2017, 12:21:09 AM
California's projected budget deficit is rising. "Gov. Jerry Brown's administration miscalculated costs for the state Medi-Cal program by $1.9 billion last year, an oversight that contributed to Brown's projection of a deficit in the upcoming budget, officials acknowledged this week," the Associated Press reported today.
California's projected deficits could have been avoided by curtailing wasteful spending. As the Reason Foundation notes, California spends more money to get worse roads than most states
Or, maybe California's projected deficit could have been avoided by calculating the Medi-Cal program properly.
Caltrans had the same issues under Republican leadership that it does under Democratic leadership...government waste knows no party lines - it's just when the pork gets doled out to things you believe in, you tend not to complain as much.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2017, 12:21:09 AM
It will be interesting to see how the People's Republic Of Californication does compared to Trump's rest of America that thought he was the better choice. Stay tuned!
Nice. "Rest of America?" Nearly half the people voted for Trump, nearly half voted for Clinton. Just like every presidential election. Quirks of man-made geography and antiquated electoral systems decided the outcome. Even the biggest landslides weren't more than 60/40 on the popular vote.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2017, 12:21:09 AM
Note to mods: Since transportation costs are part of politics, I do hope this thread does not wind up locked down.
Probably would have been fine until you injected your own politics into it. :)
It seems to me that there was a clear dip in the overall quality of California's highway network as part of the '64 renumbering. Not all at once, of course, but I think the fact that the old periodicals that used to be published switching from an informative source to a more cheerleading aspect is telling.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 21, 2017, 11:46:00 AM
^ I don't like a bloated bureaucracy.
But I like when claims are backed up by facts. And, quite frankly, you should too.
There were facts there. Sorry they were not flavored the way you like!
Rick
Quote from: coatimundi on January 21, 2017, 12:59:06 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2017, 12:21:09 AM
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/
This right-wing news URL is now broken, if it ever did actually work.
This is a really awful post. I mean, take out the fiscal conservatism and right-wing slant, and it's still a really bad post. Is the point to convince those of us in California that Caltrans' spending habits are the root of all the state's woes? Then the rest of the post goes on a rant about the minimum wage increase. What does that have to do with roads?
You have to realize with this stuff that you're just harping on traditionally conservative talking points. You're not offering any new insights or information and no one is going to have their mind changed by this. I've heard this exact sort of thing before, as I'm sure most people have. This is not interesting or unique.
Hey, if you have a problem with the link, please do feel free to take it up with the webmaster for the site, mmkay? Tnx.
Rick
Quote from: DTComposer on January 21, 2017, 06:24:18 PM
Caltrans had the same issues under Republican leadership that it does under Democratic leadership...government waste knows no party lines - it's just when the pork gets doled out to things you believe in, you tend not to complain as much.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2017, 12:21:09 AM
It will be interesting to see how the People's Republic Of Californication does compared to Trump's rest of America that thought he was the better choice. Stay tuned!
Nice. "Rest of America?" Nearly half the people voted for Trump, nearly half voted for Clinton. Just like every presidential election. Quirks of man-made geography and antiquated electoral systems decided the outcome. Even the biggest landslides weren't more than 60/40 on the popular vote.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2017, 12:21:09 AM
Note to mods: Since transportation costs are part of politics, I do hope this thread does not wind up locked down.
Probably would have been fine until you injected your own politics into it. :)
Sorry to say I am not in the business of making everyone happy all the time...LOL! There are women who do try that and they charge by the hour so pay them a visit if that is what you need :-)
Rick
Quote from: NE2 on January 21, 2017, 12:38:25 AM
Trump is a horrible person...LOL!
This topic has nothing to do with Trump.
I was expecting this to be meatier when I glanced at this morning. No talk about "usage taxes" (which didn't even make as a proposition) or the "high-speed rail controversy?" :eyebrow: I guess some statistics talk is in order if anyone out there has the information handy. Specifically how much roadway does California maintain in comparison to Texas and Michigan. To add on top of that what is the proportion of said roadway built to expressway/freeway/Interstate standard? Granted I kind of question the link questionable since it is now "dead" but it wouldn't surprise me that the design standards in California have a higher maintenance price tag than other states.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 21, 2017, 10:12:32 PM
I was expecting this to be meatier when I glanced at this morning. No talk about "usage taxes" (which didn't even make as a proposition) or the "high-speed rail controversy?" :eyebrow:
It's typical libertarian drivel...LOL!
I have
bolded facts, and underlined
conjecture. There is an important difference.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2017, 12:21:09 AM
California's projected budget deficit is rising. "Gov. Jerry Brown's administration miscalculated costs for the state Medi-Cal program by $1.9 billion last year, an oversight that contributed to Brown's projection of a deficit in the upcoming budget, officials acknowledged this week," the Associated Press reported today.
California's projected deficits could have been avoided by curtailing wasteful spending. As the Reason Foundation notes, California spends more money to get worse roads than most states:
"California spends 4.7 times as much per mile of state-controlled highway as the national average. More specifically, for every $1 Texas spends on its highways, California spends $5.80. For every $1 Michigan spends on its highways, California spends $3. ... California ranks 47th for highway conditions, while Michigan ranks 30th and Texas 11th. So while spending a lot less per mile, those states are able to have much better road conditions. In fact, over the last 20 years, California's highway system and road conditions made the least amount of progress among all 50 states."
"... There is arguably more fat and wasteful spending at Caltrans than there is in any other state agency, which is saying a lot. Spending 4.7 times the national average per mile (in exchange for one of the poorest-ranked transportation systems in the county, no less) means a lot of bad decisions about spending are being made."
But left-wing special interest groups that hold sway in California block reform.
California's rising budget deficit could be reduced in future years by canceling a massive minimum wage increase that goes into effect by 2022 — an increase that economists warned against in vain.
California's legislative analyst projected last year that the recent increase in the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour will cost taxpayers $3.6 billion more a year in increased government worker pay. This is partly because already well-paid government workers sometimes have their pay pegged to a multiple of the minimum wage.
The increase will also drive up state welfare costs by wiping out many jobs. The American Action Forum predicts the increase will ultimately cost California nearly 700,000 jobs. An economist at Moody's calculated that 31,000 to 160,000 California manufacturing jobs will be lost.
Gov. Brown won't be fazed by these job losses. Back in 1995, he declared that the "conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs." In signing the massive increase into law last year, Brown admitted that "Economically, minimum wages may not make sense." But "politically they make every sense," he said.
Job losses from the minimum wage increase will also reduce state tax revenue. Meanwhile, low income workers who manage to keep their jobs despite the increased minimum wage will face increased taxes and reduced federal earned-income tax credits and food stamps. As Henry Schmid notes, "the tax implications of going from a $10- to a $15-an-hour minimum wage" wipe out much of the benefit of any increase to the affected workers. "For a family of four with both spouses making the minimum wage, their federal tax will increase from $4,106 to $7,219, payroll tax will increase from $2,579 to $3,869, their earned-income tax credit (EITC) will be reduced from $596 to zero ... and the $2,400 food-stamp credit will be lost."
Hans Bader practices law in Washington, D.C. After studying economics and history at the University of Virginia and law at Harvard, he practiced civil-rights, international-trade, and constitutional law.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/
And for the record, I'm a Canadian, so the facts don't suit me either way, it's not my money, I'm just pointing out that the article you posted is deliberately misleading. This article is designed to be deliberately manipulative to express the author's point of view. And judging by your reaction, it's worked.
Quote from: coatimundi on January 21, 2017, 12:59:06 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2017, 12:21:09 AMhttp://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/
This right-wing news URL is now broken, if it ever did actually work.
Direct link to the actual comment piece (which Nexus73 cut-and-pasted without quote markup, so that it is not immediately evident they are not his own words):
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/california-budget-deficit-rising-wasteful-spending-minimum-wage-hike-blame
And here is Wikipedia's article on CNSNews.com:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNSNews.com
It looks to me to be just a cut above the Macedonian fake-news sites. And this kitchen-sink approach of conflating welfare, a minimum-wage hike, the budget of one state agency (Caltrans), and supposedly overpaid government workers in general into one article is pretty obviously designed to overwhelm casual fact-checking.
As for Caltrans, I have visited agency HQ in Sacramento twice and followed their construction lettings for over a decade. I would not characterize them as extravagant, and their construction estimates have always seemed to me broadly in line with those in other states. The state highway system comprises about 13,000 centerline miles, of which about 5,000 is freeway, with a significant proportion of the rest consisting of one- and two-lane roads in unforgiving terrain. Caltrans employee headcount is around 18,000. This is considerably more than at other state DOTs (e.g., Kansas DOT maintains 10,000 centerline miles, of which about 1100 is freeway, and has about 3,000 employees), but direct comparison is difficult because of the longstanding requirement in California that engineering work on state infrastructure be undertaken by state employees. (When C.H. Purcell was assembling his team of all-stars to design the Bay Bridge back in the early 1930's, they had to be hired as state employees for the duration of the project.)
Once again, Asphalt Planet chimes in with what he thinks about "facts". Hey, I do not deny there is some conflating going on in the article but there is a good amount of meat on the bone to digest. You missed the point. Maybe a cutback in Molson consumption is warranted...LOL!
When I look at Caltrans taking 40 years from start to finish in order to build two tunnels, two small bridges and the paving of the bypass south of Pacifica, that alone is criminal. A person hired at the start of the process would be able to retire before it was completed and considering the scope of the project was medium-sized at best, this is indefensible along with the money put into "process". Can you imagine spending a century building the Golden Gate Bridge? That is the kind of timeframe we would be looking at these days using current Caltrans practices.
So even if one wants to argue over "facts" and can't see the forest for the trees, how does anyone who truly regards themselves a lover of infrastructure and all it represents defend such a wasteful approach to actually creating some? Trumpian approaches appear to be needed and thus his POV on cutting back regulations with two to go for each new one approved.
Time to get on with the debate about which regulations, standards and laws are needed! I look forward to seeing the issues discussed as they arise at the city, state and national levels. Maybe we can rebuild American infrastructure in a timely cost effective fashion for a change!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 11:26:12 AMWhen I look at Caltrans taking 40 years from start to finish in order to build two tunnels, two small bridges and the paving of the bypass south of Pacifica, that alone is criminal. A person hired at the start of the process would be able to retire before it was completed and considering the scope of the project was medium-sized at best, this is indefensible along with the money put into "process". Can you imagine spending a century building the Golden Gate Bridge? That is the kind of timeframe we would be looking at these days using current Caltrans practices.
Sorry, I'm not buying the SR 1 Devil's Slide tunnel project as an example of Caltrans dysfunction. The old "get 'er done" approach resulted in the rockfall-prone alignment that has now been bypassed. And while the planning process was protracted, it's a bit of an exaggeration to say it took 40 years to get this project done: that is a bit like saying it took 64 years to get the Bay Bridge built, counting from Emperor Norton's original idea in 1872 to bridge opening in 1936.
More details on the planning of the Devil's Slide relocation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lantos_Tunnels
The process opened in 1958 with the original idea for an inland routing over Montara Mountain. It took until 10 years before start of construction on the tunnel (in 2005) to kill that idea, as well as the freeway bypasses later proposed, which would have taken state park lands and created water quality problems that do not exist with the tunnel.
The length of the planning likely had something to do with priorities. SR 1 is a scenic route, with cross-section width limited by law to two lanes in rural areas. Freeway routes logically receive higher priority because their capacities are much greater than those of two-lane roads for a given LOS.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 11:26:12 AMSo even if one wants to argue over "facts" and can't see the forest for the trees, how does anyone who truly regards themselves a lover of infrastructure and all it represents defend such a wasteful approach to actually creating some? Trumpian approaches appear to be needed and thus his POV on cutting back regulations with two to go for each new one approved.
Quality matters. Reconstruction (in which Trump has expressed little, if any, interest) comprises a large share of our current infrastructure needs and that includes making good on past engineering mistakes such as geometric inadequacies (e.g., no shoulders on bridges) and deficient drainage and stormwater management.
I agree with JN Winkler that the CA-1 Devils Slide bypass is *NOT* an example of inefficiencies at Caltrans.
Californian's take great pride in our coastline and some will vigorously fight to protect it. Did the Devils Slide portion of CA-1 need to be replaced? Sure. But environmental and local opposition to a surface routing forced Caltrans to ultimately adopt a tunnel routing which triggered other concerns due to it's proximity to the San Andreas Fault.
Agreed with the points above.
The Devil's Slide Tunnel is a pretty prime example of a legitimate reason why California would need to spend more per capita on roads than other states. Few states would have to spend $440 million dollars to bypass a short section of secondary highway because the old road kept sliding into the ocean.
Trying to not spend such an enormous sum of money, by trying not to build the project, is actually an excellent example of fiscal conservatism. Something that the author of the above article would probably laud.
I may be drunk on Molsons, but at least I'm literate, LOL.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 21, 2017, 11:15:36 PM
As for Caltrans, I have visited agency HQ in Sacramento twice and followed their construction lettings for over a decade. I would not characterize them as extravagant, and their construction estimates have always seemed to me broadly in line with those in other states. The state highway system comprises about 13,000 centerline miles, of which about 5,000 is freeway, with a significant proportion of the rest consisting of one- and two-lane roads in unforgiving terrain. Caltrans employee headcount is around 18,000. This is considerably more than at other state DOTs (e.g., Kansas DOT maintains 10,000 centerline miles, of which about 1100 is freeway, and has about 3,000 employees), but direct comparison is difficult because of the longstanding requirement in California that engineering work on state infrastructure be undertaken by state employees. (When C.H. Purcell was assembling his team of all-stars to design the Bay Bridge back in the early 1930's, they had to be hired as state employees for the duration of the project.)
Something, something, something pearls. Something, something, something swine.
What a bunch of hooey. There are many reasons Caltrans' expenses would be higher than Michigan's. Earthquake country, so new construction must be built to seismic safety standards, and there is old inadequate construction that needs to be renovated, and damage from earthquakes that needs to be repaired. California has major mountain ranges that require expensive snow and rockfall removal and landslide damage to repair every year. California's population is increasing while Michigan's is level, creating California's need for construction of new capacity just to stay even. California's cost of living and prevailing wages are much higher than Michigan's, so the same job costs more.
Note especially that the state minimum wage has nothing to do with how much it costs to hire skilled labor, like construction workers.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 22, 2017, 01:19:24 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 11:26:12 AMWhen I look at Caltrans taking 40 years from start to finish in order to build two tunnels, two small bridges and the paving of the bypass south of Pacifica, that alone is criminal. A person hired at the start of the process would be able to retire before it was completed and considering the scope of the project was medium-sized at best, this is indefensible along with the money put into "process". Can you imagine spending a century building the Golden Gate Bridge? That is the kind of timeframe we would be looking at these days using current Caltrans practices.
Sorry, I'm not buying the SR 1 Devil's Slide tunnel project as an example of Caltrans dysfunction. The old "get 'er done" approach resulted in the rockfall-prone alignment that has now been bypassed. And while the planning process was protracted, it's a bit of an exaggeration to say it took 40 years to get this project done: that is a bit like saying it took 64 years to get the Bay Bridge built, counting from Emperor Norton's original idea in 1872 to bridge opening in 1936.
More details on the planning of the Devil's Slide relocation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lantos_Tunnels
The process opened in 1958 with the original idea for an inland routing over Montara Mountain. It took until 10 years before start of construction on the tunnel (in 2005) to kill that idea, as well as the freeway bypasses later proposed, which would have taken state park lands and created water quality problems that do not exist with the tunnel.
The length of the planning likely had something to do with priorities. SR 1 is a scenic route, with cross-section width limited by law to two lanes in rural areas. Freeway routes logically receive higher priority because their capacities are much greater than those of two-lane roads for a given LOS.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 11:26:12 AMSo even if one wants to argue over "facts" and can't see the forest for the trees, how does anyone who truly regards themselves a lover of infrastructure and all it represents defend such a wasteful approach to actually creating some? Trumpian approaches appear to be needed and thus his POV on cutting back regulations with two to go for each new one approved.
Quality matters. Reconstruction (in which Trump has expressed little, if any, interest) comprises a large share of our current infrastructure needs and that includes making good on past engineering mistakes such as geometric inadequacies (e.g., no shoulders on bridges) and deficient drainage and stormwater management.
Let me retort! Since you libs love HuffPost, I believe you'll accept a part of an article from them as the purest Gospel of all.
By the 1960s, state and county officials were eyeing a bypass of four to six lanes that would run east of San Pedro Mountain. The road was tied to a bold idea for development on the sparsely populated coast.
“They saw another couple hundred thousand people living out there,” said Mitch Postel of the San Mateo County Historical Association. “Maybe more.”
But the plan collided with the burgeoning environmental movement. The Sierra Club and others sued to block the project in 1972, sparking an epic legal and political fight that reached a climax in 1996 when county voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure in favor of a tunnel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/devils-slide-tunnels-open_n_2949030.html
For those of you unable to handle a link, too bad!
Now that we have established the Sixties as the start time for the project and 1972 as the year those environazis from the Sierra Club came out of the mist to sue, sue and sue some more, you can CLEARLY see those 40 years are covered.
Now compare that Californicated timeline to the one for the construction of the entire Alcan Highway. Hey, if you like getting screwed, blued and tattooed for the taxes you pay Winkler, that is your privilege. I prefer a much more efficient performance from my government at all levels.
Rick
You're an idiot...LOL!
Thanks for the shade NE2....LOL!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 07:00:12 PM
But the plan collided with the burgeoning environmental movement. The Sierra Club and others sued to block the project in 1972, sparking an epic legal and political fight that reached a climax in 1996 when county voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure in favor of a tunnel.
1972, during the tenure of Ronald Reagan, Republican, as governor.
Seeing as the discussion got political and all, LOL.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 07:00:12 PM
Let me retort! Since you libs love HuffPost, I believe you'll accept a part of an article from them as the purest Gospel of all.
I'd be a little surprised if anyone here regularly read Huff Post.
Lemme just re-state here: you're not interesting. Your viewpoint is not unique. Your ideas are not unique. You are not interesting and are wasting space. Please, at the least, learn how to properly to use the "quote" BB tag because your posts are confusing.
Say what you want about him, but at least ACSC Scott had somewhat relevant topics in his wastes of space. This is just awful.
Moving away from this failure of the nation's mid-century social and educational system, I wanted to get back to the costs that Caltrans tends to saddle, as well as the sort of unique structure Caltrans tends to have. Someone (not a roadgeek) told me, years ago, that Highway 1 was the most expensive highway to maintain in the country on a per mile basis. Considering the state of the highway on this rainy day during this rainiest of winters, with its multiple closures due to slides, I can see where that idea would come from. The fact is that the section south of me, around the Monterey/SLO County line, does not need to be connected. The relatively small population could be served by roads that cut through easier terrain to reach the coast while the most problematic sections between those minor population centers could be closed. But closing Highway 1 would severely disrupt economic activity in a number of communities on and around the coast in the two counties. So the Caltrans burden there is offset to an extent by the various taxes that the tourism brings in. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the state gets a bit of money from all the stickers, t-shirts and other schwag with the iconic Highway 1 shield. If they're not, then that seems silly to me since it should be trademarked, just as the interstate shields are.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 07:00:12 PM
Let me retort! Since you libs love HuffPost, I believe you'll accept a part of an article from them as the purest Gospel of all.
I think that says it all.
WTF does the HuffPost have to do with this discussion?!? At no point was the HuffPost mentioned until YOU brought it up. Was trolling the whole point of this topic? If so I guess I fell for it hook, line and sinker. LOL.
Mods, please lock this!
I don't think the miner's spade is copyrighted, actually. Nor are the US highway shields. I see tons of trinket shops selling CA-1 and US-101 stickers, magnets, etc. I don't think there would be as many if they had to give royalties to Caltrans.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 07:00:12 PMLet me retort! Since you libs love HuffPost, I believe you'll accept a part of an article from them as the purest Gospel of all.
I don't ordinarily read HuffPost, since I have my doubts about its reliability, but I'd observe the article you are quoting is syndicated from the San Mateo
Times.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 07:00:12 PMNow that we have established the Sixties as the start time for the project and 1972 as the year those environazis from the Sierra Club came out of the mist to sue, sue and sue some more, you can CLEARLY see those 40 years are covered.
I linked to a Wikipedia article that gave 1958 as the start of planning for the relocation. So, yeah, the 40 years are covered, in the same sense the 64 years between Emperor Norton's proclamation and opening of the Bay Bridge are covered.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 07:00:12 PMNow compare that Californicated timeline to the one for the construction of the entire Alcan Highway. Hey, if you like getting screwed, blued and tattooed for the taxes you pay Winkler, that is your privilege. I prefer a much more efficient performance from my government at all levels.
So you want to go with the Alcan Highway in 1942 as an example of efficient construction? That was seven months to build a barely motorable road that was not opened to public travel until 1948 and not paved throughout its entire length until several decades later, in part because many segments of the original construction were on top of permafrost that thawed and formed thermokarsts.
One of the purposes of planning is to save money by allowing potential obstacles to initial construction and subsequent trouble-free service (many of which, in the case of roads, are hidden until surveys are done) to be identified early enough to develop efficient ways of tackling them. If you would like to rush in and build without careful study, I'm more than happy to let you pay for the do-overs.
Quote from: coatimundi on January 22, 2017, 08:35:13 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 07:00:12 PM
Say what you want about him, but at least ACSC Scott had somewhat relevant topics in his wastes of space. This is just awful.
You know...I agree somewhat (extreme emphasis on somewhat), at times he would have a diamond in the rough about some local level stuff or would say something that would generate some substantial conversations. Granted it was difficult to understand what the hell he was trying to say sometimes. I would have been curious to see his thoughts on 41 closing from a mudslide.
Really I'm not getting the point of this thread. I mean come on...California in general is an easy low hanging target for a lot of things. Really the conditions of the roads can be spun whatever way by whatever angle someone wants to see things. I've been critical of road conditions and signage in California on this board before but really there isn't really much to go on here with this thread. At least some mileage statistics got brought up, that definitely is part of the equation in regards to spending.
On the flip side anyone can probably pick a certain thing about any state DOT to have an issue with. In Arizona it could have been something like being stingy on road stock or being overly aggressive in pursuing ROW, or you could have something like Oregon with the absurdly low speed limits. I would still talk California road maintenance over something like Michigan though, those were some brutal winters at the low point when the roads were truly in a dire state of disrepair.
Quote from: coatimundi on January 22, 2017, 08:35:13 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 07:00:12 PM
Let me retort! Since you libs love HuffPost, I believe you'll accept a part of an article from them as the purest Gospel of all.
I'd be a little surprised if anyone here regularly read Huff Post.
Lemme just re-state here: you're not interesting. Your viewpoint is not unique. Your ideas are not unique. You are not interesting and are wasting space. Please, at the least, learn how to properly to use the "quote" BB tag because your posts are confusing.
Say what you want about him, but at least ACSC Scott had somewhat relevant topics in his wastes of space. This is just awful.
Moving away from this failure of the nation's mid-century social and educational system, I wanted to get back to the costs that Caltrans tends to saddle, as well as the sort of unique structure Caltrans tends to have. Someone (not a roadgeek) told me, years ago, that Highway 1 was the most expensive highway to maintain in the country on a per mile basis. Considering the state of the highway on this rainy day during this rainiest of winters, with its multiple closures due to slides, I can see where that idea would come from. The fact is that the section south of me, around the Monterey/SLO County line, does not need to be connected. The relatively small population could be served by roads that cut through easier terrain to reach the coast while the most problematic sections between those minor population centers could be closed. But closing Highway 1 would severely disrupt economic activity in a number of communities on and around the coast in the two counties. So the Caltrans burden there is offset to an extent by the various taxes that the tourism brings in. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the state gets a bit of money from all the stickers, t-shirts and other schwag with the iconic Highway 1 shield. If they're not, then that seems silly to me since it should be trademarked, just as the interstate shields are.
If I am not interesting to you, don't waste your time reading and responding to my posts! Simple stuff to learn, know and do.
Rick
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 22, 2017, 09:28:20 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 07:00:12 PMLet me retort! Since you libs love HuffPost, I believe you'll accept a part of an article from them as the purest Gospel of all.
I don't ordinarily read HuffPost, since I have my doubts about its reliability, but I'd observe the article you are quoting is syndicated from the San Mateo Times.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 07:00:12 PMNow that we have established the Sixties as the start time for the project and 1972 as the year those environazis from the Sierra Club came out of the mist to sue, sue and sue some more, you can CLEARLY see those 40 years are covered.
I linked to a Wikipedia article that gave 1958 as the start of planning for the relocation. So, yeah, the 40 years are covered, in the same sense the 64 years between Emperor Norton's proclamation and opening of the Bay Bridge are covered.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 07:00:12 PMNow compare that Californicated timeline to the one for the construction of the entire Alcan Highway. Hey, if you like getting screwed, blued and tattooed for the taxes you pay Winkler, that is your privilege. I prefer a much more efficient performance from my government at all levels.
So you want to go with the Alcan Highway in 1942 as an example of efficient construction? That was seven months to build a barely motorable road that was not opened to public travel until 1948 and not paved throughout its entire length until several decades later, in part because many segments of the original construction were on top of permafrost that thawed and formed thermokarsts.
One of the purposes of planning is to save money by allowing potential obstacles to initial construction and subsequent trouble-free service (many of which, in the case of roads, are hidden until surveys are done) to be identified early enough to develop efficient ways of tackling them. If you would like to rush in and build without careful study, I'm more than happy to let you pay for the do-overs.
Whatever Winkler. I found the article where I found it. Got something intelligent to add? Of course not. It would take some to contribute some!
Rick
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 22, 2017, 08:52:08 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 07:00:12 PM
Let me retort! Since you libs love HuffPost, I believe you'll accept a part of an article from them as the purest Gospel of all.
I think that says it all.
WTF does the HuffPost have to do with this discussion?!? At no point was the HuffPost mentioned until YOU brought it up. Was trolling the whole point of this topic? If so I guess I fell for it hook, line and sinker. LOL.
Mods, please lock this!
Myosh, thy name is butthurt. Typical Californian, shut down and shout down what you don't like. Buddy, those days are over and PC is dead as of Election Day 2016.
Rick
Conservative meltdown...LOL!
Presumably the OP will welcome increased use of toll roads, which is expected to be the new administration's primary means of funding road projects (in order to avoid raising taxes).
Quote from: nexus73 on January 23, 2017, 11:42:41 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 22, 2017, 08:52:08 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 07:00:12 PM
Let me retort! Since you libs love HuffPost, I believe you'll accept a part of an article from them as the purest Gospel of all.
I think that says it all.
WTF does the HuffPost have to do with this discussion?!? At no point was the HuffPost mentioned until YOU brought it up. Was trolling the whole point of this topic? If so I guess I fell for it hook, line and sinker. LOL.
Mods, please lock this!
Myosh, thy name is butthurt. Typical Californian, shut down and shout down what you don't like. Buddy, those days are over and PC is dead as of Election Day 2016.
Rick
What the fuck is your problem?
Ruh roh. Mod's brought the can of whoop-***.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2Ff5%2Ff5a3309ff72782bd6618b816ba7d3d7f231a2867aa56ff51d4d78d2a2321dd41.jpg&hash=2d622e109c8cf7d9e311b6350dfa3d4c77cb39c2)
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2017, 10:03:04 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on January 21, 2017, 12:59:06 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2017, 12:21:09 AM
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/
This right-wing news URL is now broken, if it ever did actually work.
This is a really awful post. I mean, take out the fiscal conservatism and right-wing slant, and it's still a really bad post. Is the point to convince those of us in California that Caltrans' spending habits are the root of all the state's woes? Then the rest of the post goes on a rant about the minimum wage increase. What does that have to do with roads?
You have to realize with this stuff that you're just harping on traditionally conservative talking points. You're not offering any new insights or information and no one is going to have their mind changed by this. I've heard this exact sort of thing before, as I'm sure most people have. This is not interesting or unique.
Hey, if you have a problem with the link, please do feel free to take it up with the webmaster for the site, mmkay? Tnx.
Rick
Typically, when informed of a link that doesn't work, most normal people will try to figure out why, or locate another source, to back up what they're talking about.
But, that's just a suggestion.
Quote from: LM117 on January 23, 2017, 01:22:25 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2Ff5%2Ff5a3309ff72782bd6618b816ba7d3d7f231a2867aa56ff51d4d78d2a2321dd41.jpg&hash=2d622e109c8cf7d9e311b6350dfa3d4c77cb39c2)
Blatant propaganda leads to escalating flame wars... who could have predicted that?
:rolleyes:
Quote from: nexus73 on January 23, 2017, 11:42:41 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 22, 2017, 08:52:08 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 22, 2017, 07:00:12 PM
Let me retort! Since you libs love HuffPost, I believe you'll accept a part of an article from them as the purest Gospel of all.
I think that says it all.
WTF does the HuffPost have to do with this discussion?!? At no point was the HuffPost mentioned until YOU brought it up. Was trolling the whole point of this topic? If so I guess I fell for it hook, line and sinker. LOL.
Mods, please lock this!
Myosh, thy name is butthurt. Typical Californian, shut down and shout down what you don't like. Buddy, those days are over and PC is dead as of Election Day 2016.
Rick
I guess that answers my question... Troll!