Getting Good Roads In California

**FStephenMasek** · 04-10-2005, 07:44 PM

I am sending the following letter to all 120 members of the California Assembly and Senate, and invite any others here to also demand that we have good roads so that we may enjoy our LX cars and spend less time and money stuck in traffic:

The Los Angeles Times published my letter today:

"Every time I drive under one of the ancient overpasses on Interstate 5 with a date such as 1947 cast into the concrete I wonder how a state with so many people and so much money could have such a lousy road system. Instead of the silly gasoline tax shuffle proposed by the Democrats in Sacramento, we need to double gasoline and diesel taxes.

I drive far more than most people - 31,000 business miles last year- and would happily pay twice the $730 I paid in gasoline taxes to have good roads and highways. The higher fuel taxes would be partly or completely offset by savings in travel time, vehicle maintenance, and fuel usage.

Better roads would also dramatically reduce the mental and physical wear and tear associated with driving in California. Of course, we need to demand that all of the fuel taxes go to roads. "

Unless you want to argue just to spite yourselves and all of the rest of us, there is no reason for Republican vs Democrat politics to be a part of providing the good roads we need and deserve. The evidence of the past several decades also clearly proves that inadequate roads will not stop growth. Better roads will result in less air pollution than the congested mess we now have.

Let's do this now - double the fuel taxes and immediately get on with the road building. Do I have to start another ballot initiative to do this, or can you Senators and Assembly Members get this done by yourselves?

**redinorange** · 04-10-2005, 08:33 PM

More roads are not the solution and I'm still amazed that otherwise sensible people draw this conclusion. Mass transit will eventually have to be taken seriously.

**obiwan** · 04-10-2005, 09:42 PM

Umm if they had not pissed away the funds from gas tax in the first place, we might have decent roads. I for one have no intention of giving any of them more money to waste. They over spend every year then come to us to take more, if my family runs out of money between pay days, whos fault is that? Ours, we do not run to any one nor would we expect anyone to bridge the gap, we spent more than we made, pretty simple arithmatic, per haps we should send more money to Sacramento for math lessons? Do you think the IRS or the FTB would mind if I called them towards the end of the year and said, we've spent too much money this year, you know all those tax dollars I paid in last year, yeah I'm going to need some of it back. Oh you had those funds ear marked for another use, too bad, I need them because I was not a good steward of my money through out the year. That is what sending more money to Sacramento is, rewarding them for piss poor performance.

And RIO is right, we need transit that is available, usable and effective. Soon gasoline will be in shorter supply than it is now and all these roads that you want to fund will be used by.........?

**FStephenMasek** · 04-11-2005, 12:21 PM

Gentlemen:

I am generally in favor of smaller government and lower taxes, and agree that Sacramento is one big mess, but I can segregate my thinking on fuel taxes and roads, since the tax dollars can and should be segregated. Fuel taxes are the fairest taxes, since the amount of the tax is directly related to the amount of usage of the government services.

We have been experimenting with lack of good roads for decades and it does not work. For example - are any of you with LX cars going to sell them and ride the bus? Is using mass transit for somebody else but not me?

I often walk when in European cities, and use the trolleys, trams, subways, and busses, but also rent or borrow cars to go beyond the main city areas. The population density of most of southern CA is simply not high enough for mass transit to work.

**redinorange** · 04-11-2005, 01:35 PM

First you said, "...demand that we have good roads so that we may enjoy our LX cars and spend less time and money stuck in traffic:" Then you said "The population density of most of southern CA is simply not high enough for mass transit to work."
That sound like the Yogi Berra quote "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

Mass transit is the only answer. The Red and Yellow rail lines laced this basin from the 1920's until the mid 1950's with over 1100 miles of rail lines that carried people every where from Altadena to Zuma Beach. Thanks to Firestone Tire Co. and General Motors, those lines are gone. The system is slowly being rebuilt but at obviously greater expense. The Red Line, Blue Line, Geen Line and recently opened Gold Line are operating to near capacity and growing every day. Metrolink carries thousands of commuters from San Clemente, Riverside and Simi Valley to downtown L.A.

There are good roads in L.A. Recently renovated freeways (5 and 55) in Orange County and the 105 freeway are state of the art with isolated HOV lanes, computerized "smart" lanes, wide shoulders and plane and grooved surfaces. But these roads are just as congested as the oldest LA freeway, the 110.

People will have to get out of their cars and begin to use mass transit. It might not happen next year or next decade, but it will happen. It has to if we are to survive.

**Fred** · 04-11-2005, 01:55 PM

Mass transit failed for the long islanders here when they decided to charge more for a train ticket than it would cost for the same travel's worth of gas for one person, ie, to go from suffolk county to brooklyn is around $13. this is a 50 mile trip which would be 3-4 gallons of gas driving on the pedal racing every other driver out there (wasting gas style driving) even $2.50/gal (which I've seen some premuim 93 sold at this week) still is less than the cost of the rail ticket... Mass transit? Two people in one car and that's already more than paid for the trip home's gas also. Have a family, 4-5 people traveling? Don't even think about the rail!

Oh and the busses in our county... Unless you happen to work at either the county building or the smithhaven mall, forget about getting on a bus to your job, because for one, they all transfer at a the same place, but they run in a circle, where if you were intending to go one stop behind yours on the map, you're riding the full hour it takes to go around. so it could easily take 4 hours to travel a 20 minute car ride worth of distance.

I don't know how this compares to your cali mass transit system, but out here it is totally foobar...

**redinorange** · 04-11-2005, 02:02 PM

I think the overcrowded highway issue is everywhere. Nick the RN in Naples, Florida is a good example. Naples Freakin' Florida for cryin' out loud. Not a major metropolis! More roads just bring more cars. Look at I-95 corridor in Miami - Ft Lauderdale. They widened the road and it filled up instantly. Now they actually have a law that forbids further widening. Now what?

**redinorange** · 04-11-2005, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Fred

Mass transit failed for the long islanders here when they decided to charge more for a train ticket than it would cost for the same travel's worth of gas for one person, ie, to go from suffolk county to brooklyn is around $13. this is a 50 mile trip which would be 3-4 gallons of gas driving on the pedal racing every other driver out there (wasting gas style driving) even $2.50/gal (which I've seen some premuim 93 sold at this week) still is less than the cost of the rail ticket... Mass transit? Two people in one car and that's already more than paid for the trip home's gas also. Have a family, 4-5 people traveling? Don't even think about the rail!

Oh and the busses in our county... Unless you happen to work at either the county building or the smithhaven mall, forget about getting on a bus to your job, because for one, they all transfer at a the same place, but they run in a circle, where if you were intending to go one stop behind yours on the map, you're riding the full hour it takes to go around. so it could easily take 4 hours to travel a 20 minute car ride worth of distance.

I don't know how this compares to your cali mass transit system, but out here it is totally foobar...

Fred, In response to the cost issue, you can't just use the cost of fuel as the only cost of commuting. What about the cost of the vehicle, insurance, maintenance, parking, etc. That makes the price of the train ticket sound like a bargain.

**obiwan** · 04-11-2005, 03:41 PM

I drive 52 miles each way to reach a BART station, where I spend 35 minutes and $3.85 each way to ride to work. Or I could drive the remaining miles, pay $3.00 to cross the bridge and $18.00 to park and save 15 minutes. BART has already stated they will not extend the line farther east as it is not cost effective. Most Bay area workers do not live in the Bay, more each day move out my way which further clogs the already congested roads. The only thing close to functional mass transit here is the ACE trail which goes to San Jose, wrong direction for me... And it has to share the rails with freight trains and when one derails, the ACE train is hours upon hours late.
Sacramento has a pretty good system with their Light Rail, you just need to build the system to take people where they need to, and want to go. We will have to give up our fossile fuel driven vehicles in our life time (I'm 43) but, we still need to get to work and around so, the system will need to be in place or the economy will suffer for it.

**mcdeeee** · 04-11-2005, 06:23 PM

Toll Roads are the answer. I'm down here in Orange County and we have
a number of different Toll Roads 133, 241, 261, 73, & 91 fastrack. They basicly give the highway user a choice to pay an extra $1.00-$4.00 to take a quicker & less crowded alternate route. Most people get their employers to pay for it anyways.
These Toll Roads were built in a rather quickly and supposedly will pay themselves off in 20 years or so, when the toll will be removed. (we'll see if that ever happens).
I'm basicly given a choice. If I wanted to Travel from Irvine to Yorba Linda during the evening rush hour It would take approximatally 1 hour using the freeways pok'n along at 25mph or so. The Toll Road would take 20 minutes for about 3 bucks speeding along at 80+mph.
I perfer to pay per use, rather than filter the money though Sacramento hopeing it turns into an extra lane on the I-5.
My 2 cents.

**redinorange** · 04-11-2005, 07:57 PM

I like the toll roads. The primary downside is that they are constructed quickly and the lack of Caltrans construction oversight is beginning to show in the form of very uneaven pavement sections. 241 south out of Orange is especially bad. But it sure is nice to have that option. The other downside is that the toll roads are not economically viable, which is why the toll road authority sold the 241/261 system to OCTA.

**FStephenMasek** · 04-11-2005, 07:59 PM

I certainly do use the toll roads, but don't think that the existing freeways will be turned into tollways. Also, the freeways are not the only problems, and I don't see toll streets working.

It is a shame that the streetcar lines were destroyed (not by Firestone and GM, but by politicians who allowed themselves to be swayed by Firestone and GM), but they are gone, so we have to work with what we have.

The roads are crowded, but except for a few areas in California, the buildings are not crowded enough to support mass transit, and we certainly do not have the money to have both - good roads and good mass transit.

As redinorange wrote, for mass transit to work, people have to use it instead of their cars. Any volunteers?

Also - Caltrans is incharge of the Toll road pavement, and I have written them above the horrible condition, and the especially poor "rippled" re-paving work recently done. As expected they "are looking into it."