Most active commenters
  • Lammy(4)
  • xvedejas(3)
  • s1artibartfast(3)
  • wbl(3)

←back to thread

How good are American roads?

(www.construction-physics.com)
193 points chmaynard | 24 comments | 20 Nov 24 14:45 UTC | HN request time: 2.05s | source | bottom
1. smilekzs ◴[20 Nov 24 17:24 UTC] No.42196192[source]▶
The SFBay I-880 and US-101 are always packed, often under construction, but still pothole-filled, with sections of extreme roughness. Compare this to our OR neighbors, where there are signs saying "your tax dollars at work" by ORDOT everywhere. I used to scoff at this as a display of insecurity, but apparently (from TFA at least), Oregonians' tax dollars _are_ at work.

CA takes so many tax dollars from my hands. Why aren't they "at work"?

replies(11): >>42196222 #>>42196287 #>>42196290 #>>42196332 #>>42196339 #>>42196533 #>>42196561 #>>42196800 #>>42196914 #>>42198006 #>>42199125 #
2. mhuffman ◴[20 Nov 24 17:28 UTC] No.42196222[source]▶
They are "at work" ... for other people's versions of "at work".
3. xvedejas ◴[20 Nov 24 17:34 UTC] No.42196287[source]▶
I'd like to see California consider reducing the total mileage of roads and focus on having a smaller amount of higher quality paved surfaces. My neighborhood street does not need to be 60ft wide, and our freeways do not need more lanes.
replies(2): >>42196579 #>>42197908 #
4. mikysco ◴[20 Nov 24 17:34 UTC] No.42196290[source]▶
Oregon is 60% the size of California by land area but only 10% of the population.

Roads like 101 & 880 can't be worked on during the day because of massive congestion issues. But drive up & down 101 after 9 or 10pm (even on weekends), and you'll see crews hard at work. Hats off to those crews working the night shift.

5. throwup238 ◴[20 Nov 24 17:38 UTC] No.42196332[source]▶
> Compare this to our OR neighbors, where there are signs saying "your tax dollars at work" by ORDOT everywhere.

I see these signs all over Southern California (I remember seeing them around the Bay Area especially post 08 GFC): https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e074b5_617daf538f0c4e0e89...

They’ve been around since at least the late 90s/early 2000s. There's a whole official site for it too: https://rebuildingca.ca.gov/

6. dwelch91 ◴[20 Nov 24 17:39 UTC] No.42196339[source]▶
Doesn't "often under construction" mean that they are "at work"?
7. s1artibartfast ◴[20 Nov 24 18:00 UTC] No.42196533[source]▶
I often breathe a sigh of relief when I pass over the boarder into Nevada and my car starts shaking.

Roughly 70% the tax revenue per capita ($3.8k vs 2.6), but somehow they manage to maintain their roads.

8. ink_13 ◴[20 Nov 24 18:03 UTC] No.42196561[source]▶
On the contrary, I believe they are. There are thousands of miles of back roads in California built and maintained by Caltrans that are in absolutely incredible condition. Drive up and down any random mountain/hill/pass off a main freeway and enjoy a road the envy of almost anywhere else: well-built, smooth, with painted lines and signage.

880 and 101 suffer because their high traffic volumes cause much higher wear and tear while also making it difficult to make repairs.

9. s1artibartfast ◴[20 Nov 24 18:05 UTC] No.42196579[source]▶
Oregon manages about 40% the road miles of California with 10% the population and 70% of the tax revenue per capita.
replies(1): >>42199292 #
10. boogieknite ◴[20 Nov 24 18:32 UTC] No.42196800[source]▶
Anecdote: Worked road construction summer 2010 as the guy who put those little sticky tabs on the road to mark where lines are repainted after construction is complete.

Sometimes I'd finish early and get odd jobs. Between Roseburg and the Oregon coast a colleague and I were assigned to stand one of those "your tax dollars at work" signs on a steep slope. Took 2 hours at prevailing wage OT and for total labor cost of $480 between the two of us. By far the steepest labor rate I'd ever been able to charge. Thanks for the money, irony!

11. Lammy ◴[20 Nov 24 18:45 UTC] No.42196914[source]▶
> The SFBay I-880 and US-101 are always packed

A lot of this is due to the freeway system being unfinished.

101 would have been supplemented by the Bayfront Freeway (CA 87): https://cahighways.org/ROUTE087.html#_ROUTING_SEG2

And 880 by routes 61, 238, 185, 13, and 77:

- https://cahighways.org/ROUTE061.html#_HIST1964

- https://cahighways.org/ROUTE238.html

- https://cahighways.org/ROUTE185.html

- https://cahighways.org/ROUTE013.html

- https://cahighways.org/ROUTE077.html

replies(1): >>42198326 #
12. brewdad ◴[20 Nov 24 20:43 UTC] No.42197908[source]▶
Start with the fire department. They are the ones demanding 60 ft wide residential streets so that their trucks can turn around without having to drive a few blocks out of the way.
13. codexb ◴[20 Nov 24 20:54 UTC] No.42198006[source]▶
It's heavily county based. Drive on the 5 through LA county and the second it crosses into Orange County, it magically gets incredibly better.
14. wbl ◴[20 Nov 24 21:31 UTC] No.42198326[source]▶
Would have just meant more commuters
replies(1): >>42198720 #
15. Lammy ◴[20 Nov 24 22:19 UTC] No.42198720{3}[source]▶
Only because those people can't find somewhere to live that's near work. So sick of this incredibly stupid line of thinking from otherwise very smart people who refuse to realize that increased demand on transportation infrastructure is the flip-side of the housing shortage.
replies(2): >>42198791 #>>42202547 #
16. wbl ◴[20 Nov 24 22:29 UTC] No.42198791{4}[source]▶
I don't disagree but induced demand absolutely exists as people would move accordingly.
replies(1): >>42198824 #
17. Lammy ◴[20 Nov 24 22:32 UTC] No.42198824{5}[source]▶
Agreed, but I would say that inducing demand is the point of building anything. Nobody uses that term when it comes to building homes people want to live in. They only ever use it to oppose people being able to exercise their freedom of movement.
replies(1): >>42199053 #
18. wbl ◴[20 Nov 24 23:03 UTC] No.42199053{6}[source]▶
Very few people say roads help freedom of movement for others. They say it will help your commute, while higher capacity modes never get invested in.
replies(1): >>42200530 #
19. kylehotchkiss ◴[20 Nov 24 23:13 UTC] No.42199125[source]▶
we have a lot of expensive bridges
20. xvedejas ◴[20 Nov 24 23:35 UTC] No.42199292{3}[source]▶
I imagine that all states would have more trouble managing more roads than they currently do, and less trouble managing fewer roads than they currently do.
replies(1): >>42199347 #
21. s1artibartfast ◴[20 Nov 24 23:42 UTC] No.42199347{4}[source]▶
I dont follow? Are you invoking some diseconomies of scale. California has about twice the roads but more than 5X the budget.
replies(1): >>42200422 #
22. xvedejas ◴[21 Nov 24 02:19 UTC] No.42200422{5}[source]▶
My prior post is choosing not to compare the two at all. In isolation, it is easier for California to handle fewer roads than it currently does.
23. Lammy ◴[21 Nov 24 02:38 UTC] No.42200530{7}[source]▶
I said it. Seems pretty straightforward to me that I am inherently less free to move via rail/sea/air than via my automobile unless the train/boat/plane can also take me anywhere, at any time, 24 hours a day, any day. I do prefer to commute via train if I can. In fact my office just moved and I've had to give up my one-shot train commute just in this last month :/

Unfortunately the alternative to divesting in road infrastructure won't be investing in rail infrastructure, it will be telling people to stay home. For sure a lot of demand for rail investment will come once it becomes harder to get around and more people lose their autonomy, but the reality for many people will just become not going anywhere at all. That means segregation-with-extra-steps for all too many places, and I was raised to believe that's a bad thing. Peep the Bay Area for example — it's really bad! http://radicalcartography.net/bayarea.html

Aside: I'm a huge railfan and have actually gotten to drive a locomotive at the Western Pacific Railway Museum even though it was very expensive and confined to a tiny circle of track. Highly highly recommend a trip out there for anyone, even if just to sight-see the gorgeous Feather River Canyon: https://museum.wplives.org/ral/

24. KoftaBob ◴[21 Nov 24 09:32 UTC] No.42202547{4}[source]▶
> Only because those people can't find somewhere to live that's near work.

Also because there aren't adequate transit options to use instead of driving.