How are you voting on Prop 6? (sale, agriculture, transport)

[artillery77]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I doubt if many of you will read it but here's a good article that sets the record straight on a number of claims that Cox and other Republicans about why prop 6 is needed.

https://timesofsandiego.com/politics...od-to-be-true/

Nice Link. I love how Caltrans decides to decry a report as wrong, but offers no comparison of their own to counter it...just falls back to anecdotes. Now, I know my math is the old math, but let's see how many can follow from the underlined portions:


First, we need to assume that there's no economy of scale in building a wider road than a narrower road.



But, if 2.4X = $178,000...that is, the average width and cost of a mile of road.


Then 3.4X should be approximately....$252,000 per mile of road.



Except it isn't....it's $417,000.



And yes, we have heavy traffic from the ports...but non-coastal states have trucks rolling over them that don't stop there as well don't they? Can't a California truck pay its fees in California and just drive on Nevada's roads for free? I mean, the port traffic probably goes....somewhere. Of course, I would imagine many of those users are also....well, paying taxes on gas and registration.



I've heard some states have inclement weather too....with costs like salting, sanding, plowing...or hot weather exploding concrete, or hurricanes or tornadoes or high winds. Some create a road at every mile...just to make sure there's access....those big squares you see when flying. Some areas value their roads and don't use them as their flooding ditch, but I guess that's preference based.



Physical barriers...sure, but again, I'm not positive California has a monopoly on mountain ranges, rivers, lakes etc. I've heard other states have a lot of coastline as well....like Florida. We're not suggesting our land engineers aren't as put together as those in Florida are we?


Doing work at night...nice pay...no doubt about it. Not sure on other areas, but I seem to recall highways being worked on at night in Chicago. I doubt many would suggest that those crews aren't union or making decent money.



As for the environmental concerns...not sure if there's a whole lot to it. After all, it's a road. Is there some sort of unsaid suggestion that other states are destroying their environment in a way we are not? Or is this a vague reference to we have a good environment, hence we can't stomach looking into cost savings. Kindof like national security being used in stupid ways to cover up things with the Feds.



No, we just have a system that throws its hands up and says....we don't know. Alternatively, "Doug Hecox, spokesman for the Federal Highway Administration said different methodologies will produce wildly different estimates.
“There are many ways to bake a cookie and everyone has a different recipe,” he said. “Welcome to my personal hell.”


Our personal hell Doug.




The Cost of a California Highway

When asked for evidence that California can’t manage its transportation budget, the Cox campaign points to a recent report published by the libertarian Reason Foundation. According to its findings, the state government spends more than $471,000 per mile of road that it maintains. That’s nearly triple the national average of about $178,000. By this measure, California has the eighth most expensive state road system in the country.
Given that our roads are in such rough shape and California also has among the highest gas taxes in the country, one might reasonably wonder whether drivers and taxpayers here are getting a raw deal.
The California Department of Transportation argues that the report inflates the state’s true costs by measuring each state’s highway system simply by totaling its length. According to Caltrans, California highways have an average width of over 3.4 lanes compared to a national average of 2.4, which makes the same length of highway more expensive to maintain. In effect, the report treats a two-lane highway in Oklahoma the same as an equally long stretch of California’s I-405, all 14 lanes of it.

[artillery77]

Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer

It happened on roads here, too, and I agree that it is frustrating when PG&E or private internet service providers or the telephone company digs up newly surfaced roads.

However, please cast your blame where it belongs: on PG&E and those other businesses, not CalTrans or gas taxes.

Why is this PG&E's issue? They weren't done with their project. The signs were still up to not park on the street. They had open notifications with the city in order to keep the no parking areas. Why was the city buying resurfacing on a street with an open project on it that was tearing it up? There's no way PG&E gets to do their retrofitting without city knowledge. They must have sent us 10 messages through it all.



PG&E is retrofitting for standards set by the government. Fine. They need to trench fine. That's a pain in the butt, but understandable. Frankly, when PG&E left, they had someone stop by to allow us to accept some work they'd done that affected some custom rock work that we have...they did a nice job restoring it too.



Who authorized the resurfacing in the middle of it? It certainly wasn't PG&E.

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by V8 Vega

Sounds like the Democrats where there isn't a tax they don't love and the media which is the same as the Democrats are promoting polls where the tax repeal fails and don't say anything where 6 passes.

Of course Vega. You're not surprised, are you? When you convince people that a proposition is losing, there's that much more of a chance they won't bother to vote. Not to mention the way the proposition is purposely misleading in it's wording (the obvious intent being to confuse people).

Originally Posted by artillery77

Why is this PG&E's issue? They weren't done with their project. The signs were still up to not park on the street. They had open notifications with the city in order to keep the no parking areas. Why was the city buying resurfacing on a street with an open project on it that was tearing it up? There's no way PG&E gets to do their retrofitting without city knowledge. They must have sent us 10 messages through it all.



PG&E is retrofitting for standards set by the government. Fine. They need to trench fine. That's a pain in the butt, but understandable. Frankly, when PG&E left, they had someone stop by to allow us to accept some work they'd done that affected some custom rock work that we have...they did a nice job restoring it too.



Who authorized the resurfacing in the middle of it? It certainly wasn't PG&E.

Absolutely correct Artillery. I'd also like to thank you for posting the information regarding the mismanagement of funds and how people can actually look at "real" examples of how their money is being spent as opposed to propaganda put out by factions that want to keep feeding this cash cow, along with their fear mongering on how nothing will be done for the roads if this isn't passed (pure BS). Your math is fine, and as we've seen, if people actually took the time to drill down on the information on much of this propaganda, and actually massage the data, they'd figure out that these sensationalized headlines and what is trying to be proved is complete nonsense with the intent to mislead. It's amazing how often links are posted as proof of something that isn't even remotely close to the truth.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

I'll be soooo glad when this election is over. I won't have to watch anymore ads and maybe all the propaganda in the mail will stop.

And we won't have to read 15 threads here on the same proposition...

[Kaphawoman]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I doubt if many of you will read it but here's a good article that sets the record straight on a number of claims that Cox and other Republicans about why prop 6 is needed.

https://timesofsandiego.com/politics...od-to-be-true/

A very informative article breaking down the cost of roads in CA, which makes it more infuriating that they spend 30% of the gas tax on things that NOT related to road repair.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Kaphawoman

A very informative article breaking down the cost of roads in CA, which makes it more infuriating that they spend 30% of the gas tax on things that NOT related to road repair.

I didn't see anything in that article about 30% of gas tax being spent on things not related to road repair, were we reading the same article?

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I didn't see anything in that article about 30% of gas tax being spent on things not related to road repair, were we reading the same article?

Nearly 59 percent of those funds go to highway maintenance, road repairs and public transit, according to the Department of Finance. Slightly more than 22 percent pays for the DMV, CHP and other state agencies in charge of regulating and enforcing traffic laws.

A small portion, just under 3 percent, helps the state pay the administrative costs of collecting, distributing and auditing the gas taxes and fees. An even smaller portion helps reduce the negative impacts of vehicle emissions on the environment, fund research and workforce development related to transportation, and pay for bicycle and pedestrian amenities.


Roughly 7.5 percent pays off transportation-related debt.
And, then there are two types of taxes or fees, representing about 7.5 percent of the total, that the state and the DMVt from collecmotorists that don’t fund transportation services directly.
A portion of those funds is redistributed to local law enforcement agencies and another portion is split between the state’s general fund and the departments of Food and Agriculture and Parks and Recreation.



https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/...y-actually-go/

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Nearly 59 percent of those funds go to highway maintenance, road repairs and public transit, according to the Department of Finance. Slightly more than 22 percent pays for the DMV, CHP and other state agencies in charge of regulating and enforcing traffic laws.

A small portion, just under 3 percent, helps the state pay the administrative costs of collecting, distributing and auditing the gas taxes and fees. An even smaller portion helps reduce the negative impacts of vehicle emissions on the environment, fund research and workforce development related to transportation, and pay for bicycle and pedestrian amenities.


Roughly 7.5 percent pays off transportation-related debt.
And, then there are two types of taxes or fees, representing about 7.5 percent of the total, that the state and the DMVt from collecmotorists that don’t fund transportation services directly.
A portion of those funds is redistributed to local law enforcement agencies and another portion is split between the state’s general fund and the departments of Food and Agriculture and Parks and Recreation.



https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/...y-actually-go/

Originally Posted by Kaphawoman

A very informative article breaking down the cost of roads in CA, which makes it more infuriating that they spend 30% of the gas tax on things that NOT related to road repair.

ExpatCA and Kaphawoman,

I just finished saying...

" It's amazing how often links are posted as proof of something that isn't even remotely close to the truth"

And now you've pointed out yet another situation

You simply can't make this stuff up. It goes on and on and on.

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by artillery77

Doing work at night..

never saw workers at night when OC widened its I5 portion.

OC is repaving a county road i always used and the workers work only after the rush hour in the morning and before the rush house in the afternoon

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

ExpatCA and Kaphawoman,

I just finished saying...

" It's amazing how often links are posted as proof of something that isn't even remotely close to the truth"

And now you've pointed out yet another situation

You simply can't make this stuff up. It goes on and on and on.

Notice the source of the info I posted.


"according to the Department of Finance"