California Roadway Regulation

I agree that the interstate and highway system was one of the major progresses of the 1950s. This supplied jobs not only to construction workers building the roads, but also to the fast food restaurants and the motels jobs that opened to be convenient for the travelers. These new interstates gave the Americans new found freedom if they purchased a vehicle. Owning vehicles and houses because a social status statement. I believe that is why many Americans accepted the idea of debt so easily. Excellent post on some of the positive of the progress/prosperity of the

The Interstate highways have roughly seventy percent of the construction and maintenance costs paid for by the state and federal governments through user fees and fuel taxes. The Highway Trust Fund, established in 1956 by the Highway Revenue Act also provided funding to the interstates by raising the three-cent-per-gallon fuel tax to 4.5 cents; the fuel tax has since 1993 remained at 18.4 cents per gallon. Toll roads and bridges also contributed to funding for Interstate Highways, with some large sections of the Interstate Highways that were planned or constructed before 1956 still being operated as toll roads. Interstates that have had their construction bonds paid off are able to operate toll-free, such as the Interstate 95 and Interstate 65. The Interstate system is overall an expensive system to maintain, causing many states to find ways to obtain the

Of the money gathered by the state, almost 1 billion dollars is sent to other state agencies (such as the Department of Public Safety, Education, and other state colleges and state parks).3 This money is regulated by the state government to go to these other agencies, which detracts from the department of transportation’s ability to handle road maintenance. So, even before taking into account the increases due to inflation, the budget of TxDOT is decreased by $1 billion dollars (almost half of which goes to the state’s educational system).

More roads were constructed to allow people to travel further, like Route 66 that went from California to Chicago. A lot of jobs were created, like gas stations, state police, fast food joints and repair shops. People could move out of the cities and live in the country. And people that already lived in the country could go to the cities.

Firstly, on average, for every billion dollars invested in the field of public transportation capital and operations creates and supports 36,000 jobs (2). Furthermore, these new 36,000 jobs will in turn result in approximately 3.6 billion dollars in business sales and approximately half a billion in federal, state, and local tax revenues (2). By maintaining this yearly funding of public transportation there lies the possibility of a whole new job sector emerging which could, in turn, stem long-term unemployment rates. Secondly, there is strong evidence to support a positive causation between public transportation and beneficial effects towards families and businesses. For example, for every dollar invested in the field of public transportation, approximately four dollars are generated in “economic returns” (2). There also exist statistics that claim that for every 10 million dollars invested in public transportation, there is potential for returns as high as 30 million dollars in business sales solely (2). Individually speaking, the average annual savings for one that takes public transportation and chooses to live with one less car is just a little less than 10 thousand dollars (9,900)(2). In order to show the saving nature of the public transportation system, estimates claim that without public transportation, costs from traffic congestion alone would have risen 19 billion dollars (2). The last of the outlined economic

High speed rail transportation has become an important issue in California that could potentially help our current transportation system and other environmental issues that need to be dealt with. This is an important issue to look into because currently our transportation system could be a lot more efficient using high speed rail instead of just the current car and air system that we have right now. Because of this there are a lot of potential benefits from the economic side of putting a high speed rail system in California from saving time, money, and fast efficient mobility throughout the state. These benefits also include a stimulus towards the state’s economy in forms of employment and income growth due towards construction and implementation even if these aren't permanent jobs. Some environmental benefits of a high speed transportation is a decrease in pollution, using less nonrenewable resources such as oil, and decreasing the amount of other modes of transportation that currently need to be used. It is controversial though because of the cost of implementing such high speed transportation, versus the current transportation system that we already have. These increasing costs of implementing the have current plan for high speed rail have caused great concern because of costs such high possible costs needed to implement compared to its benefits. My problem that I have come up with is it cost effective and beneficial for the state of

California is the highest populated state in the USA spanning to be third-largest in area. It has 160,000 square miles of area and more than 50,000 miles of roads and conventional rail networks in addition to over 100 airports. This shows that the state is undoubtedly very well developed. However, the available current transportation systems are not able to satisfy the demands of the current population and the forecasted future demographics. The congestion in the transportation system is causing huge burden to the Californians and the government in terms of time and money.

The capital funding needed to implement these plans will come from “federal, state, local and private sources” (California, 2017). When California’s High Speed Rail is complete, the projected estimated budget will be about 61 billion to 84 billion dollars. To implement this costly project, the HSR Authority created a variety of plans over the years. In 2002, a senate bill was passed for a bond worth 9.95 billion dollars to finance the California High Speed Rail. This measure was delayed for seven years unto the voter’s dismay due from the undesirable tax hikes. In 2008, Prop 1A was passed; the first bill to pass that was passed and supported by state voters to finance the California High Speed Rail. Developing the first section of the High Speed Rail will be from Madera to Bakersfield which will cost an estimated 6 billion dollars. Financing this segment of the IOS, or Initial Operating Section, will come from Prop 1a, and any other remaining balances will be funded by state and local bonds, and “federal support” (Funding, 2017). When former California Governor Edmund G. Brown declared that the California High Speed Rail would be a number one priority in his faculty, he signed bill “SB 1029” that approved over8 billion dollars, from both state and federal government, in

By 1940 the state had its first freeway and in the 50’s we got is first railway. By the mid 70’sthe Los Angeles transportation commission was created to oversee public transits and highway control .An this is was all they needed to keep congestion down before the 2000”s they ending there congestion but staring ours.

As the owner and operator of the State Highway System (SHS), it is our responsibility to coordinate and consult with local jurisdictions when proposed development may impact our facilities. As the responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, it is also our responsibility to make recommendations to offset associated impacts with the proposed project. Although the project is under the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino, due to the project’s potential impact to the State facilities, it is also subject to the policies and regulations that govern the SHS.

Even if the responsibility will be upheld through the Department of Transportation and local public works, the funds for these projects need to be available. According to Former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, public spending on infrastructure has fallen to its lowest level since 1947 and the federal Highway Trust Fund is the major source of funds for infrastructure maintenance. However, its main source of funding is the federal gas tax of 18 cents a gallon and is not nearly enough funding to support the maintenance of the infrastructure (Kroft, 2014). In an interview between 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft and Ray LaHood, Ray LaHood goes on to say, “The last time we raised the gas tax, which is how we built the interstate system, was 1993… Politicians in Washington don't have the political courage to say, ‘This is what we have to do.’ That's what it takes.” Another way to fund these projects can be seen through the FIGG Engineering Group. A bridge that linked Chesapeake and Portsmouth, VA became structurally deficient and unsafe to cross. In this case, the local government could not fund the replacement of the bridge (Sofge, 2012). The FIGG Engineering Group organized a bridge construction in the bridge replacement project. The 5,375’ long bridge links Chesapeake and Portsmouth Virginia and was built in less than two years. This bridge

With the majority of the population living in metropolitan areas, highways are extremely congested , more investment is needed for the future development. Currently, the Federal Highway Administration estimates that $170 billion in capital investment would be needed on an annual basis to significantly improve conditions and performance. Increase bridge infrastructure investments by $8 billion annually is mandatory to address the identified $76 billion in needs for deficient bridges across the United States. To be economically successful, this investment is

The Clinton administration proposed a plan called the National Economic Crossroads Efficiency Act, or NEXTEA.  I personally think they spent more time on the name of this act than on the actually content of it.  This plan will increase the amount of money in the Highway Trust Fund, yet reduce total spending by $500 million.  And the purpose of that is?????? you got me, I guess  there isn?t a logical one.  The number of federal programs and non-highway projects will also be increased, thus diverting even more money away from are already under funded roads and highways (Fay 4).

MAP-21 provides an array of provisions designed to increase innovation and improve efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in the planning, design, engineering, construction and financing of transportation projects. Building on FHWA’s “Every Day Counts” initiative, MAP-21 changes will speed up the project delivery process, saving time and money for individuals and businesses, and yielding broad benefits nationwide. Some MAP-21 provisions are designed to improve efficiency in project delivery, broadening the ability for States to acquire or preserve right-of-way for a transportation facility prior to completion of the review process required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), providing for a demonstration program to streamline the relocation process by permitting a lump sum payment for the acquisition and relocation if elected by the displaced person, enhancing contracting efficiencies, and encouraging the use of innovative technologies and practices.

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), as its name implies, is a governmental agency responsible for transportation in the state of Virginia. It was established in 1906 with the goal “to build and maintain safe, efficient, convenient systems that would bolster the economy and make travel in Virginia a rewarding and pleasant experience” (ctb. virginia.gov). Since then, the VDOT has kept its objectives as it is still not only responsible for building, maintaining, and operating the roads, bridges, and tunnels, but for conducting numerous projects and studies to determine the needs, costs and impacts of proposed highway project across the State. The agency has nine highway districts which are divided into twenty-nine residencies and two district satellite offices responsible for one to four counties each, with its headquarter