Roads in the Bay Area are the worst in the state and in deteriorating condition, which is costing residents in the region thousands of dollars each year, according to a study released early Wednesday morning.
The study published by TRIP — a national nonprofit transportation research group based in Washington, D.C. — found the increased vehicle operating costs due to the state of the roads, the cost of an accident and wasted fuel due to congestion and the increased risk of an accident amount to $2,992 for the average San Francisco-Oakland motorist annually.
The report defined San Francisco-Oakland as the “region’s municipalities and surrounding suburbs” and also provided numbers for the areas around San Jose in the South Bay, which includes Palo Alto, — $2,745 per motorist — and around Concord in the East Bay at $1,968.
The report says 71 percent of paved roads in the San Francisco-Oakland area, 64 percent in the San Jose area and 56 percent in the Concord area are ranked as being in “poor” condition, all above the state average of 44 percent.
Residents in the San Francisco-Oakland area wasted 80 hours in congestion last year, while San Jose area motorists lost 68 hours and the Concord area lost 36. Los Angeles ranked highest in the state, with motorists losing 82 hours annually.
In addition, 77 bridges in the San Francisco-Oakland area were ranked as structurally deficient, along with 98 in the San Jose area and 38 in the Concord area.
The study cited the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in showing fatalities in motor vehicle accidents have increased each year since 2012, with 3,623 deaths on California roadways in 2017 above an average of 3,291 between 2014-2016.
The report noted that last year’s approval by the state Legislature of Senate Bill 1, a gas tax to create $5.2 billion annually for road and other infrastructure improvements, is in danger of repeal by Proposition 6 on the November ballot.
In its conclusion, the report said, “If California is unable to maintain its current level of transportation investment, the cost to the public of deficient roads, traffic congestion, and a lack of adequate roadway safety will increase and economic development opportunities and quality of life in the Golden State will be diminished.”
Most everyone work lives and/or works in Palo Alto would agree with this, but it is not just a Palo Alto issue. The methods of maintaining asphalt roadways needs a fresh look. Laying down asphalt is merely a ‘temporary’ fix since it is so porous and fragile. It easily cracks and deteriorates WELL before the experts believe it needs repair and replacement. Add weather and poor soils supporting the traffic lanes, and it is no wonder that our roads look like the way they do.
Talk about a timely report and article. Dealing with congestion is one thing, bad bridges quite another. That 77 bridges in the bay area are structurally deficient is highly concerning. And completely unacceptable. Scrap bike bridges. Scrap road diets. Fix the darn bridges. Traffic is not fatal; structurally deficient bridges can be. Time for some reprioritization.
Traffic makes me cross, but this makes me flat out angry. What is going on?
How much money was spent on this study? You don’t need a degree in civil engineering to figure out that the infrastucture in Bay Area needs major work. Spend the money on roadworks not excel and power point reports
Does anyone know if Senate Bill 1 (raising the gas tax for $5.2B for road/infrastructure improvements) guarantees the funds will actually be spent for that purpose, rather than being funneled into the general fund?
Also, traffic fatality statistics need to be adjusted for total vehicle miles driven. For example, if the number of miles driven keeps increasing at 5% a year, but fatalities increase only 2% a year, then in net the roads are getting safer even though the absolute number of fatalities increased.
Everyone interested in truly understanding motor vehicle topics should visit https://www.motorists.org
Money spent on bike infrastructure is a small drop in the bucket compared to what is spent on infrastructure for cars. If we cancelled ALL of the bike projects, it would not come close to providing the funding needed to do a fraction of the auto infrastructure work you say you want.
It’s clear you have never looked at the total spending on auto infrastructure. But why bother considering budgets or needs of other citizens who might not be able to drive (who, by the way, are more numerous than you might know)?
It would be helpful if the Weekly would sometime educate the community on the stunning sums we spend on infrastructure for cars, bikes, pedestrians and transit comparatively. People, drivers in particular, really are clueless about the extent to which they draw on the public teat. I know it is a complicated story to write, but it is critically important that people understand the true cost of driving solo.
While you are at it, you might expose what percentage of Palo Alto tax dollars sent to VTA come back to our community in the form of road improvements, bike infra, and transit service. VTA is not our friend.
Bad roads for cars have nothing whatsoever to do with bike infrastructure. It has entirely to do with the extremely high cost of auto infrastructure. Cars put greater wear and tear on every road they use. The support structure needed for roads and bridges for autos is much heavier and far more expensive than that for bikes and peds–by orders of magnitude. Getting good information about our spending out there would help the community make progress toward solving our transportation problems. It would be a useful task for our local “free press” to help voters understand the complexity of these issues.
I agree we need to invest heavily in transportation. We need to rethink where we are spending our money, because what we have been doing for the last 60 years (investing primarily in auto infra) clearly is not working.
If 77 bridges are deficient there must be dozens of minor bridges that need attention. One can only hope that our major bridges are not included in that number. A list would be helpful. As would a definition. Is an overpass considered a bridge or is bridge defined only as a span across water?
I get the point that “Ignorance is Bliss” makes about spending on bike infrastructure. If you will allow a stretch, it is kind of like recycling – what individuals do is a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed. Bike spend is a drop in the bucket compare to auto spend. My point is simply that safety should be foremost and we need to prioritize maintenance and repair. I see infrastructure as a basic government obligation and think it unacceptable that our state, county and local governments aren’t doing better. This is fundamental public safety.
>>>>How much money was spent on this study? You don’t need a degree in civil engineering to figure out that the infrastucture in Bay Area needs major work. Spend the money on roadworks not excel and power point reports.
Amen. But that’s how it’s done these days. Hire a consultant to convey the obvious with charts & graphs.
Overturn unlucky Proposition 13 immediately! It’s completed it’s devestating mission: ruined our city roads, city schools and city libraries to name just a few. What a dark and unlucky Tuesday it was over 40 years ago – sold our state, our counties, our towns (pulling down with it all who did not own private property) all the way down river. Very sad indeed! No “special study” needed. Just look to any street corner or under any freeway overpass. Unlucky 13 slaps us in the face every day and yet nothing is done. Absolutely nothing is done.
I am originally from El Salvador. We have many dirt roads which turn to thick mud in the winter and few SUVs like so many wealthy Palo Altans. When trees fall and block roads, it can take weeks before they are finally cleared and road transportation resumes.
Your problems & complaints are trivial as a few bumps on the road does not hinder your getting from one place to another.
More trains more often would help ameliorate this.
Get out of your car. ride the bus or the train.
I think the root problem is nestled deep in our political system: elected officials spending more time raising money in order to be re-elected than on doing the work they are elected to do. On April 24, 2016, 60 Minutes did a segment on “dialing for dollars” in D.C. The segment exposed the Party mandate (yes, mandate, as in requirement) that fundraising (not legislating) is the top priority for members of congress and they reportedly spend 6 – 8 hours A DAY doing it. The segment focused on D.C. but it would be naïve to think the phenomenon is limited to Members of Congress.
Even here we see the impact of PACS on local politics and the way some elected officials operate with an eye towards reelection and keeping donors happy. It’s no wonder that the real work of government isn’t getting done when time is spent not on governing or leadership or problem solving, but on fundraising and keeping donors happy. Lots of “dis” words come to mind – disheartening, discouraging, disgusting, dysfunctional.
Changing this likely has to start at the local level and likely will be painful. Unless all candidates agree to a spending limit, those who do will be wildly outspent by those who don’t b/c those who don’t will have the money to buy name recognition and fill our mailboxes with glossy fliers featuring their names in big bold letters. We don’t have to look very far to cite examples of that.
I think we can do better than this – and had better if we want to have government doing what it is supposed to be doing. Like making sure our roads are not “among the worst in the state”.
It is no surprise to us to hear this news. To those of us living on the Peninsula, we think the worst are here. To those living in the East Bay, they think the worst are there. The truth is they are all very bad and there’s very little help trying to decide which are worst.
Another example of the ignorance of government is the present problems with DMV incompetence. The truth is that there is a special office in Sacramento for government officials so none of them have to wait in line to see how bad the problem really is. Government is not run like a business. There doesn’t have to be a balancing of books citing income and expenditure. There doesn’t have to be anything government can do about DMV wait lines because it isn’t a money producer in the sense that if they improve the system they will have an increase in profits.
Taxes raised specifically for road improvements never get spent on what is really necessary. Property taxes that go to help public transportation are spent on BART to San Jose and VTA reduce service in Palo Alto.
Governments waste money. Governments waste money even when it is specified for a particular cause. Our tax dollars at work signs are a joke. If the work on the creek was costing time and money to our Sacramento leaders, the work would have been done round the clock and been completed in weeks or months rather than years.
Our roads are bad. Our bridges are bad. Will the next Genoa bridge collapse be in California?
Our roads here are not so bad. The East SJ and Oakland areas are far far worse without question. Once again, we’re in a bubble here in wonderland.
Be a little patient. President Trump has a plan to completely fix all our infrastructures. He told us himself. He will do it. Be patient.
“TRIP”, found here: http://www.tripnet.org/, describes itself this way: “TRIP is sponsored by insurance companies, equipment manufacturers, distributors and suppliers, businesses involved in highway and transit engineering and construction, labor unions, and organizations concerned with an efficient and safe surface transportation network that promotes economic development and quality of life.” IOW, part of the “highway lobby”. As such, their press release, found here: http://www.tripnet.org/docs/CA_Statewide_Transportation_by_the_Numbers_TRIP_Release_08-15-2018.php – stays away from the sticky issue of what actually causes road wear.
As it happens, most road wear is caused by -heavy- commercial trucks, which are very under-taxed compared to the wear they cause.
Folks who don’t like the deterioration of El Camino, for example, might notice the steady stream of heavy construction-related trucks. For example.
@Anon – interesting about the heavy trucks. I hope the City of Palo Alto is compensated for all the construction vehicles that are wearing out our roads. One day last week I counted 21 large (10 – 18 wheel) dirt-hauling trucks between Hansen Way and the Alma underpass in 3 minutes (1:50 – 1:53 pm). A friend and I were returning from a meeting and counted as we slowly made our way through the Page Mill/El Camino light and beyond. The projects on campus, in College Terrace, and on Page Mill/Oregon are crawling with these big trucks. Of course; they are part of development. But if they are what’s breaking down our roads, we should be compensated for that.