Become Ungovernable

image.png
 
Angry Californians FORCED To Fill Potholes Themselves
https://odysee.com/@actualjusticewarrior:2/angry-californians-forced-to-fill:8
{Actual Justice Warrior | 13 March 2024}

In this video I discuss a couple who has become so fed up with failed California leadership that they've decided to fill potholes on their own to shame city & state officials.



Joke’s on them. City and state “officials.” or any other “officials” for that matter have no shame. Also, said “officials” don’t give the slightest fraction of a fuck about this couple or anyone else. Time to wake up and smell the frickin tyranny.
 
Angry Californians FORCED To Fill Potholes Themselves
https://odysee.com/@actualjusticewarrior:2/angry-californians-forced-to-fill:8
{Actual Justice Warrior | 13 March 2024}

In this video I discuss a couple who has become so fed up with failed California leadership that they've decided to fill potholes on their own to shame city & state officials.


First of all, bravo to these folks for taking matters into their own hands... however... 2 things:

1 - Along with doing the work that the state should be doing as part of it's "contractual" (yeah, I know) obligations, there should be a tax revolt at the same time.

2 - They're not doing it right. They're using what is called "cold patch", which can't just be dumped into a hole and patted down with a shovel with the expectation that it will hold up. That will last about 10 or so vehicle transverses before it's squeezed out of the depression and ultimately will have been a waste of time. you can definitely use cold patch to fill in a pothole, but you have to put it in correctly. Depending on the depth of the pothole, the cold patch should be laid in in layers, and a vibra-plate should be used to tamp it into place... repeat until you come to surface (in most cases with a pothole, it's going to be one layer). And while cold patch would probably get it done for a year, maybe 2, in a warm climate like this, the best solution really would be to saw-cut around the depression and lay in hot asphalt that is vibra-plated into place.

And for the record, most of the potholes that we deal with are a result of poor construction. There's really no reason that potholes should exist in roads that are no less than 10 years old... it just takes proper engineering, which should specify proper subgrade installation (undercut, compaction, etc.) and appropriate lifts of hot patch are installed to spec'd compaction parameters.

I do appreciate and admire what these folks are doing, but ultimately it's going to prove no better than what the incompetent state is doing. If we're going to do the whole, "we can do whatever the state does only better", thing, then we should actually do it better. Don't get me wrong - I admire what they're doing, but if you're going to do it, do it right. Google can be your friend. Or find a like-minded local contractor willing to get involved. Just don't make the movement look bad.
 
First of all, bravo to these folks for taking matters into their own hands... however... 2 things:

1 - Along with doing the work that the state should be doing as part of it's "contractual" (yeah, I know) obligations, there should be a tax revolt at the same time.

2 - They're not doing it right...


Years ago I posted an analysis on this forum "Concrete versus Asphalt Roads" (I did a search but can't find it anymore) including cost to taxpayers. Concrete is far superior, can be easily recycled and long-term costs can actually be up to 50% cheaper than asphalt. This [from a single website] is not as in-depth as my original post, but it does provide an overview:




Concrete versus Asphalt Roads


1. Cost Effectiveness

Concrete roads require a higher upfront cost than their asphalt counterparts. However, asphalt needs to be replaced or patched more frequently than concrete, which can increase maintenance costs over time.

In general, concrete is a better long-term investment because it lasts up to twice as long as asphalt. However, for small projects or short-term road needs, asphalt might be the more cost-effective option.


2. Environmental Impact

Concrete is a more eco-friendly option compared to asphalt. The production of concrete does not release as many harmful gases into the atmosphere as asphalt production does. Additionally, concrete is made from natural materials, such as rock and limestone, which can be sourced locally.

On the other hand, asphalt is typically made using fossil fuels like petroleum, which contributes more to greenhouse gas emissions.


3. Durability

When it comes to durability, concrete arguably takes the cake. It can withstand extreme temperatures, and heavy traffic loads, and has a longer lifespan, with a lifespan of up to 30 years. Asphalt, on the other hand, has a lifespan of only 20 years, unless it undergoes routine maintenance.

Additionally, concrete is less prone to cracking, chipping, or deformities. Although, in the unlikely event of any fractures, repairing concrete poses a more significant challenge than fixing asphalt.


4. Maintenance

Both concrete and asphalt require some level of maintenance. However, asphalt needs more maintenance, including seal coating, crack filling, and pothole repair. Routine maintenance can help extend the lifespan of asphalt, but it’s still more prone to damage than concrete.

On the other hand, concrete only needs simple sealing after a certain period. Additionally, concrete is more resistant to the effects of weather and chemical spills.


5. Appearance

While this may not be a crucial factor, the appearance of roads can make a difference in urban planning or private projects. Concrete offers a more modern and clean look, with a gray or white color.

On the other hand, asphalt has a darker and more rugged appearance that may look more pleasing to some projects, especially in rural areas.

https://concrete-calculator.org/blog/concrete-vs-asphalt-roads/
 
Years ago I posted an analysis on this forum "Concrete versus Asphalt Roads" (I did a search but can't find it anymore) including cost to taxpayers. Concrete is far superior, can be easily recycled and long-term costs can actually be up to 50% cheaper than asphalt. This [from a single website] is not as in-depth as my original post, but it does provide an overview:




Concrete versus Asphalt Roads


1. Cost Effectiveness

Concrete roads require a higher upfront cost than their asphalt counterparts. However, asphalt needs to be replaced or patched more frequently than concrete, which can increase maintenance costs over time.

In general, concrete is a better long-term investment because it lasts up to twice as long as asphalt. However, for small projects or short-term road needs, asphalt might be the more cost-effective option.


2. Environmental Impact

Concrete is a more eco-friendly option compared to asphalt. The production of concrete does not release as many harmful gases into the atmosphere as asphalt production does. Additionally, concrete is made from natural materials, such as rock and limestone, which can be sourced locally.

On the other hand, asphalt is typically made using fossil fuels like petroleum, which contributes more to greenhouse gas emissions.


3. Durability

When it comes to durability, concrete arguably takes the cake. It can withstand extreme temperatures, and heavy traffic loads, and has a longer lifespan, with a lifespan of up to 30 years. Asphalt, on the other hand, has a lifespan of only 20 years, unless it undergoes routine maintenance.

Additionally, concrete is less prone to cracking, chipping, or deformities. Although, in the unlikely event of any fractures, repairing concrete poses a more significant challenge than fixing asphalt.


4. Maintenance

Both concrete and asphalt require some level of maintenance. However, asphalt needs more maintenance, including seal coating, crack filling, and pothole repair. Routine maintenance can help extend the lifespan of asphalt, but it’s still more prone to damage than concrete.

On the other hand, concrete only needs simple sealing after a certain period. Additionally, concrete is more resistant to the effects of weather and chemical spills.


5. Appearance

While this may not be a crucial factor, the appearance of roads can make a difference in urban planning or private projects. Concrete offers a more modern and clean look, with a gray or white color.

On the other hand, asphalt has a darker and more rugged appearance that may look more pleasing to some projects, especially in rural areas.

https://concrete-calculator.org/blog/concrete-vs-asphalt-roads/

:up:

One caveat - just as with an asphalt roadway, subgrade preparation is critical to the durability of the road surface. Concrete will crack and chip if the subgrade is not prepared properly - that includes identifying soft spots in the soil subgrade and reinforcing them with filter fabric and #4 stone ("rip rap"), in some situations, as well as a well placed and compacted gravel base course.

I managed a project 14 years ago in a local town that required the complete rebuild of a street from the subgrade all the way back to surface. There are no potholes in that road to this day. And that includes a challenging section of about 500' of nearly flat roadway (I think it was about 1-2" of fall over that entire distance). We made sure that the water would drain to the inlets so as to prevent it from laying on the surface and weakening the asphalt over time thru seeping and, in the winter particularly, freeze/thaw.
 
Back
Top