>The pavement conditions of 53% of the roads are described as 'poor' and an additional 19% as 'mediocre'. The problem with this report is that they define "poo

>The pavement conditions of 53% of the roads are described as 'poor' and an additional 19% as 'mediocre'. The problem with this report is that they define "poor" as less than 25% usable life left. Which may be useful for budgeting but it doesn't paint an accurate picture of road quality. I've spent five minutes or so clicking around Google Street and I didn't come across a problematic road in Lafayette. Lots that had patches and are probably due for a total resurfacing but no potholes and nothing that I would have concerns driving down. As noted in my other reply, even if we ignore the above objections the backlog is ~15% of the annual budget. It's not going to bankrupt the city. >Okay. The story surrounding the 2016 floods is more complex then simply "needs more maintenance". You're looking at a flooding prone area where housing development ballooned in a few short years. So, what happened? As always, a combination of factors and the dilution of responsibility across many actors. This ranges from the population not having flooding insurance, over private contractors cutting corners, to building permits being issued based on outdated information and so on and so on. You can't drop 30 inches of water anywhere without seeing localized flooding. It's not physically possible to move that much water no matter how good your infrastructure is.