True, I agree with you.
I have some personal insight on this: A friend worked 40 years in a State agency responsible for prioritizing projects. She said it was a constant battle to allocate funds between renovation and new projects. New projects always have 'stakeholders' - developers, resort owners, etc etc who want greater traffic capacity to their outlying projects that will become profitable as soon as new freeways are built to get out there. They have made huge gambles on improved infrastructure and they then apply pressure to decision-makers to get the project built that will make their gambles profitable. This can include backing political candidates who can help them attain their objectives.
Opposite these interested parties are the engineers who claim existing infrastructure needs to be maintained or it will fall apart. Guess who actually gets the funding, time after time.
And another aspect: In the Pat Brown era it was a given that California's population would boom, and many expensive projects were undertaken to prepare for this boom and make California attractive for investment. The Central Valley Project, the dams and aqueducts that send NorCal's water to the growers in the central valley and to Los Angeles, is the most obvious example. The growers' arid lands were made profitable, their payoff for supporting the projects was immediate. Los Angeles was made capable of supporting a larger population, the value of everything there increased.
Win/win ... except - all those major projects were supported by bonds. Californians today, ie the people who arrived due to the attractiveness these works created, are now responsible for paying off the bonds, and are complaining about how high their taxes are, partly due to the bonds that created the California they see today.
Its complicated.