Airstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2149 posts, RR: 1 Posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2548 times:
OK. Typing this, as I do, right the heck in downtown Minneapolis, a city still palpably shaken by the I-35W collapse five years ago, I am a little fed up with bridges in this country collapsing. At least this event so far appears to be gloriously fatality-free.
I am an enthusiastic consumer of the services afforded by our interstate highway system and I don't want to start traveling less due to compromised confidence in the system's physical safety.
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2683 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2512 times:
Glad noone was killed this time... Last time I heard there were 10s of 1000s of bridges in the US at risk structurally. This is what happens when you convince the electorate that public infrastructure investment is a socialist plot...
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8369 posts, RR: 24 Reply 2, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2493 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 1): This is what happens when you convince the electorate that public infrastructure investment is a socialist plot...
Thankfully nobody here jumps to conclusions. Wouldn't it be embarrassing if it turns out that the bridge collapsed because of an oversized or overweight load, or something like that?
Quote: The bridge is not considered structurally deficient but is listed as being "functionally obsolete" - a category meaning that their design is outdated, such as having narrow shoulders are low clearance underneath, according to a database compiled by the Federal Highway Administration.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 64 Reply 3, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2496 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 1): This is what happens when you convince the electorate that public infrastructure investment is a socialist plot.
Reports are that an oversized Stalinist truck had rammed the bridge shortly before its collapse, reminiscent of Chairman Mao's march across China, as the truck's driver was distracted while listening to an audiobook of Mein Kampf and tweeting with Mussolini!
trav110 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 531 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2437 times:
Hardly surprising. You guys have lots of bridges in pretty bad shape. I you'd spent just a quarter of what you have spent on defense for the past 10 years, this wouldn't have happened. You get what you pay for.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): Thankfully nobody here jumps to conclusions. Wouldn't it be embarrassing if it turns out that the bridge collapsed because of an oversized or overweight load, or something like that?
One overweight truck isn't going to immediately cause a bridge to collapse. It will cause fatigue and cracking that builds and builds over the life of the bridge (many of which are 50 or 60 years old) until it can no longer hold the weight that it was designed for and collapses.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8369 posts, RR: 24 Reply 6, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2408 times:
Quoting trav110 (Reply 5): One overweight truck isn't going to immediately cause a bridge to collapse.
It can if the truck or its load rams into a key structural member with enough force. It's a truss frame bridge. Take out the right piece and you compromise the whole thing.
I'm not saying that that is definitely what happened. We don't know yet. What I am saying is that we know a few facts:
1) The bridge was NOT considered structurally deficient - which means, oldeuropean, that if all of the money in the world were available they would not have replaced it. The bridge was considered obsolete in terms of modern height/width standards, but structurally OK.
2) They are talking to the driver of a specific truck and zeroed in on him very fast.
So instead of trying to make political statements (which have little basis in fact to begin with), how about waiting for a bit more info.
If the passengers could elect the aircrew, you'd be my choice for Captain.
Quoting trav110 (Reply 5): One overweight truck isn't going to immediately cause a bridge to collapse. It will cause fatigue and cracking that builds and builds over the life of the bridge (many of which are 50 or 60 years old) until it can no longer hold the weight that it was designed for and collapses.
At least 95% of all the bridges here were built when we still had a truck weight limit of less than 28 tons. Now, 40 ton trucks are travelling on our roads by the thousands, and... nothing has collapsed. Good engineering, surveillance and maintenance.
Nevermind that bridges are, after construction, actually tested by using massively overweight trucks to measure the tension that is build up in the bridge.
Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13602 posts, RR: 63 Reply 8, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2303 times:
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 7): At least 95% of all the bridges here were built when we still had a truck weight limit of less than 28 tons. Now, 40 ton trucks are travelling on our roads by the thousands, and... nothing has collapsed. Good engineering, surveillance and maintenance.
Though lots of expensive maintenance and upgrades involved.
That's not the problem. The problem is spending billions of fuel taxes that were once 100% earmarked for roads on the subsidization of mass transit, or wasteful regions like the Bay Area of California spending billions more on projects like the Bay Bridge because they don't know how to properly manage a project.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 64 Reply 10, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2239 times:
Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 9): The problem is spending billions of fuel taxes that were once 100% earmarked for roads on the subsidization of mass transit
Federal fuel taxes have always been a slush fund of sorts, even being used to finance the defense budget in the 1940s. There are separate budgets financed from federal fuel taxes, one is the Highway Account, another is the Mass Transit Account. How much of the Highway Account is being plundered for the Mass Transit Account?
steex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1536 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2196 times:
Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 9): The problem is spending billions of fuel taxes that were once 100% earmarked for roads on the subsidization of mass transit,
I would argue that mass transit isn't necessarily an inappropriate use of this funding - we need to view our transportation network as just that, a network. The bigger issue is sensible use of the dollars in general, which is often lacking. In major cities with high transit ridership, dollars spent on transit are dollars not being spent to upgrade and rebuild highways that would otherwise have to carry the load.
The problem comes when we are paying big money for ineffective systems, but this is hardly unique to transit - we also spend big money inefficiently designing highways, airports, and other transportation infrastructure.
Geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2171 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 1): Last time I heard there were 10s of 1000s of bridges in the US at risk structurally. This is what happens when you convince the electorate that public infrastructure investment is a socialist plot...
Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 4): This came as no real suprise. It's the desolate infrastructure in the US.
Quoting trav110 (Reply 5): Hardly surprising. You guys have lots of bridges in pretty bad shape. I you'd spent just a quarter of what you have spent on defense for the past 10 years, this wouldn't have happened.
Another typical day in the U.S. ................I read all of the above yesterday, and didn't comment; ( why try to comment on anything, when you have no idea what you're talking about ? ) After all, I haven't had an occasion to cross that bridge for over 20 years now, so I didn't spend much time even worrying about it until I knew a little more about what happened to cause an Interstate highway bridge to collapse; ( which, IMO, would be a good idea for everyone to do )
Now today, after getting up late, (because of going to bed late), I see this article in the good old Chicago tribune, ( which is located about 2,000 miles east of the collapsed bridge ), and I now know slightly more than I did yesterday, and thereby being in a slightly better position to "speculate" as to what may have caused the bridge to go down.
Unfortunately, there are always going to be a few people who seem to frequently "talk about things" before they bother to get any information about what it is they're trying to talk about, ( which of course, is their "privilege", inasmuch as this is a public, international forum )
I have often asked myself, why so many people seem to be so prone to doing this; could it possible be that they "have something against" the U.S. ? If that's the case, I wonder what it could be ? ( I have no idea, but I DO have a better idea TODAY than I had YESTERDAY, why people crossing the I-5 bridge suddenly found themselves swimming in very cold water, rather than driving in their nice warm cars.) In case anyone is really concerned as to why the bridge collapsed, the provided link may enlighten you.
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 10): Federal fuel taxes have always been a slush fund of sorts, even being used to finance the defense budget in the 1940s. There are separate budgets financed from federal fuel taxes, one is the Highway Account, another is the Mass Transit Account. How much of the Highway Account is being plundered for the Mass Transit Account?
Imagine that ! We finally seem to be "wondering" the same thing ! Congratulations !
Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 9): That's not the problem. The problem is spending billions of fuel taxes that were once 100% earmarked for roads on the subsidization of mass transit, or wasteful regions like the Bay Area of California spending billions more on projects like the Bay Bridge because they don't know how to properly manage a project.
Now someone is REALLY getting to the heart of the on-going problem ! I completely agree with this reply !
This will be interesting. Another oil industry company with lax safety standards? At least the oil industry has enough money to get the entire bridge rebuilt. :I
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6): It can if the truck or its load rams into a key structural member with enough force.
Especially since the bridge is nearing 60 years of use. Maybe we need to determine if the truck should not have used that bridge. We need to know the degree of blame to be put on the truck and the degree to be put on the condition of the bridge.
Our politicians could care less about maintenance and upgrades. You don't get your picture in the paper for road or bridge maintenance, but you do when cutting a ribbon on a new road.
Politicians also know their voters have a short (or limited) memory of how many Americans die from infrastructure failures. The 13 deaths when a bridge fell in Minnesota in 2007? People don't remember that and if they do then the politician can quickly switch the top. Maybe to abortion or prayers in schools. Something that doesn't cost money.
Quoting Geezer (Reply 13): could it possible be that they "have something against" the U.S. ?
Well, Charlie, I believe a lot of international comments comes from people who have actually visited (or lived in) the US for a while and have a basis for comparison. I have also found when I have been overseas that a lot of people in other countries know far more about the US than we know about them. The better the ability to use experience to compare, the more critical one can honestly be in commenting.
I know when we lived in Australia that I had a lot of time to compare differences, with each country coming out on top about the same amount of times.
Quoting Geezer (Reply 13): We finally seem to be "wondering" the same thing !
I generally don't wonder about that shifting money around between highways and mass transit. First I understand that mass transit is critical for the NorthEast. Trains, buses and subways move far more people in that area than we can build roads & bridges to accommodate. Shut down a major part of commuting via mass transit into New York CIty and you can have a regional (if not national) impact..
I also know that politicians play games with all "Funds". They are incapable of any level of honesty when it comes to Funds - and that is both sides of the aisle. Republican & Democrats loose their integrity when it comes to Green.
And, let's be honest, inflation is something that no politician worries about if it means increasing taxes. I can remember Reagan bringing a 5¢ a gallon tax to increase maintenance of Interstate highways. That 5¢ sure doesn't buy anything close to the maintenance that it did when Reagan was in office. But has it ben increased to keep up with inflation?
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2344 posts, RR: 7 Reply 18, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2093 times:
Quoting bhill (Reply 17): I would like to see that permit...however, the ultimate responsibility relies with the person behind the wheel, I have been over that bridge MANY times, it is VERY well marked.
As a person who knows a thing or two about oversized loads (I've set up several thousand in my career) I am thinking something is not quite right here. Any time you want to move an over-dimensional or overweight load you need to contact the dept of transportation in every state you'll travel through. Depending on the size of the load, they may need to do a route survey which checks for clerances and weight limits on all bridges and overpasses. They may come back to you with a route that takes you on alternate roads to avoid low clearances etc. So I think one of the following scenarios took place:
Washington DOT has inaccurate info on file for that bridge (unlikely IMO)
Surveyor mis-read or neglected to check that info (again not likely but not impossible)
shipper provided inaccurate dimensions of the load to trucker
trucker did not verify dimensions once equipment waas secured on the truck
driver did not center the load on the road when approaching the bridge (most bridge clearances are higher in the center than on the sides)
Now the next question I'd have is that since the truck was able to continue over the bridge after impacting it, was the force of the impact enough to have brought down a structually sound bridge? I am sure the NTSB will be asking all of these questions in the course of their investigation.
steex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1536 posts, RR: 9 Reply 19, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2073 times:
Quoting ER757 (Reply 18): driver did not center the load on the road when approaching the bridge (most bridge clearances are higher in the center than on the sides)
Based on the limited information available at this time, primarily the eyewitness account of the trailing pickup driver, this was my impression. However, I actually read the descriptions to indicate that the truck struck not the top of the bridge structure, but rather the driver failing to center the load resulted in the load overhanging the right side of the roadway and striking the first vertical member on the side of the bridge. According to the eyewitness (who did fall into the water), he tried to fall back because he could see that the oversized load was too far to the right to avoid hitting the bridge, but another semi pulled ahead on the left and may have prevented the oversized load from centering.
I do acknowledge, of course, that this is all highly speculative since we don't yet know much.
EDIT: Reading further, it appears that it is a case of the truck hitting the top chord of the truss in the top right corner of the load due to failure to center the load under the truss structure.
Quoting ER757 (Reply 18): Now the next question I'd have is that since the truck was able to continue over the bridge after impacting it, was the force of the impact enough to have brought down a structually sound bridge?
The bridge in question has multiple spans, with four truss spans over the river. The northernmost span is the one which collapsed, and it is only about 160-165 feet long. Assuming the truck was traveling at least 65 MPH, I wouldn't be surprised if an impact into a vertical truss member shifted the load such that the truck continued moving and it cleared the impacted span before the shifting of stress in the bridge could cause it to fall.
In general, it is entirely possible for the removal (or severe damage) of one critical loadbearing member from a truss bridge to cause its collapse. However, I do not know nearly enough about the bridge in question, its condition, or the collision to know if that's what happened in this scenario.
Geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2070 times:
Quoting ER757 (Reply 16): Saw a report this morning and the owner of the truck company says they not only got permits from WSDOT for taking this specific load on that route but also had a pilot car! Now go figure.........
Excuse me........have you ever obtained an oversized load permit from a state, in order to move an over-size, over-weight load ? I HAVE; many times; allow me to "explain" a bit about over-size load permits, and the way they "work";
First, you tell the state EXACTLY what the "load" you intend to move weighs, it's EXACT weight, width, length, AND, if it's possible to be "disassembled" in order to be moved in smaller "pieces"; only after careful review o6f the information you provide, the state then tells YOU, (right on the permit), EXACTLY what route you will use, what time you will execute said move, and any other things you WILL need to provide (or pay for the state to provide, (such as a police escort, utility workers to cut power to transformers, etc etc etc)
After all of this.........if you deviate from ANY of the requirements set forth in said permit, it becomes invalid, and YOU will very quickly in more "hot water" than would be necessary for several years worth of nice hot showers !
( "been there, did that".......many times, as they say.)
So we won't need to be worrying too much about "did the truck owner have proper insurance", or "was the truck driver lost" ? ( it doesn't work that way with permit loads )
And last but most important of all.........NO permit gives any truck or driver the authorization or permission to physically "run INTO anything"........least of all, support structures which hold bridges up.
My best guess, based on prior, first hand experience is........we will now be seeing someone's insurance carrier PAYING for a new bridge; ( which always cost TONS of money to build, and months and years of inconvenience and snarled traffic to cope with by local citizens. )
Everything, and I DO mean, everything, which can possibly happen (or "go wrong") is carefully considered, planned for, and then executed in moving permitted loads. There is nothing that can possibly be"torn up" by a truck that hasn't already been "torn up" by a previous truck, and all states are VERY skilled at knowing how to "affix the necessary responsibility" on the "responsible party".
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
Boeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 433 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1976 times:
Quoting steex (Reply 12): I would argue that mass transit isn't necessarily an inappropriate use of this funding - we need to view our transportation network as just that, a network. The bigger issue is sensible use of the dollars in general, which is often lacking. In major cities with high transit ridership, dollars spent on transit are dollars not being spent to upgrade and rebuild highways that would otherwise have to carry the load.
Mass transit fares collected in the US only account for 21.8% of the costs. The rest of the money comes from fuel taxes and Fed/State/Local government general funds/tax districts. Transit users need to do more to carry their fair share. Yes, highways get a subsidy, but the idea that its even in the same ballpark is absurd.
Comparatively cars are subsidized about 1.1 cents per passenger mile. Mass transit 60 cents per passenger mile
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 10): How much of the Highway Account is being plundered for the Mass Transit Account?
Last year it was $7 billion just from Federal Fuel Taxes (Net fuel tax revenue was just under $35 Billion). Of course that's only part of the equation because it doesn't take into account what States do with their fuel taxes.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 64 Reply 24, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1962 times:
Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 23): Last year it was $7 billion just from Federal Fuel Taxes (Net fuel tax revenue was just under $35 Billion).
To make sure I'm understanding this right, you're saying that the $7 billion was diverted from the Highway Account to the Mass Transit Account, over and above what the Mass Transit Account had been authorized by law as its normal allocation?
International Homo of Mystery
25 steex: This doesn't entirely disagree with my point - not every mass transit implementation has the same efficiency, and as I said, I think it's critical to
26 Ken777: That sounds like government workers using the CYA Stamp. I wonder if all states are that careful with the Stamp as opposed to actually checking the r
27 trav110: That is ridiculous. I have spent the vast majority of my life living in the US. What I said was based on personal experience and the state of the roa
28 Boeing717200: No. I'm saying that before that allocation shift was made - all fuel taxes went to roads. We've been diverting 20% of the fuel tax revenue to mass tr
29 AeroWesty: I don't see it as robbing Peter to pay Paul. Back in 1982 the federal fuel tax was raised from 4¢ to 5¢ to allocate 1¢ to pay for mass transit (no
30 Boeing717200: Except that Peter is the only one buying the gas. Hence taking from Peter to pay Paul causes a perpetual problem for Peter.[Edited 2013-05-24 15:45:1
31 AeroWesty: Peter's paying to help move Paul out of his way onto more efficient ways to transport people. All good.
32 Boeing717200: You might be right if that were true. The reality is Paul is riding the least efficient and most expensive form of transportation known to man.[Edite
33 AeroWesty: Difficult to evaluate without more details, such as which form of transportation you're referring to. Put some numbers and examples out there for fol
34 DocLightning: Which strikes me as a problem. The idea that failure of a single structural member would cause complete collapse strikes me as poor design for a stru
35 Boeing717200: You're in Portland. Are you kidding me: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=7881
36 steex: I gave the specific example of Chicago, where a great deal of the transit ridership as well as highway commuting is done from the suburbs to the City
37 aaron747: Well now now we can see you are clearly unbiased. I guess stuff like this would have made sense to you?
38 AeroWesty: I actually voted against the MAX extension to Milwaukie. A couple of times, IIRC. Regardless, just tossing a link out about one project doesn't repre
39 Boeing717200: I think you're kind of missing my point. The fuel tax revenues aren't enough to pay for all the roads. So why would you take more from that revenue s
40 steex: While it is possible, it's usually not the case - and keep in mind that it takes a relatively catastrophic event (or a long history or poor maintenan
41 steex: I think you're kind of missing my point - in some places it is no longer possible to build a highway transportation system to accommodate all of the
42 AeroWesty: Re-read what I wrote. With all of your one-liners, with little meat behind them, there isn't much to grasp onto to determine where you stand on what.
43 Boeing717200: Having funds available is not always about expansion. Sometimes its just about proper maintenance or rebuilding things like bridges so that when a tr
44 steex: Yes, I'm aware of this - and the more traffic a highway carries, the more frequently it requires maintenance, also.
45 Aesma: BTW, does the fuel tax help pay for all the oil wars, oversize military that goes with them, etc. ?
46 cjg225: We desperately need to fix our infrastructure...
47 Boeing717200: Agreed. I'd like to see substantially more of the cost of transport taken off the general fund so that it can't be played with like a political toy s
48 Ken777: Considering the value of the Park & Ride systems and the levels of commuters that mass transit can absorb from the roads I would say "Yes". Funny
49 cjg225: Oh, I'm aware it won't happen. There will be some empty calls for infrastructure repairs now, but nothing will happen. Our federal government is so i
50 YVRLTN: Likewise. I know the company involved and they are my default carrier for extreme outsize loads. There is absolutely no way this company has lax stan
51 seb146: Why have there not been 37 different Congressional hearings on this bridge collapse? These people say they are concerned for the safety and well bein
52 PHX787: I'd like my fellow Americans to note about this. Even in Japan the media was saying how inadequate the infrastructure is. One news person was questio
53 AeroWesty: Billions and billions of dollars which could have been spent on infrastructure here at home in the past decade were spent abroad instead by the Bush
54 Boeing717200: It is a bit ironic. Spend all your energy on Obamacare which has raised insurance costs leaving many underinsured or at risk of higher costs in a cat
55 LTBEWR: Like with many airplane crashes/incidents we talk on this site about, several factors seemed to be in play here. Remember the 'Gimli Glider'? This is
56 Aesma: That specific kind of bridge is really common in North America it seems, I've never seen it here other than historic bridges not used since a long tim
57 ER757: Great post! Nice to hear from someone with experience using this very company. So they're heavy-haul guys...tells me they shouldn't have encountered
58 KaiGywer: Granted I don't live in Minneapolis anymore, but even last week driving over the replacement bridge, it crossed my mind.
59 Ken777: Our Federal Government is capable of far more than they currently deliver simply because the politicians prefer to cut tax revenues that are needed f
60 DocLightning: Not hyperbole at all. You should have seen what happened in NYC when there was the transit strike. I was there. I simply could not get onto Manhattan
61 AeroWesty: To bring this point home, the Tea Party actually believes that it is largely untrue that we need money to repair roads and bridges, no matter which a
62 cjg225: Been saying that for quite some time. People, in general, do not care about things like infrastructure. It's not sexy. It's boring. It's just... ther
63 YVRLTN: If the load was that marginal, I am pretty sure the authorities would not just let him wizz through unsupervised, remember the pilot cars are often u
64 DocLightning: If what you say is true, not coincidence, but because of the weight causing some final critical failure.
65 Geezer: I haven't had time to read more than maybe a dozen replies, so for all I know, you may have already seen this picture; together with the attendent sto
66 seb146: He (and many Democrats) understand that health care costs this country millions of dollars every year. And the right-wing keeps hammering away at it.
67 ER757: I think your rumor mill is broken. They've shown photos of the cargo on the news here and it is most definitely dented showing signs of an impact. Th
68 Ken777: If that is the minimum how many layers of asphalt will it take to wipe that standard out? One interesting point in the linked article: We have reache
69 bhill: Here is the odd thing, If you look at the route on the permit, it seems he was heading SOUTH on I-5 hauling oil drilling components to Vancouver, WA..
70 DocLightning: Because then you'd have to import the goods to Canada and pay the necessary taxes and fees and then export them again. Probably cheaper to leave a US
71 Arrow: Interesting question, though. The Jones Act requires a US flag vessel (i.e. very expensive) to ship between two US ports. Shipping through Vancouver
72 ER757: It's not pretty - there's just not a lot of great alternatives up there to re-route 70,000 vehicles per day, over 14,000 of which are large trucks. T
73 YVRLTN: No service from any Canadian ports at all to Alaska, even regular cargo goes down to Seattle and barged up. Roads - hahahahaha Maybe in summer, but s
74 okie: Exactly, and 50+ Obama Drama replies later, the bridge was structurally sound before hand and the load clipped the upper brace where it protrudes int
75 Boeing717200: To some extent the Tea party is correct. The vast majority of the roads are built, operated and maintained by states with the Fed serving as nothing
76 seb146: The load simply "clipped" the supports and the whole thing went down like a prize fighter. Heckuva clip, if you ask me! So, on a FEDERAL highway syst
77 AeroWesty: ::yawn:: More unsupported mumbo-jumbo. Not even the slightest attempt at an example.
78 seb146: I am pretty sure it is still center clearance. When I was a truck driver, I drove through a tunnel in the Oregon Cascades between Klamath Falls and E
79 PITingres: Using what central revenue collection and management system, exactly? Oh wait, that's called the Federal Government. Without revenue sharing, there w
80 DocLightning: As usual, the Tea Party is dead wrong. The interstate system is a major conduit for freight and passengers. States like California have high utilizat
81 Boeing717200: Considering the interstate system is complete save for a few connectors and all that is left is operation, maintenance and expansion the easiest way
82 AeroWesty: Not that easy. You've factors such as age, traffic frequency and density, plus weather cycles affecting roadbed integrity, plus triaging necessity of
83 Boeing717200: So what's the plan when the conductor hands out parts not because the music sounds great when its played properly but because he likes the hot blonde
84 AeroWesty: What it always is, our system of checks and balances. There are enough people looking over each other's shoulders at who gets how big of a piece of t
85 PITingres: Leaving aside the problem that it often costs more to maintain an old road than it did to build it in the first place; and leaving aside the problem
86 rfields5421: We have several overpass/ bridge impacts in the Dallas are each year. Many are because a repaved section of roadway lowers the clearance by a few inc