May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: rshersh on 18 Oct 2009 17:01 On Oct 18, 3:09 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > "Larry Sheldon" <lfshel...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:7k1522F36mirbU2(a)mid.individual.net...> Miles Bader wrote: > >> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >>>> The fact is, trucking has an advantage due solely to government > >>>> subsidies. > >>> And the fact that the vast majority of people want to drive their own > >>> cars. > > >> ... in an environment where driving cars is the only reasonable option > >> -- due in no small part to massive government subsidies that pushed > >> things (both transportation infrastructure, and over the long term, the > >> actual structure of communities) in that direction. > > > There is that nonsense again. > > Sorry, but it's not nonsense. Driving motor vehicles is the only sensible > option. > only because it has been so heavily subsidized in the 20th c. massive subsidies were provided to state hwy depts to finance the interstate hwy system for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was "defense" during the cold war years. states like NE that were unable to pave their cross state US highways were given 90% federal funding to build not only I-80 across the state but give Omaha an interstate bypass as well as a downtown interstate loop states like SD were heavily subsidized by states in the northeast to provide 90% fed funding for I-29 as well as I-90 You have to understand the states in the northeast as well as other states like OK, KS, FL were able to finance cross state divided interstate quality highways by bonds to be paid off with future toll revenue. But the federal highway gas tax, which was heavily financed by the most populated states in the northeast and great lakes provided funding for states like ND, SD, NE, WY, MT, etc to build cross state interstate highways. continuing, the 90% funding of the interstate highway system represented a massive transfer of wealth from the wealthiest states in the northeast and great lakes to the dirt poor states like GA, NC, AL, MS, TN, TX, AR, etc also it was substantially supported by corporate interests like GM and their suppliers like the rubber companies to force people to buy cars. and with the planned obsolescence of vehicles it was a never ending market for those entities subsidized by of all things, the GOVERNMENT. The interstate highway system was slated for completion, 41,000 miles in 1972. Understand upon completion in 1972 maintainance was to be 100% a state responsibility. this was and is impossible. currently everything from line painting to traffic signals, to signs, guard rail, everything is financed 80% by the feds also this 80% fed financing enables states like ND to build massive interchanges between rural interstates and states like SD to rebuild interstates completely from the ground up for their small cities the money from the fed hwy trust fund also provided roads to nowhere for states like WV, Appalachian Development Corridor H, which will never be finished in VA and it not planned for substantial completion in WV for at least 50 years http://www.wvcorridorh.com/
From: Dave C. on 18 Oct 2009 06:14 > > Destroyed as in unsuitable for traffic. The pavement was crumbled, it > was waved, distorted, as if it were turned to a fluid and then frozen. > large rutted depressions several inches displaced from nominal. I > don't think bicycles did that. > No, that sounds like frost heeves (SP?) -Dave
From: Sancho Panza on 18 Oct 2009 19:45 "Scott in SoCal" <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:qmtmd5t9f52nkt3fdl2du6qljd5uj1ch44(a)4ax.com... > There was a time when only the very wealthy could afford to live like > Larry does. Ordinary people lived in cities, villages, or other such > settlements where they could pool their resources. The U.S. standard of living has progressed hugely. If that poses a problem, other places without that factor are abundant.
From: gpsman on 18 Oct 2009 20:34 On Oct 17, 9:26 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > LOL. I've seen major routes (as in US highways and local arterial roads) > where the pavement has been destroyed by heavy truck traffic. Describe the method/s by which you determined the damage was caused by trucks and not by defects in material and workmanship. > The roads > in bufu aren't even going to be half as well built and certainly where > someone is far far away from anything. You can say that again, but you still won't have said anything. > And all I have to do to see a > road unsuitable for a heavy truck traffic is look out the window. Are trucks permitted? How about moving vans? The maximum weight limits have remained constant since 1974 when they were raised to 80K# from the1956 level of 73,280#. About when would you say it might be reasonable to conclude that even if trucks damage pavement the pavement is inadequately spec'd relative to the allowable weight standards? The max weight normally permitted on your revered Autobahn is 40 metric tons (88,200#). ----- - gpsman
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 18 Oct 2009 20:50
"gpsman" <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote in message news:9636bdd4-7471-42d0-8a97-1a305e1d2051(a)m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On Oct 17, 9:26 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > LOL. I've seen major routes (as in US highways and local arterial roads) > where the pavement has been destroyed by heavy truck traffic. Describe the method/s by which you determined the damage was caused by trucks and not by defects in material and workmanship. *Potholes and cracking in roads are generally not caused by passenger cars, not pickup trucks, not even SUV's. Transit buses and big rig trucks can do the most damage. However, transit buses usually use HOV lanes or their own designated bus lanes on high traffic metro area roads, so their damage is usually limited to bus stops and transit stations. Therefore, the conclusion is obvious--big rig trucks are universally the sole cause of major road damage involving potholes and road cracking along significant distances of road. > The roads > in bufu aren't even going to be half as well built and certainly where > someone is far far away from anything. You can say that again, but you still won't have said anything. * It means that trucks do even more damage to roads in distant/remote areas vs. more congested metro areas, since roads in distant/remote areas are generally not built as well as in high traffic metro areas. > And all I have to do to see a > road unsuitable for a heavy truck traffic is look out the window. Are trucks permitted? How about moving vans? * "Moving vans" are essentially big rig trucks from companies hired to move. The maximum weight limits have remained constant since 1974 when they were raised to 80K# from the1956 level of 73,280#. About when would you say it might be reasonable to conclude that even if trucks damage pavement the pavement is inadequately spec'd relative to the allowable weight standards? * Only at the point where passenger cars, pickup trucks, and SUV's start making potholes and cracks in the road. At that point, the road construction is clearly substandard for any vehicular travel. Otherwise, the blame can still be cast solely upon the big rig trucks for the road damage. [snip...] |