35W Freeway Bridge Collapse

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

YAY, I just knew Tim Pawlenty wouldn't have the nerve to veto another gas tax increase bill. Now maybe we will have a shift in priorities to where they belong.

<object width=425 height=350><param name=movie value=></param><param name=wmode value=transparent></param><embed src= type=application/x-shockwave-flash wmode=transparent width=425 height=350></embed></object>
 
Someone above hit one of the biggest nails on the head when it comes to the decaying state of many hiways and bridges and that is the huge volume of heavier and longer semi trucks. These bridges and overpasses were never designed to handle the volumes and weight they're being subjected to nor is the pavement. 40 years ago semi's were 35 feet, then they went to 40 ft. 45 feet in the late 60's and thru to the 80's and into the 90s 53 feet with corresponding weight increases. Albeit added axles to spread the weight. The problem lies in the fact that these trucks do not pay their fair share of diesel fuel taxes to help offset the damage they do. Basically they pay the same amount of fuel tax as someone driving a diesel car. The real crime is that railroads can handle the same amount or heavier freight which they do, keep it off the roads but are penalized by having to pay the same diesel fuel taxes that truckers do when they aren't even using the hiways and on top of that have to pay for their own "road" ie track maintenance. Truckers are basically getting a free ride at taxpayers expense. The trucking lobby is a big one so it's doubtful that anyone wants to tackle that issue. The first thing the trucking industry will say is that if they have to pay more tax on their diesel they're just going to have to pass on the cost to the consumers
 
Another number - Robert's you-tube link to Countdown said
$190 billion to fix all the bridges. Certainly seems these
people (newscasters/broadcasters/whatever) need to define
what they are talking about.

Thanks for the link, Robert. I only get to watch Countdown
when I'm in Alexandria (or on You-tube.)
 
So the trucking companies pass it on to the customers/consumers.
Then we'll probably change the way we do business - isn't that
what the capitalists say we're supposed to do? We'll change to
using more efficient means of transportation. We'll move to more
locally grown/produced products. Hmmm, maybe we'll even decide
to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. More mass transit.
Benefits could be massive. Hey, and fewer trucks damaging the
roads. Higher gas taxes, more fuel efficient, lighter cars,
even less damage to the roads.

Yes, we in the frozen north might not have the luxury (or be
able to afford) strawberries in the middle of winter, but
maybe we'll figure out how to grow our own hydroponically, etc.

We'll just appreciate them more in the summer.
 
Amy Klobuchar

I remember Amy voting for something that supported Bush's
war... I actually sent her office an email saying I regretted
voting for her because of it. Now she does the "politically
correct" thing and denounces it for the hometown viewers.
 
Trucking is surely a problem with both road and bridge wear, that's true. Back in the 30's and 40's you didn't see those huge trucks on our roads. Instead, smaller delivery vans must have made the trip from railroad yards to local businesses and customers. Now those small delivery vans are collector's items.

Not that the railroads are all great, either. They abandoned most passenger service starting in the 50's, and now the tracks are so worn out by heavy freight traffic that competitive passenger rail is nearly impossible due to the low speeds mandated by poor track and other conditions. Also, the railroads were basically gifted their rights of way long ago, along with substantial awards of property on either sides of the rights of way. In many cases that property has soared in value and I'm sure the rail companies made a tidy profit from it, and probably still do, in both rents and sales. In areas where the railroads held a monopoly on freight service, they were known to price gouge and engage in other unfair business practices to squeeze customers (such as wheat farmers in the West).

Our country needs to look to Europe and Japan for examples of how to rebuild our infrastructure for greater efficiency. High speed intercity passenger rail must be greatly expanded. A big problem is right of way, and as you may imagine, the rail companies that own the right of way are not willing to give it way.
 
Not so fast Suds....
quote "gifted their rights of way". You must put that in perspective of the times. They were "gifted" what amounted to worthless land even in those days as payment to build the railroad. No one back in the 1800's had any idea that all that land might some day be worth something. Along with that they were to bring in settlers to the west.

The interstates and air traffic were the death knell for rail passenger traffic. Subsidized interstates, unfair fuel taxing and subsidized airports and govt air traffic control... There are no government subsidies to the railroads for their stations, maintaining their tracks which are the equivelant of the interstate.

Gouging the customers? Not quite, prior to deregulation in the 80's rail freight rates were published by the govt, absolutely no competition, no competitive rates, no private contracts for freight, those were all illegal activities. Now under deregulation it is quite the opposite, few published rates, most freight rates are negotiated between the RR and the customer and it is illegal for either party to publish them or for the customer to divulge what his rates are with one RR in order to get another one to drop theirs.
 
Petek,

The gouging of farmers by the railroads occured in the 19th and early 20th centuries - when there were no interstates or jets to compete. I wasn't thinking of the latter part of the 20th century.

The men who built the railroads to California amassed huge fortunes. These were not stupid people; they knew darn well that a lot of the land grants would become extremely valuable in coming years.

All I'm trying to say is that human greed has played a sometimes very negative role when it's come to our public infrastructure. This is as true of railroads as it has been of GM colluding with oil companies to derail public transit in the post WWII era, buying up streetcar companies and driving them out of business so that the public would turn to the personal automobile instead of paying their nickel for a ride downtown. That rip-off is now coming back to bite us in a myriad of ways, from air pollution to many unproductive hours in traffic jams to, yes, bridge collapses.
 
I don't enjoy sharing the road with large trucks but I suspect they are more efficient than using a larger number of smaller trucks, and many businesses which ship or recieve goods aren't located near railheads so trains can't always do the job in a timely manner. Trucks aren't the root problem with highways and bridges anyway - lack of maintenance is. Certainly larger trucks and more traffic put more load on the system, but that is sustainable provided that roads and bridges are inspected and repaired more often, and new highway capacity is added when needed.

The roadway system in this country is really a national treasure, and has delivered a huge amount of value back to the average citizen. Many people don't realize that a properly maintained controlled access highway operating within capacity limits is by far the safest place to drive, in addition to being the fastest. By diverting highway funds to pretty much any other use govenment throughout the nation is doing us all a disservice.
 
Interesting discussion.

Here's an interesting article on the contention between freight trains and passenger rail:

Wear and Tear. Freight trains loaded with cargo are extremely heavy--many times heavier than passenger trains--and they rumble along much more slowly than passenger trains. These heavy freight trains are extremely hard on the tracks, causing much wear and tear. Because heavy freight trains move slowly compared to passenger trains and cargo doesn't complain when subject to a rickety ride, freight companies can get by on poor-quality track. They have little incentive to maintain the quality of the tracks to the level that good passenger service requires. It's unsafe for passenger trains to travel at high-speed on poor-quality track, so passenger trains have to slow down in places where track has only been maintained only to levels acceptable for freight.

Underinvestment and a vulnerable system. Unlike the interstate highway or federal aviation systems, the United States has invested comparatively little in our national rail infrastructure. Freight railroad companies haven't enjoyed the subsidies of their counterparts in the trucking or aviation industries. This results not only in poor-quality railroad tracks that aren't well-maintained, but also, many miles of single track, which in the automotive world is equivalent to having a narrow single-lane country road instead of a two-lane highway. Continuing the analogy, if a vehicle on a single-lane road breaks down, all traffic on the road comes to a halt, unable to proceed until the blockage is removed. Freight companies generally have not invested in preventative maintenance and have thousands of miles of track to maintain, as well as lots of ancient equipment (such as control signals) that's prone to failure. When something breaks, it can take them several hours to get to the site of the failure and fix it. If it happens to break along a single-track section, it can prevent a passenger train from proceeding for many hours.
When it comes to making money, passengers come last. The freight railroad companies' main goal is to make a profit. Unlike in Switzerland, freight shipments in this country often run on an erratic schedule. Due to poor infrastructure and extremely heavy congestion on some routes, freight trains are liable to show up at unpredictable times. Union Pacific has been known to hold up a passenger train to allow a long, slow freight train that is behind schedule to proceed ahead on a single track. Remember that UPRR makes a lot more money from the freight train than from the passenger train -- although some passenger agencies have worked out financial incentives to UPRR to allow passenger trains to proceed on schedule.

An overloaded system. Problems with congestion and delays have increased considerably on some routes, because the volume of goods that our country imports from places like China has increased some 10-fold in the past several years. The more freight that needs to be hauled from our western ports, the more all the above problems are exacerbated.

Public has little leverage. Freight railroad companies are nearly as old as our country and its westward expansion, and early on these companies gained special legal status and rights. For example, public entities cannot exercise powers of eminent domain on the freight railroads to gain use of their property, even if it's for the public good. Public entities have very little leverage over the freight railroad companies, and must generally agree to pay very large sums of money to fix up or build new tracks on railroad property in exchange for permission to run additional service on tracks owned by the railroad. This hinders the ability of a passenger rail agency to improve the quality and frequency of service on tracks owned by freight railroads.

Federal and state regulations. When passenger trains share tracks with freight trains, additional federal and state regulations apply to the design of the trains and stations that make it difficult to improve the quality of the service.


Here's another interesting factoid:

"One 80,000 pound truck may do as much wear-and-tear damage to roads and bridges as do 9,600 passenger cars."

 
Actually, Amtrak does quite well on the lines that are operated by the BNSF, and they do OK on the lines owned by the CN and Norfolk Southern. It's the UP and CSX that really dog Amtrak - but they can't even get their own cars across the road on time.

While I understand that the freights can make more money by hauling freight, I think they should honor the original agreement they entered into back in '71. After all, corporate welfare is as corporate welfare does ;-)

As far as the original land grants went, the railroads knew exactly what they were getting into, and leveraged that to the tilt. Don't kid yourself that they were a bunch of greenhorns who wanted to play choo-choo.
 
They recovered the bodies of two more victims ....

My thoughts and prayers continue to be with the family and friends of everyone who was affected by this tragedy. :-(

Mike

 
To make matters worse, everyone's favorite hatemonger, the most un-Reverend Fred Phelps and his crew of inbred creeps are planning to protest at bridge-collapse victims' memorial services. (You can go to his site and read the news bulletin, but I won't provide a link.) Initially, they were going to stake out several Lutheran churches last Sunday (the 3rd, was it?), but I don't know if that materialized.

I certainly want to be there if/when they show up. They've been to Mpls. before and were met by counterdemonstrators who stole their signs while the police weren't looking, wink-wink. F***ing vermin, they are.

People say "I can't believe Moslems don't speak up more against their fundamentalist/radical bretheren." Well, I'm waiting for the sane Christian community to rise up against Phelps. I'd love to see THOUSANDS of people at counterdemonstrations.

Minnesota now has a no-protest perimeter around all funerals, so perhaps that's knocking the wind from Phelps' sails a bit.
 
Appalling behavior from him as usual . . .

but why on earth would he protest at something so completely unrelated to sex or politics? From what I recall he gets almost no respect from other Christian leaders or churches, so it does seem that they've made their feelings known. The problem with huge counterdemonstrations is 1)they would just give him more publicity, something presumably desireable now that the media mostly ignore him, and 2)although such demonstrations might make a nice political point, they would further disrupt someone's funeral. The no-protest perimeter is pretty much the only way to handle this. Perhaps a few big lawsuits aimed his way would be helpful, but only a grieving family would have the right to do this.
 
Back
Top