Re: Not a bad deal for this taxpayer?
Author: George Andrews
Date: 01-21-2011 - 09:18

The increased wear & tear on the nation's highways due to today's heavier trucks, can be attributed to several factors, including increases in maximum gross vehicle weights, and the age of the highways themselves.
The interstate highway system was designed in the early 1950's, when normal truck gross weights were in the 68,000 lb to 72,000 lb range. Due to pressure from the trucking industry, and safer tires & brakes, the various state & Federal regulators allowed M - GVW's to be increased all through the 1970's & 1980's to today's minimum nationwide GVW of 80,000 lbs. This can be increased , depending on the state, up to Michigan's 145,000 M - GVW !!! Of course the more weight the truck hauls, the more rubber you have to have on the road; just keep adding axles.
Ironically these increases in allowable GVW came as the Interstate highway system was nearing completion; built to the lesser standards of the 1950's. Some of the oldest segments of the Interstate highway system have reached the end of their design life, & need to be rebuilt. Interstate 5 in Oregon's Willamette & Rogue River Valleys is undergoing a multi - year project to rebuild virtually all its' bridges.
Yes I agree that the nation's trucking industry is subsidized to a degree, just as the barges & airlines are also. None of them pay the full cost of their right of way the way railroads do. Welcome to the Wonderful World of U.S. railroading.



Subject Written By Date/Time (PST)
  State approves $14.2 Million for Santa Cruz Branch Brian Bergtold 01-19-2011 - 17:51
  Congratulations Howard 01-19-2011 - 18:13
  Re: Congratulations -- Maybe not... George Andrews 01-19-2011 - 19:34
  Re: Congratulations -- Maybe not... Brian Bergtold 01-19-2011 - 20:24
  Re: Congratulations -- Maybe not... T Judah 01-21-2011 - 12:16
  Re: Congratulations -- Maybe not... George Andrews 01-21-2011 - 14:39
  Union Pacific lowered the price Howard 01-19-2011 - 20:02
  Re: Union Pacific lowered the price Brian Bergtold 01-19-2011 - 20:29
  Future Looking Good For Those Who Want To Photograph The Line Howard 01-19-2011 - 21:23
  Re: Future Looking Good For Those Who Want To Photograph The Line J Mann 01-20-2011 - 08:16
  Re: Future Looking Good For Those Who Want To Photograph The Line Sam Reeves 01-20-2011 - 09:18
  Re: Future Looking Good For Those Who Want To Photograph The Line Freericks 01-20-2011 - 09:26
  Recreation Rail Should Start This Year Howard 01-20-2011 - 13:48
  Re: Future Looking Good For Those Who Want To Photograph The Line Wizard 01-20-2011 - 09:57
  Re: Future Looking Good For Those Who Want To Photograph The Line Here We Go Again 01-20-2011 - 11:16
  Re: Future Looking Good For Those Who Want To Photograph The Line Sam Reeves 01-20-2011 - 11:43
  Re: Future Looking Good For Those Who Want To Photograph The Line Robert 01-20-2011 - 13:54
  $5 Million Goes To Retrofitting And Repairs Of Bridges And Track Howard 01-20-2011 - 14:22
  Re: $5 Million Goes To Retrofitting And Repairs Of Bridges And Track Wizard 01-20-2011 - 19:45
  Re: Future Looking Good For Those Who Want To Photograph The Line Here We Go Again 01-20-2011 - 14:49
  Re: Future Looking Good For Those Who Want To Photograph The Line Wizard 01-20-2011 - 19:51
  Re: Future Looking Good For Those Who Want To Photograph The Line Here We Go Again 01-20-2011 - 20:17
  What Does Texas Have to Do With This? . 01-20-2011 - 15:56
  Re: What Does Texas Have to Do With This - Failure . 01-20-2011 - 16:28
  Re: What Does Texas Have to Do With This - Failure Tony J 01-20-2011 - 19:51
  Re: What Does Texas Have to Do With This - Failure bigdogstx 01-21-2011 - 01:14
  Re: What Does Texas Have to Do With This - Failure BigDogsTX 01-21-2011 - 01:26
  Re: Not a bad deal for this taxpayer? BOB2 01-21-2011 - 04:21
  Re: Not a bad deal for this taxpayer? George Andrews 01-21-2011 - 04:48
  Re: Not a bad deal for this taxpayer? M 01-21-2011 - 08:15
  Re: Not a bad deal for this taxpayer? George Andrews 01-21-2011 - 09:18
  Here's a thought William Boyd 01-21-2011 - 12:43
  Re: Not a bad deal for this taxpayer? mook 01-22-2011 - 18:34
  Re: Not a bad deal for this taxpayer? Mike Humphrey 01-23-2011 - 22:12


Go to: Message ListSearch
Subject: 
Your Name: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
  *******   ********    ******    **    **  ******** 
 **     **  **     **  **    **   ***   **     **    
        **  **     **  **         ****  **     **    
  *******   **     **  **   ****  ** ** **     **    
        **  **     **  **    **   **  ****     **    
 **     **  **     **  **    **   **   ***     **    
  *******   ********    ******    **    **     **    
This message board is maintained by:Altamont Press
You can send us an email at altamontpress1@gmail.com