Bill to raise Truck weights to 97,000 lbs is insane.

Read page ii, "Highway Deterioration", paragraph 2
Paraphrased: Although a 5 axle truck at the current federal limit of 80,000 lbs. weighs only 20 times more than a car, it does 9,600 times more damage. Increasing truck weight causes an ever increasing rate of pavement damage."

GAO Study http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf

So, the bill that increases weight also provides funding to improve the roads over which the weight will be carried.

Next?


"In addition, it establishes a safe, efficient vehicle bridge infrastructure improvement program and apportions amounts from the Safe and Efficient Vehicle Trust Fund to states for eligible bridge replacement or rehabilitation projects."


You posted this. Not a word about roads.

Some money for bridges of which 1 in 9 is already substandard.

Despite billions of dollars in federal, state and local funds directed toward the maintenance of existing bridges, 69,223 bridges — 11.5 percent of total highway bridges in the U.S. — are classified as "structurally deficient," requiring significant maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement.​

http://t4america.org/resources/bridges/
 
Last edited:
Trucks have a 97K GVW limit in the UK- no problems- the world has not ended.

Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and Finland all allow 120k .......

We are lightweights in the trucking world.


Trucks are limited to 40-56 mph in those small countries.

The speed limits in the U.S. for trucks are as high as 80 mph, most states are 70 mph, nearly twice the legal speed limit for trucks in the U.K., Germany, Sweden, Denmark of around 40 mph.

In The Netherlands and Finland the legal speed limit for truck is around 50 mph.

Apples and Oranges.

Speed limits by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


EDIT- Keep in mind the speed limits at the link are in KPH. A quick rule of thumb...55 MPH = 88 KPH
in California its 55 MPH.....were in the hell is it 70-80?......
 
Trucks have a 97K GVW limit in the UK- no problems- the world has not ended.

Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and Finland all allow 120k .......

We are lightweights in the trucking world.


Trucks are limited to 40-56 mph in those small countries.

The speed limits in the U.S. for trucks are as high as 80 mph, most states are 70 mph, nearly twice the legal speed limit for trucks in the U.K., Germany, Sweden, Denmark of around 40 mph.

In The Netherlands and Finland the legal speed limit for truck is around 50 mph.

Apples and Oranges.

Speed limits by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


EDIT- Keep in mind the speed limits at the link are in KPH. A quick rule of thumb...55 MPH = 88 KPH

There is no proof that lower truck speed limits are safer. In fact ......Speed limits in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A 1987 study finds that crash involvement significantly increases when trucks drive much slower than passenger vehicles,[51] suggesting that the difference in speed between passenger vehicles and slower trucks could cause crashes that otherwise may not happen. Furthermore, in a review of available research, the Transportation Research Board (part of the United States National Research Council) states "[no] conclusive evidence could be found to support or reject the use of differential speed limits for passenger cars and heavy trucks" (page 11) and "a strong case cannot be made on empirical grounds in support of or in opposition to differential speed limits" (page 109)

Zander when im doing 60 on the freeway and im being passed by some Semi doing 75......thats kinda scary and stupid......something happens in front of that guy......were all in trouble.....
 
Trucks are limited to 40-56 mph in those small countries.

The speed limits in the U.S. for trucks are as high as 80 mph, most states are 70 mph, nearly twice the legal speed limit for trucks in the U.K., Germany, Sweden, Denmark of around 40 mph.

In The Netherlands and Finland the legal speed limit for truck is around 50 mph.

Apples and Oranges.

Speed limits by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


EDIT- Keep in mind the speed limits at the link are in KPH. A quick rule of thumb...55 MPH = 88 KPH

There is no proof that lower truck speed limits are safer. In fact ......Speed limits in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A 1987 study finds that crash involvement significantly increases when trucks drive much slower than passenger vehicles,[51] suggesting that the difference in speed between passenger vehicles and slower trucks could cause crashes that otherwise may not happen. Furthermore, in a review of available research, the Transportation Research Board (part of the United States National Research Council) states "[no] conclusive evidence could be found to support or reject the use of differential speed limits for passenger cars and heavy trucks" (page 11) and "a strong case cannot be made on empirical grounds in support of or in opposition to differential speed limits" (page 109)

Zander when im doing 60 on the freeway and im being passed by some Semi doing 75......thats kinda scary and stupid......something happens in front of that guy......were all in trouble.....

Like this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFKtqJ_wiqY]YouTube - Close Call Semi Truck Crash Caught On Couples Dashcam[/ame]
 
There is no proof that lower truck speed limits are safer. In fact ......Speed limits in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zander when im doing 60 on the freeway and im being passed by some Semi doing 75......thats kinda scary and stupid......something happens in front of that guy......were all in trouble.....

Like this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFKtqJ_wiqY]YouTube - Close Call Semi Truck Crash Caught On Couples Dashcam[/ame]

like that......
 
Trucks have a 97K GVW limit in the UK- no problems- the world has not ended.

Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and Finland all allow 120k .......

We are lightweights in the trucking world.


Trucks are limited to 40-56 mph in those small countries.

The speed limits in the U.S. for trucks are as high as 80 mph, most states are 70 mph, nearly twice the legal speed limit for trucks in the U.K., Germany, Sweden, Denmark of around 40 mph.

In The Netherlands and Finland the legal speed limit for truck is around 50 mph.

Apples and Oranges.

Speed limits by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


EDIT- Keep in mind the speed limits at the link are in KPH. A quick rule of thumb...55 MPH = 88 KPH
in California its 55 MPH.....were in the hell is it 70-80?......

Almost everywhere else: Truck and Auto State Speed Limits

Those are a few years out of date, but you get the idea.

Utah has an 80 mph speed limit for trucks on I-15.

600px-US_speed_limits.svg.png


Wikipedia is more up to date:

Speed limits in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Trucks are limited to 40-56 mph in those small countries.

The speed limits in the U.S. for trucks are as high as 80 mph, most states are 70 mph, nearly twice the legal speed limit for trucks in the U.K., Germany, Sweden, Denmark of around 40 mph.

In The Netherlands and Finland the legal speed limit for truck is around 50 mph.

Apples and Oranges.

Speed limits by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


EDIT- Keep in mind the speed limits at the link are in KPH. A quick rule of thumb...55 MPH = 88 KPH

There is no proof that lower truck speed limits are safer. In fact ......Speed limits in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A 1987 study finds that crash involvement significantly increases when trucks drive much slower than passenger vehicles,[51] suggesting that the difference in speed between passenger vehicles and slower trucks could cause crashes that otherwise may not happen. Furthermore, in a review of available research, the Transportation Research Board (part of the United States National Research Council) states "[no] conclusive evidence could be found to support or reject the use of differential speed limits for passenger cars and heavy trucks" (page 11) and "a strong case cannot be made on empirical grounds in support of or in opposition to differential speed limits" (page 109)

Zander when im doing 60 on the freeway and im being passed by some Semi doing 75......thats kinda scary and stupid......something happens in front of that guy......were all in trouble.....

Must have been an owner operator. Almost all of the big companies put governors on their trucks. Usually topped out at 68 or so MPH. If you see a truck doing 75 and its not going down hill. Its an owner operator.
 
Read page ii, "Highway Deterioration", paragraph 2
Paraphrased: Although a 5 axle truck at the current federal limit of 80,000 lbs. weighs only 20 times more than a car, it does 9,600 times more damage. Increasing truck weight causes an ever increasing rate of pavement damage."

GAO Study http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf

So, the bill that increases weight also provides funding to improve the roads over which the weight will be carried.

Next?


"In addition, it establishes a safe, efficient vehicle bridge infrastructure improvement program and apportions amounts from the Safe and Efficient Vehicle Trust Fund to states for eligible bridge replacement or rehabilitation projects."


You posted this. Not a word about roads.

Some money for bridges of which 1 in 9 is already substandard.

Despite billions of dollars in federal, state and local funds directed toward the maintenance of existing bridges, 69,223 bridges — 11.5 percent of total highway bridges in the U.S. — are classified as "structurally deficient," requiring significant maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement.​

Transportation For America » The Fix We’re In For: The State of Our Bridges

I posted a brief description of the bill, that indeed, did not account for every grain of sand that may need to go into improved highway construction for larger trucks.

But it takes only a little common sense to conclude that if a STATE made the decision to allow 97,000 lb trucks on its roads (like they do all over Europe, without the earth ceasing to spin on its axis) then the state would impose speed limits that were safe for those vehicles as well as upgrade roads AND BRIDGES.

Certainly there is nothing to make me believe that the FEDs, holding the maximum at 80,000 lbs, have done a steller job of road and bridge maintainance.


Hell, instead of making bridges safer for bigger trucks, maybe we oughta close them to ALL traffic.
 
Trucks are limited to 40-56 mph in those small countries.

The speed limits in the U.S. for trucks are as high as 80 mph, most states are 70 mph, nearly twice the legal speed limit for trucks in the U.K., Germany, Sweden, Denmark of around 40 mph.

In The Netherlands and Finland the legal speed limit for truck is around 50 mph.

Apples and Oranges.

Speed limits by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


EDIT- Keep in mind the speed limits at the link are in KPH. A quick rule of thumb...55 MPH = 88 KPH

There is no proof that lower truck speed limits are safer. In fact ......Speed limits in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A 1987 study finds that crash involvement significantly increases when trucks drive much slower than passenger vehicles,[51] suggesting that the difference in speed between passenger vehicles and slower trucks could cause crashes that otherwise may not happen. Furthermore, in a review of available research, the Transportation Research Board (part of the United States National Research Council) states "[no] conclusive evidence could be found to support or reject the use of differential speed limits for passenger cars and heavy trucks" (page 11) and "a strong case cannot be made on empirical grounds in support of or in opposition to differential speed limits" (page 109)

Zander when im doing 60 on the freeway and im being passed by some Semi doing 75......thats kinda scary and stupid......something happens in front of that guy......were all in trouble.....

Yep, oughta be a law against scary behaviour and stupid drivers.

Why not start a thread about it where it would be topical?
 
So, the bill that increases weight also provides funding to improve the roads over which the weight will be carried.

Next?


"In addition, it establishes a safe, efficient vehicle bridge infrastructure improvement program and apportions amounts from the Safe and Efficient Vehicle Trust Fund to states for eligible bridge replacement or rehabilitation projects."


You posted this. Not a word about roads.

Some money for bridges of which 1 in 9 is already substandard.
Despite billions of dollars in federal, state and local funds directed toward the maintenance of existing bridges, 69,223 bridges — 11.5 percent of total highway bridges in the U.S. — are classified as "structurally deficient," requiring significant maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement.​
Transportation For America » The Fix We’re In For: The State of Our Bridges

I posted a brief description of the bill, that indeed, did not account for every grain of sand that may need to go into improved highway construction for larger trucks.

But it takes only a little common sense to conclude that if a STATE made the decision to allow 97,000 lb trucks on its roads (like they do all over Europe, without the earth ceasing to spin on its axis) then the state would impose speed limits that were safe for those vehicles as well as upgrade roads AND BRIDGES.

Certainly there is nothing to make me believe that the FEDs, holding the maximum at 80,000 lbs, have done a steller job of road and bridge maintainance.


Hell, instead of making bridges safer for bigger trucks, maybe we oughta close them to ALL traffic.


There's NO MONEY to fix the roads.

States are broke.

The Federal government is broke.

That's why the bridges and roads aren't being fixed now.

September 2010-

New index by U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows GDP is suffering as a result of a poor system

Crumbling U.S. infrastructure is slowing economic growth, according to a new index released on Sept. 23 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Transportation Performance Index is designed to show over time how U.S. transportation infrastructure is serving the needs of the U.S. economy and business community. This year, the index reveals that over the past five years failing infrastructure is weighing heavily on economic growth.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure report card
American Society for Civil Engineers

Bridges: C

More than 26%, or one in four, of the nation's bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. While some progress has been made in recent years to reduce the number of deficient and obsolete bridges in rural areas, the number in urban areas is rising. A $17 billion annual investment is needed to substantially improve current bridge conditions. Currently, only $10.5 billion is spent annually on the construction and maintenance of bridges.


Roads: D-

Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic at a cost to the economy of $78.2 billion, or $710 per motorist. Poor road conditions cost motorists $67 billion a year in repairs and operating costs, and cost 14,000 Americans their lives. One-third of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition and 36% of major urban highways are congested. The current spending level of $70.3 billion per year for highway capital improvements is well below the estimated $186 billion needed annually to substantially improve the nation's highways.
So the answer, in your opinion, is to INCREASE the damage to the roads and bridges that are already failing and that can't keep the maintenance up on NOW.
 
Last edited:
"In addition, it establishes a safe, efficient vehicle bridge infrastructure improvement program and apportions amounts from the Safe and Efficient Vehicle Trust Fund to states for eligible bridge replacement or rehabilitation projects."


You posted this. Not a word about roads.

Some money for bridges of which 1 in 9 is already substandard.
Despite billions of dollars in federal, state and local funds directed toward the maintenance of existing bridges, 69,223 bridges — 11.5 percent of total highway bridges in the U.S. — are classified as "structurally deficient," requiring significant maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement.​
Transportation For America » The Fix We’re In For: The State of Our Bridges

I posted a brief description of the bill, that indeed, did not account for every grain of sand that may need to go into improved highway construction for larger trucks.

But it takes only a little common sense to conclude that if a STATE made the decision to allow 97,000 lb trucks on its roads (like they do all over Europe, without the earth ceasing to spin on its axis) then the state would impose speed limits that were safe for those vehicles as well as upgrade roads AND BRIDGES.

Certainly there is nothing to make me believe that the FEDs, holding the maximum at 80,000 lbs, have done a steller job of road and bridge maintainance.


Hell, instead of making bridges safer for bigger trucks, maybe we oughta close them to ALL traffic.


There's NO MONEY to fix the roads.

States are broke.

The Federal government is broke.

That's why the bridges and roads aren't being fixed now.

September 2010-

New index by U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows GDP is suffering as a result of a poor system

Crumbling U.S. infrastructure is slowing economic growth, according to a new index released on Sept. 23 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Transportation Performance Index is designed to show over time how U.S. transportation infrastructure is serving the needs of the U.S. economy and business community. This year, the index reveals that over the past five years failing infrastructure is weighing heavily on economic growth.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure report card
American Society for Civil Engineers

Bridges: C

More than 26%, or one in four, of the nation's bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. While some progress has been made in recent years to reduce the number of deficient and obsolete bridges in rural areas, the number in urban areas is rising. A $17 billion annual investment is needed to substantially improve current bridge conditions. Currently, only $10.5 billion is spent annually on the construction and maintenance of bridges.


Roads: D-

Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic at a cost to the economy of $78.2 billion, or $710 per motorist. Poor road conditions cost motorists $67 billion a year in repairs and operating costs, and cost 14,000 Americans their lives. One-third of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition and 36% of major urban highways are congested. The current spending level of $70.3 billion per year for highway capital improvements is well below the estimated $186 billion needed annually to substantially improve the nation's highways.
So the answer, in your opinion, is to INCREASE the damage to the roads and bridges that are already failing and that can't keep the maintenance up on NOW.

You still have shown no proof that damage would be increased. As I have repeatedly pointed out More Weight allowed would mean less trips. So unless you can show us how Less trucks with more weight do more damage then more trucks with less weight. Then you are basing your opinion on what?
 
I posted a brief description of the bill, that indeed, did not account for every grain of sand that may need to go into improved highway construction for larger trucks.

But it takes only a little common sense to conclude that if a STATE made the decision to allow 97,000 lb trucks on its roads (like they do all over Europe, without the earth ceasing to spin on its axis) then the state would impose speed limits that were safe for those vehicles as well as upgrade roads AND BRIDGES.

Certainly there is nothing to make me believe that the FEDs, holding the maximum at 80,000 lbs, have done a steller job of road and bridge maintainance.


Hell, instead of making bridges safer for bigger trucks, maybe we oughta close them to ALL traffic.


There's NO MONEY to fix the roads.

States are broke.

The Federal government is broke.

That's why the bridges and roads aren't being fixed now.

September 2010-

New index by U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows GDP is suffering as a result of a poor system

Crumbling U.S. infrastructure is slowing economic growth, according to a new index released on Sept. 23 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Transportation Performance Index is designed to show over time how U.S. transportation infrastructure is serving the needs of the U.S. economy and business community. This year, the index reveals that over the past five years failing infrastructure is weighing heavily on economic growth.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure report card
American Society for Civil Engineers

Bridges: C

More than 26%, or one in four, of the nation's bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. While some progress has been made in recent years to reduce the number of deficient and obsolete bridges in rural areas, the number in urban areas is rising. A $17 billion annual investment is needed to substantially improve current bridge conditions. Currently, only $10.5 billion is spent annually on the construction and maintenance of bridges.


Roads: D-

Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic at a cost to the economy of $78.2 billion, or $710 per motorist. Poor road conditions cost motorists $67 billion a year in repairs and operating costs, and cost 14,000 Americans their lives. One-third of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition and 36% of major urban highways are congested. The current spending level of $70.3 billion per year for highway capital improvements is well below the estimated $186 billion needed annually to substantially improve the nation's highways.
So the answer, in your opinion, is to INCREASE the damage to the roads and bridges that are already failing and that can't keep the maintenance up on NOW.

You still have shown no proof that damage would be increased. As I have repeatedly pointed out More Weight allowed would mean less trips. So unless you can show us how Less trucks with more weight do more damage then more trucks with less weight. Then you are basing your opinion on what?

I think I've read a couple of posts that show heavier trucks cause road damage: regardless TRUCKS cause road damage at 80,000 lbs.

But Missiourian is offering evidence that roads are ALREADY damaged....BY 80,000 lb trucks. He even wants to know, if this is true, we haven't DECREASED the max weights for trucks.

I suspect there are two reasons
1. It wouldn't slow, but rather would speed, the deterioration of roadways
2. If we improve roadways with modern construction methods, then we want to encourage their use by fewer, larger trucks (as they have already done in Europe).

But either of these points are nothing compared with the State's right to detemine the size of trucks: If a small state with a low max speed and high quality roads wants 97,000 lbs trucking, why shouldn't they have that option?
 
"In addition, it establishes a safe, efficient vehicle bridge infrastructure improvement program and apportions amounts from the Safe and Efficient Vehicle Trust Fund to states for eligible bridge replacement or rehabilitation projects."


You posted this. Not a word about roads.

Some money for bridges of which 1 in 9 is already substandard.
Despite billions of dollars in federal, state and local funds directed toward the maintenance of existing bridges, 69,223 bridges — 11.5 percent of total highway bridges in the U.S. — are classified as "structurally deficient," requiring significant maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement.​
Transportation For America » The Fix We’re In For: The State of Our Bridges

I posted a brief description of the bill, that indeed, did not account for every grain of sand that may need to go into improved highway construction for larger trucks.

But it takes only a little common sense to conclude that if a STATE made the decision to allow 97,000 lb trucks on its roads (like they do all over Europe, without the earth ceasing to spin on its axis) then the state would impose speed limits that were safe for those vehicles as well as upgrade roads AND BRIDGES.

Certainly there is nothing to make me believe that the FEDs, holding the maximum at 80,000 lbs, have done a steller job of road and bridge maintainance.


Hell, instead of making bridges safer for bigger trucks, maybe we oughta close them to ALL traffic.


There's NO MONEY to fix the roads.

States are broke.

The Federal government is broke.

That's why the bridges and roads aren't being fixed now.

September 2010-

.​


:eusa_eh:

Geez, I wasn't aware that we had Armageddon suddenly goin' on in the USA. I must have missed it while driving across excellent roads in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Seems your rachetting up the level of hysteria a tad much:

Obama Budget Hikes Transportation But Cuts Other Construction Programs | ENR: Engineering News Record | McGraw-Hill Construction

Highways, transit and passenger rail are the big winners among construction programs in President Obama’s $3.7-trillion fiscal 2012 budget request, which calls for sharp increases in those sectors next year, kicking off a proposed $556-billion, six-year surface transportation bill.
 
I posted a brief description of the bill, that indeed, did not account for every grain of sand that may need to go into improved highway construction for larger trucks.

But it takes only a little common sense to conclude that if a STATE made the decision to allow 97,000 lb trucks on its roads (like they do all over Europe, without the earth ceasing to spin on its axis) then the state would impose speed limits that were safe for those vehicles as well as upgrade roads AND BRIDGES.

Certainly there is nothing to make me believe that the FEDs, holding the maximum at 80,000 lbs, have done a steller job of road and bridge maintainance.


Hell, instead of making bridges safer for bigger trucks, maybe we oughta close them to ALL traffic.


There's NO MONEY to fix the roads.

States are broke.

The Federal government is broke.

That's why the bridges and roads aren't being fixed now.

September 2010-

.​


:eusa_eh:

Geez, I wasn't aware that we had Armageddon suddenly goin' on in the USA. I must have missed it while driving across excellent roads in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Seems your rachetting up the level of hysteria a tad much:

Obama Budget Hikes Transportation But Cuts Other Construction Programs | ENR: Engineering News Record | McGraw-Hill Construction

Highways, transit and passenger rail are the big winners among construction programs in President Obama’s $3.7-trillion fiscal 2012 budget request, which calls for sharp increases in those sectors next year, kicking off a proposed $556-billion, six-year surface transportation bill.



You should have read it before you quoted it...proves my point succinctly...there's no money.

From your article:

Even the huge proposed transportation bill—nearly double the last multiyear authorization—is not as promising as it sounds, transportation and construction industry officials say, because the White House did not identify any new funding source or recommend hiking existing taxes and fees to pay for the measure.

“They’re willing to talk about construction but not particularly willing to invest more in it,” says Jeffrey Shoaf, AGC’s senior executive director for government affairs. “They beef up the highway account without providing any revenue to fund [the] beef purchase.”
Go back and try again.​
 
There's NO MONEY to fix the roads.

States are broke.

The Federal government is broke.

That's why the bridges and roads aren't being fixed now.

September 2010-

.​


:eusa_eh:

Geez, I wasn't aware that we had Armageddon suddenly goin' on in the USA. I must have missed it while driving across excellent roads in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Seems your rachetting up the level of hysteria a tad much:

Obama Budget Hikes Transportation But Cuts Other Construction Programs | ENR: Engineering News Record | McGraw-Hill Construction

Highways, transit and passenger rail are the big winners among construction programs in President Obama’s $3.7-trillion fiscal 2012 budget request, which calls for sharp increases in those sectors next year, kicking off a proposed $556-billion, six-year surface transportation bill.



You should have read it before you quoted it...proves my point succinctly...there's no money.

From your article:

Even the huge proposed transportation bill—nearly double the last multiyear authorization—is not as promising as it sounds, transportation and construction industry officials say, because the White House did not identify any new funding source or recommend hiking existing taxes and fees to pay for the measure.

“They’re willing to talk about construction but not particularly willing to invest more in it,” says Jeffrey Shoaf, AGC’s senior executive director for government affairs. “They beef up the highway account without providing any revenue to fund [the] beef purchase.”
Go back and try again.​


Yes that is from the article, but it doesnt support anything near what you are saying:

"There is NO MONEY.":lol::lol::lol:

Hell, there's been "NO MONEY" for anything this country has built in the past 20 years!!

Try not to be so fucking hysterical: It only weakens your arguement.​
 
:eusa_eh:

Geez, I wasn't aware that we had Armageddon suddenly goin' on in the USA. I must have missed it while driving across excellent roads in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Seems your rachetting up the level of hysteria a tad much:

Obama Budget Hikes Transportation But Cuts Other Construction Programs | ENR: Engineering News Record | McGraw-Hill Construction


You should have read it before you quoted it...proves my point succinctly...there's no money.

From your article:

Even the huge proposed transportation bill—nearly double the last multiyear authorization—is not as promising as it sounds, transportation and construction industry officials say, because the White House did not identify any new funding source or recommend hiking existing taxes and fees to pay for the measure.

“They’re willing to talk about construction but not particularly willing to invest more in it,” says Jeffrey Shoaf, AGC’s senior executive director for government affairs. “They beef up the highway account without providing any revenue to fund [the] beef purchase.”
Go back and try again.

Yes that is from the article, but it doesnt support anything near what you are saying:

"There is NO MONEY.":lol::lol::lol:

Hell, there's been "NO MONEY" for anything this country has built in the past 20 years!!

Try not to be so fucking hysterical: It only weakens your arguement.
Sure there's money in this country! It's either in the rich people's bank accounts being hoarded from the poor and downtrodden gubmint who will then give it to the poor and downtrodded (with a little slice of the pie for itself) or it's already been given to foreign nations to be our friends, or to buy votes by keeping social 'safety hammocks' in good repair.
 
You should have read it before you quoted it...proves my point succinctly...there's no money.

From your article:

Even the huge proposed transportation bill—nearly double the last multiyear authorization—is not as promising as it sounds, transportation and construction industry officials say, because the White House did not identify any new funding source or recommend hiking existing taxes and fees to pay for the measure.

“They’re willing to talk about construction but not particularly willing to invest more in it,” says Jeffrey Shoaf, AGC’s senior executive director for government affairs. “They beef up the highway account without providing any revenue to fund [the] beef purchase.”
Go back and try again.

Yes that is from the article, but it doesnt support anything near what you are saying:

"There is NO MONEY.":lol::lol::lol:

Hell, there's been "NO MONEY" for anything this country has built in the past 20 years!!

Try not to be so fucking hysterical: It only weakens your arguement.
Sure there's money in this country! It's either in the rich people's bank accounts being hoarded from the poor and downtrodden gubmint who will then give it to the poor and downtrodded (with a little slice of the pie for itself) or it's already been given to foreign nations to be our friends, or to buy votes by keeping social 'safety hammocks' in good repair.

Who needs to worry about money?

Is the printer broken?
 
Yes that is from the article, but it doesnt support anything near what you are saying:

"There is NO MONEY.":lol::lol::lol:

Hell, there's been "NO MONEY" for anything this country has built in the past 20 years!!

Try not to be so fucking hysterical: It only weakens your arguement.
Sure there's money in this country! It's either in the rich people's bank accounts being hoarded from the poor and downtrodden gubmint who will then give it to the poor and downtrodded (with a little slice of the pie for itself) or it's already been given to foreign nations to be our friends, or to buy votes by keeping social 'safety hammocks' in good repair.

Who needs to worry about money?

Is the printer broken?
Yes... the printer (Bernanke) IS broken! And sooner than you can say 'Fratelli' we'll be broke too.
 
:eusa_eh:

Geez, I wasn't aware that we had Armageddon suddenly goin' on in the USA. I must have missed it while driving across excellent roads in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Seems your rachetting up the level of hysteria a tad much:

Obama Budget Hikes Transportation But Cuts Other Construction Programs | ENR: Engineering News Record | McGraw-Hill Construction


You should have read it before you quoted it...proves my point succinctly...there's no money.

From your article:
Even the huge proposed transportation bill—nearly double the last multiyear authorization—is not as promising as it sounds, transportation and construction industry officials say, because the White House did not identify any new funding source or recommend hiking existing taxes and fees to pay for the measure.

“They’re willing to talk about construction but not particularly willing to invest more in it,” says Jeffrey Shoaf, AGC’s senior executive director for government affairs. “They beef up the highway account without providing any revenue to fund [the] beef purchase.”
Go back and try again.

Yes that is from the article, but it doesnt support anything near what you are saying:

"There is NO MONEY.":lol::lol::lol:

Hell, there's been "NO MONEY" for anything this country has built in the past 20 years!!

Try not to be so fucking hysterical: It only weakens your arguement.

That's exactly what the article you posted says.

“They’re willing to talk about construction but not particularly willing to invest more in it,” says Jeffrey Shoaf, AGC’s senior executive director for government affairs. “They beef up the highway account without providing any revenue to fund [the] beef purchase.”
No money.

How hard is it to understand that if we had the money for the repairs to our failing infrastructure, we wouldn't be in this predicament now.

Roads rated D-, 1 in 9 bridges structurally deficient. That tells the tale.

We are not keeping up now, with 80,000 lb trucks.

Adding more destructive weights when we've proven we can't keep up now is idiotic.
 
Know the saddest part? The first bridge that busts because too heavy a truck goes over it, they won't blame the structural deficiency of the bridge but the stupid driver.
 

Forum List

Back
Top