Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sydde, May 23, 2013.
Interstate Five, Skagit river in northern Washington state, cars in the water.
Highway 5, eh?
Just the main north-south thoroughfare connecting Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego.
If we're neglecting that highway, then that's not a good sign.
Well, you know, the Skagit river is north of just about everything, so that part is not so important
We have plenty of unsafe bridges in Connecticut, unfortunately our genius governor would rather spend the money to build a busway that nobody will use.
If you're insinuating that the budget for maintaining infrastructure was cut to save money, that just proves government can't be trusted to work in the best interests of the public. They'd rather blow $50 million on make-work projects such as the Washington State Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program.
TBIP should be cut, but it's somebody's hobbyhorse, so cars end up in the water because government just won't cut the fat.
Yet you just couldn't keep but having to have that KC-X competition for tankers for the USAF, right? That's to the tune of $35 billion (yes, a B). Or the one seeking to replace the VC-25?
Like I said before, anything but cutting for providing for the common defense..
Oh that means the corporate sector can buy up the commons and maintain this bridge at a cost to every person who needs to cross it.
I think I've cross this bridge going into Vancouver, BC, Canada. It's a weird feeling knowing that a bridge I once crossed collapsed.
The bridge didn't just fall over. The local media reports a truck hit the trusswork.
See the References links, in particular.
I think most bridges over major highways should be able to handle that.
A truck accident on a highway bridge? Who could have anticipated THAT?!
"I saw it. I was less than 50 feet away from the truck when it hit it," witness Dale Ogden told KING 5. "I had just passed it in the fast lane southbound and it had an oversized load. It was approximately 12 feet wide and over 14 feet tall. It was in the slow lane when I came by...I was behind the flag car and in front of the truck in the other lane and I saw the whip - normally tells you how high they can clear - start hitting the bridge. I looked in my rearview mirror knowing this was not going to turn out well."
"I saw the truck strike the right corner of the bridge. It almost tipped the truck over but it came back down. It tipped it up to about a 30 degree angle to the left and it came back down on its wheels and almost instantaneously behind that I saw girders falling in my rearview mirror."
Link taken directly from Wikipedia article.
When you follow that link you will get to a picture a truck with sligthly oversized but probraly not overweight load.
If such an accident is enough to instantly collapse that bridge than the bridge clearly had big issues before.
From time to time we get trucks hitting bridge while passing under them (most of the time with some construction machine not probraly collapsed before loading) this might lead to the bridge being closed for a safety inspection.
There also bridges that just fail through the safety inspection and are therefore closed for trucks while the repair is going (like recently the main route over the Rhine near Cologne).
For those advocating putting it into private hand, what do you think would have happend if the owner (probraly some faceless multicorp) had been faced with this 2 options:
1) just continue collecting the 1.50 from every car passing
2) closing the bridge, getting fined for not provideing aggreed service on top of not getting those 1.50 over 2 years and than having to spend 50,000,000 to replace the bridge.
Anybody who believes they would have opted for 2) without some strong goverment oversight is an utter fool
Quite. This is very shocking.
The bridge was built in 1955 when even semi trucks were much smaller and lighter, and there was far less traffic to strain the bridge.
It should have been replaced to keep up with modern safety standards and new traffic loads.
But hey, screw roads and bridges when we can spend money on planes that don't fly like the f35
It seems to me that repairing bridges or replacing those that cannot be repaired would be an excellent way to stimulate the economy....
I agree. I don't understand the downside. Spending money on our infrastructure would create jobs - even if they're short term. Furthermore, it's not just highways that need updating. Let's work on our power grid. Let's work on our sewer system. Let's work on drainage in flood-prone areas. Let's work on our water system. There are so many things we can do.
China is investing heavily in infrastructure, and we aren't because we have a political party that won't let us.
Read this: http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
(edit) We are failing miserably and our kids will be the ones to pay unless we do something now (but, again, that's kind of the modus operandi of the party that cuts taxes and racks up massive debt).
You forgot telecoms... My limited understanding of finances is that interest rates are low, so in the long run wouldn't it be better to invest in infrastructure now so that we do not need to pay as much interest in the future?
We've been neglecting all of our infrastructure for 30 years.
This type of thing is just going to happen more and more if we don't start putting money into upgrading our infrastructure. Otherwise, we'll just continue to fall farther behind China, Japan, etc. Corporations don't want to do business in places with failing infrastructure, and we wonder why our economy is falling behind?
Yup. Our idiot politicians will piss away billions of dollars wasting money on new planes in the name of "defense", but won't spend the money to maintain and upgrade our "Interstate and Defense Highways". Defense was one of the main reasons Eisenhower pushed so hard to build the interstates in the first place. Not like any of the morons in Congress are smart enough to realize that though.
Coincidentally, the state level report on Washington was released three days ago. I have not read the full report, but, the summary here includes a C- for bridges and a D+ for roads.
Check your local bridges here and if you think there's a problem, then share it with your local friends and family and write a letter (don't email) to your representatives and local papers to get something done.
LOL at the notion that a single party is the source of all the problems in this country. There are two chambers of Congress and each are controlled by a different party. Hard to blame it on one in particular when that is the case.
And speaking of our kids.....I'm sure they are going to love all of this debt we are piling up for them as well.
If people can't be bothered to learn English without picking the taxpayers's pockets, let them go back where they came from.
As for the military: peace is expensive. Maintaining Pax Americana costs a lot of money, but far less than fighting WWIII.
Which isn't to say that cutting waste from defense shouldn't be a priority. But government is incapable of such cutting, because it reduces said government's power over the governed.
And that's why the default reaction of any government when forced to reduce spending is to slash programs that directly benefit taxpayers.
I'm sure they'll be thankful that we spent money on meaningless wars, corperate welfare, subsidizing tax cuts for the rich, bailing out banks and big business.
And that will make them feel good that we didn't spend money on infrastructure, they won't mind falling bridges, crumbling roads, crumbling schools, failing water and power systems. Nope, they'll be fine. While they're kids boil drinking water and study by candle light during rolling blackouts
Simple solution. Raise taxes sufficiently to pay for what we've spent, what we need to spend, and what is necessary for the economy to grow.
Simple, but there is ONE party that won't let us.