The federal government already spends obscene amounts of money on highway bills despite the fact that they're not technically supposed to be spending squat in the first place. Now we have a single incident, and people are suddenly outraged to learn that we're not making bridges out of gold bricks.

If states truly can't maintain their infrastructure on their current budgets, then they need to build toll roads and increase the gas tax.

I'm going to be pissed if a congressman comes out with some sort of "Protecting our Highways" bill next month.

8/3/2007 7:43:50 AM

I drove from NC to PA on thursday, and I would say at least 9 major bridges had people inspecting them on thursday. I also listened to alot of radio, and one truck driver from Minn. said when the bridges were being built they had a 9cent gas tax for road maintance. Now they have 48 cent tax, and only double the amount of drivers. THe politicians cant account how the money is spent, but it gets diverted to other projects, then they come out and say we need more money bc its underfunded. Its total BS.

Im not naive enough to think every man made structure should last forever, but it does show you how efficient state/govt run programs are. There is simply no incentive to be efficient bc its not thier money. And taxing the rich, gets alot of airplay bc the attitude of "its not my money" persists.

And alot of idiots want to give them total control of your healthcare. How long will it take that to get "underfunded". Or "structurally deficient".

8/3/2007 9:06:04 AM

Quote :

"And alot of idiots want to give them total control of your healthcare. How long will it take that to get "underfunded". Or "structurally deficient"."

+1

8/3/2007 9:25:07 AM

+2

8/3/2007 9:38:30 AM

One of the talking heads on the radio pointed out that politicians tend to shift the massive transportation spending money from infrastructure repair to new construction because the latter is much more "sexy" and visible come election time.

8/3/2007 10:25:10 AM

how do they define structurally deficient? it couldn't be as bad as it sounds...

8/3/2007 10:49:00 AM

this is some third world shit

8/3/2007 11:23:07 AM

^no it isnt. This has happened before and will happen again in this country. Because you dont know that dont assume that only americans are capable of building indestructable structures. Its man made, it will fall.

8/3/2007 12:47:12 PM

Quote :

"If states truly can't maintain their infrastructure on their current budgets, then they need to build toll roads and increase the gas tax. I'm going to be pissed if a congressman comes out with some sort of "Protecting our Highways" bill next month."

I agree 100%, and its a rarity when you and I see eye to eye

8/3/2007 1:30:59 PM

considering many of our bridges are now 40-60 years old now, it's not surprising some of them aren't holding up.

8/3/2007 2:44:04 PM

^yep. Consider the amount of cars, weight of cars, and weight of trucks etc.. Could be a huge problem. 40-50 yrs ago, most families had just 1 car. Now the majority have several cars.

8/3/2007 4:42:20 PM

Quote :

"President Bush pledged Saturday to cut red tape that could delay rebuilding a highway bridge that once arched over the Mississippi River but now lies crumbled in muddy water concealing some victims."

How? I didn't think it was his bridge to rush.

8/5/2007 9:32:36 AM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/04/mccain-congress-shares-blame-for-bridge-collapse/



Here's an article called:
McCain: Congress shares blame for bridge collapse


[Edited on August 5, 2007 at 10:13 AM. Reason : .]

8/5/2007 10:11:39 AM

a fuckin steam pipe exploded in the middle of Manhattan.

that scares me alot more than a bridge falling over.

8/5/2007 10:22:25 AM

Also, Minnesota had a $2.4b budget surplus. They could've fixed their fucking bridge.

8/5/2007 12:59:30 PM

I blame Jesse Ventura.

8/5/2007 1:04:01 PM

We, too, had a large surplus and have roads and bridges that need repairs or replacing. It's not popular enough right now, or it wasn't before this happened.

Most every state will probably start to fund a little more in infrastructure reconstruction if only because it's going to be a very popular move in light of this accident.

8/5/2007 1:04:09 PM

I85 leading up to Virginia is a fucking catastrophe.

worse than jersey highways

8/5/2007 1:17:15 PM

The Feds dont have enough money to repair our bridges, roads, etc..(america is getting old), we are spending it on Iraq and Afghanisan's bridges(that we bombed) and roads, etc....

[Edited on August 5, 2007 at 5:01 PM. Reason : w]

8/5/2007 5:00:57 PM

Quote :

"despite the fact that they're not technically supposed to be spending squat in the first place"

R.I.P. Tenth Amendment

8/5/2007 5:04:27 PM

Quote :

"The Feds dont have enough money to repair our bridges, roads, etc..(america is getting old), we are spending it on Iraq and Afghanisan's bridges(that we bombed) and roads, etc...."

it's not up to the fucking feds. Why can't you fucking people lean on your state elected leaders instead of automatically blaming Bush?

Roads and bridges are the responsibility of STATE gas taxes and other taxes.

8/5/2007 5:31:36 PM

we should just get rid of the Department of Transportation then......

Feds give States money to maintain the roads, not your road out in front of your house but the highways etc. However, the Bush administration didnt see fit to put the money available to repair/replace aging infrastructure in previous budgets. Oh well, let it fall apart, then they will give the money to rebuild it.

8/5/2007 6:00:19 PM

i wish eisenhower woulda never did that whole federal aid highway act

8/5/2007 6:06:52 PM

Oh, no you don't. I definitely know you're being sarcastic here man.

That freeway system is part of the reason our economy boomed so much. Just think how much fun your life would be if you had to take backroads and sporatic state highways everywhere instead of being able to just hop on I-40 to go across the state.

I honestly think we should just face the facts that a completely fee-free highway is not possible for certain highways, then we should just setup toll roads in the appropriate places along the highways of concern. The funds from those tolls SHOULD be put into a trust fund that is used to maintain that highway and that highway alone, and not allowed to be diverted towards any other state projects (just to keep it from turning into a teacup museum or some other pork money). If the trust fund is very healthy and exceeding expectations, the group managing the tolls could lower the rates.

This is, however, very idealistic. They'd rather just put up toll roads, keep the road in its poor condition, and proclaim that the toll roads are keeping NC's highways safer and keeping the educational system funded (whereas it's going to fund some bullshit like a $40 million "research program" for somebody's friend of a friend).

[/rant]

8/5/2007 7:20:54 PM

blaming bush admin? My god. Look the guy is a moron but why do people insist on blaming EVERYTHING on him?

Why are we not updating our roads/bridges? Because its not sexy. Politicians would rather build brand new roads to show us, than to fix existing ones. Why? Because now people will SEE what the politician has done and reelect him.

Blaming the war for this is such a ridiculous statement. As stated earlier they actually had a surplus of money. But that is the typical rebutt... well if we threw even MORE money on it...hell we could even prevent death.

8/5/2007 7:25:25 PM

people blame the president.

Do you not know history?


Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, bla bla bla

they all got blamed for everything.

8/5/2007 8:36:51 PM

Quote :

"it's not up to the fucking feds. Why can't you fucking people lean on your state elected leaders instead of automatically blaming Bush?"

Because, while the FED only paid for half the interstate highway (the state's are required to match funds), the FED does manage to get about half of all gasoline taxes. What does the FED spend the money on? Lots of things that are not roads.

8/5/2007 9:02:23 PM

^ no joke

our infrastructure is going to shit

8/5/2007 9:04:02 PM

BRIDGES BEFORE BOMBS

8/5/2007 9:45:08 PM

Quote :

"Just think how much fun your life would be if you had to take backroads and sporatic state highways everywhere instead of being able to just hop on I-40 to go across the state."

What's wrong with state highways? Sure some of them suck but if there were no interstate, don't you think that perhaps they would be expanded as the money that would go into the interstate is spent on the state highways?

8/6/2007 1:23:00 PM

Quote :

"40-50 yrs ago, most families had just 1 car. Now the majority have several cars."

And they drive all of their cars at once!

Quote :

"If states truly can't maintain their infrastructure on their current budgets, then they need to build toll roads and increase the gas tax."

There is plenty of money in the budget. The problem is that everything our government does is horribly inefficient due to the rules and regulations governing their work.

Strip the government of it's b.s. rules and you get efficient work. The emergency reconstruction of LA's highways after the 1994 earthquake is a perfect example of this. It would have taken them years if not decades to do the amount of work that they did in a matter of months.

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 2:42 PM. Reason : l]

8/6/2007 2:41:27 PM

Quote :

"And they drive all of their cars at once!"

in many cases, yes they do. my parents have three cars, and most days all three are used (by my dad, mom and brother who's still at home).

8/6/2007 3:11:14 PM

Great piece of anecdotal evidence there. I suppose if they didn't own three cars it would mean that two people sit at home doing nothing while the third person is out.

8/6/2007 3:42:10 PM

sometimes yes. it would at the very least mean that my brother would probably carpool to school or ride the bus if my parents didn't have an extra car to offer him.

8/6/2007 3:47:50 PM

Quote :

"Feds give States money to maintain the roads, not your road out in front of your house but the highways etc. However, the Bush administration didnt see fit to put the money available to repair/replace aging infrastructure in previous budgets. Oh well, let it fall apart, then they will give the money to rebuild it."

The sad truth of this is that no matter who was in office, Democrat or Republican, Bush or Clinton, Iraqi-induced deficits or bumper surpluses, the required money for maintaining infrastructure would not have gone into the budget. The decaying infrastructure has been an issue for years now, preceding the current administration, and as mentioned before, there's less political interest in maintaining existing bridges and roads versus building new ones. Until you have a tragedy like this in which case we add some token funding which in a few years will slowly be eroded to fund some Congressman's pet project studying ketchup flow or "novel viral biowarfare agents."

8/6/2007 3:50:43 PM

^no it isnt. In the past people would have one car, so they dropped each other off. Now we all go in different directions, and often in our own car. Why is that so hard to understand?

8/6/2007 3:52:48 PM

eyedrb, what is your point? Are you merely arguing that road-miles driven has increased? This is not in dispute. But would argue that we would be somehow happier today if a family of three adults was forced to have only one vehicle?

8/6/2007 5:20:35 PM

i think all that's being said is that the increased number of cars on the road is a huge factor in the amount of wear on our infrastructure.

8/6/2007 5:25:17 PM

Quote :

"What's wrong with state highways? Sure some of them suck but if there were no interstate, don't you think that perhaps they would be expanded as the money that would go into the interstate is spent on the state highways?"

The interstates worked so well in part because of the standardization mandated by the federal government in order for the states to receive funding to help build these roads. If there never were any interstate roads that were built on any one set of standards, you'd definitely notice a stark difference as you drove from state to state. Their signage may differ from state to state on each state's highway systems, causing a lot of confusion. The roads may each be built with different safety factors as well. For example, one state may decide they want 10' wide lanes on their roads with no shoulder, but another state wants 12' wide lanes with 2' shoulders and an 8' grass shoulder beyond that. Part of the benefit of the initial federal funding was that there was a lot of standardization put into place that started making roads look more homogeneous between states.

Nowadays, there are only a few situations that I can think of where a state could require federal aid to build a highway, as most every state in the union is prosperous enough that they can pay for their own infrastructure bills, or have that money recouped through toll booths placed on the road after the fact. Only in situations where there's something extreme like a catastrophic natural disaster that destroys a massive roadway project (like a 2.3 billion dollar bridge or something) would I think that federal aid would make sense.

I will say that if there was no interstate system, the economy would look very different nowadays. It may still be a situation where we are just as prosperous, though the lack of infrastructure for personal automobile transportation may have resulted in a more successful rail or air transport system. Cities may have stayed more centralized rather than having large highway projects that allow people to move into small towns along an interstate highway.

I still think the federal interstate system is a good idea, and having states pay for their own roads is also a good idea. If the fed helps states build the federal highway system for national defense purposes, that's just fine and awesome. If the Fed helps them build roads that are only benefiting the state itself, then there's a problem. Having both roadway systems in place helps us have the best infrastructure possible. It's just a shame that the states didn't mandate a certain standard of maintenance for every road so we wouldn't have super-nice highways like I-40 then highways that turn into absolute crap in certain spots like I-85 and I-95.

8/6/2007 5:46:15 PM

Quote :

""And alot of idiots want to give them total control of your healthcare. How long will it take that to get "underfunded". Or "structurally deficient".""

he wins

8/6/2007 7:39:18 PM

thanks sarijoul, glad someone got it. No, I wasnt saying that a stronger family bond would hold the bridges together.

8/6/2007 9:21:00 PM

Mindstorm, you are wrong. Yes, having the fed. involved does cut down on the negotiation costs, since the two states may disagree where the road should go. And standardization is bullshit: state-highways are often of a higher standard than the fed. requires. People like highways, therefore state legislators like highways, and want to be seen building large projects, such as a highway running from one side of the state to the other.

So, I suspect a world without fed. funded highways might look different, but it would work exactly the same.

Well, not exactly, I guess; the fed. was able to jack up gasoline prices so easily because the highways were going to be a white elephant to symbolize national unity. Once they had the money, they went to work cutting highways through the heart of downtowns nationwide, circumventing local government in many instances. Lots of urban communities were destroyed building the highways where they never should have gone (nowadays we know: highways belong in that zone right where urban turns suburban). If not for the fed. gasoline tax and mandates by the fed. to spend it in unwise ways, most of such boondogles would never happened (local governments usually went along with these schemes because they were not paying for it).

Perhaps the fed. dept. of transportation would still exist, making suggestions to states where roads should go, but leaving construction decisions up to the people living there.

The signage issue is also incorrect. State governments are driven by their citizenry to standardize such cross border confusions. "This is how they do things in shelbyville" is a very persuasive argument to legislators. That is why most issues that are not standardized by the fed. are still standardized, such as traffic laws.

[Edited on August 7, 2007 at 9:51 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/7/2007 9:48:45 AM

i cannot figure out why in the hell this stupid bridge collapse is such big news

i mean, it's newsworthy, but it doesn't warrant anywhere NEAR the amount of attention it's getting.


Between fallen bridges and trapped miners, I couldn't even watch cable news today...and I had to turn off the Democratic debate, because every last one of them brought up the bridge thing. It was getting ridiculous.

8/8/2007 3:03:13 AM

^ Slow news dayz.

8/8/2007 9:52:40 AM

Quote :

"^ no joke our infrastructure is going to shit"

Over 600,000 bridges in America... One caves in and automatically our infrastructure is shit.

8/8/2007 10:15:12 AM

They've been making a big deal about it here in NYC, due to us having several of the busiest bridges in the world. What really cracks me up is that most papers didn't have the Minneapolis bridge collapse as front page news. But then the next day the front page headline was "Are our bridges safe?"

8/8/2007 1:19:46 PM