In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:09:02 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 07:39:51 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


Bunch of old retirees that are afraid of change!

A bunch of people old enough to see and recognize a dumb idea.

BTW do you really think 2/3ds of the people who VOTE here are retired?
The snow birds are not here in November.

Oh, for ****s sake, did I say EVERYONE who voted against was old
retirees?? But, you may want to learn about your state's demographic


**** You don't even read the **** you post.

" Bunch of old retirees that are afraid of change!"

I bet I know more about our demographics than you do. You are the one
who thinks they are all "old retirees".

Again, I never said that everyone who voted was a retiree. Okay, then
tell us what percentage of registered voters are retirees. Do not forget
the absentee votes.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 15:47:37 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 11:48:38 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:58:12 -0400, wrote:

What "subsidy".

===

The FAA and the air traffic control system.

ATC could easily be privatized (like Canada), as could TSA (it used to
be).

Sure it could, and then the airlines would go broke without the subsidy.

That is nothing more than governmental creep.

If the airlines had to pay back every dime of the FAA cost of ATC it
would be about $10 a flight per passenger. A private operator would do
it cheaper, no doubt.

cite?


Once you actually dig into the numbers, the whole idea of an airline
"subsidy" falls apart.
These are services 100% funded by ticket taxes
http://tinyurl.com/l8m7yp4

Thank you, good job. Ticket taxes are subsidies.

In fact the DOT is actually making over a billion dollars on these
taxes, presumably being spent on other projects.

Cite that.

They collect about $18 billion in ticket taxes and fees, the total
aviation budget for aviation is a tad over $16 billion.

http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/fil...ial-report.pdf

Expense
Air Transportation 16,004,333

Here's more on the subsidies to airlines that apparently you don't know
about:

http://tinyurl.com/l2sgahq

On 9/4/13 8:12 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 15:47:37 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 11:48:38 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:58:12 -0400, wrote:

What "subsidy".

===

The FAA and the air traffic control system.

ATC could easily be privatized (like Canada), as could TSA (it used to
be).

Sure it could, and then the airlines would go broke without the subsidy.

That is nothing more than governmental creep.

If the airlines had to pay back every dime of the FAA cost of ATC it
would be about $10 a flight per passenger. A private operator would do
it cheaper, no doubt.

cite?


Once you actually dig into the numbers, the whole idea of an airline
"subsidy" falls apart.
These are services 100% funded by ticket taxes
http://tinyurl.com/l8m7yp4

Thank you, good job. Ticket taxes are subsidies.

In fact the DOT is actually making over a billion dollars on these
taxes, presumably being spent on other projects.

Cite that.

They collect about $18 billion in ticket taxes and fees, the total
aviation budget for aviation is a tad over $16 billion.

http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/fil...ial-report.pdf

Expense
Air Transportation 16,004,333

Here's more on the subsidies to airlines that apparently you don't know
about:

http://tinyurl.com/l2sgahq



Let's not forget the depreciation allowances airlines get for buying
equipment. These are subsidies.

On 9/3/2013 5:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 12:33:28 -0400, John H
wrote:

Our cabinet doors were opened, crap all over the floor, and shelves broken.
What a mess.

===

Been there, done that, but we were in 8 to 10 foot waves at the time.
All of our galley cabinets have heavy duty latches now.


I wonder what the speed limit was in that area, and how fast John was
going... I mean, if the roads were under construction, the speed limit
could have been down around 40-45 in the city loop. Seems you might be
moving a bit faster than that to do that kind of damage, and there is no
way I am going to believe a "five inch" dropoff, all the way across the
road...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 11:51:32 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 09:53:38 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

A fairly substantial bridge carrying I-95 over a river in
Greenwich
collapsed about three decades ago.

===

I was over that bridge about an hour before it went down,
couldn't
believe my ears when I heard the news in the morning.

That bridge failed more from engineering/design issues than it
did
from deterioration. It was only about 30 years old at the time.

Again, those "issues" are usually the result of old bridges being
re-
purposed and thus were never engineered to carry the traffic that
they
are getting.

Why not?

Because they weren't intended to be interstate bridges.

------------------------------

A bridge on *Interstate Route 95" is not an interstate bridge?

Whoooosh...... I'll try again. In cities, where interstates were
extended, added, spurs, etc. were placed long after the original
interstate system was in place. A lot of these add ons were aligned to
take advantage of in-place roadways including bridges, tunnels etc.
These in-place infrastructures were not intended to carry the traffic
that interstate travel imposes.

In article , says...

On 9/3/13 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:57:25 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

No, it's mostly a stigma, people think elevated trains, they think
noise, they think unsafe, etc. Add to that that for some reason beyond
me, there are a LOT of people in the U.S. who just fear and loathe any
new technology.

Elevated trains ARE noisier and if they derail, over a major road,
they are a lot more dangerous.
We are not talking about the Lake Street El here. You want that train
going 150 MPH or more.

BTW you keep saying "innovation" and "new technology" but this is 200
year old technology and every plan I have heard involves buying
existing technology from Europe or Japan. Were is the innovation?

Bringing high speed trains over from Europe would be new technology for
this country, because we have no capability anymore for passenger rail
innovation. We'd have to reverse engineer what they are doing across the
big pond.

If they change the octane of gasoline and it makes cars go faster is that new technology or
an improvement on an existing technology. Fixed track trains are 200 years old and they only
thing that has changed is how the locomotive is powered.

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 11:52:03 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:49:34 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

What you don't realize is that many bridges carrying interstate
traffic
were never engineered for that weight and frequency of traffic
loads.
That is but one problem.

Why not? They were originally designed for trucks carrying tanks.

Now where on earth do you get THAT idea from???

The original purpose of the interstate highway system and the
original
design guidelines

In many cities, the interstate highways are being added and have been
added. The original guidelines no longer stand, and the fact is that
city bridges have been re-purposed to use for interstate traffic that
they were never intended nor designed to hold.

-----------------------------------

An example would be .......... ??

No problem!

http://tinyurl.com/kn9udaf

Which in part, after a good explanation of old bridges being fracture
critical, states:

Washington state has much incentive to finish the repairs quickly. I-5
is the primary highway corridor along the Pacific Coast, carrying an
average of 71,000 vehicles including 10,000 trucks a day, which will
have to endure lengthy and costly detours until the bridge is repaired.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced Friday that $1
million in emergency federal funds would be available to help repair the
bridge.

But the bridge will reopen with the same narrow lanes and low clearances
it always had ? it predates the interstate system and was not
constructed to federal standards for interstates. Many of such bridges
on the interstate system, including this one and others on I-5, were
?grandfathered in,? said Sean McNally, a spokesman for the American
Trucking Associations, an industry group. ?This is designed to a
different era,? he said.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 16:08:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:



"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 11:52:03 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:49:34 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

What you don't realize is that many bridges carrying interstate
traffic
were never engineered for that weight and frequency of traffic
loads.
That is but one problem.

Why not? They were originally designed for trucks carrying tanks.

Now where on earth do you get THAT idea from???

The original purpose of the interstate highway system and the
original
design guidelines

In many cities, the interstate highways are being added and have been
added. The original guidelines no longer stand, and the fact is that
city bridges have been re-purposed to use for interstate traffic that
they were never intended nor designed to hold.

-----------------------------------

An example would be .......... ??

Shame on you. We know you're asking for a 'cite'.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Here, moron:

Washington state has much incentive to finish the repairs quickly. I-5
is the primary highway corridor along the Pacific Coast, carrying an
average of 71,000 vehicles including 10,000 trucks a day, which will
have to endure lengthy and costly detours until the bridge is repaired.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced Friday that $1
million in emergency federal funds would be available to help repair the
bridge.

But the bridge will reopen with the same narrow lanes and low clearances
it always had ? it predates the interstate system and was not
constructed to federal standards for interstates. Many of such bridges
on the interstate system, including this one and others on I-5, were
?grandfathered in,? said Sean McNally, a spokesman for the American
Trucking Associations, an industry group. ?This is designed to a
different era,? he said.

Read more he http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/24/281...hatever-cause-
washington-state.html#storylink=cpy

In article ,
says...

"John H" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 16:08:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



"iBoaterer" wrote in message

In many cities, the interstate highways are being added and have been
added. The original guidelines no longer stand, and the fact is that
city bridges have been re-purposed to use for interstate traffic that
they were never intended nor designed to hold.

-----------------------------------

An example would be .......... ??

Shame on you. We know you're asking for a 'cite'.

John (Gun Nut) H.

-----------------------

I was trying to be original.

I don't know much about building bridges or "re-purposing" them, but
it seems to me that any existing highway or bridge that is taken over
by the state and made part of the federal interstate highway system
would have to meet current construction requirements and criteria
established by the Federal Highway Administration (under the
Department of Transportation).

I also suspect that the design criteria and requirements today are
superior to those used in the 1950s.

See above.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:11:24 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Rail lines need a direct subsidy, just to keep the train moving.

As do planes.


Bull****

Have you looked at the taxes on a plane ticket. Most of the
"subsidies" you talk about are actually paid for by the air traveler,
not the general fund like the railroads.

You pay
Federal taxes
7.5% for infrastructure
$3.50 per takeoff for ATC
$2.50 per boarding for TSA

and the airport tacks on $3 -$18 for their expenses.

That was in 2007. The way taxes work it may be a lot more than that
now.

I suppose I could dig out the charges on my tickets to Oregon a couple
months ago and look.

http://tinyurl.com/l2sgahq