Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 20:04:33 -0600
Reply-To: John Rodgers <inua@SCOTT.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: John Rodgers <inua@SCOTT.NET>
Subject: Re: Good 'ol I-40
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
My suspicions have been confirmed!!
One more thing. The truckers have to make a living too, but sooner or later the
system is going to break, and it will have to be rebuilt again. And that is OK.
Thbings get used up. problem is, when you look at how bad some sections are, as
compared to others, you begin to ask yourself.."How can this be?" I think some
of the sections were sub standard to start with, because of graft and a lot of
agencies and politicians playing footsy with the money appropriated for the job.
I have seen this kind of stuff in Alaska when upgrades for roads were planned.
When the Federal Monies came available, footsy was played, and things didn't get
done as planned. Makes me really suspicious of politicians and contractors.
John Rodgers
"88 GL Driver
John Rodgers
"88GL driver.
Mike Miller wrote:
> Dear Volks people [lightweights]
>
> As for big trucks: Some years ago, maybe 8, I did some research on this
> subject to determine the equality of the CA truck weight fee. What I found
> was that research had been done as far back as the '30s [by the US Army some
> of it]. There was plenty of other research as well up through the 50-60's
> [as I remember]. What it ALL showed was that there was not road wear caused
> by vehicles under 18,000 pounds. All wear is caused by vehicles over that
> weight. Also the wear is not linear, twice as heavy means far more than
> twice as much wear. It's not just weight but the space between the axles
> that counts
>
> My paper was buried. No one in government wanted to hear that [probably why
> there was no newer research]. The trucking industry REALLY doesn't want to
> hear that. Anecdotal proof is the I 580 and 880 [old highway 17] through
> Oakland CA. When 580 was built [in the 60's] it went through enough
> expensive housing that they [the residents] were able to close it to big
> trucks. The trucking industry fought tooth and nail [I don't know this as
> fact only as I was told at the time] because it would mean two highways,
> parallel and essentially identical in construction one with heavy trucks,
> one without [the argument they used was they helped pay for the roads they
> should get to use them]. The ideal scientific test. If you drive the two
> roads today and look at the maintenance and rebuild records you will see
> that 880 has been fixed and rebuilt a number of times. To my knowledge 580
> has never been rebuilt and shows almost no wear on the non truck portions.
>
> Anyway since I did that research I've been convinced that heavy trucks pay
> much more than cars for weight fees [road tax] but not nearly enough to pay
> for the damage they do.
>
> Mike
> '85 Westy [it treads ever so lightly upon the roadway]
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: LAWS HOME <backintime@TRITON.NET>
> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 3:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Good 'ol I-40
>
> > Did I hear someone dissin' big trucks? *The highway is so abused by heavy
> > trucking that the slabs are now bowed in the
> > middle, exagerating the contact point at every expansion*
> > While it is true the interstates are in bad shape I must admit we have
> much
> > heavier trucks up here in Mi. Not that our roads are any better,
> probably
> > not) ,
| 
