Date:         Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:34:10 -0800
Reply-To:     Mike Miller <mwm@LANSET.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Mike Miller <mwm@LANSET.COM>
Subject:      Re: Interstates
Comments: To: Karl Wolz <wolzphoto@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Well, not as I remember it.  The interstates were built under the National
Highway Defense Act [or some such similar wording],  So the implication is
that they were for the military.  As an example of that the bridge height
was supposed to allow a tank on a carrier under it.

But [again as I remember it] that was mostly a ploy to get the money
authorized.  If you remember the 50's [as I do, as much as I remember
anything these days] the godless communists were used as reasons for a bunch
of stuff.  Anyway, the intent was that they would carry all traffic and hint
of that can be found in the fact that the fast lanes [left lanes
theoretically] were not paved as thickly as were the right lanes [the 'truck
lanes'].

As for funding big trucks pay more than cars in weight fees but I'm not sure
how much total each pays any more, including the gas taxes.  What I am sure
about is that the trucks don't pay anything like what they should if it were
based on the wear caused.

Mike
85 Westy [Hi ho and off to curse at it I go]

----- Original Message -----
From: Karl Wolz <wolzphoto@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: Interstates


> You have a right to bitch about anything you want.  Ain't America great!
>
> However, the interstate system was originally built with commerce and
> military in mind, and the lion's share of highway funding is generated by
> trucking.
>
> Karl Wolz
>