Date:         Sat, 13 Nov 1999 12:07:28 -0800
Reply-To:     Stuart <stuart@COBALTGROUP.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Stuart <stuart@COBALTGROUP.COM>
Subject:      Re: Interstates, Trucks, Safety, the Environment,
              Sex in Rest Stops,etc.
Comments: To: Bulley <gmbulley@BULLEY-HEWLETT.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Why not?  Many of us like to stand on the soapbox. I, for one, have a
bit of a transportation background having sold engineering and
intelligent traffic software to state DOT's for six years, though I have
been out of that business for five years now.

I have attended trucking safety conferences, been invited to
professional meetings, trade shows, etc. in the past, and I do have some
perspectives.  Just follow the money, and you will find that the
truck/trucking/oil companies are the source.

The Interstate Highway System was indeed justified by Eisenhower in the
1950's as a military necessity after our inability to move war materiel
across the country efficiently during WWII. We were still in a cold war
with Russia, remember.  The oil lobby soon made it cheaper to move
freight by truck than by train by not paying the true costs of using the
highways through government subsidies, both direct and indirect.

Now we have lots of trucks and very poor railroads.

Today the big threat to our safety on the highways is NAFTA and all the
unregulated, uninspected Mexican trucks and truckers who want to carry
freight into the US and Canada.  So far the trucking lobby has kept them
out, so their self interest also benefits our safety in this case.  Not
to mention Laredo, TX, where all the freight has to change to American
shippers.

Some states allow triple trailers, very dangerous to pass in wet road or
two lane situations. Australia has quads, true road trains.  We don't
want the truckers to get carried away on our congested roads.

I guess I just made the first post to Bulley's new list!

Stuart