West coast rail systems would be good if the rails went to more places. NYC is small compared to LA county.
Interesting point about aqueducts. Reminds me of Clallum County in western Washington where I lived from 1989 to 1993. Some of that county often has a water shortage. Yes, you read that right, part of Clallum County in western Washington is in a rain shadow. Sequim (pronounced "squim"), for example, only gets something like 19 inches of rain per year. It's generally a farming community that relies heavily on irrigation. In the early to mid 90's, many of the open irrigation ditches became covered or run through large pipe to reduce evaporation. Smart move to save water!
Good point about western rail systems. The other thing that would help[ a lot would be to increase and refurbish transcontinental rail systems. No way should goods be moved across country by truck (sorry, truckers) when they could be moved long distance by rail at a much reduced consumption of fuels. Trucking and busing by way of big oil decimated the rail systems in America. It's way time we righted that wrong.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
West coast rail systems would be good if the rails went to more places. NYC is small compared to LA county.
Interesting point about aqueducts. Reminds me of Clallum County in western Washington where I lived from 1989 to 1993. Some of that county often has a water shortage. Yes, you read that right, part of Clallum County in western Washington is in a rain shadow. Sequim (pronounced "squim"), for example, only gets something like 19 inches of rain per year. It's generally a farming community that relies heavily on irrigation. In the early to mid 90's, many of the open irrigation ditches became covered or run through large pipe to reduce evaporation. Smart move to save water!
Good point about western rail systems. The other thing that would help[ a lot would be to increase and refurbish transcontinental rail systems. No way should goods be moved across country by truck (sorry, truckers) when they could be moved long distance by rail at a much reduced consumption of fuels. Trucking and busing by way of big oil decimated the rail systems in America. It's way time we righted that wrong.
I believe Amazon's future is to make unmanned trucks that travel across the US to hubs and from there a manned truck would take it to the cities that don't have main hubs. Like a tug that pilots in the big freighters.
I'm not sure if Bezos and company gave much thought to the railways Brian. That is an even better idea but if the future doesn't want to use it the it will be lost.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,292
West coast rail systems would be good if the rails went to more places. NYC is small compared to LA county.
Interesting point about aqueducts. Reminds me of Clallum County in western Washington where I lived from 1989 to 1993. Some of that county often has a water shortage. Yes, you read that right, part of Clallum County in western Washington is in a rain shadow. Sequim (pronounced "squim"), for example, only gets something like 19 inches of rain per year. It's generally a farming community that relies heavily on irrigation. In the early to mid 90's, many of the open irrigation ditches became covered or run through large pipe to reduce evaporation. Smart move to save water!
Good point about western rail systems. The other thing that would help[ a lot would be to increase and refurbish transcontinental rail systems. No way should goods be moved across country by truck (sorry, truckers) when they could be moved long distance by rail at a much reduced consumption of fuels. Trucking and busing by way of big oil decimated the rail systems in America. It's way time we righted that wrong.
I believe Amazon's future is to make unmanned trucks that travel across the US to hubs and from there a manned truck would take it to the cities that don't have main hubs. Like a tug that pilots in the big freighters.
I'm not sure if Bezos and company gave much thought to the railways Brian. That is an even better idea but if the future doesn't want to use it the it will be lost.
That's a bummer to hear. Another strike against our environment.
On a different note, it kind of amazes me that you and I are the only ones here that have shown any interest in the infrastructure bill. This place confounds me at times!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
West coast rail systems would be good if the rails went to more places. NYC is small compared to LA county.
Interesting point about aqueducts. Reminds me of Clallum County in western Washington where I lived from 1989 to 1993. Some of that county often has a water shortage. Yes, you read that right, part of Clallum County in western Washington is in a rain shadow. Sequim (pronounced "squim"), for example, only gets something like 19 inches of rain per year. It's generally a farming community that relies heavily on irrigation. In the early to mid 90's, many of the open irrigation ditches became covered or run through large pipe to reduce evaporation. Smart move to save water!
Good point about western rail systems. The other thing that would help[ a lot would be to increase and refurbish transcontinental rail systems. No way should goods be moved across country by truck (sorry, truckers) when they could be moved long distance by rail at a much reduced consumption of fuels. Trucking and busing by way of big oil decimated the rail systems in America. It's way time we righted that wrong.
I believe Amazon's future is to make unmanned trucks that travel across the US to hubs and from there a manned truck would take it to the cities that don't have main hubs. Like a tug that pilots in the big freighters.
I'm not sure if Bezos and company gave much thought to the railways Brian. That is an even better idea but if the future doesn't want to use it the it will be lost.
The future is what we create, unless we just decide to let Bezos et al have all the fun. Surely we could require rail use for some shipments that meet a certain threshold? I'm with Bri transcontinental rail transport needs to have room in the future and if it goes away because it might undercut Amazoon's profits, well then I guess we deserve every global warming natural disaster that we bought.
West coast rail systems would be good if the rails went to more places. NYC is small compared to LA county.
Interesting point about aqueducts. Reminds me of Clallum County in western Washington where I lived from 1989 to 1993. Some of that county often has a water shortage. Yes, you read that right, part of Clallum County in western Washington is in a rain shadow. Sequim (pronounced "squim"), for example, only gets something like 19 inches of rain per year. It's generally a farming community that relies heavily on irrigation. In the early to mid 90's, many of the open irrigation ditches became covered or run through large pipe to reduce evaporation. Smart move to save water!
Good point about western rail systems. The other thing that would help[ a lot would be to increase and refurbish transcontinental rail systems. No way should goods be moved across country by truck (sorry, truckers) when they could be moved long distance by rail at a much reduced consumption of fuels. Trucking and busing by way of big oil decimated the rail systems in America. It's way time we righted that wrong.
I believe Amazon's future is to make unmanned trucks that travel across the US to hubs and from there a manned truck would take it to the cities that don't have main hubs. Like a tug that pilots in the big freighters.
I'm not sure if Bezos and company gave much thought to the railways Brian. That is an even better idea but if the future doesn't want to use it the it will be lost.
That's a bummer to hear. Another strike against our environment.
On a different note, it kind of amazes me that you and I are the only ones here that have shown any interest in the infrastructure bill. This place confounds me at times!
I'm waiting to see what shakes out. While I am a fan of the theory and idea of the bill, I want to see real progress and a lack of wasteful spending before I get too invested.
West coast rail systems would be good if the rails went to more places. NYC is small compared to LA county.
Interesting point about aqueducts. Reminds me of Clallum County in western Washington where I lived from 1989 to 1993. Some of that county often has a water shortage. Yes, you read that right, part of Clallum County in western Washington is in a rain shadow. Sequim (pronounced "squim"), for example, only gets something like 19 inches of rain per year. It's generally a farming community that relies heavily on irrigation. In the early to mid 90's, many of the open irrigation ditches became covered or run through large pipe to reduce evaporation. Smart move to save water!
Good point about western rail systems. The other thing that would help[ a lot would be to increase and refurbish transcontinental rail systems. No way should goods be moved across country by truck (sorry, truckers) when they could be moved long distance by rail at a much reduced consumption of fuels. Trucking and busing by way of big oil decimated the rail systems in America. It's way time we righted that wrong.
I believe Amazon's future is to make unmanned trucks that travel across the US to hubs and from there a manned truck would take it to the cities that don't have main hubs. Like a tug that pilots in the big freighters.
I'm not sure if Bezos and company gave much thought to the railways Brian. That is an even better idea but if the future doesn't want to use it the it will be lost.
The future is what we create, unless we just decide to let Bezos et al have all the fun. Surely we could require rail use for some shipments that meet a certain threshold? I'm with Bri transcontinental rail transport needs to have room in the future and if it goes away because it might undercut Amazoon's profits, well then I guess we deserve every global warming natural disaster that we bought.
Magnets on rail cars is nothing new to make them go. This would work and keep the electrical vehicle thing stay in motion.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,292
West coast rail systems would be good if the rails went to more places. NYC is small compared to LA county.
Interesting point about aqueducts. Reminds me of Clallum County in western Washington where I lived from 1989 to 1993. Some of that county often has a water shortage. Yes, you read that right, part of Clallum County in western Washington is in a rain shadow. Sequim (pronounced "squim"), for example, only gets something like 19 inches of rain per year. It's generally a farming community that relies heavily on irrigation. In the early to mid 90's, many of the open irrigation ditches became covered or run through large pipe to reduce evaporation. Smart move to save water!
Good point about western rail systems. The other thing that would help[ a lot would be to increase and refurbish transcontinental rail systems. No way should goods be moved across country by truck (sorry, truckers) when they could be moved long distance by rail at a much reduced consumption of fuels. Trucking and busing by way of big oil decimated the rail systems in America. It's way time we righted that wrong.
I believe Amazon's future is to make unmanned trucks that travel across the US to hubs and from there a manned truck would take it to the cities that don't have main hubs. Like a tug that pilots in the big freighters.
I'm not sure if Bezos and company gave much thought to the railways Brian. That is an even better idea but if the future doesn't want to use it the it will be lost.
That's a bummer to hear. Another strike against our environment.
On a different note, it kind of amazes me that you and I are the only ones here that have shown any interest in the infrastructure bill. This place confounds me at times!
I'm waiting to see what shakes out. While I am a fan of the theory and idea of the bill, I want to see real progress and a lack of wasteful spending before I get too invested.
You mean you don't have unflagging faith in government utilizing funds
propitiously? LOL, yeah, I can understand some concern that way. We've
made the first step, now it's time to put pressure on the powers that
be to use these funds wisely. I don't hold unrealistic expectations
that way, but I have to be optimistic that at least the possibility now
exists. This would be a bad time for the current administration to make
any egregiously bad moves on this. We need to see results. I hope
they keep that in mind.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
West coast rail systems would be good if the rails went to more places. NYC is small compared to LA county.
Interesting point about aqueducts. Reminds me of Clallum County in western Washington where I lived from 1989 to 1993. Some of that county often has a water shortage. Yes, you read that right, part of Clallum County in western Washington is in a rain shadow. Sequim (pronounced "squim"), for example, only gets something like 19 inches of rain per year. It's generally a farming community that relies heavily on irrigation. In the early to mid 90's, many of the open irrigation ditches became covered or run through large pipe to reduce evaporation. Smart move to save water!
Good point about western rail systems. The other thing that would help[ a lot would be to increase and refurbish transcontinental rail systems. No way should goods be moved across country by truck (sorry, truckers) when they could be moved long distance by rail at a much reduced consumption of fuels. Trucking and busing by way of big oil decimated the rail systems in America. It's way time we righted that wrong.
I believe Amazon's future is to make unmanned trucks that travel across the US to hubs and from there a manned truck would take it to the cities that don't have main hubs. Like a tug that pilots in the big freighters.
I'm not sure if Bezos and company gave much thought to the railways Brian. That is an even better idea but if the future doesn't want to use it the it will be lost.
That's a bummer to hear. Another strike against our environment.
On a different note, it kind of amazes me that you and I are the only ones here that have shown any interest in the infrastructure bill. This place confounds me at times!
I'm waiting to see what shakes out. While I am a fan of the theory and idea of the bill, I want to see real progress and a lack of wasteful spending before I get too invested.
You mean you don't have unflagging faith in government utilizing funds
propitiously? LOL, yeah, I can understand some concern that way. We've
made the first step, now it's time to put pressure on the powers that
be to use these funds wisely. I don't hold unrealistic expectations
that way, but I have to be optimistic that at least the possibility now
exists. This would be a bad time for the current administration to make
any egregiously bad moves on this. We need to see results. I hope
they keep that in mind.
Exactly, no matter what party.
Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,292
Fun fact: An intermodal train can move one ton of freight over 400 miles on just a gallon of fuel
And an extremely important and relevant fact that is! Trains can move more cargo per unit of energy than any other mode of transportation. Why we let this slip so long is beyond me. Oh, wait... BIG OIL!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
West coast rail systems would be good if the rails went to more places. NYC is small compared to LA county.
Interesting point about aqueducts. Reminds me of Clallum County in western Washington where I lived from 1989 to 1993. Some of that county often has a water shortage. Yes, you read that right, part of Clallum County in western Washington is in a rain shadow. Sequim (pronounced "squim"), for example, only gets something like 19 inches of rain per year. It's generally a farming community that relies heavily on irrigation. In the early to mid 90's, many of the open irrigation ditches became covered or run through large pipe to reduce evaporation. Smart move to save water!
Good point about western rail systems. The other thing that would help[ a lot would be to increase and refurbish transcontinental rail systems. No way should goods be moved across country by truck (sorry, truckers) when they could be moved long distance by rail at a much reduced consumption of fuels. Trucking and busing by way of big oil decimated the rail systems in America. It's way time we righted that wrong.
I believe Amazon's future is to make unmanned trucks that travel across the US to hubs and from there a manned truck would take it to the cities that don't have main hubs. Like a tug that pilots in the big freighters.
I'm not sure if Bezos and company gave much thought to the railways Brian. That is an even better idea but if the future doesn't want to use it the it will be lost.
That's a bummer to hear. Another strike against our environment.
On a different note, it kind of amazes me that you and I are the only ones here that have shown any interest in the infrastructure bill. This place confounds me at times!
I'm waiting to see what shakes out. While I am a fan of the theory and idea of the bill, I want to see real progress and a lack of wasteful spending before I get too invested.
You mean you don't have unflagging faith in government utilizing funds
propitiously? LOL, yeah, I can understand some concern that way. We've
made the first step, now it's time to put pressure on the powers that
be to use these funds wisely. I don't hold unrealistic expectations
that way, but I have to be optimistic that at least the possibility now
exists. This would be a bad time for the current administration to make
any egregiously bad moves on this. We need to see results. I hope
they keep that in mind.
Exactly, no matter what party.
I agree. That is why we need to do more of the "government by the people" part of the equation. Write letters, call representatives, send letters to local papers. If we do none of that, we have no right to complain. Too often we think, "Well, I voted, now they have to do the work." That's not enough. We have to make our desires known, be part of the system.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Fun fact: An intermodal train can move one ton of freight over 400 miles on just a gallon of fuel
And an extremely important and relevant fact that is! Trains can move more cargo per unit of energy than any other mode of transportation. Why we let this slip so long is beyond me. Oh, wait... BIG OIL!
I've never been so excited about 2035! That is big!
The thing about the infrastructure bill is this, it is primarily block grants to states by category, with strings attached (bond funding, certain conditions, etc.). It is dependent upon the states, in Chris Cuomo parlance, to go after it. I see red states, every slow walking the opportunity so they can blame dems that it didn't work or it was a sham, particularly in blue or purple districts while opening the spigot in red districts. I can also see red states not having the administrative capacity to identify projects, go after or apply for the money and oversee the spending or the results. One of the beauties of the bill is that it gives spending and input over to local control at the state/city/municipality level. Isn't that what repubs are always screaming about? Just another hypocrisy. Look to see them complaining about "the big bad federal government taking your tax dollars and telling you how you can spend it, wah."
For the mid terms and 2024 the dems have to produce results and not let the repub anger disinformation machine drown out the message around those results and the soon to be passed BBB bill. If they do, they will only have themselves to blame. As it stands, they are very few repubs who can take credit for the passed infrastructure bill and the eventual results. Run on that all day, every day.
Infrastructure bill unleashes funding to address risky dams
By DAVID A. LIEB
Today
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — States will soon be flooded with federal money to address a pent-up need to repair, improve or remove thousands of aging dams across the U.S., including some that could inundate towns or neighborhoods if they fail.
The roughly $3 billion for dam-related projects pales in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars going to roads, rails and high-speed internet in the $1 trillion infrastructure plan signed Monday by President Joe Biden. But it's a lot more than dam projects had been getting.
The money could give "a good kick-start to some of these upgrades that need to be done to make the dams as safe as possible,” said David Griffin, manager of Georgia’s Safe Dams Program and president-elect of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials.
The U.S. has more than 90,000 dams, averaging over a half-century old. An Associated Press analysis in 2019 identified nearly 1,700 dams in 44 states and Puerto Rico that were in poor or unsatisfactory condition and categorized as high-hazard — meaning their failure likely would result in a deadly flood. The actual number almost certainly is higher, because some states declined to provide complete data for their dams.
Though many large dams are maintained by federal or state agencies, most of the nation's dams are privately owned. That makes fixing them more challenging, because regulators have little leverage over dam owners who don't have the money to make repairs or simply neglect the needed fixes.
Over the past decade, the Federal Emergency Management Agency provided more than $400 million for projects involving dams, mostly to repair damage from natural disasters. But until just a few years ago, there was no national program focused solely on improving the thousands of dams overseen by state and local entities.
The infrastructure bill provides more than 18 times that amount, pumping $585 million into the program for hazardous dams, including $75 million set aside for their removal. Because of administrative requirements, FEMA said the new money likely won't start flowing to states before the 2023 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, 2022. Previous grants often have been enough only to cover engineering or planning expenses.
“This funding will allow for significant increases in the number and amount of actual dam rehabilitation and removal projects which the current funding levels have not allowed,” said David Maurstad, FEMA's deputy associate administrator for insurance and mitigation.
“The program is not really intended to fix all of them, but this will definitely help to fix some of the worst of those," said Mark Ogden, a former Ohio dam safety official who is now a technical specialist at the association. “It will definitely improve public safety.”
The infrastructure legislation also includes $148 million for FEMA to distribute to state dam safety offices — a significant increase over the $6 million to $7 million annually that has been divided among states. The new money could help states hire more staff or consultants to assess the safety of dams and develop emergency action plans. Every state except Alabama has a dam safety program, but many are underfunded and understaffed, creating a backlog of work.
Michigan responded by beefing up its budget. A state spending plan that took effect last month includes $13 million for grants to repair and remove dams and $6 million for an emergency fund that could be tapped when dam owners are unwilling or unable to make repairs. It also includes money to hire more staff for the dam safety program.
Additional dam funding is sprinkled throughout the federal infrastructure legislation.
The Bureau of Reclamation will get $500 million over five years for its dam safety program, a 50% increase over its current annual appropriation. The money is likely to go toward major renovation projects at B.F. Sisk Dam on San Luis Reservoir in California and El Vado Dam in New Mexico, said reclamation dam safety officer Bob Pike. That will free up other funds to hasten repairs at about 20 other high-hazard dams in the bureau's footprint of 17 western states, he said.
Reclamation will get an additional $100 million for repairs at certain old dams. An additional $118 million will fund repairs at dams through the Natural Resources Conservation Service. And $75 million will flow through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a loan program to make dam repairs.
The bill includes up to $800 million through several federal agencies that could be used to remove dams, allowing fish to pass through.
The large influx of federal funds shows that "removing dams in many places is good and appropriate and healthy for river resilience,” said Tom Kiernan, president of the nonprofit group American Rivers.
The infrastructure bill also includes about $750 million that could fund improvements at hydroelectric dams or retrofit existing dams to start producing energy. That includes a new grant program capped at $5 million a year per facility. The hydropower industry is pushing for separate legislation that also would create a tax credit for improvements to hydroelectric dams.
The funding in the infrastructure bill “is just a down payment," said LeRoy Coleman, spokesman for the National Hydropower Association. "We need transformational change for more clean energy and for healthier rivers.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,292
Infrastructure bill unleashes funding to address risky dams
By DAVID A. LIEB
Today
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — States will soon be flooded with federal money to address a pent-up need to repair, improve or remove thousands of aging dams across the U.S., including some that could inundate towns or neighborhoods if they fail.
The roughly $3 billion for dam-related projects pales in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars going to roads, rails and high-speed internet in the $1 trillion infrastructure plan signed Monday by President Joe Biden. But it's a lot more than dam projects had been getting.
The money could give "a good kick-start to some of these upgrades that need to be done to make the dams as safe as possible,” said David Griffin, manager of Georgia’s Safe Dams Program and president-elect of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials.
The U.S. has more than 90,000 dams, averaging over a half-century old. An Associated Press analysis in 2019 identified nearly 1,700 dams in 44 states and Puerto Rico that were in poor or unsatisfactory condition and categorized as high-hazard — meaning their failure likely would result in a deadly flood. The actual number almost certainly is higher, because some states declined to provide complete data for their dams.
Though many large dams are maintained by federal or state agencies, most of the nation's dams are privately owned. That makes fixing them more challenging, because regulators have little leverage over dam owners who don't have the money to make repairs or simply neglect the needed fixes.
Over the past decade, the Federal Emergency Management Agency provided more than $400 million for projects involving dams, mostly to repair damage from natural disasters. But until just a few years ago, there was no national program focused solely on improving the thousands of dams overseen by state and local entities.
The infrastructure bill provides more than 18 times that amount, pumping $585 million into the program for hazardous dams, including $75 million set aside for their removal. Because of administrative requirements, FEMA said the new money likely won't start flowing to states before the 2023 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, 2022. Previous grants often have been enough only to cover engineering or planning expenses.
“This funding will allow for significant increases in the number and amount of actual dam rehabilitation and removal projects which the current funding levels have not allowed,” said David Maurstad, FEMA's deputy associate administrator for insurance and mitigation.
“The program is not really intended to fix all of them, but this will definitely help to fix some of the worst of those," said Mark Ogden, a former Ohio dam safety official who is now a technical specialist at the association. “It will definitely improve public safety.”
The infrastructure legislation also includes $148 million for FEMA to distribute to state dam safety offices — a significant increase over the $6 million to $7 million annually that has been divided among states. The new money could help states hire more staff or consultants to assess the safety of dams and develop emergency action plans. Every state except Alabama has a dam safety program, but many are underfunded and understaffed, creating a backlog of work.
Michigan responded by beefing up its budget. A state spending plan that took effect last month includes $13 million for grants to repair and remove dams and $6 million for an emergency fund that could be tapped when dam owners are unwilling or unable to make repairs. It also includes money to hire more staff for the dam safety program.
Additional dam funding is sprinkled throughout the federal infrastructure legislation.
The Bureau of Reclamation will get $500 million over five years for its dam safety program, a 50% increase over its current annual appropriation. The money is likely to go toward major renovation projects at B.F. Sisk Dam on San Luis Reservoir in California and El Vado Dam in New Mexico, said reclamation dam safety officer Bob Pike. That will free up other funds to hasten repairs at about 20 other high-hazard dams in the bureau's footprint of 17 western states, he said.
Reclamation will get an additional $100 million for repairs at certain old dams. An additional $118 million will fund repairs at dams through the Natural Resources Conservation Service. And $75 million will flow through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a loan program to make dam repairs.
The bill includes up to $800 million through several federal agencies that could be used to remove dams, allowing fish to pass through.
The large influx of federal funds shows that "removing dams in many places is good and appropriate and healthy for river resilience,” said Tom Kiernan, president of the nonprofit group American Rivers.
The infrastructure bill also includes about $750 million that could fund improvements at hydroelectric dams or retrofit existing dams to start producing energy. That includes a new grant program capped at $5 million a year per facility. The hydropower industry is pushing for separate legislation that also would create a tax credit for improvements to hydroelectric dams.
The funding in the infrastructure bill “is just a down payment," said LeRoy Coleman, spokesman for the National Hydropower Association. "We need transformational change for more clean energy and for healthier rivers.”
In some case, great idea which might prevent what almost happened to the Oroville Dam that almost failed and would have wiped out the town of Oroville, CA. In other cases, removal of some dams would be more appropriate to help restore salmon runs. I hope they take both scenarios into consideration.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,292
Biden picks a rickety New Hampshire bridge as a scene to sell his infrastructure bill
President Biden traveled to an old, unsafe bridge in New Hampshire on
Tuesday to kick off an administration-wide tour aimed at selling the
benefits of the newly signed bipartisan infrastructure law.
The
tour is part of a push to tout the roughly $1 trillion the law provides
for badly needed investments in the nation's transportation, broadband
and water systems. Biden, who is down in the polls, is looking for a
boost to help his fellow Democrats ahead of congressional elections next
year.
Speaking from the NH 175 bridge in Woodstock, N.H., Biden talked
about the importance of the legislation to American families. "Clean
water, access to the internet, rebuilding bridges — everything in this
bill matters to the individual lives of real people. This is not
something abstract," Biden said as a light snow fluttered around him.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Infrastructure bill unleashes funding to address risky dams
By DAVID A. LIEB
Today
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — States will soon be flooded with federal money to address a pent-up need to repair, improve or remove thousands of aging dams across the U.S., including some that could inundate towns or neighborhoods if they fail.
The roughly $3 billion for dam-related projects pales in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars going to roads, rails and high-speed internet in the $1 trillion infrastructure plan signed Monday by President Joe Biden. But it's a lot more than dam projects had been getting.
The money could give "a good kick-start to some of these upgrades that need to be done to make the dams as safe as possible,” said David Griffin, manager of Georgia’s Safe Dams Program and president-elect of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials.
The U.S. has more than 90,000 dams, averaging over a half-century old. An Associated Press analysis in 2019 identified nearly 1,700 dams in 44 states and Puerto Rico that were in poor or unsatisfactory condition and categorized as high-hazard — meaning their failure likely would result in a deadly flood. The actual number almost certainly is higher, because some states declined to provide complete data for their dams.
Though many large dams are maintained by federal or state agencies, most of the nation's dams are privately owned. That makes fixing them more challenging, because regulators have little leverage over dam owners who don't have the money to make repairs or simply neglect the needed fixes.
Over the past decade, the Federal Emergency Management Agency provided more than $400 million for projects involving dams, mostly to repair damage from natural disasters. But until just a few years ago, there was no national program focused solely on improving the thousands of dams overseen by state and local entities.
The infrastructure bill provides more than 18 times that amount, pumping $585 million into the program for hazardous dams, including $75 million set aside for their removal. Because of administrative requirements, FEMA said the new money likely won't start flowing to states before the 2023 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, 2022. Previous grants often have been enough only to cover engineering or planning expenses.
“This funding will allow for significant increases in the number and amount of actual dam rehabilitation and removal projects which the current funding levels have not allowed,” said David Maurstad, FEMA's deputy associate administrator for insurance and mitigation.
“The program is not really intended to fix all of them, but this will definitely help to fix some of the worst of those," said Mark Ogden, a former Ohio dam safety official who is now a technical specialist at the association. “It will definitely improve public safety.”
The infrastructure legislation also includes $148 million for FEMA to distribute to state dam safety offices — a significant increase over the $6 million to $7 million annually that has been divided among states. The new money could help states hire more staff or consultants to assess the safety of dams and develop emergency action plans. Every state except Alabama has a dam safety program, but many are underfunded and understaffed, creating a backlog of work.
Michigan responded by beefing up its budget. A state spending plan that took effect last month includes $13 million for grants to repair and remove dams and $6 million for an emergency fund that could be tapped when dam owners are unwilling or unable to make repairs. It also includes money to hire more staff for the dam safety program.
Additional dam funding is sprinkled throughout the federal infrastructure legislation.
The Bureau of Reclamation will get $500 million over five years for its dam safety program, a 50% increase over its current annual appropriation. The money is likely to go toward major renovation projects at B.F. Sisk Dam on San Luis Reservoir in California and El Vado Dam in New Mexico, said reclamation dam safety officer Bob Pike. That will free up other funds to hasten repairs at about 20 other high-hazard dams in the bureau's footprint of 17 western states, he said.
Reclamation will get an additional $100 million for repairs at certain old dams. An additional $118 million will fund repairs at dams through the Natural Resources Conservation Service. And $75 million will flow through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a loan program to make dam repairs.
The bill includes up to $800 million through several federal agencies that could be used to remove dams, allowing fish to pass through.
The large influx of federal funds shows that "removing dams in many places is good and appropriate and healthy for river resilience,” said Tom Kiernan, president of the nonprofit group American Rivers.
The infrastructure bill also includes about $750 million that could fund improvements at hydroelectric dams or retrofit existing dams to start producing energy. That includes a new grant program capped at $5 million a year per facility. The hydropower industry is pushing for separate legislation that also would create a tax credit for improvements to hydroelectric dams.
The funding in the infrastructure bill “is just a down payment," said LeRoy Coleman, spokesman for the National Hydropower Association. "We need transformational change for more clean energy and for healthier rivers.”
In some case, great idea which might prevent what almost happened to the Oroville Dam that almost failed and would have wiped out the town of Oroville, CA. In other cases, removal of some dams would be more appropriate to help restore salmon runs. I hope they take both scenarios into consideration.
The Ballard locks have a salmon ladder. it's what is needed for those rivers that made them inaccessible. You would also have to build a hatchery where they aren't also as 90% of salmon return where they were hatched.
It would be a big boom to local fisheries to start that up again.
West coast rail systems would be good if the rails went to more places. NYC is small compared to LA county.
But thats exactly what I think makes it impossible, or at least impractical. The square miles you'd have to cover for a rail system in LA to be effective. Lots of people live in Riverside and commute the 70 miles west to LA, or in Lancaster and have the same commute south. If you wanted an effective rail system for commuters, it would be so incredibly massive that it wouldn't be practical.
West coast rail systems would be good if the rails went to more places. NYC is small compared to LA county.
But thats exactly what I think makes it impossible, or at least impractical. The square miles you'd have to cover for a rail system in LA to be effective. Lots of people live in Riverside and commute the 70 miles west to LA, or in Lancaster and have the same commute south. If you wanted an effective rail system for commuters, it would be so incredibly massive that it wouldn't be practical.
You put up a great point. Palmdale/Lancaster area is a dreg of a commute into LA proper. I used to drive that route. There is a train but it takes just as long as driving.
It's a 2hr commute or more during rush hour now so clean that up and the commute by train is a no brainer.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,292
This afternoon, my wife and I took a walk across historic Mountain Quarries Bridge (aka "No Hands Bridge") that spans the American River connecting El Dorado and Amador Counties here in Northern California and was completed in 1912. This bridge was used to carry material from a Quarry in Cool, Ca. over to Auburn from 1912 to 1940. One of the things that we learned today was that this bridge stood firm on its footings when Hell Hole Dam burst in 1964, taking out two newer, modern bridges upstream. The surviving bridge still stands and is a testament to quality engineering and construction. This is what it looks like today:
This also reminded me of something Alan Weisman said in is book The World Without Us about the Brooklyn Bridge in NYC, telling how that bridge was build in such a sturdy manner that if not for rust (which is kept at bay by maintenance), it would last indefinitely and can carry far more weight than ever actually travel across it at any one time.
All of this led me to thinking about a very important question regarding the infrastructure bill: Will these funds be used for cheap quick-and-easy fixes such as the modern bridges that once crossed the American river and could not withstand flooding, or will they be used to build things that are durable and long lasting like the Mountain Quarries Bridge or the Brooklyn Bridge?
This is the challenge we need to present to our legislators and lawmakers. I will be writing to some of them myself and implore them to make the right choice and utilize these monies in a responsible, lasting manner. I hope others will join me in doing the same.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
This afternoon, my wife and I took a walk across historic Mountain Quarries Bridge (aka "No Hands Bridge") that spans the American River connecting El Dorado and Amador Counties here in Northern California and was completed in 1912. This bridge was used to carry material from a Quarry in Cool, Ca. over to Auburn from 1912 to 1940. One of the things that we learned today was that this bridge stood firm on its footings when Hell Hole Dam burst in 1964, taking out two newer, modern bridges upstream. The surviving bridge still stands and is a testament to quality engineering and construction. This is what it looks like today:
This also reminded me of something Alan Weisman said in is book The World Without Us about the Brooklyn Bridge in NYC, telling how that bridge was build in such a sturdy manner that if not for rust (which is kept at bay by maintenance), it would last indefinitely and can carry far more weight than ever actually travel across it at any one time.
All of this led me to thinking about a very important question regarding the infrastructure bill: Will these funds be used for cheap quick-and-easy fixes such as the modern bridges that once crossed the American river and could not withstand flooding, or will they be used to build things that are durable and long lasting like the Mountain Quarries Bridge or the Brooklyn Bridge?
This is the challenge we need to present to our legislators and lawmakers. I will be writing to some of them myself and implore them to make the right choice and utilize these monies in a responsible, lasting manner. I hope others will join me in doing the same.
I wonder if it is the same argument w asphalt vs concrete? You get much more years out of concrete but it costs more. Using asphalt you get less but it also keeps people working considering the repairs you need to do to them.
I'm all for building it to last 1000 years. After visiting Washington DC and seeing the craftmanship and materials used to make the buildings I told my GF that these buildings will be here long after we are gone.
That is how you are supposed to build things.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,292
This afternoon, my wife and I took a walk across historic Mountain Quarries Bridge (aka "No Hands Bridge") that spans the American River connecting El Dorado and Amador Counties here in Northern California and was completed in 1912. This bridge was used to carry material from a Quarry in Cool, Ca. over to Auburn from 1912 to 1940. One of the things that we learned today was that this bridge stood firm on its footings when Hell Hole Dam burst in 1964, taking out two newer, modern bridges upstream. The surviving bridge still stands and is a testament to quality engineering and construction. This is what it looks like today:
This also reminded me of something Alan Weisman said in is book The World Without Us about the Brooklyn Bridge in NYC, telling how that bridge was build in such a sturdy manner that if not for rust (which is kept at bay by maintenance), it would last indefinitely and can carry far more weight than ever actually travel across it at any one time.
All of this led me to thinking about a very important question regarding the infrastructure bill: Will these funds be used for cheap quick-and-easy fixes such as the modern bridges that once crossed the American river and could not withstand flooding, or will they be used to build things that are durable and long lasting like the Mountain Quarries Bridge or the Brooklyn Bridge?
This is the challenge we need to present to our legislators and lawmakers. I will be writing to some of them myself and implore them to make the right choice and utilize these monies in a responsible, lasting manner. I hope others will join me in doing the same.
I wonder if it is the same argument w asphalt vs concrete? You get much more years out of concrete but it costs more. Using asphalt you get less but it also keeps people working considering the repairs you need to do to them.
I'm all for building it to last 1000 years. After visiting Washington DC and seeing the craftmanship and materials used to make the buildings I told my GF that these buildings will be here long after we are gone.
That is how you are supposed to build things.
That's good long-term thinking. Building things poorly, on the other hand, provides no pride in what is being accomplished, and just keeping people busy is short-term thinking that gobbles up limited resources with no consideration for the future. I also question the notion that building things built to last will leave people with nothing to do. There is always other work to do.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
This afternoon, my wife and I took a walk across historic Mountain Quarries Bridge (aka "No Hands Bridge") that spans the American River connecting El Dorado and Amador Counties here in Northern California and was completed in 1912. This bridge was used to carry material from a Quarry in Cool, Ca. over to Auburn from 1912 to 1940. One of the things that we learned today was that this bridge stood firm on its footings when Hell Hole Dam burst in 1964, taking out two newer, modern bridges upstream. The surviving bridge still stands and is a testament to quality engineering and construction. This is what it looks like today:
This also reminded me of something Alan Weisman said in is book The World Without Us about the Brooklyn Bridge in NYC, telling how that bridge was build in such a sturdy manner that if not for rust (which is kept at bay by maintenance), it would last indefinitely and can carry far more weight than ever actually travel across it at any one time.
All of this led me to thinking about a very important question regarding the infrastructure bill: Will these funds be used for cheap quick-and-easy fixes such as the modern bridges that once crossed the American river and could not withstand flooding, or will they be used to build things that are durable and long lasting like the Mountain Quarries Bridge or the Brooklyn Bridge?
This is the challenge we need to present to our legislators and lawmakers. I will be writing to some of them myself and implore them to make the right choice and utilize these monies in a responsible, lasting manner. I hope others will join me in doing the same.
I wonder if it is the same argument w asphalt vs concrete? You get much more years out of concrete but it costs more. Using asphalt you get less but it also keeps people working considering the repairs you need to do to them.
I'm all for building it to last 1000 years. After visiting Washington DC and seeing the craftmanship and materials used to make the buildings I told my GF that these buildings will be here long after we are gone.
That is how you are supposed to build things.
That's good long-term thinking. Building things poorly, on the other hand, provides no pride in what is being accomplished, and just keeping people busy is short-term thinking that gobbles up limited resources with no consideration for the future. I also question the notion that building things built to last will leave people with nothing to do. There is always other work to do.
Certain things are cheaper to build new than to do preventative maintenance on. Things are not cheap to build herein NY.
I do not believe that though. If you can maintain something and make it so it is easy to maintain then I don't buy into that notion.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,292
This afternoon, my wife and I took a walk across historic Mountain Quarries Bridge (aka "No Hands Bridge") that spans the American River connecting El Dorado and Amador Counties here in Northern California and was completed in 1912. This bridge was used to carry material from a Quarry in Cool, Ca. over to Auburn from 1912 to 1940. One of the things that we learned today was that this bridge stood firm on its footings when Hell Hole Dam burst in 1964, taking out two newer, modern bridges upstream. The surviving bridge still stands and is a testament to quality engineering and construction. This is what it looks like today:
This also reminded me of something Alan Weisman said in is book The World Without Us about the Brooklyn Bridge in NYC, telling how that bridge was build in such a sturdy manner that if not for rust (which is kept at bay by maintenance), it would last indefinitely and can carry far more weight than ever actually travel across it at any one time.
All of this led me to thinking about a very important question regarding the infrastructure bill: Will these funds be used for cheap quick-and-easy fixes such as the modern bridges that once crossed the American river and could not withstand flooding, or will they be used to build things that are durable and long lasting like the Mountain Quarries Bridge or the Brooklyn Bridge?
This is the challenge we need to present to our legislators and lawmakers. I will be writing to some of them myself and implore them to make the right choice and utilize these monies in a responsible, lasting manner. I hope others will join me in doing the same.
I wonder if it is the same argument w asphalt vs concrete? You get much more years out of concrete but it costs more. Using asphalt you get less but it also keeps people working considering the repairs you need to do to them.
I'm all for building it to last 1000 years. After visiting Washington DC and seeing the craftmanship and materials used to make the buildings I told my GF that these buildings will be here long after we are gone.
That is how you are supposed to build things.
That's good long-term thinking. Building things poorly, on the other hand, provides no pride in what is being accomplished, and just keeping people busy is short-term thinking that gobbles up limited resources with no consideration for the future. I also question the notion that building things built to last will leave people with nothing to do. There is always other work to do.
Certain things are cheaper to build new than to do preventative maintenance on. Things are not cheap to build herein NY.
I do not believe that though. If you can maintain something and make it so it is easy to maintain then I don't buy into that notion.
I guess it depends on what's being built. I have long maintained that automobiles are build to wear out or break down faster than they need to be. The second generation Prius are an excellent example. A former PJ forum member I know used to work at a Toyota dealership. He told me that I was smart to buy a second generation Prius because they last a long time (I will very likely get at least 300,000 miles on mine before it needs any major repairs). He said that mechanics from various dealerships started to complain because not enough second gen Prius were coming in for repairs because they were built too well. He said the next generation Prius were built to require more frequent maintenance. I don't accept that as a wise decision.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Comments
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm not sure if Bezos and company gave much thought to the railways Brian. That is an even better idea but if the future doesn't want to use it the it will be lost.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
You mean you don't have unflagging faith in government utilizing funds propitiously? LOL, yeah, I can understand some concern that way. We've made the first step, now it's time to put pressure on the powers that be to use these funds wisely. I don't hold unrealistic expectations that way, but I have to be optimistic that at least the possibility now exists. This would be a bad time for the current administration to make any egregiously bad moves on this. We need to see results. I hope they keep that in mind.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Dark blue is existing
Light blue is new service
Yellow is enhanced service
https://media.amtrak.com/2021/05/amtrak-seeks-to-bring-more-rail-service-to-more-communities/
Fun fact: An intermodal train can move one ton of freight over 400 miles on just a gallon of fuel
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
And an extremely important and relevant fact that is! Trains can move more cargo per unit of energy than any other mode of transportation. Why we let this slip so long is beyond me. Oh, wait... BIG OIL!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
That IS a whole lot of newer service.
They show a Ronkonkoma line on Long Island. That is currently being built by LIRR. I wasn't aware that Amtrak had a part in it?
I agree. That is why we need to do more of the "government by the people" part of the equation. Write letters, call representatives, send letters to local papers. If we do none of that, we have no right to complain. Too often we think, "Well, I voted, now they have to do the work." That's not enough. We have to make our desires known, be part of the system.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
2035 isn't as far away as it used to be
For the mid terms and 2024 the dems have to produce results and not let the repub anger disinformation machine drown out the message around those results and the soon to be passed BBB bill. If they do, they will only have themselves to blame. As it stands, they are very few repubs who can take credit for the passed infrastructure bill and the eventual results. Run on that all day, every day.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — States will soon be flooded with federal money to address a pent-up need to repair, improve or remove thousands of aging dams across the U.S., including some that could inundate towns or neighborhoods if they fail.
The roughly $3 billion for dam-related projects pales in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars going to roads, rails and high-speed internet in the $1 trillion infrastructure plan signed Monday by President Joe Biden. But it's a lot more than dam projects had been getting.
The money could give "a good kick-start to some of these upgrades that need to be done to make the dams as safe as possible,” said David Griffin, manager of Georgia’s Safe Dams Program and president-elect of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials.
The U.S. has more than 90,000 dams, averaging over a half-century old. An Associated Press analysis in 2019 identified nearly 1,700 dams in 44 states and Puerto Rico that were in poor or unsatisfactory condition and categorized as high-hazard — meaning their failure likely would result in a deadly flood. The actual number almost certainly is higher, because some states declined to provide complete data for their dams.
Though many large dams are maintained by federal or state agencies, most of the nation's dams are privately owned. That makes fixing them more challenging, because regulators have little leverage over dam owners who don't have the money to make repairs or simply neglect the needed fixes.
Over the past decade, the Federal Emergency Management Agency provided more than $400 million for projects involving dams, mostly to repair damage from natural disasters. But until just a few years ago, there was no national program focused solely on improving the thousands of dams overseen by state and local entities.
FEMA's Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dams Grant Program has divvied up $31.6 million among 36 participating states from 2019-2021. That amount, appropriated by Congress, was barely one-fifth of what had been authorized under a 2016 federal law.
The infrastructure bill provides more than 18 times that amount, pumping $585 million into the program for hazardous dams, including $75 million set aside for their removal. Because of administrative requirements, FEMA said the new money likely won't start flowing to states before the 2023 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, 2022. Previous grants often have been enough only to cover engineering or planning expenses.
“This funding will allow for significant increases in the number and amount of actual dam rehabilitation and removal projects which the current funding levels have not allowed,” said David Maurstad, FEMA's deputy associate administrator for insurance and mitigation.
Repairing and modernizing all 14,343 high-hazard dams that aren’t owned by the federal government could cost more than $20 billion, according to an estimate by the dam safety association.
“The program is not really intended to fix all of them, but this will definitely help to fix some of the worst of those," said Mark Ogden, a former Ohio dam safety official who is now a technical specialist at the association. “It will definitely improve public safety.”
The infrastructure legislation also includes $148 million for FEMA to distribute to state dam safety offices — a significant increase over the $6 million to $7 million annually that has been divided among states. The new money could help states hire more staff or consultants to assess the safety of dams and develop emergency action plans. Every state except Alabama has a dam safety program, but many are underfunded and understaffed, creating a backlog of work.
After dam failures resulted in flooding that forced the evacuation of about 10,000 people last year in Michigan, a review by the dam safety association found the state's dam safety office was “extremely understaffed” and that it hadn't invested in dam safety "for many decades.”
Michigan responded by beefing up its budget. A state spending plan that took effect last month includes $13 million for grants to repair and remove dams and $6 million for an emergency fund that could be tapped when dam owners are unwilling or unable to make repairs. It also includes money to hire more staff for the dam safety program.
Additional dam funding is sprinkled throughout the federal infrastructure legislation.
The Bureau of Reclamation will get $500 million over five years for its dam safety program, a 50% increase over its current annual appropriation. The money is likely to go toward major renovation projects at B.F. Sisk Dam on San Luis Reservoir in California and El Vado Dam in New Mexico, said reclamation dam safety officer Bob Pike. That will free up other funds to hasten repairs at about 20 other high-hazard dams in the bureau's footprint of 17 western states, he said.
Reclamation will get an additional $100 million for repairs at certain old dams. An additional $118 million will fund repairs at dams through the Natural Resources Conservation Service. And $75 million will flow through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a loan program to make dam repairs.
The bill includes up to $800 million through several federal agencies that could be used to remove dams, allowing fish to pass through.
The large influx of federal funds shows that "removing dams in many places is good and appropriate and healthy for river resilience,” said Tom Kiernan, president of the nonprofit group American Rivers.
The infrastructure bill also includes about $750 million that could fund improvements at hydroelectric dams or retrofit existing dams to start producing energy. That includes a new grant program capped at $5 million a year per facility. The hydropower industry is pushing for separate legislation that also would create a tax credit for improvements to hydroelectric dams.
The funding in the infrastructure bill “is just a down payment," said LeRoy Coleman, spokesman for the National Hydropower Association. "We need transformational change for more clean energy and for healthier rivers.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
In some case, great idea which might prevent what almost happened to the Oroville Dam that almost failed and would have wiped out the town of Oroville, CA. In other cases, removal of some dams would be more appropriate to help restore salmon runs. I hope they take both scenarios into consideration.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Biden picks a rickety New Hampshire bridge as a scene to sell his infrastructure bill
President Biden traveled to an old, unsafe bridge in New Hampshire on Tuesday to kick off an administration-wide tour aimed at selling the benefits of the newly signed bipartisan infrastructure law.
The tour is part of a push to tout the roughly $1 trillion the law provides for badly needed investments in the nation's transportation, broadband and water systems. Biden, who is down in the polls, is looking for a boost to help his fellow Democrats ahead of congressional elections next year.
Speaking from the NH 175 bridge in Woodstock, N.H., Biden talked about the importance of the legislation to American families. "Clean water, access to the internet, rebuilding bridges — everything in this bill matters to the individual lives of real people. This is not something abstract," Biden said as a light snow fluttered around him.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
It would be a big boom to local fisheries to start that up again.
I'm for it.
It's a 2hr commute or more during rush hour now so clean that up and the commute by train is a no brainer.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm all for building it to last 1000 years. After visiting Washington DC and seeing the craftmanship and materials used to make the buildings I told my GF that these buildings will be here long after we are gone.
That is how you are supposed to build things.
Building things poorly, on the other hand, provides no pride in what is being accomplished, and just keeping people busy is short-term thinking that gobbles up limited resources with no consideration for the future. I also question the notion that building things built to last will leave people with nothing to do. There is always other work to do.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I do not believe that though. If you can maintain something and make it so it is easy to maintain then I don't buy into that notion.
I guess it depends on what's being built. I have long maintained that automobiles are build to wear out or break down faster than they need to be. The second generation Prius are an excellent example. A former PJ forum member I know used to work at a Toyota dealership. He told me that I was smart to buy a second generation Prius because they last a long time (I will very likely get at least 300,000 miles on mine before it needs any major repairs). He said that mechanics from various dealerships started to complain because not enough second gen Prius were coming in for repairs because they were built too well. He said the next generation Prius were built to require more frequent maintenance. I don't accept that as a wise decision.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
i don't like it.
waaaahhh.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Oh come on, who long does it take rebuild a bridge? Couple of days, right?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."