Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory. [/quote] It is a generally accepted fact that the rail industry had a major hand in convincing the federal government to cap each state's GVW limits for non-Interstate highways, with each state able to grandfather in their particular weight limit that was in place when the cap was enacted. The Interstate Highway cap has been 80,000 lbs since I can remember. Most of the grain that was trucked from Montana to Lewiston went via non-Interstate Highways - US Highway 12, Montana Highway 200, etc. [/quote] Back to that old "its a railroad conspiracy theory' thing again. Give it a break. Bert [/quote] http://www.aar.org http://www.cabt.org Since you seem to know absolutely nothing about the railroad industry, here's a primer. The AAR is the American Association of Rairoads, the lobbying arm of the rail industry. The AAR has a surogate group it uses called the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, which is predicated soley on opposing increased GVW for trucks. It was CABT that was the major force in getting the federal cap on weight limits imposed. Now, whether it is a conspiracy or not is up to your imagination.[D)] Even in this weeks newspapers, there's an article that states the usual knee-jerk opposition to trucks and highways from the rail industry: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/06/14/montana/a08061406_02.txt Kitzenberg leading caravan for four-lane U.S. Highway 2 Quote of note: "The lone opposition he’s encountered to the “four-for-two” idea has come from BNSF Railway, which Kitzenberg (says) wants to keep its shipping monopoly across the Hi-Line. 'If you’ve got a monopoly and are making money, why would you want competition?' the legislator asked.” [/quote] Digging a bit further into the AAR link that YOU provided leads us to: http://www.aar.org/GetFile.asp?File_ID=281 Most interesting is the third paragraph under "Issue Overview." You should really read your own links before you post them. The noted paragraph blows your supposed "conspiricy" out of the water. [:o)] [/quote] Dave, I really love how you seem to make a habit of acting all smug in your responses, and then have them thrown in your face. Did you read the link? The trucking industy opposed the weight increase. Let me say that again, the TRUCKING industy. Now I know you will put your usual spin on it, the railroads bribed them with all there money. But at the end of the day it shows that YOU are the one that knows nothing about the railroad industry. Bert [/quote] Hmmmmm. Quothe Bert "The trucking industy opposed the weight increase. Let me say that again, the TRUCKING industy." Question for Bert: Who was it then that proposed the GVW increase? C'mon, it is an easy answer, no spin required. Here's a hint: You are batting 1.000 in eschewing internal polar opposition. [/quote] He's quoting something from a link YOU originally provided in a vain attempt to prove a conspiricy. The only "spinning" here seems to be yours. [/quote] You guys make me laugh! The links to AAR and CABT were to refute Bert's allegation that the railroad industry had nothing to do with pushing legislation to limit GVW. Should be pretty straightforward. Did Bert then acknowledge his mistake? Of course not. Then Bert uses the AAR and CABT links to "prove" that the trucking industry opposes increasing GVW standards, an allegation about as out of context as you can get. The AAR and ATA made a pact that the ATA would not push for increased GVW in return for the AAR not pushing for a decrease in GVW. Now that capacity issues have made that pact superfluous, not to mention having no positive impact on the railroad industry, the trucking industry is ready to ditch the pact and push for increased GVW and LCV standards to aid in keeping the US economy from slipping back into a recession, something to which the rail industry seems oblivious. But, just so Tom gets a refresher course in forum participation, here's the link to a previous thread from a few months ago in which we discussed the ATA's recent support for increasing GVW and LCV standards: https://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=61093 I'll give Bert a pass on this one since I don't remember him being around for that discussion. Now, is everybody happy?[:)] [/quote] So what you're saying is the links you offered here refute a link you offered on an earlier post. Talking in circles again, I see. More evidence you're not even looking at the links you offer as "proof" of your position. [/quote] I thought this horse died from its beatings days ago...hey, IT DID!!
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag