Ontopic The failing infrastructure thread

Mr. Argumentor

I fab shitboxes and shitbox accessories.
Sep 27, 2012
53,753
24,767
823
Tampa-ish
Marklar
₥73,825
Steam
asastang
On the day Biden was supposed to talk about infrastructure needs, a bridge collapses in Pittsburgh, injuring 10


In other news, but stock in steel!
 
Its weird because texas spends ALL THE MONEY on roads. Theyre endlessly under construction. It never fucking stops, ever.
The section of highway between south houston and galveston has never not been under construction in one place or another for as long as I can remember.
But fuck the power grid.
They wont spend a fuckin dime on that shit so when fuckin Cletus plugs in a second window AC unit into his double wide junk trailer in Waco the power goes out from dallas to brownsville
fuckin bullshit
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Mr. Argumentor
Its weird because texas spends ALL THE MONEY on roads. Theyre endlessly under construction. It never fucking stops, ever.
The section of highway between south houston and galveston has never not been under construction in one place or another for as long as I can remember.
But fuck the power grid.
They wont spend a fuckin dime on that shit so when fuckin Cletus plugs in a second window AC unit into his double wide junk trailer in Waco the power goes out from dallas to brownsville
fuckin bullshit


You’d think they could lay some conduit in all those new roads.

:tard:
 
Its weird because texas spends ALL THE MONEY on roads. Theyre endlessly under construction. It never fucking stops, ever.
The section of highway between south houston and galveston has never not been under construction in one place or another for as long as I can remember.
But fuck the power grid.
They wont spend a fuckin dime on that shit so when fuckin Cletus plugs in a second window AC unit into his double wide junk trailer in Waco the power goes out from dallas to brownsville
fuckin bullshit
I really don't get the disconnect there. I've heard similar complaints from my uncle and cousins i have out near Grapevine. Why would roads be important but not power? Are roads part of the oil industry and thats the priority?
 
I really don't get the disconnect there. I've heard similar complaints from my uncle and cousins i have out near Grapevine. Why would roads be important but not power? Are roads part of the oil industry and thats the priority?
Not sure
I guess its a matter of who pays for what and how
Roads are all owned by the state/counties and are paid for by construction contracts. The FiL used to work for one and they made bank off those contracts. He didnt, but the boss sure did.
The power grid is "owned" by corporations, so you know theyre gonna spend the least amount on repairs and upgrades so they can maximize their profits to the shareholders.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Mr. Argumentor
I really don't get the disconnect there. I've heard similar complaints from my uncle and cousins i have out near Grapevine. Why would roads be important but not power? Are roads part of the oil industry and thats the priority?
The power is owned privately. The state owns the roads (well, except for the toll roads).

So it's a "not my problem" problem for the state.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Mr. Argumentor
Was reading that some Scandi country requires the companies that build roads be liable for repairs for x years, to ensure that they aren't incentivised to do a shitty job.
 
There's several bridges in Maine like that one that collapsed. In fact, there are people fighting the state government about one steel truss bridge, literally in court, to "save the bridge" because of its looks and "historic" value. Neither of which most people see. It's functionally obsolete and completely rusted through. The state limited weights to 10 tons, but then threatened if people keep driving overweight on it, they'd turn the bridge to 1-way traffic. which would seriously suck ass during high traffic times.
 
There's several bridges in Maine like that one that collapsed. In fact, there are people fighting the state government about one steel truss bridge, literally in court, to "save the bridge" because of its looks and "historic" value. Neither of which most people see. It's functionally obsolete and completely rusted through. The state limited weights to 10 tons, but then threatened if people keep driving overweight on it, they'd turn the bridge to 1-way traffic. which would seriously suck ass during high traffic times.

Maybe the people fighting in court to keep it should be forced to live under it if they win.
 
I think that could be read as "the people fighting to save it want to actually force the state to save it"
But maybe not?
Surely but, It sounds dangerous. An old rusty bridge is nothing to be nostalgic about.
It doesn't need to be saved, it needs to replaced. The people trying to save it need to understand that.
I probably misunderstood what they were trying to accomplish.
 
So, I'm saying, if these folks stop it from being replaced, they should be on or under it when it collapses so they finally understand what they did wrong.