Bridge collapse in MSP

But was any of that $150 billion going to fix this bridge? Did any Minnesota congressional representative, past or present, request federal funds to fix this bridge and get turned down? This bridge was falling apart for many years. No one, state or federal, has made much of an effort to fix it, at least from what I've read and seen. And from the Strib story I quoted above, it was MnDOT who wanted to do this on the cheap.

Go ahead and make the argument that we needed that extra $150 billion for our infrastructure. Fine, I can agree with that. I'm tired of shitty highways and driving on two-lane highways that should be four lanes. But does it make a difference in this one specific case?

 

Read this story. Some in MNDOT wanted it fixed. The money wasn't there. It could have been, but...maybe some bills didn't get through the state legislature...no new taxes, you know.

 

JB, don't bother. Just one more thing to beat up people who want their tax money spent with accountability, instead of hearing "More!" every time someone asks how much we should spend.

 

That is surprising, and contrary to my original information. Thanks for pointing it out, but I think my point still is valid: You can cite a lot of things and say, "If we would have only spent it on this bridge, maybe this wouldn't have happened."

But everything that goes wrong these days has to be "blamed" on someone.

 

Unless, of course, you work for the current administration, and then it's all Bill Clinton's fault,

 

And while we're at it, can we at least agree some states are better about keeping up their infratstructure than others? Just drive across the Midwest and I think you'll see what I mean.

 

No question.
The problem is that it's a national problem that desperately needs a national solution, and I don't think the money or the will are there.
Lyman, it's been years since I drove around the MW. Which are the states that do it well?

 

L_B,

Your point is not valid. I didn't cite anything. You did.

Look into exactly what T-Paw vetoed. I don't put the collapse on him. I'm not saying that. Look into it and tell me why he use his veto power.

 

From what I've seen:

• Iowa does a good job.
• Illinois does a good job in some spots, lousy in others.
• It's taken Missouri 20 years to allocate money to turn a 10-mile stretch after the Iowa border on the highway to St. Louis into a four-lane highway, even though it was one of the most dangerous stretches of road in the nation.
• Minnesota's roads are so-so, but they know how to clean them when it snows.
• Wisconsin's roads are OK on the four-lanes, never really ventured on the two-lanes.
• Indiana does quite well.
• Michigan's four-lanes need to be up to six lanes in more places than they are.
• Nebraska's road are quite good.

 

I think JB hits it on the head, for the most part. I think Illinois' roads aren't quite as good as he portrays, and Missouri's (aside from the example he cites) are well above average.

I'd add that roads in the Dakotas are very good. Kentucky, not so hot.

 

I'll venture just this: Pawlenty will come out of this stinking like shit.

It's one thing to campaign on tax cuts; it's another to bend over for the Taxpayers League like he has for a long time now.

People don't like paying taxes, and hammering on taxes is a good way to get elected.

You still have to build roads and keep the trains running.

 

Smooth roads are one thing. Bridges held together with bubble gum and baling wire are another.