Originally Posted by
PlanoFuji
I guess you can believe both sides of a debate. First you admit that maintenance was in fact required to keep them functional. Now you return to claims that it isn't required.
the word I used was "may," that is different from "required;" I allude to a chance that maybe it happened and maybe it didn't. I don't really know... neither do you.
Originally Posted by
PlanoFuji
The problem wasn't the original engineering of this infrastructure. The problem was that funding levels were set when the designs were supposed to accommodate a single mode; motor vehicles. Then that funding was used to support other modes, most notably transit (which is EXTREMELY expensive) and nothing was done to proportionately increase funding. So money that should have gone to maintenance was diverted to fund other modes. And that was the pattern for over 40 years. The result is that we have a 40+ year old infrastructure that had not received the maintenance it was designed to receive... And you place blame on the folks who created the designs instead of those who are responsible for the decisions. Interesting 'logic'.
Actually I do place the blame on those responsible for the decisions... I specifically mention "beancounters" vice engineers... go back and read again. Engineers by nature tend to want to build robust things... those things tend to carry on their legacy. Those controlling purse strings tend to have different motivations.
I think we are in violent agreement here and are just looking at it from different angles.