Tar Sands and Traffic Jams

"Should critics, through court and administrative battles, be allowed to close Lolo Pass to the energy industry?"

Anyone should be able to close Lolo Pass through court and administrative battles, IF THERE ARE LEGAL, LEGITIMATE CONCERNS or REASONS. What are their concerns? Are they legal and legitimate?

Are the critics out of area, a vocal minority with an axe to grind? Are they local residents with informed concerns, or local residents with a NIMBY axe to grind?

I used to live at the bottom of the hill on the Montana side of Lolo Pass. I have driven the highway to Kooskia many times, and I will tell you it is a narrow, windy road that will test the ability of a seasoned driver in clear weather, and reduce him to trembling and tears in the winter months. I have had truck drivers leave their loads in Boise Idaho, refusing to cross Lolo Pass in a semi. Should a truck run off the road on either drainage, an important watershed will be affected. That may be a legitimate concern to some.

Wow, that would be a great kayaking obstacle in the Clearwater River!

(How many wheels on that thing? There's another thread about that.)

Of course we might have seen a similar argument made about deep water drilling just a few years ago, and look how that went. Sometimes the DOTs get complacent and don't want to cause too many waves with large corporations, thus not looking cloely enough to adequately regulate or even trusting that the corporations subcontractors will make the right decisions rather then the easiest most cost-effective ones. Once in a while the DOTs need some public push back to remind them who they actually work for and what their job is. I would assume there is an emergency plan and contingency plans should something go wrong, and training programs to allow for immediate proper implimentation of the contingency and emergency plans.

Whack it in half or more pieces and reweld it on site.

STOP. THink. There HAS to be a HARDER way to do this.

That seems, at first, to be a great idea. However, due to the construction of the vessel and its components, it is highly unlikely it would be economical to disassemble and reassemble them. If these companies buy more vessels like these, then, they have spares. This bites into profit and the end result is defrayed to the customer. Who, then, complains about the cost of gasoline and wonder why it goes up.

If a study was conducted and it was scrutinized by the U.S. DOT, the matter should be settled. To make a compromise a survey should be conducted after, as well as, before the transports occur. If damage is found, the transporter should be liable for repair. The contingency should be written in the transportation permit.

Case closed.

Pavements typically don't have abrupt critical failures if constructed correctly, they fail progressively. Pavement damage doesn't usually become apparent until after a wet season or two has had a chance to cause further damage and make it apparent at the surface. Immediate damage is not usually the main problem, it is added wear and tear that substantially shortens the operational life of the pavement. AC pavement is a flexible structure, but too much flexure and loading can cause small fractures and movements in the subgrade, that lead to rapid degradation of the pavement under weather. It is like this show i was watching the other night about the battle of the bulge. The german Tiger Tanks could not be penetrated by the Sherman 76 mm cannon, but hit it rapidly with 15 shells from 15 sherman and eventually one penetrates, after all the others have done what might seem like minor damage, but compound together it weakened the armor enough.