It is too soon to know what caused the Washington Metrorail crash that killed at least six seven nine people. The horrific photos show one train car telescoping into another, which is the last thing you want to have happen in a rail accident. Considering the accident took place just after 5 pm, it was lucky there were not more fatalities.
Time has not been kind to the Metrorail system. The Antiplanner remembers when the first lines opened and the trains exploded into the various underground stations and smoothly came to a stop. Today, the trains lurch and shudder, are delayed or cancelled by broken rails and “baffling” smoke in the tunnels, and passengers have to put up with numerous elevator and escalator outages.
The basic problem is that Metro doesn’t have enough money to maintain the system. Despite this, it is building a new line to Tysons Corners on the way to Dulles Airport (which one transportation planner recently admitted to me was really just an economic development project). On top of that, the Sierra Club is promoting a “purple” light-rail line in the suburbs.
This subject opacc.cv discount levitra is directly associated to the time management of the applicants. In this position, the baby will have a more comfortable pregnancy. cialis india online WHAT DOES STRESS LEADS cheap viagra in uk TO? Stress in a person s love life and might ruin your relations. Blended with a viagra for sale mixture of natural ingredients and herbs.
Meanwhile, transit agencies are crying foul because the billions of transit dollars that Congress included in the stimulus bill can only be spent on capital improvements, not operations and maintenance. Not surprisingly, the examples used in the Salon article are all cities with rail lines — suggesting that transit agencies that get the rail bug are particularly likely to suffer from shortsighted financial planning.
Maybe yesterday’s fatal accident wasn’t caused by poor maintenance. But it would probably have been prevented by positive train control, a system that forces trains to stop when necessary even if the operator fails to do so. That’s one more thing that Metro should have installed before it began planning and building other expensive rail lines.
Update: The latest reports indicate that the train that caused the collision was part of an aging fleet that the National Transportation Safety Board had recommended be phased out or updated three years ago. Metro was able to plan a $6 billion line to Dulles Airport, but was “not able to do what we asked them to do,” said an NTSB representative.
In one sense, luck did intervene here – the wreck took place in the off-peak (inbound to D.C.) direction.
Regarding fail-safe operation, in theory this should not have happened, as there are two systems in place to prevent trains from colliding with each other (and a third “system,” the train operator, should have applied the brakes). See the Washington Post article here. Obviously the fail-safe systems (including the (relatively inexperienced) operator of the train which rear-end crashed into the stopped train and was killed) failed.
Latest reports from WTOP Radio (here) say there have been nine lives lost. That’s nine too many.
But apart from safety, there are questions of transportation policy here. Many in the anti-auto/anti-highway/anti-mobility industry love the Washington Metrorail because it was supposed to replace an extensive system of urban freeways in the District of Columbia. The line on which this crash happened, the Red Line, was supposed to replace a radial freeway (which was removed from the planning maps of D.C. and Maryland and never constructed), though today Metro officials are admonishing commuters to find “alternative routes” to work.
One of the trains involved in this crash consisted of the so-called 1000-series railcars, built by Rohr Industries and in-service since the first segment of the system opened in 1976.
Back in 2006, the NTSB (in a press release) called for these railcars to be retired or have their crashworthiness improved.
So how many people would have been killed in auto accidents on the radial freeways that they thankfully killed decades ago?
The anti-rail ideologues on this blog will use ANY argument…
Many of these same “arguments” can be said about much of America’s neglected and crumbling infrastructure.
Any thin reed to grasp on to, I suppose.
DS
If those theoretical freeways had death rates of around 1.0-1.5 per 100 million miles, that would be an average of around 15 to 25 deaths per year based on current Metro ridership, adjusted for auto occupancy. This of course, does not include hundreds of other accidents and injuries per year. Thin reeds of argument, indeed…
MSetty,
On average, fatality rates on subways and urban freeways are about the same: 4 per billion passenger miles. But that’s not the point here: the point is that cities are building rail lines that they can’t afford to maintain, and that is leading to tragedies like this one.
Dan,
As far as America’s “neglected and crumbling infrastructure,” there have been no deaths due to the failure of inadequately maintained bridges for more than two decades, and the number of “structurally deficient” bridges has been steadily declining since at least 1992. It turns out the whole “crumbling infrastructure” story, as it applies to highways and bridges but not rail transit, was just a hoax.
There is a strong tendancy of government to over spend on initial construction, but then under spend on maintenance. Just look at most schools, highways, courthouses, museums, memorials, etc.
The proposed Metro line to Dulles Airport is a great example of the Antiplanners’ theory that rail is for the rich. Who would take the Metro to a major international airport? Not the poorer people of the area. There already is bus service from downtown, from National Airport, and from the nearest Metro station to Dulles.
As far as America’s “neglected and crumbling infrastructure,†there have been no deaths due to the failure of inadequately maintained bridges for more than two decades,
Thank you Randal – we can simply ignore all those reports from ASCE about the decrepit state of our infrastructure. Whew! That’s a relief that your statement can put those reports to bed!
Carefully worded dissembling aside, what about all the other deaths on the roads? Zero of these 40+k a year in the US are due to poor surfaces or wear and tear on vehicles from same? Zero?
Dan
The proposed Metro line to Dulles Airport is a great example of the Antiplanners’ theory that rail is for the rich. Who would take the Metro to a major international airport? Not the poorer people of the area.
I spoke in Baltimore last year, stayed a few extra days, and we didn’t rent a car. We went down to DC and back and to and from the airport. I guess I’m rich! Who knew?
DS
I think we all predicted you would use this tragedy – a day after no less – to promote your cause. This is pretty telling of your character.
Dan:Thank you Randal – we can simply ignore all those reports from ASCE about the decrepit state of our infrastructure. Whew! That’s a relief that your statement can put those reports to bed!
ws:Not only is Randall an “economist”, he’s also a civil engineer. A true Renaissance Man!
Dan posted:
> I spoke in Baltimore last year, stayed a few extra days,
> and we didn’t rent a car. We went down to DC and back and
> to and from the airport. I guess I’m rich! Who knew?
I don’t know if you are rich or not.
I do know that you were one of the few (in percentage terms) to ride mass transit between Baltimore and Washington, and you were one of the few to take transit to BWI Marshall Airport.
msetty posted:
> If those theoretical freeways had death rates of around 1.0-1.5
> per 100 million miles, that would be an average of around 15
> to 25 deaths per year based on current Metro ridership,
> adjusted for auto occupancy. This of course, does not
> include hundreds of other accidents and injuries per year.
> Thin reeds of argument, indeed…
How about crimes committed on Metrorail and in its garages (and thuggish behavior by D.C. Public School students and others, especially on the Red Line (examples here, here and here))?
I do know that you were one of the few (in percentage terms) to ride mass transit between Baltimore and Washington, and you were one of the few to take transit to BWI Marshall Airport.
It’s anecdotal, but we often saw wheeled carry-ons on both the subway and surface rail. Our Metro stop apparently was quite popular with the few. I’m no expert on this matter, merely relaying what we saw. We went there knowing we didn’t need a car due to THE OPTIONS available for mobility.
Nonetheless, I want to hear the ululating and garment-shredding from this crew when the bill comes due to fix the backlog of transportation maintenance in this country. Talk about wailing over tax hikes to pay for that, the Imperial Adventure Folly, the electrical grid, wastewater, other things we’ve put off to p*ss our money away…whew.
DS
C. P. Zilliacus:I do know that you were one of the few (in percentage terms) to ride mass transit between Baltimore and Washington, and you were one of the few to take transit to BWI Marshall Airport.
ws:“I’ve taken LR from BWI to Baltimore city center and it was so packed people at the stops couldn’t get in. Granted, there was a Yankee game @ Baltimore. I also took the commuter train from Baltimore to DC. While inside DC, the Metro was wonderful – took it all the way to Alexandria.”
I got around the entire region w/o a car.
How about crimes committed on Metrorail and in its garages [predictable yada]
What about vehicular homicides, drive-by shootings, road rage, that -sshole who tried to door the cyclist, the clowns who can’t drive on our street and keep hitting trees, bank robber getaway cars, statutory rape in the back seat of cars, etc? Please.
DS
I got around the entire region w/o a car.
I also spoke in Atlanta last year. We didn’t rent a car there either, but it was much less fun as THE OPTIONS for transport were fewer and less supportive. No friggin’ pedestrian safety features off the LR to cross the street to the museum, fer chrissake. I spoke in Dallas recently and fortunately I was with a buddy there with a rented car, else we’d have gotten nowhere. Had to take a cab from Love field and back.
Auto-dependent cities are far less desirable than compact cities. Golly, I wonder if there’s any correlation iwth Ricardian rents…I wonder…I wonnnnderrrrr…
DS
C. P. Zilliacus:“How about crimes committed on Metrorail and in its garages (and thuggish behavior by D.C. Public School students and others, especially on the Red Line (examples here, here and here))?”
ws:How about the multitude of crimes from car thefts, car break-ins, drive-bys, hit and runs, vehicular homicides, drug deals, road rage, littering, etc., etc., etc. committed by automobile users? Yep, teenagers never act illegally in their cars, but they hop onto a train and they become “thugs”.
Your anti-rail attitude is completely ignoring the same infractions by automobiles. I could post specific examples of automobile like you did, but that is not a critical analysis of the issue at hand. Spare us the local news hysteria headlines.
I guess the consensus of the commentors is that metro areas should build transit so tourists don’t need to rent cars. Do you realize that the government could pay for 50 million rental car days (at $30 day) instead of funding the FIRST phase of the expansion?
But I agree that rail would be safer.
Borealis:
No, the consensus is that the area offers good options to automobile-only cities. The point was that one can come to the region and not have to rent a car as compared to other metropolitan areas where automobile renting is a must to get anywhere.
I value this as I am not old enough to rent a car.
“50 million rental car days (at $30 day)”
That’s a silly stat as there are 270+ million unlinked trips annually on WMATA’s subway system alone. And not accounting its bus system, either (nor the cost of gas for the rental car).
This is like Wendell Cox’s assertion about buying a luxury car for x amount of people is cheaper than transit. It’s good of him to discount the fact that this includes all costs of transit, and only the cost of the automobile alone discounting gas, maintenance, cost of the roads themselves @ 10-30 million per mile, replacement cost of car after 150,000 miles, etc.
These types of “statistics” are really annoying and are meant to mislead people on purpose.
Dan: Auto-dependent cities are far less desirable than compact cities.
JK: Desirable to who?
Perhaps only to people that like to spend too much money for everything and waste their time on transit or on foot.
In other words only to rich planning zealots
Thanks
JK
I guess the consensus of the commentors is that metro areas should build transit so tourists don’t need to rent cars.
I deliberately capitalized THE OPTIONS multiple times and focused on no groups above, in order to obviate drivel like this and low-wattatge IQ cheering for auto dependency. See, THE OPTIONS benefit everybody regardless of socioeconomic status. Ah, well.
DS
WS: You don’t get the connotation of Wendall Cox’s comment. The point is not that the government should buy luxury cars for all transit users. The point is that if that straw-man proposal is even debatable, if it is even within an order of magnitude of what the policy advocates, then the proposed policy has very serious problems. There are some good arguments for public transit, but bad arguments are that they save money, save time, help the poor, reduce traffic congestion, make people more social or happier, or reduce a negative development sprawl.
Likewise, give the Antiplanner some credit for questioning the global warming claims of high speed rail. I don’t necessarily buy all his numbers, but if cars and rail are even close in terms of green house gasses, then it is ridiculous to fund high speed rail. The environmentalists say we have to cut green house gas emissions by 80% — so by that point of view, close is not even a consideration. Why do people who profess to believe in science not want to hear any contrary arguments to their point of view?
I do get the arguments of WC. He and ROT make hyperbolic arguments to get attention, while using marginal statistics and misleading information to make a claim.
I won’t give ROT any credit for energy use / GHG output of high speed rail or urban rail systems. ROT goes to great lengths to call out these systems but completely disregards the energy use of automobiles or sprawl. ROT is clearly anti-rail and anti-transit – the writing is on the wall.
Now, if he talked at length about the entire land-use transportation system and pointed to the pros and cons of each, and was neutral in doing so, maybe he’d have something. But reading his wonderful “Debunking Portland” article which goes at length to point out the private affairs of a public official, it makes one wonder of the true intentions of Mr. ROT.
Fact of the matter is, so many “facts” stated by ROT and Cox have come into question time and time again.
To stay on topic and point out what I mean, “passenger miles” is not an effective measure of safety for a transportation system. Vehicle miles is. And even so, there are so many miles traveled via cars that it definitely skews the data. Assuming fewer miles were traveled via cars annually, I would argue that fatalities per 100 million miles traveled would definitely increase. While ROT discusses fatalities per whatever measure of unit, rarely are injuries or crashes from automobiles discussed at length. This is pure avoidance of the issue at hand.
Rates aside, is there really any concern about 11 people dieing from light rail in the US when 40 K people die a year from automobiles? Hardly any reason to be concerned, and even so, if there is a death/accident with a light rail system it is usually not the fault of the light rail system. If there is a death with an automobile on automobile, then the automobile is definitely at fault. No way around it.
If there is an accident involving an injury with the LR system in Portland, usually it’s from a car running a red light – yet statistically that is reported as an accident involving light rail. Same can be said of bikes or pedestrians being catalysts for accidents with cars (and vis-versa).
Though, the high fatality/accident numbers of automobiles has to do with the fault of automobile users, and not some outside force.
“Rates aside, is there really any concern about 11 people dieing from light rail in the US when 40 K people die a year from automobiles? Hardly any reason to be concerned, and even so, if there is a death/accident with a light rail system it is usually not the fault of the light rail system. If there is a death with an automobile on automobile, then the automobile is definitely at fault. No way around it.”
I call bullshit. A previous light rail disaster in L.A. was caused by the driver texting. That’s right, TEXTING. The highest causes of automobile accidents is not from mechanical failure, but distracted driving and over correction.
In short, cars don’t kill people. Stupid, distracted people kill people.
“I think we all predicted you would use this tragedy – a day after no less – to promote your cause. This is pretty telling of your character.”
More ad hominem attacks from WS. Big surprise.
“ROT is clearly anti-rail and anti-transit”
No, you dumbass, he and others are anti-government-rail and anti-government-transit. Get it straight.
I thought you’d been trolling this site for awhile now. Haven’t you picked this up?
Can we all agree that a website called “Antiplanner.com” is biased against government planners?
If you disagree with the website, please feel free to start your own, maybe called “Proplanner.com”. But don’t criticize ROT for not being truthful in advertising.
Last year I saw two cars collide at an intersection, the airbags went off and I saw smoke. I dialed 911 on my cell phone and stayed with the operator till a fire truck and ambulance showed up.
Frank said: “ROT is clearly anti-rail and anti-transitâ€Â
No, you dumbass, he and others are anti-government-rail and anti-government-transit. Get it straight.
THWM: “What government does for one, it should do for all;
What government does not do for all, it should do for none.” Wendell Cox
Of course what Cox says & what he does are two different things.
O’Toole & Cox are indeed anti-rail and anti-transit.
The government is involved with the street infront of your home, so why should government involvement with rail or transit be a bad thing either?
Yes the government is flawed, though so is the private sector and we have one of the best governments money can buy.
thwm: The government is involved with the street infront of your home, so why should government involvement with rail or transit be a bad thing either?
Mike: Argument from a false premise. The government should not be involved with the street in front of my home either.
All roads should be privatized, excepting possibly a rudimentary network of interstate highways (since they have military applications). And THOSE would be tolled.
I’m constantly surprised the pro-planners don’t dig on that idea, because the change in public perception from having to pay tolls on every road (rather than having them be free at the point of use but overpaid-for out of everyone’s pockets, leading to rationing of lane-miles and archetypical tragedy of the commons) might finally prompt people to make the internal cost-benefit assessment that leads more people to demand transit, instead of only 4% of people demanding it but everyone paying for it.
Mike: I’m constantly surprised the pro-planners don’t dig on that idea, because the change in public perception from having to pay tolls on every road (rather than having them be free at the point of use but overpaid-for out of everyone’s pockets, leading to rationing of lane-miles and archetypical tragedy of the commons) might finally prompt people to make the internal cost-benefit assessment that leads more people to demand transit, instead of only 4% of people demanding it but everyone paying for it.
THWM: Then you don’t have to privatize the road in front of your house, is has an important social value as a commons and you should know that from a legal perspective. Just charge people for every mile that they drive.
Mike: All roads should be privatized, excepting possibly a rudimentary network of interstate highways (since they have military applications). And THOSE would be tolled.
THWM: This a major contradiction from what you wrote, why the couldn’t the military just pay to use a private turnpike?
Though bother with having a military, haven’t you heard of mercenaries?
Mike: Argument from a false premise. The government should not be involved with the street in front of my home either.
THWM: So you think side walks should be privatized as well?
We don’t all want to live in a private police state.
Borealis:“But don’t criticize ROT for not being truthful in advertising.”
ws:Truthful to advertising? He argues for free market solutions but promulgates that anti-free markets that created auto-dependency. He’s a walking contradiction.
Frank:“No, you dumbass, he and others are anti-government-rail and anti-government-transit. Get it straight.
I thought you’d been trolling this site for awhile now. Haven’t you picked this up?”
ws: Oh right, there is outright criticism of public transit, but when was the last time you read an article talking about privatization of roadways? Sure, he might mention it, but the crux of O’Toole’s assault is making criticism to transit at any and all costs.
Private transit is fine with me, we had it years ago but was destroyed by public policy that placed the socialist highways above the private rail lines. I’m all for market induced transportation and land use patterns. ROT does not promote that and does not address the current state of affairs in America.
Frank:“More ad hominem attacks from WS. Big surprise.”
ws:This isn’t an ad hominem attack (this point of yours is coming after you called me “dumbass”, btw). He’s using a tragedy to promote policy. What utility would there be if one posted a bunch of pictures of horrific car accidents and talked at length about how dangerous and bad our roads are? Usually it’s best to wait some time in order to discuss these things.
Furthermore, what’s with scratching out the number of people dead like it’s a toll? I understand it’s continually changing, but “counting down” the death toll is really inflammatory, IMO. In the most extreme example, what if this was done for the 9/11 attacks, and then beneath it was a polarizing post about Middle East foreign policy?
I’m not the most PC person, but I find it tasteless. I would have waited until more information was released. ROT assumes that the accident was from maintenance and age of rail cars – which could be true – but that is not certain yet.
Jim Karlock wrote:
“JK: Desirable to who?
Perhaps only to people that like to spend too much money for everything and waste their time on transit or on foot.
In other words only to rich planning zealots”
Whatever you do, don’t offer Jim an all-expenses paid holiday in Venice. He’d denounce you for tempting him into sin.
Antiplanner wrote:
“On average, fatality rates on subways and urban freeways are about the same: 4 per billion passenger miles. But that’s not the point here: the point is that cities are building rail lines that they can’t afford to maintain, and that is leading to tragedies like this one.”
That seems to be a typical problem in government finance. There’s lots of money for capital expenditure, but little for maintenance. They do that kind of thing in aid packages to Africa – send a tractor, but no spare parts or diesel. What a waste.
thwm, when you make assumptions and put words into the other guy’s mouth, the result is not a compelling argument.
Whether there ought to be a sidewalk depends, as always, on whose property it would be. If it is part of the street, then the private entity maintaining the road has the option to develop a sidewalk or not to do so. If, as is common, the sidewalk exists on a forced civil easement to my private property, the easement represents a violation of property rights (the quiet enjoyment of my property), and the sidewalk needs to not be there unless the property owner (me) chooses to build and maintain one.
Virtually every postulate pro-planners offer can be dismissed once the facts are distilled to the essential question of individual rights. Private property rights are part and parcel to individual rights. That is why it is easy to see what is wrong with your military/mercenaries argument. A military protects individual rights, and is therefore a legitimate purpose of government. It is not necessary to use mercenaries. To be effective, a military force must have plenary control of its own assets and independent capability for efficient deployment and activity. Hence, interstate highways. A police force also protects individual rights, and is a legitimate purpose of government. Hence, there would be no need for a “private police state” as you hyperbolize.
Also, when someone uses the phrase “tragedy of the commons,” that’s a good cue that they are not pushing a pro-public-property argument. My premise was that a realization of the cost of road use through payment at the point-of-use, coupled with the elimination of tax subsidies to roads (because they’d all be private) would give people a reason and the means to demand transit — PRIVATE transit, that could be profitable if enough demand converted to ridership.
Mike:“Whether there ought to be a sidewalk depends, as always, on whose property it would be. If it is part of the street, then the private entity maintaining the road has the option to develop a sidewalk or not to do so. If, as is common, the sidewalk exists on a forced civil easement to my private property, the easement represents a violation of property rights (the quiet enjoyment of my property), and the sidewalk needs to not be there unless the property owner (me) chooses to build and maintain one.”
ws:Hypothetical: What if a group of 10 private homeowners abutting a future road (private road) on a 10% slope want a say in how the road is designed. Three of them want a 4.5′ wide asphalt bike lane (tree lined, of course), three of them want a bare minimum 4′ wide concrete sidewalk because they only walk, three of them want at least a 10′ wide road for automobile access to their homes (one of them wants it paved, the other two do not but due to their rational self-interest, majority rules in this case).
The last private homeowner is handicapped, has no car, but is mobile on her wheelchair. The future street/road/sidewalk needs to be regraded (at a reasonable cost) in order for her to be mobile – at a grade of 7% ADA standard – and it needs to be paved for her mobility. Her family is deceased and was willed the private home. She can do fine as long as she can take her wheelchair out of her home to a bus stop nearby. Her income is limited and could not afford to pay for any extravagant regrading of the road in front of the homes.
Firefighters could have access to homes regardless of design standard and all private homeowners will split the tab of construction and are very particular for their design standard choice not only due to cost, but also aesthetics. The future road is the only access to the homes.
What would the design standard look like and who gets the final say? Remember, these are private homes on all private property in a straight line and fairly close to each other. Furthermore, could a homeowner put a toll in front of their section of private road, or have a different design standard than the rest of the street (possibly a 10′ wide road that ends abruptly to a 4.5′ wide asphalt bike path which turns into a 4′ concrete sidewalk)?
Or maybe it would just be easier if a planning agency approved of a design standard? These street design standards would come from “smart growth” guidelines, because they are Communist, top-down planners/engineers.
Please entertain me, this is not a mocking question, I am simply curious on your opinions regarding this hypothetical.
ws, I’m not sure that rigging up such an unrealistic hypothetical is a productive way to look at this, but I’ll indulge:
It appears this neighborhood must be really exurban or even rural, because it was built without a street, which pretty much never happens. In a world of private roads, in order to avoid the very chaos you’re hypothesizing and present an aesthetically and functionally desirable neighborhood, the developer (generally a private entity) who lays out the subdivision plat will set up the roads and property lines well in advance. Anyone wanting to buy a house to be built in that neighborhood will know in advance what the road situation is, and even what the cost would be. (tolls for a private road management company? an HOA assessment? Who knows. Point being, government planners are not necessary in the equation.)
So suppose your hypo held true and there were some houses out there with no roads connecting them to anything. I would imagine that if the road situation was so disjointed and intolerable to them that they couldn’t stand it, that they would leave. Property values go down. Perhaps knowing this might happen and wanting to avoid the devaluation of their properties, the block’s residents might come to an agreement, perhaps by way of a useful private instrument: the contract. Some people, like the one with the ADA needs, might just be out of luck and need to either foot the cost for adaptability or move. There is no just basis for charging the neighbors a share of regrading the slope when it was known to everyone well in advance that the terrain stood as it did.
Tolls? Sure, but my guess would be more along the lines of a private road, gate code and all. Why build a neighborhood street that is a pass-through if you don’t have to? Conversely, depending on this block’s proximity to desirable city locations (unlikely considering it was built without a street) a pass-through toll gate might be profitable and the neighbors could agree in contract that it’s worth forfeiting the serenity of a closed street. Their property; their call. There are plenty of civil and common law concepts that address likely issues regarding this scenario without the need for government planners, such as the quiet enjoyment principle, and tort law generally.
Or we could bring in your Commies who would do their thing and infringe peoples’ private property rights. Doesn’t matter how “easy” it is or how desirable their promises sound. Violating individual rights is the opposite of the legitimate purpose of government.
Wow, really? If you have disabilities you either have to be rich or you are SOL? Nice.
Mike:“It appears this neighborhood must be really exurban or even rural, because it was built without a street”
ws:I never said it wasn’t a new neighborhood! The home the handicapped woman lives in could have been willed to her while the surplus acreage of the home was sold off to individual private developments. Any ways, the point I was trying to make is that the streets are public in nature and there are many user needs from bikes, pedestrians, automobiles, transit etc.
If you have private property and want a private road, that’s fine! But turning a downtown street into a private entity is silly.
Also what ever company owning the road in front of your home would pretty much have a monopoly and could charge you as much as they want.
“This isn’t an ad hominem attack”
Perhaps you’re right; the AP used a tragedy to advance his agenda; however, no one ever uses the tally “40,000+” to further an agenda.
“(this point of yours is coming after you called me “dumbassâ€Â, btw)”
Just wanted to make sure you could recognize one. You and Dan and the highwayman. The three
dumbassesmusketeers.Frank said: Just wanted to make sure you could recognize one. You, Dan and the highwayman. The three dumbasses musketeers.
THWM: Thanks Frank, it’s interesting to note that “The Three Musketeers” was writen by Alaxandre Dumas, Sr.
Also their motto “all for one, one for all”.
Some what reminds me of Mr.Cox’s “what government does for one, it should do for all”.
Though Mr.O’Toole & Mr.Cox come off more as a Don Quixote, making dragons out of windmills.
This is just a reminder that no mode of travel is perfect.
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4231
Oklahoma Turnpike loses nine lives in pileup on Will Rogers Turnpike today
Posted on Fri, 2009-06-26 23:42
Nine people died in a multi-vehicle crash today on Will Rogers Turnpike (I-44) in far northeast Oklahoma after an 18-wheeler slammed into stopped traffic at high speed.
Traffic was stopped because of an earlier non-fatal crash. People on the scene are reported saying the truck barely slowed before hitting an SUV at the tail of a backup, suggesting driver inattention was the cause.
Vehicles were hurled into one another and some ended up on an embankment.
AP quotes the police lieutenant on the scene as calling it a “war zone” of “mangled metal, debris, fluids, dead bodies.”
TOLLROADSnews 2009-06-26
You and Dan and the highwayman. The three dumbasses musketeers.
Lad, your output here is low-wattage at best. I’d be careful about how you characterize things, as your writing here shows you ain’t the brightest bulb in the pack, son. Let us hope you are 19 and flipping burgers, not 30-something. Stay out of the kitchen.
DS