The Clueless One blurted out:

We are not resolving the important issues that challenge our country.

Interesting that you say 'We' there.  Who is this We that you speak of Kemosabe?

Why is it that you wander into this discussion and say 'We' and yet every article you start goes right back blamin' and bashin' Bush.

Yes, I know you idiotically and moronically tried to claim not to be Bush bashin' in a recent article, but you are guilty as charged and really don't deserve to continue to have the valuable space and computing resources you use up on this site (but yet the very gracious hosts allow you to stay, I guess because it's cheaper than being taxed, or perhaps they look at your clueless self as a tax, I don't know...)

Doesn't matter really, as you are the last individual that has any right to complain about priorities as you've complained far too much about all of the priorities over the last many years.

You complained about attempts to address many issues because you were not happy with the solutions that were offered by George W. Bush, and as far as I'm concerned you forfeited your right to complain long ago.  Perhaps if you had offered even an ounce of support for anything that the current President had done, we'd give you the benefit of the doubt and actually consider what you write, but it is far too late for that, so again, as MasonM already told you, get back under your rock and let the adults talk here.

So, whether the fees live or die remains to be seen as the case works through the courts, perhaps all the way up to the SCOTUS where the issue of equal protection could really be decided.

Let's hope not!  It is a STATE issue after all

Addressed somewhat above, but just to reiterate - I expect your state's 1.2b dollar surplus went the same place the money in this state went once Ehrlich was out of office. Ehrlich left giving a warning that the state was facing a serious shortage of revenue, recommending again that slots gambling be allowed in the state.

Err, no.  This is not maryland minor.  It is still there, they just want to use it for a rainy day fund.  The state is sound.  The governor is defective.  But this is a CONSERVATIVE state (in some respects).  We do have a slush fund, and that surplus is now a part of it.  But instead of living within the means of the old budget, this Clinton wanna bee (scandal and all) wants to spend the surplus and then raise taxes before he acknowledges we had one!

For the record, you are always welcome here, and Mi casa et su Casa.  But leave your taxes back in taxachusettes south.

Terpfan1980 said:

The only problem with the idea that there are more and more vehicles on the roads is that those same vehicles add that much more to the abuse and use that the roads must take and give up. More vehicles means more weight, which runs more grooves into the pavement, etc.

MasonM said:

Yeah, that's a myth many people sadly buy in to. Do you realize that an average woman walking in high heels puts more force per square inch on a sidewalk than a fully loaded truck does on a road?

While the force per square inch on the shoe may be more, there is no denying that the roadways are getting grooved and riden to pieces.  I-495/I-95 (the D.C. Beltway) is horribly grooved between the new Wilson bridge spans and the I-95 exits toward Baltimore.  Thanks to changes in materials and construction processes that have resulted in the road surfaces not lasting as long as when they were first built with concrete decades ago the road surfaces are showing much more wear and tear than ever before.  More pot holes, more grooves, more cracks in the surfaces, and more obvious detioration of the roadways than ever before.  It certainly isn't happening just because of old age.  The fact that the roadways are taking about 4 - 8 times the traffic on them that they were designed for is a big factor.

I don't claim it's the trucks on the roadways.  At least not the hauling trucks.  It's the SUVs and heavier vehicles that ordinary U.S. citizens are driving around in.  Big fuel guzzlin' SUVs.  Ford Explorers.  Ford F-150.  Toyota Tundras.  Big Dodge Ram trucks.  Those sorts of vehicles.  Compared to a tiny little econo-box car, which one obviously wears more on the roads?

While the tables have been turning (thanks to higher fuel prices) more towards smaller cars again, there are still lots of big vehicles on the roadways and they are taking a heavy toll on them.

Dr. Guy answered about the abuser fees issues going through the court system (perhaps all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court):

Let's hope not! It is a STATE issue after all

One would think so, but then again the whole Equal Protection under the law thing comes from where???  U.S. Constitution and/or prior legal precedents, no?

Dr. Guy also said:

For the record, you are always welcome here, and Mi casa et su Casa. But leave your taxes back in taxachusettes south.

Thanks for the invite, I do appreciate it.

And really, I'd rather not have any taxes, or as few as are absolutely necessary, but I have to ask, and have taken the devils argument that perhaps raising the gas taxes isn't that bad an idea.  I'll frame it another way momentarily and in a new article and invite you and MasonM and everyone else to discuss more there.  Please come on over to Mi casa (or should I say My World) and check out that article in a little while, mmmm-kay?

Promised article now up   Enjoy.

I'd say shoddy construction and exposure to the elements have far more to do with roadway decay than an increase in traffic. Traffic does help it along but isn't the main problem. Even roads with little traffic on them tend to decay faster these days.

What the hell is wrong with Ford Explorers?