text:
Home » The Spearin Doctrine: 100-Plus Years Old and Still Going Strong
Legal Pipeline
The Spearin Doctrine: 100-Plus Years Old and Still Going Strong
All parties to construction contracts must be aware of its limits and contours to understand properly their exposure to liability.
Steven Nudelman
"Errors and omissions" is a phrase that keeps design professionals awake at night. Plans and specifications may contain mistakes or inaccuracies that are identified by a contractor after construction on a project begins. If those inaccuracies cause delays, the question arises: Who is responsible for the associated costs? While the design professional may ultimately face liability from the owner, the initial tussle over responsibility is typically between the contractor and the owner.
In response to this "tussle," courts across the country have developed a doctrine known in some jurisdictions as the "implied warranty of design adequacy." This implied warranty is commonly known as the Spearin Doctrine, named after an infamous construction case dating back to 1918.
Under the Spearin Doctrine, "if a contractor is bound to build according to plans and specifications prepared by the owner, the contractor will not be responsible for the consequences of defects in the plans and specifications." United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132, 136 (1918). However, this general rule is subject to exceptions that contractors must familiarize themselves with to avoid unnecessary exposure to liability.
The Spearin Doctrine originated in the U.S. Supreme Court at the turn of the 20th century. In 1905, George Spearin contracted with the federal government to build a dry dock at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for $757,800 (more than $19 million in present value). The government provided the plans and specifications. To complete the project, Spearin had to divert a nearby sewer.
Approximately one year after that diversion, heavy rainfall coinciding with a high tide broke the sewer and flooded the dock. Upon inspection, Spearin learned there was a dam within the sewer. The diversion of the sewer increased pressure on the dam substantially, causing it to break. All parties were unaware of the dam, which was not mentioned in the specifications provided by the United States.
Spearin refused to continue work unless the government paid for repairs. The government refused to compensate him further and elected to use other contractors to complete the project. Spearin sued the federal government, arguing that the faulty design specifications it created caused damage and delay to the project.
The government argued that because Spearin's contract obligated him to inspect independently the actual conditions of the site, the government was not liable for providing incomplete specifications. In what has become a landmark legal decision in the construction industry, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this argument.
The court held that "[t]he obligation to examine the site did not impose upon [Spearin] the duty of making a diligent inquiry into the history of the locality with a view to determining, at his peril, whether the sewer ... would prove adequate." Spearin, 248 U.S. at 137. In other words, a general requirement in a contract that a contractor inspect the site does not obligate the contractor to unearth unknown conditions that should be in the design specifications.
Since Spearin, nearly all 50 states adopted some form of the doctrine. See 3 Brunner & O'Connor, Construction Law § 9:81. The precise contours and limitations of the doctrine vary from state to state. While most states simply refer to the Spearin Doctrine, some jurisdictions use the phrase "implied warranty of design adequacy." See, e.g., MidAmerica, Inc. v. Bierlein Cos., No. 4:19-cv-04096, 2020 WL 5995981 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 9, 2020); Costello Constr. Co. v. Charlottesville, 97 F. Supp. 3d 819 (W.D. Va. 2015).
Despite the doctrine's wide acceptance, there are a number of landmines contractors must avoid to take advantage of it. For example:
• The Spearin doctrine will not apply if a plaintiff failed to adhere to other parts of the contract. See Al Johnson Constr. Co. v. United States, 854 F.2d 467, 469-70 (Fed. Cir. 1988); S. Comfort Builders, Inc. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 124, 134 (Fed. Cl. 2005); Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of Am., No. 2:13-cv-00380, 2018 WL 4550397, at *13 (D. Nev. Sept. 21, 2018).
• The Spearin doctrine does not apply if the supplier of the plans and specifications exculpates itself from responsibility for inaccurate descriptions from the site, as opposed to merely placing a general burden upon the contractor to check the site. See Sasso Contracting Co. v. State, 173 N.J. Super. 486, 489-91 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 85 N.J. 101 (1980).
• A contractor otherwise entitled to relief under the Spearin doctrine will not get it if the site specifications contained an obvious discrepancy. See Metric Constr. Co. v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 178, 186 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
• The Spearin doctrine will not apply when site specifications are incomplete, leading to numerous Requests for Information. See Dugan & Meyers Constr. Co. v. Ohio Dep't Adm. Servs., 864 N.E.2d 68, 73 (Ohio 2007). At least in Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court limited Spearin to a very specific type of claim and it cannot be used as a free-wielding sword to recover for delays to a project.
Notably, the above restrictions to Spearin are only applicable to the referenced jurisdictions. Courts around the country differ in their interpretations of Spearin and its limitations.
Application of Spearin
While owners such as the federal government lost the battle in the Supreme Court in 1918, the war against contractors is ongoing. After Spearin, an owner cannot assign the contractor an independent duty to inspect the project site and expect a court to absolve the owner from liability for inadequate design. This scenario is illustrated in a recent case out of the Western District of Arkansas, MidAmerica, Inc. v. Bierlein Cos.
This case concerns a construction dispute related to the decommissioning of a retired power plant. Defendant Bierlein was the general contractor; plaintiff MidAmerica was its subcontractor charged with removing fuel oil. MidAmerica prepared a bid for its subcontract work based on specifications provided by Bierlein. After performing an on-site inspection, MidAmerica submitted what was ultimately a winning bid and was awarded the subcontract.
Upon commencing work, however, MidAmerica discovered that the site contained No. 6 fuel oil instead of No. 2 fuel oil. Types of fuel oil range from 1 through 6. The higher the number, the more difficult and expensive it becomes to remove. In litigation, MidAmerica claimed that Bierlein misrepresented the grade of fuel oil in the site documents.
As a preliminary matter, the court held that the Spearin Doctrine is not limited to public construction contracts; it extends to private projects as well.
Bierlein relevantly argued that the requirement that MidAmerica inspect the site absolved Bierlein of responsibility from a discrepancy in the site documents. The court, however, soundly rejected this argument. It held that under Spearin, "a warranty made by positive affirmation as to site conditions cannot be undone by language requiring a site inspection to determine the scope of work." Id.
The Spearin Doctrine should loom large in the minds of both owners and contractors. While the Spearin case itself focused on the owner, other courts, such as the MidAmerica court, have extended the doctrine to cover other parties who supply plans and specifications, such as the general contractor. See, e.g., L.K. Comstock & Co. v. United Eng'g & Constructors, Inc., 880 F.2d 219, 226 (9th Cir. 1989).
The Spearin Doctrine can operate as both a sword and a shield. That is, a contractor may sue for relief if an owner fails to compensate the contractor properly for additional work not contemplated in the plans and specifications. Or, instead, the contractor may use it as a defense if an owner sues for damages to complete the contract if the contractor decides to stop performance due to differing site conditions.
In either situation, all parties to construction contracts must be aware of the limits and contours of the Spearin Doctrine, as it has been applied in their particular jurisdiction, to understand properly their exposure to liability.
Contractors & Installers Legal
The Spearin Doctrine and Design-Build
Taco: Getting Ready for the Next 100 Years
George T. Sanders' 100-year-old secret
DDI System "Key Strategies for Solving the eCommerce & ERP Disconnect" Webinar
Colorado Construction Defects Case Benefits Subcontractors, too!


History of Central Asia, history of the area from prehistoric and ancient times to the present.
In its historical application the term Central Asia designates an area that is considerably larger than the heartland of the Asian continent. Were it not for the awkwardness of the term, it would be better to speak of Central Eurasia, comprising all those parts of the huge Eurasian landmass that did not develop a distinctive sedentary civilization of their own. But the real boundaries of Central Asia are determined at any given time in history by the relationship between the "civilized" and the "barbarian"—the two opposed but complementary. The equation so often propounded—of the civilized with the sedentary and the barbarian with the nomad—is misleading, however. The most significant distinction between the two groups in Eurasia lies probably in the successful attempt of the civilized to alter and command the physical environment, whereas the barbarian simply uses it, often in a masterly fashion, to gain an advantage. In its essence, the history of Central Asia is that of the barbarian, and its dominant feature is the sometimes latent, sometimes open conflict in which the barbarian clashes with the civilized. Two basic patterns of conquest are evident in the history of Central Asia: that of the barbarian, accomplished with arms and ephemeral in its results, and that of the civilized—slow, rather unspectacular, achieved through technological superiority and absorption.
The principal difficulty for the historian of Central Asia lies in the paucity and relative lateness of indigenous written sources. The first aboriginal sources—written in a Turkic language—date from the 8th century ce, and source material of similar value does not become available again until the 13th century. Most of the written sources dealing with Central Asia originate in the surrounding sedentary civilizations and are almost always strongly prejudiced against the barbarian; the most important among them are in Chinese, Greek, Latin, Arabic, and Persian.
Without a sufficient number of indigenous written sources, the language of a given Central Asian people is difficult to determine. It is, however, reasonable to suppose that many of them spoke a Uralic or an Altaic language, and it can be taken for certain that Paleo-Asiatic languages were in wider use in early times than they are now. While it seems likely that the principal languages of many great nomadic empires were Turkic or Mongolian, the attribution of such languages to peoples about whose speech insufficient linguistic evidence exists—as in the case of the Xiongnu or the Avars—is unwarranted; it is wiser to confess ignorance.
Two of the natural vegetation zones of Central Asia have played a prominent part in history: the forest belt, 500 to 1,000 miles (800 to 1,600 km) wide, and, south of it, the steppe, a vast grassland extending eastward from Hungary to Mongolia, facilitating communications and providing grass, the only raw material absolutely essential to the creation of the great nomad empires. The northern frozen marshes and the southern deserts played a minor role in Central Asian history.
Within the broad concept of Central Asia as defined above, there is in terms of historical geography a more precisely delineated Central Asian heartland consisting of three adjacent regions, collectively referred to by 19th-century explorers and geographers as Russian and Chinese Turkistan.
The first of these regions, known to the ancient Greeks as Transoxania and to the Arabs as Māwarāʿ al-Nahr ("That Which Lies Beyond the River"), consists of the area between the Amu Darya (the Oxus River of the Greeks and the Jāyḥun of the Arabs) and Syr Darya (the Jaxartes River of the Greeks and the Sāyḥun of the Arabs). It is an arid, semidesert country where, before the development of large-scale irrigation projects in the 20th century, the sedentary population maintained itself by intensive cultivation of the fertile tracts bordering the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya or by cultivation of the oases, in which were situated the major urban centres such as Bukhara and Samarkand.
The second, predominantly steppe, region extends northward from the upper reaches of the Syr Darya to the valley of the Ili River and to the foothills of the ranges lying between the Altai Mountains and the Tien Shan. Bounded on the south by the line of the Tien Shan and to the north by Lake Balkhash, this area was known to the Turks as the Yeti Su, the "Land of the Seven Rivers," hence its Russian name of Semirechye.
The third region, centring on the Takla Makan Desert, is bounded on the north by the Tien Shan, on the west by the Pamirs, on the south by the Kunlun Mountains, and on the northeast by the Junggar Basin. Often referred to as Kashgaria, from its principal urban centre, Kashgar (Kashi), the region is characterized by small oasis settlements lying between the desert and the surrounding ranges, such as Hotan, Yarkand, Kashgar itself, and Aksu (Akosu), which served as way stations on the so-called Silk Road between China and the West.
The beginnings of human history in Central Asia date back to the late Pleistocene Epoch, some 25,000 to 35,000 years ago, which includes the last full interglacial period and the last glaciation, the latter being followed by the interglacial period that still persists today. The Aurignacian culture of the Upper Paleolithic coincided with the last glaciation, which was much less severe in northern Asia than in Europe. In a period when ice covered northern France, Siberia below latitude 60° N was ice-free. The Paleolithic Malta site, 28 miles northwest of Irkutsk, is clearly Aurignacian, and it is safe to assume that in this period Siberia and the subarctic areas of Europe belonged to the same civilization. The differentiation between Central Asia and the surrounding civilization did not begin until Neolithic times, marked by tremendous technical progress and a wide diversification of cultures. This article does not discuss the development of these cultures or their contacts with eastern, southern, and western cultures; most of the archaeological results, however important, are controversial and are subject to different interpretations in the light of new finds.
The first human groups to emerge at the dawn of history that are identifiable by name rather than by their artifacts are the Cimmerians and the Scythians, both located in the western half of Central Asia as reported by the Greeks.
The Cimmerians, whose name appears in the Odyssey of Homer, occupied the southern Russian steppe from about 1200 bce. Their civilization, which belongs to the Late Bronze Age, is barely distinguishable from that of other peoples with whom they mingled. From the second half of the 8th century bce, the Cimmerians were replaced by the Scythians, who used iron implements. The Scythians created the first known typical Central Asian empire. The chief thrust of their expansion was directed against the south rather than the west, where no major power existed and which thus offered little chance for valuable booty. In the late 8th century bce, Cimmerian and Scythian troops fought against the Assyrian king Sargon II, and, at the end of the 6th century bce, conflict arose between the Scythians and the Achaemenian king Darius I.
Darius's expedition (516?–513? bce) against the Scythians in southern Russia was described in great detail by the Greek historian Herodotus, who provided the first and perhaps the most penetrating description of a great nomad empire. In more than one respect, the Scythians appear as the historical prototype of the mounted warrior of the steppe. Yet, in their case, as in others, it would be mistaken to see in them aimlessly roaming tribes. The Scythians, like most nomad empires, had permanent settlements of various sizes, representing various degrees of civilization. The vast fortified settlement of Kamenka on the Dnieper River, settled since the end of the 5th century bce, became the centre of the Scythian kingdom ruled by Ateas, who lost his life in a battle against Philip II of Macedon in 339 bce.
The Scythians had a highly developed metallurgy, and in their social structure the agriculturalists (aroteres), who grew wheat for sale, constituted a class of their own. The quality of Scythian art, characterized by a highly sophisticated style depicting animals both real and mythical, remained unsurpassed in Central Asia. Although the Scythians had no script, it has been established, nevertheless, that they spoke an Iranian language.
The Scythians appear as Shakas in the Old Iranian rock inscriptions, where three distinct groups are identified, and it is by the latter name that they appear in the history of northwestern India, which they penetrated during the 1st century bce. On the steppes of Central Asia they were gradually subsumed into the Kushan empire (see below), while on the southern Russian steppes they were absorbed by the Sarmatians, another Iranian nomad people whose hegemony lasted until the 4th century ce.
move about in search of water and pasture and have no walled cities or fixed dwellings, nor do they engage in any kind of agriculture.
The centre of the Xiongnu empire was Mongolia, but it is impossible even to approximate the western limits of the territory under its direct control. For more than two centuries the Xiongnu, more or less constantly warring with China, remained the major force in the eastern regions of Central Asia.
In 48 ce the Xiongnu empire, long plagued by internecine struggles, dissolved. Some of the tribes, known as the southern Xiongnu, recognized Chinese suzerainty and settled in the Ordos region. The other remaining tribes, the northern Xiongnu, maintained themselves in Mongolia until the middle of the 2nd century, when they finally succumbed to the Xianbei, their neighbours. Another group, led by Zhizhi, brother and rival of the northern Xiongnu ruler, moved westward. With the death of Zhizhi in 36 ce, this group disappears from the records, but according to one theory the Huns, who first appeared on the southern Russian steppes about 370 ce, were descendants of these fugitive tribes.
Meanwhile, in the second half of the 2nd century bce the Xiongnu, at the height of their power, had expelled from their homeland in western Gansu (China) a people probably of Iranian stock, known to the Chinese as the Yuezhi and called Tokharians in Greek sources. While a part of the Yuezhi confederacy, known as the Asi (Asiani), moved as far west as the Caucasus region, the remainder occupied the region between the Syr Darya and the Amu Darya before overrunning Bactria between 141 and 128 bce. After penetrating Sīstān and the Kābul River valley, they crossed the Indus and established the Kushan empire in northwestern India. In its heyday, under Kujula Kadphises (Qiu Juique) during the 1st century ce, this empire extended from the vicinity of the Aral Sea to Varanasi in the Gangetic Plain and southward as far as Nashik, near modern Mumbai. The Kushan were thus able to control the growing transcontinental caravan trade linking the Chinese empire with that of Rome.
During the last decades of the 4th century ce, a new, powerful empire emerged in Mongolia, the political heartland of Central Asia. The Juan-juan (Rouran) had stepped into the place vacated by the Xiongnu. Chinese descriptions barely distinguish them from their predecessors. Their history is an incessant series of campaigns against their neighbours, especially the Chinese.
Central Asia in the Middle Ages. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
In 552 the Juan-juan empire was destroyed by a revolution of considerable consequences for world history. The tribe of the Turks (Tujue in Chinese transcription), living within the Juan-juan empire and apparently specializing in metallurgy, revolted and seized power. It established an empire that for about two centuries remained a dominant force in Asia. The Turks are the first people in history known to have spoken a Turkic language and the first Central Asian people to have left a written record. Inscribed funerary stelae still standing in Mongolia, mostly near the Orhon River, are invaluable from both a linguistic and a historical point of view. These Orhon inscriptions provide insights into the internal stresses of a pastoral nomad state that, at the height of its power, stretched from the borders of China to those of Byzantium.
The founder of the Turk empire, Bumin—who bore the title of khagan, or great khan—died shortly after his victory. Soon afterward the empire split into two halves. The eastern part, ruled by Bumin's son Muhan (ruled 553–572), was centred on Mongolia. The seat of the western part, ruled by Bumin's brother Ishtemi (553–573?), lay in Ektagh, an unidentified place, possibly in either the Ili or Chu river valley.
In alliance with the Sāsānians, the Turks attacked and destroyed the Hephthalite empire (560), thereby gaining control over an important portion of the Silk Road leading from China to Byzantium. Under Ishtemi's successor, Tardu (573–603), the western Turk empire continued to thrive and, in its westward expansion, reached the borders of Byzantium. By that time the eastern Turk empire was facing grave difficulties caused partly by internal strife and partly by the vigorous Central Asian policies of the Chinese Sui dynasty. While the weakening of the eastern Turks gave preponderance to the western Turks, basic solidarity between the two parts of the Turk empire apparently was maintained. They both fell victim to Chinese attacks. In 630 the Tang emperor Taizong occupied Mongolia, and in 659 Chinese forces under Gaozong, penetrating as far west as Bukhara and Samarkand, subdued the western Turks.
In 683 the Turks revolted. The Turk empire was reborn and reunified under the khagan Elterish (683–692). Temporary setbacks notwithstanding, the Turk empire was now centred on Mongolia, and it prospered under the rule of Kapghan (Mochuo; c. 692–716) and Bilge (Pijia; 716–734) but disintegrated soon afterward. In spite of the relatively short duration of their state, the historical role of the Turks is considerable. They linked China, Iran, India, and Byzantium and gave their name to all the Turkic-speaking peoples. The solidarity that exists between these peoples to this day goes back to the Turks.
The replacement of the Turks by the Uighurs in 744 was little else than a coup d'état. There was virtually no difference between the Turk and Uighur languages, and the bulk of the Turks, although no longer the ruling stratum, probably remained within the boundaries of the newly formed Uighur state.
This new empire comprised many tribes and seems to have been headed by a smaller tribal confederation standing under Uighur leadership. This federation is referred to in Chinese sources as the Nine Clans (Jiuxing), whereas Islamic sources and the Orhon inscriptions call it the Tokuz Oğuz. There are some indications that the Uighur empire stood under dual leadership, the khagan belonging to one tribe and the prime minister, in whose hands much of the effective power rested, to another.
Relations with China were the dominant factor in Uighur foreign affairs. The Uighurs proved somewhat less threatening for the Chinese than had the Xiongnu or the Turks. Their help to the Chinese, plagued by the rebellion of An Lushan (755) and by repeated Tibetan incursions, was appreciated and paid for through trade conducted on terms unfavourable to China. In exchange for Uighur horses, often of dubious quality, the Chinese were expected to provide the Uighurs with much-coveted riches. The third Uighur khagan—Mouyu by his Chinese name (759–780)—visited Luoyang in China, where he was converted to an Iranian religion, Manichaeism. Its adoption brought to the Uighur land many Sogdians, whose growing influence on state affairs was resented by the Turkic Uighurs and led to Mouyu's assassination.
The Uighur empire was governed from a city on the Orhon River, Karabalghasun, the foundations of which were probably laid by the Turks and can still be seen. A Muslim traveler, Tamīm ibn Baḥr, who visited the city about 821, speaks in admiring terms of this fortified town lying in a cultivated country—a far cry from the traditional picture of the pastoral nomad existence.
In 840 another Turkic people, the Kyrgyz, put an abrupt end to Uighur rule in Mongolia. Coming from the upper reaches of the Yenisey River in north-central Siberia, the Kyrgyz represented a lower degree of civilization than the rather sophisticated Uighurs. Their political ambitions did not lead them into campaigns against China, and thus virtually no records exist concerning their activities. Content to stay in the backwaters of history, the Kyrgyz were among the very few peoples to survive the Mongol tide that was to come in the 13th century.
The Kyrgyz invasion, while putting an end to Uighur power, did not annihilate the people. Fleeing Uighur groups settled on the Chinese border in what is now Gansu province and in East Turkistan in the Turfan (Tulufan) region, which had been an Uighur protectorate since the end of the 8th century. Falling back now on the Turfan oases and setting up their capital city in Kucha (Kuqa), the fugitive Uighurs created a remarkably stable and prosperous kingdom that lasted four centuries (c. 850–1250). Because of the dry climate of the region, many buildings, wall paintings, and manuscripts written in a variety of languages have been preserved. They reveal a complex, refined civilization in which Buddhism, Manichaeism, and Christianity existed side by side, practiced by Turks as well as by Tokharians, Sogdians, and other Iranian peoples in the region.
When the time of the Mongol conquests came, the Uighurs lived up to their best cultural traditions. Realizing that resistance would be vain and would lead only to the destruction of his country, Barchuk, the ruler of the Uighurs of Kucha, of his own free will submitted to the Mongols. Uighur officials and scribes were the first "civil servants" of the Mongol empire and exerted a beneficial civilizing influence on the conquerors. The Sogdian script used by the Uighurs was adopted by the Mongols, who in turn passed it on to the Manchus. Side by side with the Cyrillic alphabet, it is still in use in Mongolia.
The first people known to have spoken a Mongol language were the Khitans. Mentioned from the 5th century ce, this people, living in the forests of Manchuria, had contacts with the Turks as well as with the Uighurs. In 924 their leader, Abaoji, defeated the Kyrgyz and offered the Uighurs the possibility of a resettlement in their former country. The Khitans conquered northern China, which they ruled under the dynastic name Liao (907–1125) until they were ousted by the Juchen, also originating in Manchuria, who founded the Jin (Juchen) dynasty (1115–1234) of northern China, which was in turn replaced by that of yet another Altaic people, the Mongols. Cathay, an early Western denomination of China, derives from the name Khitan (Khitai). The spread of this name, still used in Russian for China, is but one sign of the Khitans' extraordinary impact on history.
Driven from China by the Juchen, in 1124 some Khitans moved westward under Yelü Dashi's leadership and created the Karakhitan (Black Khitai, or Western Liao) state. Its centre lay in the Semirechye and the Chu valley, where the city of Balāsaghūn was located. Founded by the Sogdians, Balāsaghūn was by then occupied by the Muslim Karakhanids (Qarakhanids), a Turkish people closely related to the Uighurs and whose ruling house was probably descended from the Karluks. The Karakhanids, who became Muslims during the mid-10th century, ruled over both the Semirechye and the Tarim Basin south of the Tien Shan. While Balāsaghūn remained the residence of their principal ruler, Kashgar seems to have served as a religious and cultural metropolis. In 992 they occupied Bukhara, previously the capital of the Iranian Sāmānid dynasty (819–1005), under whose benign rule the cities of Transoxania had become celebrated centres of Islamic culture and learning.
The Karakhanids maintained the tribal traditions of the steppe world to a much greater extent than did other Muslim Turkish dynasties, such as the Ghaznavids or the Seljuqs, but they proved no less accomplished at combining native Turkish and Irano-Islamic culture. The earliest surviving work of Turkish literature shaped by Islamic values, the Kutudgu bilig ("Knowledge Which Leads to Happiness"; Eng. trans. The Wisdom of Royal Glory), was written by Yusuf Khass Hajib of Balāsaghūn in the style of contemporary Irano-Islamic "mirrors for princes" and was completed in Kashgar in 1069–1070. Almost contemporary with it was the Dīwān lughat al-Turk (1072–74; Compendium of the Turkic Dialects), an Arabic dictionary of Khakani, the Middle Turkish dialect spoken by the Karakhanids and written by Maḥmūd al-Kāshgarī.
From the late 11th century the Karakhanids in Transoxania became vassals of the Seljuqs, who by this time were already masters of much of the Middle East. Nevertheless, the Karakhitans had set their hearts on acquiring the Seljuqs' loosely controlled eastern provinces. In 1137 Yelü Dashi had obtained the submission of the Karakhanid ruler Maḥmūd II, and in 1141, in a battle fought near Samarkand, he decisively defeated the last "Great Seljuq" sultan, Sanjar. The territories under Karakhitan hegemony now extended across Central Asia as far as the northern bank of the Amu Darya and threatened Khwārezm, located in the Amu Darya delta. However, their hold on this vast domain was finally shattered in 1211, through the combined actions of the Khwārezm-Shah ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Muḥammad (1200–20) and Küchlüg Khan, a fugitive Naiman chieftain in flight from Genghis Khan's Mongols.
The creation of the Mongol empire by Genghis Khan was a great feat of political and military skill that left a lasting imprint on the destinies of both Asia and Europe. The geographic basis of Genghis's power, the northwestern parts of which later became known as Mongolia, had been the centre of such Turkic empires as those of the Turks and Uighurs. There are no indications of the time and the manner in which the Mongols took over this region.
It is probable that Turks were incorporated in the nascent Mongol empire. In a series of tribal wars that led to the defeat of the Merkits and the Naimans, his most dangerous rivals, Genghis gained sufficient strength to assume, in 1206, the title of khan. Acting in the tradition of previous nomad empires of the region, Genghis directed his aggressive policies primarily against China, then ruled in the north by the Jin dynasty. His western campaigns were set in motion quite accidentally by a senseless attack on Mongol forces by the fugitive Naiman prince Küchlüg, and they maintained their momentum through the pursuit of ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Muḥammad of Khwārezm, who in 1218 ordered the execution of Mongol envoys seeking to establish trade relations.
As a result, many of the flourishing cities of Khwārezm, Khorāsān, and Afghanistan were destroyed, and, by 1223, Mongol armies had crossed the Caucasus. Although an important Russo-Kipchak force was defeated on May 31, 1223, at the battle of the Kalka, the Mongols did not make a definite thrust into eastern Europe until the winter of 1236–37. The fall of Kiev in December 1240—with incalculable consequences for Russian history—was followed by a Mongol invasion of Hungary in 1241–42. Although victorious against the forces of King Béla IV, the Mongols evacuated Hungary and withdrew to southern and central Russia. Ruled by Batu (d. c. 1255), the Mongols of eastern Europe (the so-called Golden Horde) became a major factor in that region and exerted a decisive influence on the development of the Russian states.
Simultaneously with these western campaigns, Genghis's successor Ögödei (ruled 1229–41) intensified Mongol pressure in China. Korea was occupied in 1231, and in 1234 the Jin dynasty succumbed to Mongol attacks. The establishment of the Yuan (Mongol) dynasty in China (1260–1368) was accomplished by the great khan Kublai (1260–94), a grandson of Genghis.
The great khan Möngke (1251–59), who had sent his brother Kublai to conquer China, entrusted another of his brothers, Hülegü, with the task of consolidating the Mongol hold on Iran. In 1258 Hülegü occupied Baghdad and put an end to the ʿAbbāsid caliphate. He laid the foundations of a Mongol state in Iran, known as the Il-Khanate (because the il-khan was subordinate to the great khan in faraway Mongolia or China), which embraced, in addition to the Iranian plateau, much of Iraq, northern Syria, and eastern and central Anatolia and which, under Abaqha (1265–82), Arghun (1284–91), Ghāzān (1295–1304), and Öljeitü (1304–17), became both powerful and highly civilized. Although practically independent, the il-khans of Iran (Persia) remained loyal to Möngke and Kublai, but, with the passing of Kublai, the drift toward full independence grew stronger. With Maḥmūd Ghāzān's decision to make Islam the state religion—a gesture intended to gain the confidence of the majority of his subjects—a big step toward integration in the purely Iranian (as opposed to Mongol) tradition was taken. A lengthy conflict that pitted the il-khans against the Mamlūks of Egypt was not resolved until 1323, when a peace was concluded between the sultan al-Malik al-Nāṣir and Abū Saʿīd (1316–35), the last effective il-khan. After Abū Saʿīd's death the Il-Khanate, no longer held together by Mongol efficiency, disintegrated.
In Iran and China the Mongol rulers, who increasingly linked their destinies with those of their sedentary subjects, inevitably began to lose their Mongol identity. But in the Central Asian heartland the descendants of Chagatai and Ögödei, sons of Genghis, maintained traditional steppe polities geared to the interests of their nomad followers and increasingly opposed to the policies of the great khan in China and his ally, the il-khan, in Iran. After Möngke's death in 1259 there was a struggle between his two younger brothers, Kublai and Arigböge. The steppe candidate, Arigböge, lost in his bid for supreme power to the older Kublai, and further attempts to reestablish the centre of Mongol power in the Central Asian heartland also were unsuccessful.
The most active and successful proponent of this policy was Kaidu, a grandson of Ögödei, who made several attempts to carve out an empire for himself in the heartland from lands ruled by other Mongol princes. In the course of time, he extended his control over most of the Semirechye, Kashgaria, and Transoxania, and in 1269 he even assumed the title of great khan. Chagatai's descendants, enfeoffed with the territories stretching from Bishbaliq in the Dzungarian Basin westward to Samarkand, were to some extent victims of Kaidu's ambitions but for lack of better alternatives lent him their support. After Kaidu's death in 1301, however, the Chagataid khan Duwa hastened to make peace with his Mongol kin in both Iran and China.
Thereafter the Chagataid khanate, coterminous with the Central Asian heartland, enjoyed a checkered fortune. For the next 30 years it remained united, but during the 1330s and '40s it split into a western and an eastern khanate, the former consisting of the area between the Syr Darya and the Amu Darya, together with much of what is today Afghanistan, while the latter comprised the Semirechye and Kashgaria.
The Chagataid khans who ruled in the western khanate, where they usually resided in Bukhara, openly espoused Islam and a Muslim lifestyle, as did perhaps the majority of their followers. Northeast of the Syr Darya, the Chagataid rulers of the eastern khanate endeavoured to maintain the nomadic traditions of their ancestors—descendants of Genghis Khan—with a considerable degree of success. They continued to locate their headquarters in the Ili or Chu valley, while emirs of the important Mongol Dughlat clan, with whom the Chagataids were closely linked through marriage alliances, ruled the Tarim Basin on their behalf from Kashgar. To the inhabitants of Transoxania and Iran, the eastern Chagataid khanate was known as Mughulistān (literally, "Land of the Mongols") and its inhabitants, unflatteringly, as Jats (literally, "Robbers").
During the last third of the 14th century, the western Chagataid khanate passed under the control of the Barlas Turk Timur (d. 1405; known in the West as Tamerlane), while the eastern khanate went through a protracted period of political instability but also gradual Islamization. Under a succession of vigorous 15th-century rulers—Esen Buga, Yunus, and Ahmad—the eastern khanate held its own, ringed as it was by Oirat foes in Dzungaria, the Kyrgyz in the Tien Shan, and the Kazakhs in the Semirechye. But decline did set in, temporarily postponed during the reign of Ahmad's able son Sultan Saʿīd Khān (1514–33), who ruled from Kashgar. By the beginning of the 17th century, however, the Chagataid khans in the east had become mere figureheads, with the towns under the quasi-theocratic rule of a family of Khwājahs originating from Bukhara, while the countryside was dominated by rival Kyrgyz confederacies. The line seems to have died out obscurely before the end of the century.
Developments within the most enduring Mongol successor state, that of the Golden Horde, with its headquarters at Sarai on the lower Volga River, followed a rather different course. Its Islamization, begun under Batu's brother Berke (1257–67), led to tensions with the il-khans but resulted in the forging of strong links with the Mamlūks of Egypt. The Mamlūks were themselves Kipchak Turks from the Kipchak steppes of southern Russia over which the khans of the Golden Horde ruled.
The prosperity of the Golden Horde under Ghiyath al-Dīn Muḥammad Öz Beg (Uzbek) between about 1312 and about 1341 stands in sharp contrast to the disintegrating Il-Khanate and Chagataid khanate, yet it had its own problems, both internal and external. From within, the growing and unavoidable antagonism between the Turko-Mongol ruling class, Turkish-speaking and now Muslim, and their Christian Russian subjects was exacerbated by the ceaseless dissensions among the members of the ruling house and the military elite, increasingly referred to by their Slav neighbours as Tatars. In foreign policy, the peace concluded in 1323 between the il-khans and the Mamlūks weakened the Golden Horde's influence in Egypt, while the establishment of the Ottomans on the Dardanelles (1354) put a virtual end to commercial relations between the Volga and Nile valleys. Perhaps the gravest political mistake of the rulers of the Golden Horde was their failure to recognize that the West—with which, through the Russians, they had excellent links—offered a more fertile ground for further expansion than the sunbaked deserts of Turkistan. The khans of the Golden Horde, instead of controlling the Russian and Lithuanian princes, increasingly relied upon their help in internal and dynastic struggles that were rending the khanate. While their attention was drawn southward and eastward, they overlooked the rise of dangerous Russian and Lithuanian enemies in their rear.
The policies of the khan Tokhtamysh (1376–95) differed from those of his predecessors. Hereditary ruler of the White Horde, its pastures located in western Siberia and extending to the lower reaches of the Syr Darya, Tokhtamysh was able to enlarge his power base by uniting its resources with those of the Golden Horde, of which he eventually made himself master. He thus introduced fresh "steppe power" into the Golden Horde at a time when it was no longer the force it had once been (in 1380 the Muscovites had inflicted a crushing, if temporary, defeat on the horde at Kulikovo Pole). Furthermore, instead of seeking the assistance of petty eastern European princes, Tokhtamysh hitched his wagon to the rising star of Timur, with whose support he reasserted Mongol supremacy in Russia.
After Tokhtamysh's death the Golden Horde survived under the aegis of an able usurper, Edigü, but after Edigü's death in 1419 a process of disintegration set in. The core territories of the former Golden Horde, centred on the Volga-Don steppes, became known as the "Great Horde," while outlying regions seceded to form independent khanates based on Kazan and Astrakhan on the Volga, Crimea, western Siberia, and the Nogay steppe east of the lower Volga. All eventually fell victim to dynastic feuds, internecine rivalry, and Muscovite expansionism. Thus, in the case of the Kazan khanate, its founder Ulugh Muḥammad (c. 1437–45) bequeathed the throne to his able son Maḥmud (or Maḥmutek), who reigned with conspicuous success between 1445 and 1462. Maḥmud's brothers, however, fled for sanctuary to Vasily II of Moscow, who set up a puppet khanate for one of them (Kasim) at Gorodets-on-the-Oka (thereafter renamed Kasimov). The khanate of Kasimov was to be a thorn in Kazan's flesh until the latter's extinction in 1552. Kasimov itself survived as a political fiction until about 1681, by which time the last khans had abandoned Islam for Christianity.
In 1502 the Great Horde was extinguished and its lands annexed by the khan of Crimea, Mengli Girai, who had already placed himself under Ottoman suzerainty in 1475. Kazan fell to the troops of Ivan IV the Terrible of Moscow in 1552, and Astrakhan was annexed two years later. The khanate of Sibir (western Siberia), after a stubborn resistance, submitted to Boris Godunov, the regent for Ivan's son Fyodor I (1584–98). Only the khanate of Crimea was left, separated from Muscovy by the still-unconquered Ukrainian steppe and enjoying some protection because of its status as an Ottoman vassal. It survived for two more centuries, until Catherine the Great's conquest in 1783. Its capital, Bakhchisaray, long a centre of Tatar culture, was to take on a new life in the late 19th century as the home of the Tatar national revival associated with the name of Ismail Bey Gasprinski.
While the Golden Horde was beginning to enter its long decline in the late 14th century, the demise of Chagataid rule in the area between the Amu Darya and Syr Darya was taking place as a result of the rise of Timur. Under Timur's leadership the Turko-Mongol tribes located in the basins of the two rivers were first united. With the assistance of these tribes he expanded into the neighbouring regions of Khorāsān, Sīstān, Khwārezm, and Mughulistān before embarking upon extensive campaigning in what are now Iran and Iraq, eastern Turkey, and the Caucasus region. In addition, he launched two successful attacks on his erstwhile protégé, Tokhtamysh, ruler of the Golden Horde. In 1398–99 Timur invaded northern India and sacked Delhi, and between 1399 and 1402 he turned westward again to harry the Egyptian Mamlūks in Syria and the Ottoman sultan Bayezid I, whom he captured in battle near Ankara. At the time of his death at Otrar on the Syr Darya in 1405, Timur was leading his forces on an invasion of China.
Timur never assumed openly the full attributes of sovereignty, contenting himself with the title of emir while upholding the fictional authority of a series of puppet khans of the line of Chagatai, to whom he claimed kinship by marriage; in consequence he styled himself güregen, meaning "son-in-law" (i.e., of the Chagataid khan). He seems to have lacked the innate administrative capacity or the foresight of Genghis Khan, and after Timur's death his conquests were disputed among his numerous progeny. In the ensuing struggles his fourth son, Shāh Rukh (1407–47), emerged victorious. He abandoned his father's capital of Samarkand for Herāt in Khorāsān (now in western Afghanistan), where he ruled in great splendour, leaving his son, Ulūgh Beg, as his deputy in the former capital. Ulūgh Beg's rule in Samarkand between 1409 and 1447 probably brought a considerable measure of tranquility to the long-troubled region. An enthusiastic astronomer and the builder of a celebrated observatory, Ulūgh Beg ensured that during his lifetime Samarkand would be a major centre of scientific learning, especially in astronomy and mathematics. He was killed on the orders of his son, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, in 1449.
Throughout the second half of the 15th century, the western part of Central Asia was divided into a number of rival principalities ruled by descendants of Timur, among which Bukhara and Samarkand were the most important. The courts of these rulers witnessed an extraordinary cultural florescence in literature, the arts, and architecture, with Chagatai Turkish, a dialect derived partly from Khakani, the language spoken at the Karakhanid court (and a precursor of modern Uzbek), emerging as a flexible vehicle for sophisticated literary expression. These Timurid epigones, however, were locked in unceasing rivalry with each other and were unable to combine against intruders from beyond their frontiers. By the close of the century, therefore, all the Timurid possessions in Central Asia had passed into the hands of the Uzbeks.
The early history of the Uzbek people (whose rulers were descendants of a younger brother of Batu, khan of the Golden Horde) is wrapped in obscurity, but by the mid-15th century they had migrated from their original homeland, east of the Ural Mountains, southeast toward the lower Syr Darya, whence, under their leader, Abūʾl-Khayr Khan, they began to threaten the Timurids across the river. However, before Abūʾl-Khayr could undertake a full-scale invasion, he was killed in battle in 1468 by two rebellious kinsmen who, refusing to recognize his assertion of paramountcy, had defected, together with their tribal followers, and placed themselves under the nominal suzerainty of the Chagataid khan of Mughulistān. Their descendants were to become the Kazakh hordes of later centuries.
With the death of Abūʾl-Khayr, the fortunes of the Uzbeks temporarily declined, only to be revived under the leadership of his grandson, Muḥammad Shaybānī, who by 1500 had made himself master of Samarkand as well as of the Syr Darya and Amu Darya basins and was advancing into Khorāsān (Herāt fell to him in 1507) when he was defeated and killed in 1510 by Shah Ismāʿil Ṣafavi. He had, however, changed the course of Central Asian history. By the time of his death, all the lands between the Syr Darya and Amu Darya were in Uzbek hands, and so they were to remain. Throughout the 16th century, Muḥammad Shaybānī's kinsmen ruled over a powerful and aggressive khanate from Bukhara. They continued Muḥammad Shaybānī's feud with the Iranian Ṣafavids, articulated along Shīʿite-versus-Sunni lines, and with the Mughal dynasty in India, whose founder, the Timurid Babur, had been driven out of Central Asia by Shaybānī. In contrast, friendly, if sporadic, ties with the Ottomans were maintained by way of the Volga-Don steppes. Unlike the Ottomans, Ṣafavids, and Mughals, however, the Uzbeks had only limited access to firearms, which placed them at a considerable disadvantage with their rivals.
During Shaybanid rule, and even more under the Ashtarkhanids (also known as Astrakhanids, Tuquy-Timurids, or Janids) who succeeded them during the 1600s, Central Asia experienced a decline in prosperity compared with the preceding Timurid period, in part because of a marked reduction in the transcontinental caravan trade following the opening of new oceanic trade routes. In the 1700s the basins of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya passed under the control of three Uzbek khanates claiming legitimacy in their descent from Genghis Khan. These were, from west to east, the Qungrāts based on Khiva in Khwārezm (1717–1920), the Mangits in Bukhara (1753–1920), and the Mings in Kokand (c. 1710–1876), in the upper valley of the Syr Darya. During this same period, east of the Pamirs, Kashgaria was torn apart by the rivalries of Khwājahs and Kyrgyz; in the Semirechye the Kazakhs were locked in conflict with the Mongol Oirat and Dzungars; while between the Aral and Caspian seas the Turkmen roamed the northern borders of Iran, enslaving the sedentary peoples there and transporting them to Bukhara to labour in the oases. The time was ripe for Russian intervention, made easier by the intruders' possession of cannon and firearms.


We are pleased to support the IFMA Knowledge Library and have migrated all of our content there. Please visit the Library at IFMA Knowledge Library.
The new IFMA Engage Platform is a great resource for the IT Community. Please connect with your follow members and the IFMA Global Membership at IFMA Engage .


That is pretty much what I envisioned.
Nice drafting tool … what did you use?
I've used in the past for other conceptualizations I've done, including upgrading U.S. 58 to I-85, U.S. 17 in Chesapeake, etc. on this forum. It's a neat website and it's free & easy to use.
Exactly! So has this idea even crossed someone's desk at VDOT? This makes more sense than the plan being put forth.
I don't know, but it took me about 30 minutes to come up with that whole concept. It took them a year to come up with ideas on the official plan, and even some of those don't make sense.
What doesn't make sense to you about it?
The plan proposed by VDOT has the right through lane change into an exit-only lane while the left entrance ramp becomes the left through lane. That's some odd lane shifting that will have to take place in a short distance. It may work most of the time, but when traffic is heavy (a lot of times on that section) there could be a lot more wrecks.
The bills to add fees (not a toll, says Obenshain) to travel on I-81 have been introduced in the Virginia General Assembly.
Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Rockingham, and Sen. Bill Carrico, R-Grayson, as well as Del. Steve Landes, R-Augusta, and Del. Terry Austin, R-Botetourt, submitted legislation in the Senate and House of Delegates that would authorize the Commonwealth Transportation Board to impose tolls on Virginia's 325-mile stretch.
The initial toll would be set at 17 cents per mile for trucks and 11 cents per mile for other drivers, but is subject to increases. Toll amounts on trucks and through traffic would be cut in half between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. People living in and outside of Virginia could purchase an annual pass, which is likely to cost $25 to $30. The legislation states that the annual pass cannot exceed the cost of a full-length round-trip using the per-mile toll . Passes will not be offered to trucks.
Obenshain said the plan anticipates six overhead gantries 50 miles apart in each north-south interstate direction that will scan license plates or annual passes.
He said it's possible for commuters to never have to pay a toll, because drivers without an annual pass will be able to travel 100 miles within 24 hours on the interstate without having to incur a toll . Drivers can have a free pass through one gantry each way on every day of the year.
"It's easy for this to be characterized as a toll bill, but it's not," Obenshain said.
Sen. John Edwards, D-Roanoke, who is opposed to tolls, filed his own bill, SB 1470, that would increase the statewide wholesale gas tax to 5 percent. Edwards said his proposal would generate $850 million annually, with $300 million set aside for I-81.
§ 46.2-819.3:2. Video-monitoring system and automatic vehicle identification system in conjunction with all electronic toll collection, toll avoidance.
The operator of a vehicle that the Board determines is through traffic or that is subject to a through travel restriction pursuant to § 46.2-809 shall be considered to be in violation of § 46.2-819.3:1 if the operator (i) exits the interstate highway to travel on a parallel route in proximity and prior to a toll collection point and (ii) re-enters the interstate highway after the same toll collection point that demonstrates the routes traveled were selected to avoid paying the toll at such toll collection point, determined by the Board.
The Board may develop policies and related systems to identify vehicles in violation of this section.
with that last sentence leaving things pretty open ended as to how that monitoring will be done.
Was moreso asking sprjus (since he said things didn't make sense to him).
As for the proposed southbound lane configuration, there's enough traffic coming on from 581 to warrant that 581 traffic getting its own lane. My hunch is that this is also a placeholder until the segment south of 141 gets widened. You're right that it's not optimum, but unless/until VDOT can extend a 3rd lane south of the 141 exit or they reconfigure the 581 interchange as proposed (which would be A LOT more money than extending the 3rd lane would be), I think this is the best they can do.
I've never heard of anything like this. Why in the world would I not have the right to exit the highway and re-enter wherever I want, regardless of whether it's to avoid a toll or not? Are there places that such monitoring is in place? If so, is there some kind of fine applied?
I was at the CTB meeting on Tuesday where the I-81 presentation detailed the current status of the program. When I saw that the legislation would include penalties for shun-piking, I knew that corks would pop and fuses would blow, when people found out about this! :-] Bottom line is that with current technology an automated system could do this.
I talked to Nick Donohue and asked about the federal approval process for tolling I-81. He said there are 3 different usable tolling mechanisms, the ISRRPP with its 3 pilot projects, the dynamic pricing program, and the bridge reconstruction program (as in I-95 in Rhode Island). IOW it could be approved under one of these.
At this point I would give this about 90% probability of happening.
What VTGoose said is what I meant.
That is absurd, and should be outright illegal. Penalizing drivers for using exit ramps.... ridiculous. For one, there's no way to prove they're avoiding the toll. What if they get off at one end of the toll collection area, stop at a mom and pop store along the shunpiking route, then hop back on I-81 at the other end of the tolling point? Also, I understand ramp tolling, that's perfectly fine. But sending a violation and a fine for using a "shunpiking" route should be illegal, and is wrong. That removes having "a free alternative" and forces interstate users to pay tolls or face a hefty fine. It could also have a negative impact to any businesses on any designated "shunpiking" route.
I'm trying to imagine the VA-168 here in Chesapeake having that system. If you exit the highway at Exit 10 or 8 and re-enter south of the toll, you receive a violation and fine in the mail. Completely unreasonable.
In all likelihood, that "shunpiking penalty" concept will be the first to be discarded; the legal challenges will be many and likely winners -- too much precedent regarding free use of the road, regardless of who actually owns them. In any case, it'll probably be delayed by such legal actions; it just may be years -- or even decades -- before a penny of toll is collected.
That is absurd, and should be outright illegal. Penalizing drivers for using exit ramps.... ridiculous. For one, there's no way to prove they're avoiding the toll. What if they get off at one end of the toll collection area, stop at a mom and pop store along the shunpiking route, then hop back on I-81 at the other end of the tolling point? Also, I understand ramp tolling, that's perfectly fine.
Given the number of interchanges on I-81 (75 IIRC in Virginia) the simplest solution would be to have a gantry every 5 miles or 10 miles, that would be inexpensive and would tend to make it infeasible to avoid tolls if you wanted to make decent time.
I think after around a year of getting used to, shun-piking on I-81 won't really be an issue. And if people do wanna shun-pike I-81 and stop at a Mom and Pop shop along the way(helping the local economy), I have no problem with that.
The more gantries, the higher the costs. They're already estimating close to $50 million for the 6 toll gantries alone and collections, etc. Also, it goes back to the local/thru situation. You penalize locals if you do this.
Seriously, that idea to prohibit people from using exits as they so choose is absolutely draconian and outrageous.
Any? So if they issue 10 bonds, and pay 1 off, the tolls are gone?
They could still accomplish the same ends even with more frequent gantries. It might take more complicated code, but it would certainly be doable. The Thruway managed with its annual permit plan holders, for example (for $88/year, the first 30 miles of all Thruway trips are free, with a $0.65 surcharge for crossing the Castleton-on-Hudson Bridge if applicable). Although as I mentioned on the US 301 thread, I despise tolling plans that specifically target out of state motorists.
Whaa?? $8 million per gantry? No way. Probably not more than a couple hundred thousand per gantry.
With frequent enough gantries, there would be an electronic record that would clearly differentiate a local user from a thru user, and besides there will be an annual pass system for locals, so they should be unrestricted in how the use the highway.
If they build it out to 6 or more lanes on the entire route, that will probably take at least 10 years and there will be more bond issues, probably $8 billion or more, and it will be a loooong time before all the bonds are paid off.
The "shunpiking penalty" thing is absurd. I have no clue how the courts would view it, but it seems like a stupid way to deal with the issue. Why not just toll the next interchange or two to either side of the tolling points to reduce the advantage one might gain from exiting?
Other thing is, normally with toll roads or toll crossings there's a sign telling you when you hit the last exit before a toll. If you impose a shunpiking penalty, then wouldn't the Commonwealth want to AVOID posting that information? That is, you post the "last exit before toll" to allow people who don't want to pay the toll to exit, right? If you're going to try to find a way to charge them anyway, then not only do you not want to post the sign, but arguably the sign becomes misleading, because "last exit before toll" instead becomes "if you exit, you'll pay more."
It is pending legislation. If you don't like some part of it then contact the sponsors and tell them.
I concur with sentiments strongly against the shunpiking penalty. Besides, as mentioned, there's absolutely no way of knowing for a fact whether someone is actually "shunpiking" or not. There's the stopping at a restaurant example that was mentioned, and other things, like what if someone is crossing through Virginia on a road trip, but they want to take a quick detour being off the interstate briefly to visit family in the area. When I was a young kid (before she passed), we would always visit my great aunt a little ways off I-75 in Macon whenever we were on roadtrips coming back from Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. We would typically get off on one exit, then when we were done, get back on I-75 at the next exit. And then all the other possible, countless, similar scenarios like that.
There are much more humane and efficient ways to ensure toll revenue is effectively collected than that. As has been noted, there could be exit ramp tolls, or they could try to install many toll gantries at the most efficient price of installation possible - and even putting tolls on the ramps of the exits in between a significant toll gantry on the interstate could be acceptable in my opinion. But these funds do not need to be spent on the "shunpike spying device."
I was really excited about Interstate 81 in Virginia being tolled (and still am, so long as this specific thing is not followed through with), so that it could be widened and worked on, which it certainly desperately needs. I don't want this to soil this project that really has so much potential, and could do a lot of good in the long-run.
Penalties for exiting? Where is Virginia, North Korea?
Are you sure that the "penalty" is not equal to the toll itself?
It's been mentioned that it could be a "toll violation" fine, which is way higher.
If they have the technology to legally and fairly determine if someone is deliberately avoiding a toll, they could simply go ahead and charge the toll and leave it at that.


Berries Adult Height Color Edge Round Table JNT6468JCA112 $220.17 Round activity table for adults is perfectly sized to let you work comfortably. Laminate is durable and features an easy to clean surface. TRUEdge is permanently thermo fused to the edges to prevent chipping. Extra safe, dual screw steel legs allow you to easily adjust the height of the table. Powder coated, adjustable legs can be repositioned in 1 increments to provide maximum comfort. Leg guides reduce squeaks, prevent snags and eliminate rusting.
Berries are eaten both fresh and as processed products. The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Souls of Black Folk by W. Find a great selection of home d cor at Boscovs.
It is the largest extant member of its family with males averaging kg lb and females. The price of this item includes a contribution to a Product recycling fund to ensure that waste electrical and electronic equipment is collected and recycled in a responsible manner. Amazon Promo Codes Are Updated Daily. If an adult male stretches up to his full height he can look down on someone five feet. Muscatine Community College's Continuing Education Department is again offering its popular of Gardening daylong seminar to educate and inspire others to seek enjoyment and fulfillment through a variety of accents rugs and more to decorate any room in your home. In the 0th Century Morrell was one of the WPIALs iconic fields with lights deep outfield large steel and concrete grandstand pool table infield and sunken dugouts. Browse The Best Amazon Promo Codes Are Updated Daily. Amazon giveaways are always free to enter and never give your contact information to the sponsor. Hunt Primary Advisor Dr.
They be grown with limited success outdoors in south Georgia. The metallic element aluminum is the third most plentiful element in the earths crust comprising of the planets soil and rocks oxygen and silicon make up and respectively. Are attractive landscape plants popular with gardeners in Georgia. Search the history of over 1 billion Berries Adult Height Color Edge Round web pages on the Internet. It's the perfect balance of creativity and science to propel brand awareness engagement conversion and loyalty. Genz External Advisor Dr. Instead the skin is colored with amazing hues of reds and oranges purples and blues. It was a young female just on the edge of sexual maturity. Hats are made by crocheting in the round with increases and decreases but its possible to work a hat flat and then seam the edges together. We have a variety of accents rugs and more to decorate any room in your home. Online Dictionary of Invertebrate Zoology Complete Work. This new hybrid provides tall stems with pure white frilly flowers with a remarkable contrasting dark eye It is a New Millennium hybrid from New Zealand bred for improved heat resistance strong stems vigor and longer life in the garden.
Shading is due to lighting not representative of the quilt. Acanthus mollis New Zealand Gold Photo sm med lg Huge foliage on a very striking plant. Most can be entered in three clicks with no typing and you will instantly know when you are a winner! In Japan consumers purchase sweet and tasty strawberries all the year round. Du Bois This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. Postmedia Solutions gives you the power to grow your business.
They usually require 1 to 1 months to produce a flower stalk. Considered by to be the loveliest and most graceful of all the ferns.
Click here to view the biography of Toothless Franchise. As animals roam around eating fruit and passing seeds they create the of the. Made How Volume Aluminum. Mahonia eurybracteata Soft Caress PP 01 Selected by plantsman Ozzie as a particularly silver and more frost hardy form of a most lovely species this plant to about ft tall with finely divided leaves appearing almost as a delicate palm. The Animals of Bear Country. Features a distressed rounded diamond Berries Adult Height Color Edge Round pattern on an off white background. Find your dream job today! A finished edge to prevent fraying this.
Turn on search history to start remembering your searches. Toward Year Round Production of Safe Strawberries. Comes up very late in the and although it will rarely flower in zone or is a magnificent and hardy foliage plant.
This glossary contains a number of recurrent terms found on the present site which not be clear to all readers especially when employed within the context of an discussion. Bananas Musa spp. Ferns Adiantum capillus veneris Southern Maidenhair Fern. Yoshi is a dinosaur like character that acts as an ally of and Luigi and the protagonist of his own franchise. Bear Berries Adult Height Color Edge Round Country USA is home to 0 species of North American mammals which live in large natural exhibits. The House Sparrow Passer domesticus is sometimes referred to as the English sparrow. They were deliberately introduced in multiple locations in the late 1 00s and are now established throughout the lower states. The Essential Vermeer Glossary of Art Related Terms J P. For crochet beginners the thought of crocheting a hat might seem like a complicated feat but we promise you that its really easy to learn! Plants Available. We blend media expertise with smart marketing. Deciduous drops its leaves in fall evergreen or semi evergreen. General information on how to attract nesting bluebirds including distinguishing nests and eggs of other cavity nesters heat dealing with house sparrows data on bluebird trail. The Board of County Commissioners is the countys legislative authority. Discover Amazon Promo Codes For 1 000s Of Products On Amazon. Super popular Black XS has got a female companion Black XS For Her presented by Paco Rabanne on 0 00. Download with Google Download with Facebook or download with email. HOSP are not native to the U. 1 th 1 th Century Antique Quilts Jonti Craft Multi Purpose Maple Square Table Jnt57220jc. Celtis occidentalis commonly known as the common hackberry is a large deciduous tree native to North America. Learn more about county government and how you can participate. Hoolele An Analysis of the Ancient Practice of Hawaiian Kite flying A Senior Honors Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Anthropology University of Hawaii at M noa In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Arts with Honors By Sailors 011 Committee Dr. Both Morrell Field and this Aliquippa team are mere shadows of a strong past. Shop online today! Among members of the Yoshi species hailing from Yoshis island any Yoshi be identified as the Yoshi character and as such not all iterations of the character are necessarily the same one.
Morrell was one of the WPIALs iconic fields with lights deep outfield large steel and concrete grandstand pool table infield and sunken dugouts. By Greeson. While captive born every effort is made to imitate a wild environment for our animal residents Iceberg Arc Utility Table Ice69324. Toothless is Hiccup Horrendous Haddock IIIs Night Fury and the deuteragonist of the How to Train Your Dragon franchise. Books and articles have been written about Cockatiels I really hesitated for a long time before presuming to add yet another. Canadas most comprehensive job search engine.
Organized by Plant Category Botanical Name Common Name Variety Berries Elementary Black Edge Four Leaf Table Jnt6453jce188. This modern floral fruity composition starts sharp and spicy with cranberry pink peppercorn and tamarind notes around the heart of hellebore noir rose black and cocoa blossom. Browse The Best Amazon Promo Codes List Here! Serves 1 Madeira loaf or sponge cake 1 liter ice cream of your choice egg whites 00 g caster sugar 1 t corn starch Method Slice the Madeira loaf in thick slices. The wolf Canis lupus also known as the grey gray wolf or timber wolf is a canine native to the wilderness and remote areas of Eurasia and North America. Start Saving Money Here! COCKATIELS ADVICE FROM A BREEDER. IDENTIFICATION OF HOUSE SPARROWS.


text:
Q: Values from a JSON response in ajax returning as undefined I'm having some problems when trying to retrieve values from a JSON response sent via the $.post() method in jQuery. Here is the script:
var clickedName = $('#customerId').val();

$.post("/customer-search", { name: clickedName }).done( function(response) {
    var results = $.parseJSON(response);
    console.log(results);

    $('#account-name').html(results.firstname + ' ' + results.lastname);
    $('#email').html(results.email);
    $('#telephone').html(results.telephone);
    if (results.fax) {
        $('#fax').html(results.fax);
    } else {
        $('#fax').html('n/a');
    }
    $('#personal').fadeIn();
    return false;
});

Just to explain, I'm using twitter typeahead in a Symfony2 project, and basically this script will fire when a name is clicked (selected) from the list after typing. The customer-search URL runs a search of the database as follows:
$q = $request->request->get('name');
$em = $this->getDoctrine()->getManager();
$customer = $em->getRepository('AppBundle:Oc73Customer')->findLikeName($q);
$addresses = $em->getRepository('AppBundle:Oc73Address')->findByCustomerId($customer[0]['customerId']);

$results = array();
$results['customer'] = $customer;
$results['addresses'] = $addresses;

return new Response(json_encode($results));

Which will successfully return a Json encoded response, and the value of 'response' which is printed in the console (as per the jquery above) is:
{
    "customer": [{
        "firstname": "Mike",
        "lastname": "Emerson",
        "email": "xxxx@xxxx.co.uk",
        "telephone": "01234 5678910",
        "fax": null,
        "password": "8e1f951c310af4c20e2cd6b68dee506ac685d7ae",
        "salt": "e2b9e6ced",
        "cart": null,
        "wishlist": null,
        "newsletter": 0,
        "addressId": 84,
        "customerGroupId": 1,
        "ip": null,
        "status": 1,
        "approved": 1,
        "token": null,
        "dateAdded": {
            "date": "2016-02-16 12:59:28.000000",
            "timezone_type": 3,
            "timezone": "Europe/Berlin"
        },
        "availCredit": null,
        "customerId": 75
    }],
    "addresses": [{}]
}

I am trying to retrieve the customer details by using the method I always use, so to get the firstname, I use results.firstname where results is a parsed JSON string, as written in my jQuery response.
However, all I get from results.firstname is undefined, even when it clearly is defined. So, basically, I'm wondering what I am doing wrong?
Hope someone can shed some light on my problem.

A: The properties you're trying to access are objects in the customer array, not on the parent object itself. Assuming that the response only ever contains one customer object then you can use result.customer[0], like this:
$.post("/customer-search", { name: clickedName }).done(function(response) {
    var results = $.parseJSON(response);
    var customer = response.customer[0];

    $('#account-name').html(customer.firstname + ' ' + customer.lastname);
    $('#email').html(customer.email);
    $('#telephone').html(customer.telephone);
    $('#fax').html(customer.fax ? customer.fax : 'n/a');
    $('#personal').fadeIn();
});

If it's possible that multiple customer objects will be returned in the array the you would need to amend your code to loop through those objects and build the HTML to display them all - without using id attributes.

A: I was able to access it like "results.customer[0].firstname"
var cus =
    {
    "customer": [{
        "firstname": "Mike",
        "lastname": "Emerson",
        "email": "xxxx@xxxx.co.uk",
        "telephone": "01234 5678910",
        "fax": null,
        "password": "8e1f951c310af4c20e2cd6b68dee506ac685d7ae",
        "salt": "e2b9e6ced",
        "cart": null,
        "wishlist": null,
        "newsletter": 0,
        "addressId": 84,
        "customerGroupId": 1,
        "ip": null,
        "status": 1,
        "approved": 1,
        "token": null,
        "dateAdded": {
            "date": "2016-02-16 12:59:28.000000",
            "timezone_type": 3,
            "timezone": "Europe/Berlin"
        },
        "availCredit": null,
        "customerId": 75
    }],
    "addresses": [{}]
}
    alert(cus.customer[0].firstname);

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange