Bridge Collapses in Minneapolis -terrible footage

[sal]

This is reallly a frightening tragedy. My heart goes out to all the victims and their loved ones. And I hope that none of our board members are directly affected by this.

[T.D.]

There were a couple of similar Interstate bridge collapses on the East Coast. One (iirc) was on I-90 just West of Albany. The other was the Mianus River Bridge (I-95) in Connecticut. They were 20 or more years ago (also iirc), and there were fatalities.

I thought that Interstate highway bridge maintenance would have picked up after those...

[catesta]

140,000 cars use the bridge every day. I can't imagine how this will affect the city for months to come. You can't put a bridge of that size up quickly.

The governor said in a press conference something that contradicts a report in my earlier post. He says that there was no reported structural flaws in the May inspections...

I thought I heard on the radio that an engineer was saying it more than likely was the steel.

[Rooster_Ties]

140,000 cars use the bridge every day.

I heard slightly over 200,000 per day on MSNBC earlier tonight. In either case, it's a LOT of traffic, to be sure.

MSNBC just said "over 100,000" -- so who the hell knows.

[7/4]

I know someone from another board who drove over that bridge about 30 min before it fell down.

Yikes!

[ghost of miles]

Video of collapse

[ejp626]

Not trying to get this thread moved or anything, but this is what happens when the antigovernment crowd takes over the government and allows the infrastructure to weaken to the point of collapse.

Yeah, its always their fault. Like the bridge collapse in CT about 20 years ago - nothing but Democrats in control of the legislature for 60 years or more, and what happens?

Wise up, Mark and understand that shit happens sometimes.

So if it isn't political, why is Tony Snow already doing some pre-emptive buck passing? I'm sure we'll discuss that in the appropriate forum later.

Transportation infrastructure is my line of business, and yes, sometimes it does collapse. However, this is an area that has been starved of resources for decades. There are plenty of reports out there that show that there are 70,000 bridges in roughly the same condition as this one, and 70,000 bridges that are in even worse condition. Can you imagine what it will cost to bring them all up to code? Billions if not trillions of dollars. As a society, we won't pay enough in taxes to take care of all of them, and these kinds of failures will occur. I actually expect a wave of failures to accelerate as the highways and bridges built throughout the 1950s and 1960s start to collapse due to insufficient funds for maintenance.

[Jim Alfredson]

Good thing the Iraq War is costing us $600,000,000,000!!! (That's $600 billion for those who can't read that many zeroes.)

[Dan Gould]

Not trying to get this thread moved or anything, but this is what happens when the antigovernment crowd takes over the government and allows the infrastructure to weaken to the point of collapse.

Yeah, its always their fault. Like the bridge collapse in CT about 20 years ago - nothing but Democrats in control of the legislature for 60 years or more, and what happens?

Wise up, Mark and understand that shit happens sometimes.

So if it isn't political, why is Tony Snow already doing some pre-emptive buck passing? I'm sure we'll discuss that in the appropriate forum later.

Transportation infrastructure is my line of business, and yes, sometimes it does collapse. However, this is an area that has been starved of resources for decades. There are plenty of reports out there that show that there are 70,000 bridges in roughly the same condition as this one, and 70,000 bridges that are in even worse condition. Can you imagine what it will cost to bring them all up to code? Billions if not trillions of dollars. As a society, we won't pay enough in taxes to take care of all of them, and these kinds of failures will occur. I actually expect a wave of failures to accelerate as the highways and bridges built throughout the 1950s and 1960s start to collapse due to insufficient funds for maintenance.

And there will be no pattern of partisanship when that wave of failures happens (I think you're right that they will occur).

[catesta]

Bridge was rated 'deficient'

By Dan Browning | McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

August 2, 2007

MINNEAPOLIS - The highway bridge that collapsed into the Mississippi River on Wednesday was rated as "structurally deficient" two years ago and possibly in need of replacement.

That rating was contained in the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Bridge Inventory database.

Jeanne Aamodt, a spokeswoman for the Minnesota Department of Transportation, said the department was aware of the 2005 assessment of the bridge. "We've seen it, and we are very familiar with it," she said.

Aamodt said the department plans its bridge repairs using information from the Bridge Inventory database.

Many other bridges nationwide carry the same designation that the I-35W bridge received, Aamodt said.

Aamodt declined to say what the agency was going to do to address the deficiencies found in 2005 and referred further questions to Dan Dorgan, state bridge engineer and director of the bridge office. Dorgan wasn't available for comment.

The deficiency rating is derived from a complex formula that evaluates many factors and condenses them into an overall score. A score of 80 percent or less indicates some rehabilitation may be needed; a 50 percent score or less indicates replacement may be in order.

The I-35W bridge was rated at 50 percent. The rating data was provided to the Star Tribune by the National Institute of Computer Assisted Reporting.

The inventory data also summarize the bridge's status as "structurally deficient." Bridge components are ranked on a scale of 0 to 9, with 0 being "failed" and 9 being "excellent."

In 2005, the bridge's superstructure -- meaning the physical conditions of all structural members -- was rated at 4, records show. The bridge's deck was rated 5, and the substructure, comprised of the piers, abutments, footings and other components, was rated 6.

In 2001, a research report on the bridge had found that it was unlikely to experience any fatigue cracking in the trusses supporting its deck. The paper, prepared by the University of Minnesota's Center for Information Studies, evaluated both the main trusses and the floor truss of the bridge.

The report by the late Robert J. Dexter and others, concluded that the bridge's deck "has not experienced fatigue cracking, but it has many poor fatigue details on the main truss and floor truss system."

The authors said their research helped determine that "fatigue cracking of the deck truss is not likely." They added that the bridge shouldn't have any problems with fatigue cracking "in the forseeable future" and that there was no need to "prematurely replace this bridge because of fatigue cracking, avoiding the high costs associated with such a large project."

However, the report noted "many poor fatigue details" and said certain members of the main truss should be inspected every two years, as was being done at the time. In addition, the report said, certain sections of the floor trusses had high stress areas that should be inspected every six months.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty said Wednesday night that the bridge was inspected in 2005 and 2006, and that no structural deficiencies were identified.

Workers had been engaged since early May on a resurfacing project on the bridge that was to conclude in September. It included the installation of guard rails and lighting.

The span carried the name Bridge 9340 in the books of the state Department of Transportation, although it originally was dubbed the St. Anthony Bridge.

The steel-arch structure, opened in 1967, carried 140,000 cars a day at last count, in 2002, its 1,907 feet spanning eight lanes.

[Jazzmoose]

Not trying to get this thread moved or anything, but this is what happens when the antigovernment crowd takes over the government and allows the infrastructure to weaken to the point of collapse.

Yeah, its always their fault. Like the bridge collapse in CT about 20 years ago - nothing but Democrats in control of the legislature for 60 years or more, and what happens?

Wise up, Mark and understand that shit happens sometimes.

Right. Bridges magically collapse for no reason at all...

[Randy Twizzle]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/0...aming_bush.html

[RDK]

It has to be God's fault or Bush's. You can't have it both ways.

[Chuck Nessa]

It has to be God's fault or Bush's. You can't have it both ways.

Maybe we should start a poll.

Edited August 2, 2007 by Chuck Nessa

[GregK]

Not trying to get this thread moved or anything, but this is what happens when the antigovernment crowd takes over the government and allows the infrastructure to weaken to the point of collapse.

Yeah, its always their fault. Like the bridge collapse in CT about 20 years ago - nothing but Democrats in control of the legislature for 60 years or more, and what happens?

Wise up, Mark and understand that shit happens sometimes.

Right. Bridges magically collapse for no reason at all...

I KNEW it was Bush's fault!! Just like the hurricane!

[Chuck Nessa]

I KNEW it was Bush's fault!! Just like the hurricane!

Not his fault but the completely inane response was and continues to be.

[Dan Gould]

Not trying to get this thread moved or anything, but this is what happens when the antigovernment crowd takes over the government and allows the infrastructure to weaken to the point of collapse.

Yeah, its always their fault. Like the bridge collapse in CT about 20 years ago - nothing but Democrats in control of the legislature for 60 years or more, and what happens?

Wise up, Mark and understand that shit happens sometimes.

Right. Bridges magically collapse for no reason at all...

Try again.

Bridge collapses are not inevitable results of "the antigovernment crowd" taking over.

Case in point: Which party has been in control of Minnesota state government in the last thirty years? I'm pretty sure it hasn't been the GOP.

[Big Deal]

Ever since the no new taxes mantra of the eighties, any politician that even remotely tries to have a realistic debate about what this country needs for funding of any type, is quickly put in his/her place. The public needs are not being met by this and this is the result. It really doesn’t matter who is in charge, politicians of all stripes would rather pose for a quick sound bite than actually explain to the public why this needs to be done. So the public just blissfully goes on its way, unknowingly into danger.

[HolyStitt]

Case in point: Which party has been in control of Minnesota state government in the last thirty years? I'm pretty sure it hasn't been the GOP.

Since December 1976 there have been five people elected to the post. 3 were Republicans, one was an Independent, and one was affiliated with the DFL. The last time a DFL member held the post was in January of 1991.

Here is how the history of party affiliation with the post breaks down (from Wikipedia):

Number of Governors of Minnesota by party affiliation[1] Party Governors

Republican 24

Democratic-Farmer-Labor 5

Democratic 4

Farmer-Labor 3

Independent-Republican 2

Reform/Independence 1

[catesta]

Ever since the no new taxes mantra of the eighties, any politician that even remotely tries to have a realistic debate about what this country needs for funding of any type, is quickly put in his/her place. The public needs are not being met by this and this is the result. It really doesn’t matter who is in charge, politicians of all stripes would rather pose for a quick sound bite than actually explain to the public why this needs to be done. So the public just blissfully goes on its way, unknowingly into danger.

It's not like taxes have not been raised since the 80s, so I don't know that it's so much a lack of funding rather than funds that have been mis-spent (war included).

But you are right about politicians in general. There are bills going to the floor everyday with all kinds of bullshit new spending attached to them. It seems most politicians are more interested in having new shit built in their name in their home towns rather than take care of necessary business.

Apologies to Jim for this thread taking a political turn.

[Uncle Skid]

Once again, common sense from catesta. It really does seem to be about funds directed to the wrong places, rather than a lack of funds.

Good to see you on the board again, Big Deal (Don).

Edited August 3, 2007 by Uncle Skid

[Dan Gould]

Case in point: Which party has been in control of Minnesota state government in the last thirty years? I'm pretty sure it hasn't been the GOP.

Since December 1976 there have been five people elected to the post. 3 were Republicans, one was an Independent, and one was affiliated with the DFL. The last time a DFL member held the post was in January of 1991.

Here is how the history of party affiliation with the post breaks down (from Wikipedia):

Number of Governors of Minnesota by party affiliation[1] Party Governors

Republican 24

Democratic-Farmer-Labor 5

Democratic 4

Farmer-Labor 3

Independent-Republican 2

Reform/Independence 1

Sorry for my poorly worded post but I was trying to refer to who controls the state legislature, as that is where spending bills originate.

[ejp626]

State politics are almost irrelevant in cases of paying for interstate highways and major bridges. 90% of the funding comes from federal government. In many states, there are also dedicated funds from gas taxes to pay for state highways, and this cannot be easily undone by the politicians. The problem is even with all this money (well beyond the imagination of planners in other fields), the need is still two to three times as great as the available funds.

If, however, we start seeing catastrophic failures every month, then the priorities will change and we will either (hopefully) raise gas taxes or pull the funds from somewhere else, since we don't seem to be willing to raise income taxes.

[RDK]

State politics are almost irrelevant in cases of paying for interstate highways and major bridges. 90% of the funding comes from federal government. In many states, there are also dedicated funds from gas taxes to pay for state highways, and this cannot be easily undone by the politicians. The problem is even with all this money (well beyond the imagination of planners in other fields), the need is still two to three times as great as the available funds.

If, however, we start seeing catastrophic failures every month, then the priorities will change and we will either (hopefully) raise gas taxes or pull the funds from somewhere else, since we don't seem to be willing to raise income taxes.

But whether state or federal funding, the problem still isn't that easy to solve. Even if one says that half a trillion dollars would have been freed up if not for the damn war in Iraq, do you dedicate that money to fixing roads and building bridges or to fixing the health care system or to feeding people? Or to education or to cleaner water/air programs? There will always be something worthwhile to spend money on - and some things more worthwhile and/or pressing than others. One needs to prioritize such spending and develop plans and programs that span decades, not just political terms. But seriously, I think few of us, even if we had many trillions to spend, would put deferred maintence over more immediate concerns of heath and human sustenance. We need both, of course, but how does one prioritize?

[MoGrubb]

I read in the AM paper that there are still people in the submerged cars trapped beneath the highway. Terrible, just terrible. I feel for the victims and their relatives and friends.