OT: How Texas is responding to bridge problems!

The problem is not that the bridges are undrivable. The problem is that they suddenly become undrivable.

I do think that before replacing bridges, we should understand what happened near the twin cities.

Apparently, one problem with the bridge was that there were several points on the bridge where if there were a structural failure (e.g., a beam snapped), the bridge would fall.

One thing I noticed when comparing this bridge to the bridge in CA that collapsed after the tanker fire is that the one in CA had only one or two sections that collapsed, where the one near the twin cities had the entire bridge collapse.

It is time for the politicians to react to the bridge collapse with their brains and not have knee-jerk reactions. In NYC, they had a good, intelligent start, by inspecting their bridges. Too bad we don't have the NYC mayor as President. (He has a working brain, something the White House has not had in a male resident in about 7 years and the one before thought more in his jeans than his head.)

I don't see any reason to think that there will be more bridge failures.

Jeff

The bridges classified for replacement are all over the country and because one major bridge failed in the last 20 years it is nationa disaster...

The thing is the states get plenty of money to replace any bridge that is aging or to fortify it.

By no means am I an apologist for GWB... but the thing is that he cannot be blamed for the crisis in Minnesota. That falls to congress and to state governments. We know they are getting the money but not using it correctly..

They were paving this bridge which adds tons of weight.. but they wernt using any money to make it structually sound...

shame

Really? Yeah, state income tax and state sales tax and fuel taxes. They also get some federal money.

I don't know that they aren't using most of it correctly. And not all the money to maintain the Eisenhower highway system comes from federal money.

I bet the weight with the paving machines would be less than if all the lanes were filled with cars.

The problem is that while we have some information, we don't know the history of the bridge or reasons why they didn't choose to do more work or replace the bridge.

Maintaining the highway system and roads is expensive. There are a lot of roads and bridges that need replacement. And, no matter what we do, we ill have diasters like this one. Just like the steam pipe in NYC. And if you fix everything too often, you're going to have more people killed in construction accidents. Unfortunately, accidents are part of life. Although you can minimized them, you cannot totally eliminate them.

Jeff

Egg-Zacly. The entire weight of the main span and the two approach spans were sitting on four big bearing pins, two on each side of the river. And there were only two bearing trusses, one on each side. Any single-point failure would be catastrophic, and as the video shows that's precisely what happened.

The Corps Of Engineers initial reports are that the bridge went sideways about 50 feet as it fell, and in my book that's one side's trusswork failing and the other side trying to stay up. It will be interesting to see the results of the forensic reconstruction of the bridge as they find the guilty joint or junction...

Apples and oranges. For openers the CA bridge was not trusswork, it was steel plate I-section girders sitting on pier supports. And a much shorter span, only 100' to 150' between supports.

That transition road bridge stayed up for quite a while with the fuel tanker fire raging underneath it, plenty of time to close the road and clear all the cars off, before the steel finally got too hot and turned to mush - and you're right, only one section came down, the rest stayed up.

(Remind Rosie O'Donnell: There's the proof to debunk your BS WTC

9/11 conspiracy theory - Fire from burning petroleum fuels weakens steel, steel loses strength and collapses. The Defense rests.)

There will always be failures, no man-made structure is perfect. There was a bridge failure of a steel truss bridge designed like this one in 1967 as the one that just failed was being built, and as a result of that analysis they decided to stop building non-redundant structures like that.

What will most likely come out of this failure is they'll rapidly replace the remaining bridges designed like that with a much more forgiving design, and will be really paranoid in assessing their integrity during the annual inspections.

Where before they'd see developing problems and mark it as "Deficient, replace within 5 or 10 years" they'll know what happens when that critical joint fails and move to close it NOW, and repair or replace it ASAP.

Let the public howl that "you closed a vital artery", as long as nobody dies going over it I can live with a few complaints.

-->--

Yep, they get tons of federal stipends...

They have the money. States constantly spend money on stupid sh_t.

Indeed. Dallas is soon to build 3 for around 250 million dollars using state and city money... Now ask me if they need signature bridges using state and city money?

And, no matter what we do,

Another question...

How do you feel about a state selling the crossing rights to some of its bridges that are not in high traffic areas like a major city? Therefore, making the company liable for any danger the bridge may cost yet still putting it under state inspection (technically state inspections of bridges are a tiny amount of the budget. Example is Texas has all of its 50,183 bridges tested every 2 years for a total of 14 million.) Anyway, the idea is that you toll the bridge for a minute amount (but still profitable).. Cut taxes on those bridges.. use sales money upgrading current bridges.

People don't like the idea of tolls but let's face it... you pay one way or another..

Just an idea.. I don't claim its the answer...

And they have tons more road work to do with the federal funds. The federal funds only cover a portion of their road budgets.

I am not sure what sh_t is. However, states, local governments and federal governments do spend money stupid shit.

Nope. That's a bridge I'm not taking.

Jeff

Per an interview with a structural engineer on NPR yesterday, there are approximately 70,000 bridges in this country designed just like the one that collapsed, and built in the same era. We may have quite a statistical sample to learn from if they continue flopping.

Great.

Great. Now the fricking sand-pounders know how to destroy the other 69,999 bridges of this type.

I hope they think about replacing the remaining bridges of this type quickly, especially the ones on main arteries. The sand pounders will see an opportunity and probably take it.

This bridge was not a terrorist attack, but it probably gave them a lot of ideas.

Charles of Schaumburg

avoiding filters

I agree with you about bridge tolls with one condition. If the bridge is new construction and is built with private money raised either through stock sales or corporate bond sales, then tolls are okay. But if the bridge was built with public funds (taxes) then tolls are NOT okay. We already paid for the bridge with our taxes we shouldn't have to pay a second time with tolls. The same holds true for roads, if the tax payer paid the cost of construction, the tax payer shouldn't have to pay a toll to use it.

As for state inspections, great but inspections won't fix problems. If the state government won't fix the problems the inspections turn up, then the inspection was useless.

As for who is responsible for fixing bridges, the state is. The federal government is supposed to pay 50% of the cost (I think that's the correct figure, if it's not will someone correct me please) but it is the state's responsibility to do the actual repair on all Interstate highways and bridges. That is what the fuel tax we pay is supposed to pay for.

Jack

Firstly I am not a structural engineer, just someone that had to build or fix them.

In the pictures I saw of the bridge (and video) I could see no provision for movement of the deck. In fact the one picture showed a continuity of the beam over the bent (pier).

I suspect a poor design concept. This bridge is pretty young I believe under 40 years old.

Before I got sick and retired, I redid anchorages at one abutment for a pony truss bridge, built in 1928 by the US Forest Service crews. It was only a

65 foot span but it is still in use with logging truck traffic today and had provisions to allow longitudinal movement on bearing plates.

(Now bearings are teflon here in California but some older bridges actually had "zerk" fittings so bearing plates could be greased)

Pretty commonly in bridge deck repair, a lot of care is taken to keep the "dead load" about the same, by removing bad concrete and replacing it.

Ron in Ca

What if they sold the bridge for its origonal cost and upkeep?

We already paid for the bridge with our taxes we shouldn't have

They aren't.

They threw *ALL* the road money for the past 4 years, and for the forseeable future, into a hole in Boston that leaks, has killed one person, has faulty concrete, and will most likely collapse in the next 20 years.

(AP) Six men who worked for the Big Dig's largest concrete supplier were arrested Thursday on federal charges they falsified records to hide the poor quality of concrete delivered to the massive highway project.

The six, all current or former employees of Aggregate Industries, are named in a 135-count indictment on charges including making false statements, mail fraud and conspiracy to defraud the government between

1996 and August 2005.

The indictment charges the men with recycling concrete that was too old, and in some cases double-billing for the loads. The company was paid $105 million for 135,000 truckloads of concrete, and at least 5,000 of those truckloads did not meet specifications, according to the indictment.

.....

Attorney General Tom Reilly said there's no indication the concrete was connected to hundreds of leaks which have sprung in Big Dig tunnels. He said he has met with engineers and experts who have inspected the work where the concrete was used.

What if the bank, after you've paid off your mortage, decides you have to keep paying them in order to pay for upkeep on your home. But you still have to pay the contractor for repairs. Would that be fair?

Every time you fill the gas tank on your car or truck, you are paying both federal and state fuel taxes. Those taxes were passed for the purpose of paying for upkeep on existing roads and bridges. We pay over $0.40 per gallon tax here in Ohio. Where is that money going if it isn't being spent on our roads and bridges?

My dad once told me that "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch". We pay tolls to have and use our roads and bridges already, they're called taxes.

Jack

You have a valid argument Jack. They are sniffing around here in Mn with toll roads, I don't think it's going to fly. You see, they have set up express lanes that people pay extra for using them, that is a form of toll road and they will expand it if given the chance.

When Illinois built its original toll roads in the 1950's, the tolls were supposed to pay off the bonds they floated to build the toll roads. They were supposed to be originally paid off by 1975. Yet every time I go down the I-294, I have to pay either 3 or 4 tolls of 40 cents each and the cash tolls are 80 cents! And I think I ought to charge them for time wasted sitting on their beautiful tollway construction projects because the 294 is always under construction. I think they set up those construction zones just so they can fine drivers $375 at a minimum for going over 45 and everyone does if they can. And the Illinois Trollway is only expanding. We have a road that is toll as far as LaSalle-Peru, and another that is toll all the way through Illinois from Indiana to the Wisconsin border at South Beloit and has been since it was included in the interstate system in the

1960's.

Troll roads are a public rip off.

Charles of Schaumburg

On a similar note:

Yesterday, I drove 90 miles to my father's house. We're getting it ready to sell due to the recent death of my mother. My trip took about 45 minutes longer than usual.

Four traffic jams, all caused by the Highway Patrol ticketing people for whatever. Four traffic jams so the state could make a few bucks by utilizing over-zealous traffic enforcement; eight hundred bucks at the outside. Four traffic jams with tens of thousands of vehicles idling and wasting who-know-how-many gallons of fuel, and spewing excessive pollution into the air.

Government efficiency: oxymoron of the day.