<p>Mstee, thanks for asking. Yes, my son graduated in May and is still in St. Louis until September working with a professor. He’s applying to law school /grad school this fall. I was in Yoga class when he called to find out if we were okay - that’s how I found out about the bridge. </p>
<p>It’s funny because my husband said to me when I got home, “I hated that bridge - thought it was creepy”. I had always thought the same thing but never expressed it and I’m not one to be afraid of bridges. </p>
<p>I heard some official (NTSB?) on CNN say that there had not been a bridge collapse caused by structural fatigue or error since 1983 in Connecticut, I believe. All the other bridge collapses were caused by weather, collisions or earthquakes.</p>
<p>I disagree with the premise that no bridges have collapsed due to structural failure since 1983. The Schoharie bridge collapse killed 10 people (luckily it occurred at night, because, obviously the NYS Thruway is heavily traveled). The explanation was basically this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would think that the bridge pilings have something to do with the bridge structure. That bridge was constructed over a river that is known to rise in the spring (as most bridges are) and collapsed due to a combination of inadequate design of the pilings, and a shoddy schedule of maintenance and inspection.</p>
<p>“Scour” is what caused the New Orleans flood walls to collapse. Same type of thing; poor design for the soil they were placed in. (probably poor maintenance and inspection/repair too)</p>
<p>NPR’s comments this morning said the bridge in Minn. was probably not designed for the amount of traffic (weight) it is carrying now. It’s like 40 or 50 years old now isn’t it? The standards for joint design/materials are different now and back then they designed it for holding a lot less vehicles.</p>
<p>On our front page this morning it has the local article and the nat’l article. Local - " our state has 1800 bridges deemed structurally deficient. state authorities say this does not mean the bridges are unsafe." Nat’l - “the bridge in Minnesota had been found structurally deficient” (and is now in pieces at the bottom of the river, which in my book equals unsafe)</p>
<p>I don’t see why we can’t raise the tax on gasoline and pay for some hgwy/bridge repairs with the addl taxes. Just raise the gas price (which would cut down on the number of cars on the road and hence on the bridges) and dedicate the increased revenue to repairs and mass transportation.</p>
<p>^ I agree. But, as usual, if a state advertised it had “safe bridges” versus “low taxes” (not that it’s one or the other, but…) guess where people would flock to!</p>
<p>I bet we couldn’t get a list of the specific “structurally deficient” bridges if we tried. </p>
<p>I drive over a bridge a hundred times a day (OK, maybe it just feels like a 100 times) that has identical construction to the Minneapolis one, built in the same year, and is 410 feet longer. The fact that our county DOT insists it is “safe” doesn’t make me feel much better. (State DOT wouldn’t comment for the newspaper article.)</p>
<p>SuNa: Whew indeed! I’m glad CC posters from MN are all safe and accounted for.<br>
MA has about 300 bridges that are supposedly structurally deficient, and most are located at our end of the state.</p>
<p>According to the DOT definitions, a “structurally deficient” or “functionally obsolete” bridge is not necessarily “unsafe.” The definition says that the bridge for some reason (age, deterioration, construction) has speed and/or weight restrictions. I know there are lots of small lane-and-a-half bridges in Washington that used to be rural and served rural traffic levels that are now in the suburbs and carry a lot more traffic than they were ever meant to. They were adequate for the designed use, but are no longer so. This doesn’t mean they are necessarily “unsafe,” while they are “functionally obsolete.” </p>
<p>I only write this because the way a lot of the news stories are worded it would be easy to be left with the impression that, “more than 25% of the major highway bridges in the US are death traps, and disasters waiting to happen.” It would probably be more correct to say that, “more than 25% of the total bridges in the US are unsuited to their current use because of deterioration or increased usage, and much smaller fraction of these are dangerous to use. This includes both tiny bridges on rarely-traveled roads and some of the busiest in the country.”</p>
<p>And, Weenie, I wouldn’t worry about the political fall-out, I’d be worried about the economic disaster. Our state government in Washington is unable to come to grips with the necessity to upgrade the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle (tear it down, I say), and the SR-520 floating bridge, but I don’t think that there is any credible argument that both problems need solving or that the ultimate cost of doing nothing will far exceed the cost of rebuilding.</p>
<p>Mercymom that seems to be a very statist suggestion. On what grounds can you justify screwing over oil companies more than the government already is? Why not say, lower taxes and hand over the bridge business to the private sector? They have much better incentives to keep bridges safer than the government does. Accountability, for one. The way I see it, we are paying a lotta beef and getting absolutely no help anyway (Katrina ring a bell?)</p>
<p>In your state, you should be able to find out exactly which bridges are deficient or obsolete. The Houston Chronicle has been publishing such lists repeatedly over the last week. Btw…the State of Texas has only 18 deck truss bridges…all of which are now being evaluated for replacement. (We take our highway system very seriously here in the Lone Star State…lol! It’s all about the car here…)</p>
<p>Frankly, I have bridge phobia…so this whole thing has me quite freaked out. Nothing worse that sitting on the massive I-10 Mississippi River bridge at Baton Rouge, bumper to bumper in standstill commuter traffic, 175 feet over the river as the thing bounces up and down …arggh. (I know…bouncing is good…my engineer husband keeps telling me that…)</p>