| |
Main
Date: 08 Aug 2007 16:19:00
From: Crescentius Vespasianus
Subject: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
OUTDATED TECHNOLOGY
Engineers and bridge experts say there
are no obvious, well-known design flaws
with steel gusset plates from the
mid-1960s, when the I-35W bridge was
built. The gussets simply would have
been designed with cruder instruments,
such as slide rules, without the benefit
of precise computer technology, said UC
Berkeley's Astaneh-Asl. As a result,
they also would have been unable to
pinpoint high-stress areas, he said.
That isn't by itself a problem, he said.
However, if fatigue cracks and corrosion
are added to the mix "then it becomes a
perfect storm."
Without specific knowledge of why the
NTSB is interested in the plates, Gary
Peterson, assistant state bridge
engineer for MnDOT, said the only reason
he could think why NTSB was
investigating gusset plates would be
corrosion.
On the I-35W bridge, the plates are
riveted to beams, a detail no longer
used by bridge designers. Peterson
called the riveting an "old technology,"
though he said rivets are not inherently
problematic.
Corrosion is mentioned throughout
several MnDOT bridge inspection reports,
and rust was visible on gusset plates
and elsewhere on the bridge. Peterson
said engineers can use special equipment
to test corrosion and determine how much
metal remains.
Gusset plates become susceptible to
fracturing when they become corroded,
said Astaneh-Asl: "If you fracture any
gusset plate in that bridge, that's the
end of it."
As the first photographs and television
images of the collapse circulated,
Astaneh-Asl said he immediately noticed
the gusset plates had fractured. That
might have been a result of the collapse
and not a contributing factor, he said.
Some of the gusset plates may also have
been weakened by welding, he said.
Welding heats steel and then quickly
cools it, he said, creating tiny cracks
smaller than 1,000th of an inch. Such
cracks can be problematic in a piece of
steel, such as a gusset, subject to high
tension. The practice was stopped in the
1970s, he said.
There are other examples of structural
problems in bridges involving welds and
gussets. In 2003, a bridge in Pottstown,
Pa., was closed after inspectors found
that problems involving intersecting
welds at a gusset plate led to brittle
fractures in two spots, according to an
article this spring in the Journal of
Bridge Engineering.
The article also described how cracks
detected in December 2000 in all three
girders of an approach span of the Hoan
Bridge in Milwaukee prompted officials
to shut the 1970s-era bridge for three
months. All three fractures involved
gussets and welds. In 1999, a fatal
bridge collapse in southeast China was
attributed in part to poor welds, as was
a 1997 bridge collapse in Israel. -
whole article
http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_6577877
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 04:18:42
From:
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Aug 21, 3:28 pm, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:37:20 -0700, Jay Beattie
>
> <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> >The bottom line (like someone already said) is that we like to build
> >and dedicate, but we don't like to maintain -- and that goes for
> >conservatives and liberals. Maintenance is not sexy. And we sometimes
> >waste a lot of money on high-cost mass transit toys. We have a tram in
> >PDX that goes up to the University hosiptal -- pretty for postcards,
> >but pretty useless for the average citizen. Only part of it was paid
> >for with public funds, but even those funds could have filled a lot of
> >pot holes. I think we do get carried away with some of these mass
> >transit projects -- I sometimes feel like I am in the monorail episode
> >from the Simpsons. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> "But main street's still all cracked and broken"
Woo-Hoo! Lookit that asphalt fly!
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 16:14:20
From: Gary Young
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:37:20 -0700, Jay Beattie wrote:
<snip >
> The bottom line (like someone already said) is that we like to build
> and dedicate, but we don't like to maintain -- and that goes for
> conservatives and liberals. Maintenance is not sexy.
Sorry, but google disagrees:
Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "high maintenance" sexy. (0.34 seconds)
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 22:24:10
From: still me
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:14:20 -0500, Gary Young <garyyoung3@gmail.com >
wrote:
>Sorry, but google disagrees:
>
>Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "high maintenance" sexy. (0.34 seconds)
Don't date her. It will wear you down. Been there, done that.
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 11:37:20
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Aug 20, 5:50 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <46c9b338$0$28888$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tim McNamara wrote:
<huge snip >
> The author also neglects to mention that Minnesota had an excellent
> system of mass transit that was destroyed by a social engineering
> strategy in the 1950s to benefit auto makers, tire manufacturers and oil
> companies. By the time it was prosecuted and people went to prison, the
> damage was done. So we have to rebuild to get back what we previously
> had at a horrendous cost.
>
> He also fails to point out that the Twin Cities have the second highest
> per-capita bike commutership in the country, thanks to the money
> invested in bike infrastructure, and that the number of bike commuters
> increases month over month.
>
> If the author based his opinion on "facts" from the Taxpayer's League of
> Minnesota, no wonder he's off the mark. They're even less honest than
> Bill Clinton.
The bottom line (like someone already said) is that we like to build
and dedicate, but we don't like to maintain -- and that goes for
conservatives and liberals. Maintenance is not sexy. And we sometimes
waste a lot of money on high-cost mass transit toys. We have a tram in
PDX that goes up to the University hosiptal -- pretty for postcards,
but pretty useless for the average citizen. Only part of it was paid
for with public funds, but even those funds could have filled a lot of
pot holes. I think we do get carried away with some of these mass
transit projects -- I sometimes feel like I am in the monorail episode
from the Simpsons. -- Jay Beattie.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 22:28:57
From: still me
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:37:20 -0700, Jay Beattie
<jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote:
>The bottom line (like someone already said) is that we like to build
>and dedicate, but we don't like to maintain -- and that goes for
>conservatives and liberals. Maintenance is not sexy. And we sometimes
>waste a lot of money on high-cost mass transit toys. We have a tram in
>PDX that goes up to the University hosiptal -- pretty for postcards,
>but pretty useless for the average citizen. Only part of it was paid
>for with public funds, but even those funds could have filled a lot of
>pot holes. I think we do get carried away with some of these mass
>transit projects -- I sometimes feel like I am in the monorail episode
>from the Simpsons. -- Jay Beattie.
"But main street's still all cracked and broken"
"Sorry Mom, the mob has spoken"
"Monorail, monorail, monorail!"
The political spending machine - with both parties fully included - is
an obscenity.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 15:59:40
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <1187721440.386033.26210@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote:
> On Aug 20, 5:50 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article <46c9b338$0$28888$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> > "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> <huge snip>
>
> > The author also neglects to mention that Minnesota had an excellent
> > system of mass transit that was destroyed by a social engineering
> > strategy in the 1950s to benefit auto makers, tire manufacturers
> > and oil companies. By the time it was prosecuted and people went
> > to prison, the damage was done. So we have to rebuild to get back
> > what we previously had at a horrendous cost.
> >
> > He also fails to point out that the Twin Cities have the second
> > highest per-capita bike commutership in the country, thanks to the
> > money invested in bike infrastructure, and that the number of bike
> > commuters increases month over month.
> >
> > If the author based his opinion on "facts" from the Taxpayer's
> > League of Minnesota, no wonder he's off the mark. They're even
> > less honest than Bill Clinton.
>
> The bottom line (like someone already said) is that we like to build
> and dedicate, but we don't like to maintain -- and that goes for
> conservatives and liberals. Maintenance is not sexy.
Something you, Bill and I agree on (and I suspect, lots of other people
too). Woo-hoo!
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 20:37:14
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
there's a corolary! THE DAM COROLLARY: the more electricity generated
the more outboard motors the more bass boats the more A/C the
more....untill the entire area is an energy sucking black hole filled
with neon signs and human garbage.
Same thing
happens with a gas tax
with one exception
with a gas tax
no one gets to
sell real estate.
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 20:29:32
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
i have noooo idea what this is about so I'll comment.
in conservative thinking less government is more because the free
market, or dog eat dog, is a natural conditon.
exceptin' where the conservative can eat and hand out pork or steal
pork.
conservative philosophy ignroes the truth that ol debbil FDR's
policies generated this here pork.
but as a freethinking radical, the reason behind this proclivity to
avoid government appears often as an inability or laziness or lack of
education to analyze, plan, and administer a government program.
yawl free to work bicycle transport into this.
Bush's giveaway of the Fed surplus to walmart and the Chinese is an
excellent example. Instead of repairong infrastructure (oil gas coal
research...) by generating infrastrucure repair jobs and THEN allowing
workers to spend at Walmart, Bush gave the huge amount away and went
back to sleep in Crawford like the guys before FDR.
gas tax is an excellent example. If gas is taxed then a government
organization spends it, tracks it and checks up on it: more goverment
badbadbad.
new orleans is another. Talk is cheap but rebuild? move to high
ground? Gnaw. The effective way is allowing the free market to take
care of the problem as it did the flood. (By the way, I'm one of the
guys who first blew the horn on Katrina) which is another way of
saying, "let's ignore it and go back to Crawford for some ZZZZZZ's."
Or sleeping it off is a good excuse to hide the FACT the conservative
element doesn't have the brainpower to execute a coherent policy.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 20:26:51
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
> i have noooo idea what this is about so I'll comment.
> in conservative thinking less government is more because the free
> market, or dog eat dog, is a natural conditon.
> exceptin' where the conservative can eat and hand out pork or steal
> pork.
> conservative philosophy ignroes the truth that ol debbil FDR's
> policies generated this here pork.
> but as a freethinking radical, the reason behind this proclivity to
> avoid government appears often as an inability or laziness or lack of
> education to analyze, plan, and administer a government program.
> yawl free to work bicycle transport into this.
> Bush's giveaway of the Fed surplus to walmart and the Chinese is an
> excellent example. Instead of repairong infrastructure (oil gas coal
> research...) by generating infrastrucure repair jobs and THEN allowing
> workers to spend at Walmart, Bush gave the huge amount away and went
> back to sleep in Crawford like the guys before FDR.
> gas tax is an excellent example. If gas is taxed then a government
> organization spends it, tracks it and checks up on it: more goverment
> badbadbad.
> new orleans is another. Talk is cheap but rebuild? move to high
> ground? Gnaw. The effective way is allowing the free market to take
> care of the problem as it did the flood. (By the way, I'm one of the
> guys who first blew the horn on Katrina) which is another way of
> saying, "let's ignore it and go back to Crawford for some ZZZZZZ's."
> Or sleeping it off is a good excuse to hide the FACT the conservative
> element doesn't have the brainpower to execute a coherent policy.
Draft gene daniels for President 2008!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 20:27:02
From:
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Aug 8, 5:19 pm, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
Dear CV,
Not a reply, just the easiest place to tack on a link an editorial
about where a surprising amount of the transportation tax money went:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010490
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 17:41:07
From: Luke
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <1187580422.142880.142030@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote:
> On Aug 8, 5:19 pm, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear CV,
>
> Not a reply, just the easiest place to tack on a link an editorial
> about where a surprising amount of the transportation tax money went:
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010490
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
>
Thanks for the link Carl. One good turn deserves another: the August
09/07 issue of The Economist, A Bridge Gone Too Far [
http://tinyurl.com/yt2n6p ] serves as a counterbalance. This article
briefly explores the economics and politics behind USA's, chiefly
California's, transportation systems.
Among the more pertinent facts in the article: "The petrol taxes that
paid for much of America's post-war freeway system have been eaten away
by inflation and higher fuel efficiency. The federal tax, of 18.4 cents
a gallon, has not been raised since 1993. California's 18-cent tax has
remained unchanged since 1994. The state's motorists now pay about
one-third as much in petrol taxes, in real terms, to drive a mile as
they did in the early 1960s, according to the Public Policy Institute
of California..."
That the difference is made up by other tax revenue amounts to a
subsidy to motorists. Amazing that the USA hasn't grasped what their
market fundamentalists declare to the world: subsidies skew the
markets; free goods create demand. The article again: "In the ten years
beginning in 1995, the number of miles driven has increased by 23%..."
Americans' resistance to gas tax hikes/highway user (toll) fees will
only contribute to their making irrational decisions concerning
transportation policy. It's a mystery to me: public policy that, at
onerous cost to the general taxpayer -- disproportionately those of
lower incomes -- underwrites a transportation system that largely
limits its clients to those who can and are willing to bear the added
cost of owning and operating private autos.
But if that's the road you want go down be prepared to spend more to
build it, maintain it, and drive on it.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 15:57:28
From:
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:41:07 -0400, Luke <lucasiragusa@rogers.com >
wrote:
>In article <1187580422.142880.142030@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 8, 5:19 pm, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear CV,
>>
>> Not a reply, just the easiest place to tack on a link an editorial
>> about where a surprising amount of the transportation tax money went:
>>
>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010490
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>>
>
>Thanks for the link Carl. One good turn deserves another: the August
>09/07 issue of The Economist, A Bridge Gone Too Far [
>http://tinyurl.com/yt2n6p ] serves as a counterbalance. This article
>briefly explores the economics and politics behind USA's, chiefly
>California's, transportation systems.
>
>Among the more pertinent facts in the article: "The petrol taxes that
>paid for much of America's post-war freeway system have been eaten away
>by inflation and higher fuel efficiency. The federal tax, of 18.4 cents
>a gallon, has not been raised since 1993. California's 18-cent tax has
>remained unchanged since 1994. The state's motorists now pay about
>one-third as much in petrol taxes, in real terms, to drive a mile as
>they did in the early 1960s, according to the Public Policy Institute
>of California..."
>
>That the difference is made up by other tax revenue amounts to a
>subsidy to motorists. Amazing that the USA hasn't grasped what their
>market fundamentalists declare to the world: subsidies skew the
>markets; free goods create demand. The article again: "In the ten years
>beginning in 1995, the number of miles driven has increased by 23%..."
>
>Americans' resistance to gas tax hikes/highway user (toll) fees will
>only contribute to their making irrational decisions concerning
>transportation policy. It's a mystery to me: public policy that, at
>onerous cost to the general taxpayer -- disproportionately those of
>lower incomes -- underwrites a transportation system that largely
>limits its clients to those who can and are willing to bear the added
>cost of owning and operating private autos.
>
>But if that's the road you want go down be prepared to spend more to
>build it, maintain it, and drive on it.
Dear Luke,
"Even transportation dollars aren't scarce. Minnesota spends $1.6
billion a year on transportation--enough to build a new bridge over
the Mississippi River every four months. But nearly $1 billion of that
has been diverted from road and bridge repair to the state's light
rail network that has a negligible impact on traffic congestion. Last
year part of a sales tax revenue stream that is supposed to be
dedicated for road and bridge construction was re-routed to mass
transit. The Minnesota Department of Economic Development reports that
only 2.8% of the state's commuters ride buses or rail to get to work,
but these projects get up to 25% of the funding."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010490
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 22:16:08
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <e7cpc3dp3q3m98f4fkqp3so3ne592fcokd@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:41:07 -0400, Luke <lucasiragusa@rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1187580422.142880.142030@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> ><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Aug 8, 5:19 pm, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear CV,
> >>
> >> Not a reply, just the easiest place to tack on a link an editorial
> >> about where a surprising amount of the transportation tax money
> >> went:
> >>
> >> http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010490
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Carl Fogel
> >>
> >
> >Thanks for the link Carl. One good turn deserves another: the
> >August 09/07 issue of The Economist, A Bridge Gone Too Far [
> >http://tinyurl.com/yt2n6p ] serves as a counterbalance. This article
> >briefly explores the economics and politics behind USA's, chiefly
> >California's, transportation systems.
> >
> >Among the more pertinent facts in the article: "The petrol taxes
> >that paid for much of America's post-war freeway system have been
> >eaten away by inflation and higher fuel efficiency. The federal tax,
> >of 18.4 cents a gallon, has not been raised since 1993. California's
> >18-cent tax has remained unchanged since 1994. The state's motorists
> >now pay about one-third as much in petrol taxes, in real terms, to
> >drive a mile as they did in the early 1960s, according to the Public
> >Policy Institute of California..."
> >
> >That the difference is made up by other tax revenue amounts to a
> >subsidy to motorists. Amazing that the USA hasn't grasped what their
> >market fundamentalists declare to the world: subsidies skew the
> >markets; free goods create demand. The article again: "In the ten
> >years beginning in 1995, the number of miles driven has increased by
> >23%..."
> >
> >Americans' resistance to gas tax hikes/highway user (toll) fees will
> >only contribute to their making irrational decisions concerning
> >transportation policy. It's a mystery to me: public policy that, at
> >onerous cost to the general taxpayer -- disproportionately those of
> >lower incomes -- underwrites a transportation system that largely
> >limits its clients to those who can and are willing to bear the
> >added cost of owning and operating private autos.
> >
> >But if that's the road you want go down be prepared to spend more to
> >build it, maintain it, and drive on it.
>
> Dear Luke,
>
> "Even transportation dollars aren't scarce. Minnesota spends $1.6
> billion a year on transportation--enough to build a new bridge over
> the Mississippi River every four months. But nearly $1 billion of
> that has been diverted from road and bridge repair to the state's
> light rail network that has a negligible impact on traffic
> congestion. Last year part of a sales tax revenue stream that is
> supposed to be dedicated for road and bridge construction was
> re-routed to mass transit. The Minnesota Department of Economic
> Development reports that only 2.8% of the state's commuters ride
> buses or rail to get to work, but these projects get up to 25% of the
> funding."
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010490
Dear Carl,
As was discussed earlier in the thread, this editorial is not to be
confused with fact-based journalism or competent critical thinking. It
is rife with errors and twisted logic in service of a preconceived
notion. Even this paragraph contains obviously inaccurate information-
for one thing, $1 billion is not 25% of $1.6 billion. The author
conflates the addition of federal dollars- only available for rail
projects and which financed nearly 50% of the cost- with money from the
Minnesota general revenue fund. That money was never available for road
and bridge repair, period. He also neglect to mention that a fair
amount of the revenue was raised through bond issues. And, unlike
roads, mass transit is actually revenue-raising and pays back a portion
of its costs. Car use is massively tax-subsidized.
Another problem with the article is that Minnesota's light rail
"network" consists of a single rail line from downtown Minneapolis to
the Mall of America and part of the airport- which has exceeded the most
wildly optimistic predictions for ridership, despite being sited along
an alignment that opponents thought would result in failure of the
project and an end to these pesky mass transit programs. There are two
other rail lines slated to open, one linking Big Lake (and eventually
St. Cloud) to Minneapolis and the other linking downtown St. Paul to
downtown Minneapolis.
Minnesota's gasoline tax ($.20 per gallon) has not been raised since
1980 or something like that. By comparison Wisconsin's vastly superior
road network is financed by a gas tax of $.315 per gallon.
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 18:58:35
From: Luke
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <e7cpc3dp3q3m98f4fkqp3so3ne592fcokd@4ax.com >,
<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote:
> Dear Luke,
>
> "Even transportation dollars aren't scarce. Minnesota spends $1.6
> billion a year on transportation--enough to build a new bridge over
> the Mississippi River every four months. But nearly $1 billion of that
> has been diverted from road and bridge repair to the state's light
> rail network that has a negligible impact on traffic congestion. Last
> year part of a sales tax revenue stream that is supposed to be
> dedicated for road and bridge construction was re-routed to mass
> transit. The Minnesota Department of Economic Development reports that
> only 2.8% of the state's commuters ride buses or rail to get to work,
> but these projects get up to 25% of the funding."
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010490
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Yes that (3rd last) paragraph was noted. I'm not versed in Minnesota
politics -- perhaps Tim will chime in -- so will claim ignorance. I
don't know to what extent, if at all, the allocation of transportation
funds to Minnesota's light rail network initiative contributed to the
tragedy of 13[?] lost lives. That BS -- an unfortunate combination of
initials! -- has posted that "That bridge was flagged as problematic in
1990" definitely indicates otherwise.
And as to the paragraph's definite implication that the state's light
rail network has not delivered benefits commensurate with its cost --
sounds like a boondoggle -- in lieu of further info, again I have to
take the article at face value.
This doesn't invalidate the focus of my previous post: on a
macroeconomic level, motorists are being subsidized more than ever by
the taxpayer. It's regressive policy. Whether alternative systems to
the increasingly expensive private auto/extensive public road model,
e.g., Minnesota's LR network, adopted by various gov'ts are more
rational, economical, or suited to the circumstances is another matter.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 17:02:37
From: still me
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:58:35 -0400, Luke <lucasiragusa@rogers.com >
wrote:
>This doesn't invalidate the focus of my previous post: on a
>macroeconomic level, motorists are being subsidized more than ever by
>the taxpayer. It's regressive policy. Whether alternative systems to
>the increasingly expensive private auto/extensive public road model,
>e.g., Minnesota's LR network, adopted by various gov'ts are more
>rational, economical, or suited to the circumstances is another matter.
The counter argument is that with economies increasingly relying on
trucks to transport cargo that the public road infrastructure is a
factor in economic health. Therefore it's a progressive idea wherein
economic growth is held to benefit everyone in the state (arguable).
Tolls/user fees can be regressive in that the apply equally to all
users, regardless of ability to pay. Taxes are allegedly fairer if
applied to income or sales. If you buy in to the idea that roads help
the economy, general taxes may be a better way to finance roads.
Bottom line though - I think many of us would be happier, and perhaps
willing to pay more in direct use taxes for roads, if we didn't know
that the entire enterprise is riddled with waste and corruption. I
don't think I've seen state yet where the highway and transportation
departments aren't a cesspool of underworked and overpaid politically
connected state sponsored loafers making way too much money for to
little work. Similarly, all the public works projects are serious
giveaways to connected contractors, unions, and other folks who profit
from incredibly wasteful spending.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 18:38:02
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
still me who? wrote:
> ...
> Bottom line though - I think many of us would be happier, and perhaps
> willing to pay more in direct use taxes for roads, if we didn't know
> that the entire enterprise is riddled with waste and corruption. I
> don't think I've seen state yet where the highway and transportation
> departments aren't a cesspool of underworked and overpaid politically
> connected state sponsored loafers making way too much money for to
> little work....
That is what happens when hiring decisions are based on nepotism and
favoritism instead of merit.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 17:35:25
From: Luke
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <voerc319kroarkcoevqr53gm7ikstjitfg@4ax.com >, still me
<wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:58:35 -0400, Luke <lucasiragusa@rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
> >This doesn't invalidate the focus of my previous post: on a
> >macroeconomic level, motorists are being subsidized more than ever by
> >the taxpayer. It's regressive policy. Whether alternative systems to
> >the increasingly expensive private auto/extensive public road model,
> >e.g., Minnesota's LR network, adopted by various gov'ts are more
> >rational, economical, or suited to the circumstances is another matter.
>
> The counter argument is that with economies increasingly relying on
> trucks to transport cargo that the public road infrastructure is a
> factor in economic health. Therefore it's a progressive idea wherein
> economic growth is held to benefit everyone in the state (arguable).
The counter-counter argument!!?? is that the steep increase in heavy
goods traffic on our roadways is a corollary of the taxpayer
subsidizing the means by which it exists. I suspect if equivalent
public monies were directed toward subsidizing railways a commensurate
increase in business would be directed their way. But I'm not
advocating the wholesale public financing of either entity, let each
pay their own way, or be financed by the public to the degree each
serves the public interest.
From my cursory reading on the subject, transporting cargo by truck is
among the least economical methods of moving bulk goods. And to a great
extent economies that advance this mode of transport at the expense of
rail or ship undermine their competitiveness.
>
> Tolls/user fees can be regressive in that the apply equally to all
> users, regardless of ability to pay. Taxes are allegedly fairer if
> applied to income or sales. If you buy in to the idea that roads help
> the economy, general taxes may be a better way to finance roads.
Of course roads are beneficial to the economy. But they can also be too
much of good thing. There is a tipping point at which their
construction and maintenance are subject to diminishing returns.
Especially if their cost is disproportionately borne by general tax
revenue, their construction has the unintended consequence of inducing
greater demand. Then it's a vicious cycle.
>
> Bottom line though - I think many of us would be happier, and perhaps
> willing to pay more in direct use taxes for roads, if we didn't know
> that the entire enterprise is riddled with waste and corruption. I
> don't think I've seen state yet where the highway and transportation
> departments aren't a cesspool of underworked and overpaid politically
> connected state sponsored loafers making way too much money for to
> little work. Similarly, all the public works projects are serious
> giveaways to connected contractors, unions, and other folks who profit
> from incredibly wasteful spending.
No matter where you reside, the road crew comprising of one worker to
two spectators seems a constant ;-). I'd be happier if the true cost of
public goods and services were reflected in the tax structures
underwriting them -- and less pork all round!
A concise informative book on the subject, IIRC coauthored by an (ex?)
highway engineer, is 'Elephant in the Bedroom' [ ISBN-10: 0932727646 ].
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 19:39:27
From: still me
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:35:25 -0400, Luke <lucasiragusa@rogers.com >
wrote:
>No matter where you reside, the road crew comprising of one worker to
>two spectators seems a constant ;-). I'd be happier if the true cost of
>public goods and services were reflected in the tax structures
>underwriting them -- and less pork all round!
>
>A concise informative book on the subject, IIRC coauthored by an (ex?)
>highway engineer, is 'Elephant in the Bedroom' [ ISBN-10: 0932727646 ].
What bothers me more is the management folks pulling in large salaries
"managing" (note the quotes) by this same technique.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 22:25:02
From: Donald Gillies
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
carlfogel@comcast.net writes:
>On Aug 8, 5:19 pm, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>Dear CV,
>
>Not a reply, just the easiest place to tack on a link an editorial
>about where a surprising amount of the transportation tax money went:
>
>http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010490
Hyper-conservatives are pee'ing their pants over this bridge collapse.
Turns out that when you rebate half the tax money, spend the other
half on pointless foreign wars, and borrow heavily for the small
amount of things THAT REALLY NEED DOING, those infernal "citizens"
start dying on the crumbling public infrastructure projects of the
1950's and 1960's !!!
And conservatives called those "make work!" projects.
Well I call their tax breaks, "make death!" tax-breaks !!
Good luck in 2m0r0n8, conservatives !!
- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA, USA
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 23:27:09
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
Donald Gillies wrote:
> carlfogel@comcast.net writes:
>
>> On Aug 8, 5:19 pm, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear CV,
>>
>> Not a reply, just the easiest place to tack on a link an editorial
>> about where a surprising amount of the transportation tax money went:
>>
>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010490
>
> Hyper-conservatives are pee'ing their pants over this bridge collapse.
> Turns out that when you rebate half the tax money, spend the other
> half on pointless foreign wars, and borrow heavily for the small
> amount of things THAT REALLY NEED DOING, those infernal "citizens"
> start dying on the crumbling public infrastructure projects of the
> 1950's and 1960's !!!
>
> And conservatives called those "make work!" projects.
>
> Well I call their tax breaks, "make death!" tax-breaks !!
>
> Good luck in 2m0r0n8, conservatives !!
Just a guess: you didn't even READ the editorial. (Facts ARE pesky when
they completely obliterate your template.)
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 21:15:59
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On 2007-08-20, Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> Donald Gillies wrote :
>>>
>>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010490
>>
>> Hyper-conservatives are pee'ing their pants over this bridge collapse.
>> Turns out that when you rebate half the tax money, spend the other
>> half on pointless foreign wars, and borrow heavily for the small
>> amount of things THAT REALLY NEED DOING, those infernal "citizens"
>> start dying on the crumbling public infrastructure projects of the
>> 1950's and 1960's !!!
>>
>> And conservatives called those "make work!" projects.
>>
>> Well I call their tax breaks, "make death!" tax-breaks !!
>>
>> Good luck in 2m0r0n8, conservatives !!
> Just a guess: you didn't even READ the editorial. (Facts ARE pesky when
> they completely obliterate your template.)
Well, I read it. The author whines about all the money that has been
diverted from automobile infrastructure to superfluous fluff like bike
paths and "inefficient public transportation."
Your point?
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 21:23:47
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
John Thompson wrote:
> On 2007-08-20, Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Donald Gillies wrote :
>>>>
>>>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010490
>>>
>>> Hyper-conservatives are pee'ing their pants over this bridge
>>> collapse. Turns out that when you rebate half the tax money, spend
>>> the other half on pointless foreign wars, and borrow heavily for
>>> the small amount of things THAT REALLY NEED DOING, those infernal
>>> "citizens" start dying on the crumbling public infrastructure
>>> projects of the 1950's and 1960's !!!
>>>
>>> And conservatives called those "make work!" projects.
>>>
>>> Well I call their tax breaks, "make death!" tax-breaks !!
>>>
>>> Good luck in 2m0r0n8, conservatives !!
>
>> Just a guess: you didn't even READ the editorial. (Facts ARE pesky
>> when they completely obliterate your template.)
>
> Well, I read it. The author whines about all the money that has been
> diverted from automobile infrastructure to superfluous fluff like bike
> paths and "inefficient public transportation."
>
> Your point?
There are, what, nine people dead and hundreds more hurt and traumatized --
all because local and state governments can't get their shit together even
with millions of dollars in which to wrap it.
HTH
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 06:31:01
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 23:27:09 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:
>Donald Gillies wrote:
>> carlfogel@comcast.net writes:
>>
>>> On Aug 8, 5:19 pm, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear CV,
>>>
>>> Not a reply, just the easiest place to tack on a link an editorial
>>> about where a surprising amount of the transportation tax money went:
>>>
>>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010490
>>
>> Hyper-conservatives are pee'ing their pants over this bridge collapse.
>> Turns out that when you rebate half the tax money, spend the other
>> half on pointless foreign wars, and borrow heavily for the small
>> amount of things THAT REALLY NEED DOING, those infernal "citizens"
>> start dying on the crumbling public infrastructure projects of the
>> 1950's and 1960's !!!
>>
>> And conservatives called those "make work!" projects.
>>
>> Well I call their tax breaks, "make death!" tax-breaks !!
>>
>> Good luck in 2m0r0n8, conservatives !!
>
>Just a guess: you didn't even READ the editorial. (Facts ARE pesky when
>they completely obliterate your template.)
>
I didn't read it either, and am not commenting on this particular
issue. But Bill, do you understand the difference between opinion
(editorial material) and reporting?
Good opinion pieces can be based on reporting, or cite facts (and the
one you are referring to may do that), but it's interesting that in a
lot of political discussion you "cite" opinion pieces and not straight
reporting.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 08:52:42
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <q7ric3l8tokhudspphtbkb3p9il6rnnl8a@4ax.com >,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:
> But Bill, do you understand the difference between opinion (editorial
> material) and reporting?
The current crop of vocal "conservatives" writing editorials don't
generally understand the difference between beliefs and facts, and they
think that a fact is just a belief that is expressed loudly and
persistently enough. They confuse and blind those who lack critical
thinking skills.
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 03:47:30
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
WHY THE BRIDGE COLLAPSED?
because minnesota is populated with joe dolan's relatives.
like this should be obvious right?
|
| | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 23:09:38
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
> WHY THE BRIDGE COLLAPSED?
>
> because minnesota is populated with joe dolan's relatives.
> like this should be obvious right?
I think gene means "Ed Dolan". Good theory, in that case. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 03:43:20
From: Marian
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Aug 11, 1:46 am, <j...@phred.org > wrote:
> Building new bridges is politically sexy. Maintaining existing ones is
> expensive, clogs traffic, and doesn't generate much political credit.
Hainan is the only place in China where I've spent much time off of
the big main roads in places in the absolute middle of nowhere. Some
of the bridges were built by the Japanese but the vast majority of the
bridges are 50s and 60s and are in pretty sad shape. A lot of these
bridges are now under complete reconstruction and it isn't at all
uncommon to go across a new bridge and see an old bridge next to (or
underneath in one case that now starts about 100 meters farther
uphill) it.
I love riding on the old roads and provincial roads where they don't
have new bridges yet. The old bridges tend to have various traffic
calming measures and big blue and white highway signs that say "This
is a Dangerous Bridge" followed by sometimes paragraphs at a time
detailing everything from the history and composition of the bridge to
the viable alternate routes that should be taken by larger vehicles.
-M
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 22:38:02
From:
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
Here in Pueblo, we test bridges the old-fashioned, sensible way:
http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1186818930/7
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 23:20:52
From: still me
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:38:02 -0700, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>Here in Pueblo, we test bridges the old-fashioned, sensible way:
>
>http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1186818930/7
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
"The Union Avenue bridge underwent major repairs a few years ago. It
is wide enough for four lanes of traffic but in recent years has been
converted to three lanes with a left-turn lane in the middle."
I'm curious... why would you have a left turn lane on a bridge?
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 23:45:15
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <fd5vb352c24auip50j4abnb8mc23po4mi0@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:38:02 -0700, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >Here in Pueblo, we test bridges the old-fashioned, sensible way:
> >
> >http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1186818930/7
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Carl Fogel
>
> "The Union Avenue bridge underwent major repairs a few years ago. It
> is wide enough for four lanes of traffic but in recent years has been
> converted to three lanes with a left-turn lane in the middle."
>
> I'm curious... why would you have a left turn lane on a bridge?
ROTFL!
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 22:25:07
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> Here in Pueblo, we test bridges the old-fashioned, sensible way:
>> http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1186818930/7
still me wrote:
> "The Union Avenue bridge underwent major repairs a few years ago. It
> is wide enough for four lanes of traffic but in recent years has been
> converted to three lanes with a left-turn lane in the middle."
> I'm curious... why would you have a left turn lane on a bridge?
Because there are intersections going both directions at both ends.
c.f. recently smashed/rebuilt Seminole Drive bridge here in Madison.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 17:58:49
From:
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:20:52 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:38:02 -0700, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>Here in Pueblo, we test bridges the old-fashioned, sensible way:
>>
>>http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1186818930/7
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Carl Fogel
>
>"The Union Avenue bridge underwent major repairs a few years ago. It
>is wide enough for four lanes of traffic but in recent years has been
>converted to three lanes with a left-turn lane in the middle."
>
>I'm curious... why would you have a left turn lane on a bridge?
Dear SM,
From the south-west, Union Street descends about 90 feet from the
bluffs above the Arkansas River to the flood plain beyond a levee.
The road drops a third of the way down the bluff and then climbs the
near side of a short, arched bridge across the river, a levee, and the
railroad tracks.
The far side of the bridge drops even more steeply past the levee and
railroad tracks.
Before the bottom of the final drop is a cross-road.
bluff x = crossroad
' r = river
. R = railroad tracks
' . . ' ' '. L = levee
' . ' '.
' river L 'x
' rrrrrrrrrLLL R ' . . . .
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=11&Z=13&X=1332&Y=10586&W=1
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 00:57:49
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Aug 10, 7:22 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <13bpf5v8lm90...@corp.supernews.com>,
> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> -snip trusses-
>
> > >>> "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> > >> At this point, we're just speculating.
>
> > >>Tim McNamara wrote:
> > >>> Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and
> > >>> an inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I
> > >>> understand how a simple truss works, but this isn't a simple
> > >>> truss and I don't understand the failure modes. So the
> > >>> likelihood of an accurate conclusion can be no better than
> > >>> chance.
>
> > > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > >> That's refreshingly mature statement.
>
> > Tim McNamara wrote:
> > > I'm famous for my refreshing maturity. Just ask around. ;-)
>
> > Well, that wasn't to say you aren't generally mature, just that
> > anyone admitting a lack of expertise about _anything_ on r.b.t. is
> > rare.
>
> Well, we all like to be APEs (All Purpose Experts). It's a middle aged
> guy thing. As for the level of my maturity, hmmm that's better left
> uncritically examined. :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
right thinking about that, I know several very old steel bridges in
apparent excellent condition all some distance from salt and
pollution.
if you know an old car, the seams open over time thru expansion and
contraction. Silicone seam sealer is spread over the seam and painted.
GM sold the stuff OTC 10-15 years ago.
ya gotta keep after those seams. Minnesota had 7 years? Somebody's
brother in law forgot about it.
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 19:43:13
From:
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Aug 10, 3:30 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >> -snip trusses-
> >>> "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> >> At this point, we're just speculating.
> >>Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and
> >>> an inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I
> >>> understand how a simple truss works, but this isn't a simple truss
> >>> and I don't understand the failure modes. So the likelihood of an
> >>> accurate conclusion can be no better than chance.
> > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> That's refreshingly mature statement.
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > I'm famous for my refreshing maturity. Just ask around. ;-)
>
> Well, that wasn't to say you aren't generally mature, just that anyone
> admitting a lack of expertise about _anything_ on r.b.t. is rare.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
I am an expert at not admitting my lack of expertise, just ask anyone!
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 13:31:32
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Aug 10, 8:49 am, Leonardo <s...@centurytel.net > wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <13bn5t5dla70...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> >> -snip trusses-
>
> >>> "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> >> At this point, we're just speculating.
>
> >>> Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and
> >>> an inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I
> >>> understand how a simple truss works, but this isn't a simple truss
> >>> and I don't understand the failure modes. So the likelihood of an
> >>> accurate conclusion can be no better than chance.
> >> That's refreshingly mature statement.
>
> > I'm famous for my refreshing maturity. Just ask around. ;-)
>
> Built in '67?
>
> The bridge collapsed because the steelworkers were too busy cussin' out
> hippies to pay attention to their work.
>
> No...wait a minute....the bridge collapsed because another one didn't
>
> I'm famous for my refreshing immaturity
>
> L.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
salt?
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 20:22:09
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Aug 9, 8:00 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> If you look at the image of the 35W bridge in Google Earth, you can see,
> at the north end of the bridge just over the edge of the river bank, an
> apparent crack running the entire width of the deck. It is clearly not
> a section joint because those are straight and at right angles to the
> roadway. The image is dated 2007 but note more specifically than that.
> Six months before the collapse? Three days before the collapse
> (probably not as there are no lane closures for construction). Not being
> an engineer I have no idea of the significance of this apparent crack.
> Could be none at all.
>
> A cycling buddy of mine works in the MNDoT bridge design department. I
> should ask him.
You mean this:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/34njmv
(link to Google Maps)
The line across the bridge at the top must be an expansion
joint. It looks just like the one at the bottom (that a white
pickup is crossing). The one at the top looks crooked on
the northbound side; this is either a design element or an
artifact of photo stitching. The drains near it (short dark
horizontal lines near the median of the roadway) also look
crooked, which makes me think it's an artifact.
I don't know much about bridges, but I don't think the
roadway of a bridge is likely to crack all the way across
without a noticeable vertical displacement, and people
would notice a few-inch vertical shift driving over it.
The trucks that somebody else mentioned on the bridge
were the gravel trucks carrying material for the resurfacing.
They were probably stationary at the time of the collapse.
Their weight may have been the straw that broke the bridge's
back, but the likely _cause_ was some sort of material
failure combined with a design that had no redundancy.
(IOW, it probably would have failed eventually even w/o
the gravel trucks.)
At this point, we're just speculating.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 17:31:49
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <1186690929.918917.246170@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:
> On Aug 9, 8:00 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > If you look at the image of the 35W bridge in Google Earth, you can
> > see, at the north end of the bridge just over the edge of the river
> > bank, an apparent crack running the entire width of the deck. It
> > is clearly not a section joint because those are straight and at
> > right angles to the roadway. The image is dated 2007 but note more
> > specifically than that. Six months before the collapse? Three days
> > before the collapse (probably not as there are no lane closures for
> > construction). Not being an engineer I have no idea of the
> > significance of this apparent crack. Could be none at all.
> >
> > A cycling buddy of mine works in the MNDoT bridge design
> > department. I should ask him.
>
> You mean this:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/34njmv (link to Google Maps)
Yes, the upper line across the roadway in between the two dark sedans
"following" the white double trailer semi which appears to actually be a
different image. If you zoom in using Google Earth (you can zoom in
further) the waviness of the line becomes more apparent.
FWIW the neighboring bridge is not the "Cedar Avenue Bridge" as Google
insists. It is the 10th Avenue bridge. Cedar Avenue is nearby.
> The line across the bridge at the top must be an expansion joint. It
> looks just like the one at the bottom (that a white pickup is
> crossing). The one at the top looks crooked on the northbound side;
> this is either a design element or an artifact of photo stitching.
Which is certainly a possibility.
> The drains near it (short dark horizontal lines near the median of
> the roadway) also look crooked, which makes me think it's an
> artifact.
>
> I don't know much about bridges, but I don't think the roadway of a
> bridge is likely to crack all the way across without a noticeable
> vertical displacement, and people would notice a few-inch vertical
> shift driving over it.
You would think. But bridges do noticeably bob up and down all the
time, more noticeable when you are stopped on the bridge than driving.
Most of us have felt that kind of thing. Local reports indicate that
people have been hearing "stress noises" from the bridge when driving
across it slowly with the windows down, but again that is apparently not
unusual. I've never heard it. I've only driven across that bridge a
handful of times in the past 20 years- it just didn't connect anywhere I
go to anywhere else I go.
> The trucks that somebody else mentioned on the bridge were the gravel
> trucks carrying material for the resurfacing. They were probably
> stationary at the time of the collapse. Their weight may have been
> the straw that broke the bridge's back, but the likely _cause_ was
> some sort of material failure combined with a design that had no
> redundancy. (IOW, it probably would have failed eventually even w/o
> the gravel trucks.) At this point, we're just speculating.
Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and an
inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I understand how a
simple truss works, but this isn't a simple truss and I don't understand
the failure modes. So the likelihood of an accurate conclusion can be
no better than chance.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 17:39:51
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
-snip trusses-
> "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
At this point, we're just speculating.
> Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and an
> inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I understand how a
> simple truss works, but this isn't a simple truss and I don't understand
> the failure modes. So the likelihood of an accurate conclusion can be
> no better than chance.
That's refreshingly mature statement.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 23:35:05
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <13bn5t5dla70bad@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> -snip trusses-
>
> > "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> At this point, we're just speculating.
>
> > Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and
> > an inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I
> > understand how a simple truss works, but this isn't a simple truss
> > and I don't understand the failure modes. So the likelihood of an
> > accurate conclusion can be no better than chance.
>
> That's refreshingly mature statement.
I'm famous for my refreshing maturity. Just ask around. ;-)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 14:30:26
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
>> -snip trusses-
>>> "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
>> At this point, we're just speculating.
>>Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and
>>> an inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I
>>> understand how a simple truss works, but this isn't a simple truss
>>> and I don't understand the failure modes. So the likelihood of an
>>> accurate conclusion can be no better than chance.
> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> That's refreshingly mature statement.
Tim McNamara wrote:
> I'm famous for my refreshing maturity. Just ask around. ;-)
Well, that wasn't to say you aren't generally mature, just that anyone
admitting a lack of expertise about _anything_ on r.b.t. is rare.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 18:22:10
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <13bpf5v8lm90b2b@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >> -snip trusses-
>
> >>> "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> >> At this point, we're just speculating.
>
> >>Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and
> >>> an inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I
> >>> understand how a simple truss works, but this isn't a simple
> >>> truss and I don't understand the failure modes. So the
> >>> likelihood of an accurate conclusion can be no better than
> >>> chance.
>
> > A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> That's refreshingly mature statement.
>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > I'm famous for my refreshing maturity. Just ask around. ;-)
>
> Well, that wasn't to say you aren't generally mature, just that
> anyone admitting a lack of expertise about _anything_ on r.b.t. is
> rare.
Well, we all like to be APEs (All Purpose Experts). It's a middle aged
guy thing. As for the level of my maturity, hmmm that's better left
uncritically examined. :-)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 07:49:43
From: Leonardo
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <13bn5t5dla70bad@corp.supernews.com>,
> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> -snip trusses-
>>
>>> "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
>> At this point, we're just speculating.
>>
>>> Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and
>>> an inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I
>>> understand how a simple truss works, but this isn't a simple truss
>>> and I don't understand the failure modes. So the likelihood of an
>>> accurate conclusion can be no better than chance.
>> That's refreshingly mature statement.
>
> I'm famous for my refreshing maturity. Just ask around. ;-)
Built in '67?
The bridge collapsed because the steelworkers were too busy cussin' out
hippies to pay attention to their work.
No...wait a minute....the bridge collapsed because another one didn't
I'm famous for my refreshing immaturity
L.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 09:00:25
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
"Leonardo" <sss@centurytel.net > wrote in message
news:q-6dnXdMuc51wyHbnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@centurytel.net...
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <13bn5t5dla70bad@corp.supernews.com>,
> > A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >> -snip trusses-
> >>
> >>> "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> >> At this point, we're just speculating.
> >>
> >>> Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and
> >>> an inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I
> >>> understand how a simple truss works, but this isn't a simple truss
> >>> and I don't understand the failure modes. So the likelihood of an
> >>> accurate conclusion can be no better than chance.
> >> That's refreshingly mature statement.
> >
> > I'm famous for my refreshing maturity. Just ask around. ;-)
>
>
> Built in '67?
>
> The bridge collapsed because the steelworkers were too busy cussin' out
> hippies to pay attention to their work.
>
> No...wait a minute....the bridge collapsed because another one didn't
>
> I'm famous for my refreshing immaturity
>
> L.
And grabbing their crotches while making catcalls to women passing by....
"Get a haircut"!
Chas.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 23:46:22
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <13bn5t5dla70bad@corp.supernews.com>,
> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> -snip trusses-
>>
>>> "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
>> At this point, we're just speculating.
>>
>>> Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and
>>> an inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I
>>> understand how a simple truss works, but this isn't a simple truss
>>> and I don't understand the failure modes. So the likelihood of an
>>> accurate conclusion can be no better than chance.
>> That's refreshingly mature statement.
>
> I'm famous for my refreshing maturity. Just ask around. ;-)
There are the ringing endorsements of Tim McNamara from jim beam. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 19:13:36
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <13bln8frghuaudb@corp.supernews.com >,
Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyboss@hotmail.com >
wrote:
> Engineers and bridge experts say there
> are no obvious, well-known design flaws
> with steel gusset plates from the
> mid-1960s, when the I-35W bridge was
> built. The gussets simply would have
> been designed with cruder instruments,
> such as slide rules, without the benefit
> of precise computer technology, said UC
> Berkeley's Astaneh-Asl. As a result,
> they also would have been unable to
> pinpoint high-stress areas, he said.
The methods used to calculate strengths of structural
elements is irrelevant. Electronic computers make
people think they can cut costs closer by making every
structural element exactly as strong as it needs to be,
but no stronger. (See box girder bridges). Who thinks
to pay to overbuild structures? The failure of this
bridge is probably graft, and the grifters are
untouchable.
--
Michael Press
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 13:22:20
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:rubrum-9D2291.12133609082007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <13bln8frghuaudb@corp.supernews.com>,
> Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyboss@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Engineers and bridge experts say there
> > are no obvious, well-known design flaws
> > with steel gusset plates from the
> > mid-1960s, when the I-35W bridge was
> > built. The gussets simply would have
> > been designed with cruder instruments,
> > such as slide rules, without the benefit
> > of precise computer technology, said UC
> > Berkeley's Astaneh-Asl. As a result,
> > they also would have been unable to
> > pinpoint high-stress areas, he said.
>
> The methods used to calculate strengths of structural
> elements is irrelevant. Electronic computers make
> people think they can cut costs closer by making every
> structural element exactly as strong as it needs to be,
> but no stronger. (See box girder bridges). Who thinks
> to pay to overbuild structures? The failure of this
> bridge is probably graft, and the grifters are
> untouchable.
>
> --
> Michael Press
Contracts go to the lowest bidders - you get what you pay for and nothing
more!
Chas.
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 08:46:12
From:
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Aug 9, 11:00 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> If you look at the image of the 35W bridge in Google Earth, you can see,
> at the north end of the bridge just over the edge of the river bank, an
> apparent crack running the entire width of the deck. It is clearly not
> a section joint because those are straight and at right angles to the
> roadway. The image is dated 2007 but note more specifically than that.
> Six months before the collapse? Three days before the collapse
> (probably not as there are no lane closures for construction). Not being
> an engineer I have no idea of the significance of this apparent crack.
> Could be none at all.
>
> A cycling buddy of mine works in the MNDoT bridge design department. I
> should ask him.
It's hard to say. It looks like a crack, but it's in the right place
to be an expansion joint. There was repair work being done on the
decking at the time of the collapse though.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 13:24:52
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <1186674372.771614.138070@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com >,
unforgiven99@juno.com wrote:
> On Aug 9, 11:00 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > If you look at the image of the 35W bridge in Google Earth, you can
> > see, at the north end of the bridge just over the edge of the river
> > bank, an apparent crack running the entire width of the deck. It
> > is clearly not a section joint because those are straight and at
> > right angles to the roadway. The image is dated 2007 but note more
> > specifically than that. Six months before the collapse? Three days
> > before the collapse (probably not as there are no lane closures for
> > construction). Not being an engineer I have no idea of the
> > significance of this apparent crack. Could be none at all.
> >
> > A cycling buddy of mine works in the MNDoT bridge design
> > department. I should ask him.
>
> It's hard to say. It looks like a crack, but it's in the right place
> to be an expansion joint. There was repair work being done on the
> decking at the time of the collapse though.
I thought of that, too, but the expansion joints are clean and straight,
most of them also having metal edging on each of the sections to prevent
snowplows from hooking on the edges. But maybe it's just an expansion
joint somehow distorted by the camera or the blending of that photograph
with the next one. Note the truck fading out of or into existence just
a little way to the north of the crack/line/joint which shows the
morphed edges of the two images.
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 11:15:15
From: Marcus Coles
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
Looks like a whole lot of speculation to me rather than "why the bridge
collapsed".
I think it is pretty hard to build a large steel structure without welds.
Rivets are old but well proven technology.
My guess: The problem is the use of de-icing salts and the longterm
corrosive effects on the relatively unprotected steel, beams, gusset
plates, connections, anchorages, reinforcements or whatever.
Rust never sleeps.
Marcus Coles
Not an engineer nor do I play one on TV.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 13:30:26
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <lcGui.21149$13.7347@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca >,
Marcus Coles <marcoles@ody.ca > wrote:
> Looks like a whole lot of speculation to me rather than "why the
> bridge collapsed".
Quite true. That's all there is at this point. The NTSB is apparently
going to move the bridge and try to reassemble it as part of the
analysis.
> I think it is pretty hard to build a large steel structure without
> welds. Rivets are old but well proven technology.
>
> My guess: The problem is the use of de-icing salts and the longterm
> corrosive effects on the relatively unprotected steel, beams, gusset
> plates, connections, anchorages, reinforcements or whatever.
That's one part of the problem. The other is at least 17 years of
looking at problems but deferring doing anything about them. Some
seemingly huge problems were pointed out numerous times in increasingly
urgent language, including stress fractures, tilting of one of the
support pylons, etc. The more information becomes available, the more
it seems that this bridge should have been closed years ago and replaced.
There maybe yet other contributors.
> Rust never sleeps.
Indeed.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 10:46:45
From:
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <timmcn-437AD0.13302609082007@news.iphouse.com >,
timmcn@bitstream.net says...
> That's one part of the problem. The other is at least 17 years of
> looking at problems but deferring doing anything about them. Some
> seemingly huge problems were pointed out numerous times in increasingly
> urgent language, including stress fractures, tilting of one of the
> support pylons, etc. The more information becomes available, the more
> it seems that this bridge should have been closed years ago and replaced.
And this bridge is far from alone. It received an acceptable Federal
rating, 50%. That's low enough to suggest repairs and monitoring, but
not enough to force closure until repairs are completed.
The Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle, which carries commuter and freight
traffic through the heart of Seattle, is rated at under 20%. The city
and state can't agree on much of anything, so they've been making
piecemeal upgrades while carefully measuring the viaduct as it continues
to sink into unstable ground.
The Murray Morgan Bridge in Tacoma receives a horrifying *TWO PERCENT*
structural integrity rating, but it is still open to traffic.
Building new bridges is politically sexy. Maintaining existing ones is
expensive, clogs traffic, and doesn't generate much political credit.
--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/ >
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html >
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 23:17:44
From: still me
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:46:45 -0700, <josh@phred.org > wrote:
>And this bridge is far from alone. It received an acceptable Federal
>rating, 50%. That's low enough to suggest repairs and monitoring, but
>not enough to force closure until repairs are completed.
>
>The Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle, which carries commuter and freight
>traffic through the heart of Seattle, is rated at under 20%. The city
>and state can't agree on much of anything, so they've been making
>piecemeal upgrades while carefully measuring the viaduct as it continues
>to sink into unstable ground.
>
>The Murray Morgan Bridge in Tacoma receives a horrifying *TWO PERCENT*
>structural integrity rating, but it is still open to traffic.
>
>Building new bridges is politically sexy. Maintaining existing ones is
>expensive, clogs traffic, and doesn't generate much political credit.
Where'd you farm this info? I'd like to see some more.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 18:15:34
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <MPG.21264464d04c6f60989761@newsgroups.comcast.net >,
<josh@phred.org > wrote:
> In article <timmcn-437AD0.13302609082007@news.iphouse.com>,
> timmcn@bitstream.net says...
>
> > That's one part of the problem. The other is at least 17 years of
> > looking at problems but deferring doing anything about them. Some
> > seemingly huge problems were pointed out numerous times in
> > increasingly urgent language, including stress fractures, tilting
> > of one of the support pylons, etc. The more information becomes
> > available, the more it seems that this bridge should have been
> > closed years ago and replaced.
>
> And this bridge is far from alone. It received an acceptable Federal
> rating, 50%. That's low enough to suggest repairs and monitoring,
> but not enough to force closure until repairs are completed.
>
> The Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle, which carries commuter and
> freight traffic through the heart of Seattle, is rated at under 20%.
> The city and state can't agree on much of anything, so they've been
> making piecemeal upgrades while carefully measuring the viaduct as it
> continues to sink into unstable ground.
>
> The Murray Morgan Bridge in Tacoma receives a horrifying *TWO
> PERCENT* structural integrity rating, but it is still open to
> traffic.
>
> Building new bridges is politically sexy. Maintaining existing ones
> is expensive, clogs traffic, and doesn't generate much political
> credit.
All very good points. Along similar lines, building new roads and
highways is also politically sexy, maintaining the ones already built is
not. I am reminded of wanting a puppy when I was a child. I had a cat,
some fish, a turtle or two, rodentia of some sort. My Mom pointed out
that I couldn't have a new pet since I didn't do a good job of taking
care of the ones I had. I want to tell my local politicians the same
thing when the ramp up the expenditure plans for new roads (which almost
invariably service a new subdivision in some place that was formerly
nice for bike riding). The existing road system is more pothole than
road in some stretches. We "can't afford" to fix or upgrade it, but we
can spend billions of dollars to new roads to ensure the profitability
of suburban developers.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 12:25:10
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
<josh@phred.org > wrote in message
news:MPG.21264464d04c6f60989761@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <timmcn-437AD0.13302609082007@news.iphouse.com>,
> timmcn@bitstream.net says...
>
> > That's one part of the problem. The other is at least 17 years of
> > looking at problems but deferring doing anything about them. Some
> > seemingly huge problems were pointed out numerous times in
increasingly
> > urgent language, including stress fractures, tilting of one of the
> > support pylons, etc. The more information becomes available, the more
> > it seems that this bridge should have been closed years ago and
replaced.
>
> And this bridge is far from alone. It received an acceptable Federal
> rating, 50%. That's low enough to suggest repairs and monitoring, but
> not enough to force closure until repairs are completed.
>
> The Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle, which carries commuter and freight
> traffic through the heart of Seattle, is rated at under 20%. The city
> and state can't agree on much of anything, so they've been making
> piecemeal upgrades while carefully measuring the viaduct as it continues
> to sink into unstable ground.
>
> The Murray Morgan Bridge in Tacoma receives a horrifying *TWO PERCENT*
> structural integrity rating, but it is still open to traffic.
>
> Building new bridges is politically sexy. Maintaining existing ones is
> expensive, clogs traffic, and doesn't generate much political credit.
>
> --
> josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
Remember Galloping Gerty?
Chas.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 11:29:20
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
"Marcus Coles" <marcoles@ody.ca > wrote in message
news:lcGui.21149$13.7347@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> Looks like a whole lot of speculation to me rather than "why the bridge
> collapsed".
> I think it is pretty hard to build a large steel structure without
welds.
> Rivets are old but well proven technology.
>
> My guess: The problem is the use of de-icing salts and the longterm
> corrosive effects on the relatively unprotected steel, beams, gusset
> plates, connections, anchorages, reinforcements or whatever.
>
> Rust never sleeps.
>
>
> Marcus Coles
> Not an engineer nor do I play one on TV.
That's what I was going to comment on too. Most of the northern states use
or used massive quantities of rock salt for de-icing their roads.
About 20 or so years ago a lot of bridges on the main highways around the
country were shut down for repairs due to corrosion and deferred
maintenance.
One other thing, I saw a photo of several large trucks that were caught on
the bridge by the collapse. They were heavily loaded with rock or
something similar and very close to each other.
If you're ever stopped in traffic on a large bridge when heavy trucks pass
by you can fell how much they bounce the bridge. The trucks on the bridge
could have set up some harmonics at the wrong place and time that were
enough to trigger the collapse.
Chas.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 17:37:03
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <IqGdnXaETpsywSbbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
>
> "Marcus Coles" <marcoles@ody.ca> wrote in message
> news:lcGui.21149$13.7347@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> > Looks like a whole lot of speculation to me rather than "why the
> > bridge collapsed". I think it is pretty hard to build a large steel
> > structure without
> welds.
> > Rivets are old but well proven technology.
> >
> > My guess: The problem is the use of de-icing salts and the longterm
> > corrosive effects on the relatively unprotected steel, beams,
> > gusset plates, connections, anchorages, reinforcements or whatever.
> >
> > Rust never sleeps.
> >
> >
> > Marcus Coles Not an engineer nor do I play one on TV.
>
> That's what I was going to comment on too. Most of the northern
> states use or used massive quantities of rock salt for de-icing their
> roads.
The 35W bridge was particularly prone to black ice formation in the
winter, so it was fitted with de-icing fluid "sprinklers" a few years
back. The bridge was just downstream from the "Niagara of the North,"
St. Anthony Falls which contributed to black ice formation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Anthony_Falls
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 10:00:56
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
If you look at the image of the 35W bridge in Google Earth, you can see,
at the north end of the bridge just over the edge of the river bank, an
apparent crack running the entire width of the deck. It is clearly not
a section joint because those are straight and at right angles to the
roadway. The image is dated 2007 but note more specifically than that.
Six months before the collapse? Three days before the collapse
(probably not as there are no lane closures for construction). Not being
an engineer I have no idea of the significance of this apparent crack.
Could be none at all.
A cycling buddy of mine works in the MNDoT bridge design department. I
should ask him.
|
|
