|
|
#231
08-02-2007, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: OT: [censored] thread, August, READ RULES IN TOP POST
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It's ridiculous, I mean on the one hand I understand if the state DOT is understaffed / underfunded. But at the same time, if it's people's lives you're dealing with, I think something ought to be done... I mean there should be SOME way to get properly staffed and funded so stuff like this doesn't happen. Maybe I'm just naive about the inner workings of issues like this or whatever, but seems pretty common sense to me that if you have a bridge that may or may not collapse, you should go all out to try to fix it. They even said in one of the reports that road construction was being done a few miles away... So why in God's name wasn't the bridge being worked on? [/ QUOTE ] Some points from Twin Cities news shows today. The Feds require bridges like this to be inspected every 24 months. Minnesota inspects them every 12 months. The last couple of inspections noted some metal fatigue that did not present any immediate safety issues, but indicated that the bridge should be considered for repair or replacement at some point in the future. The bridge was a steel structure with a concrete deck (roadway). A concrete crew was working on the bridge, resurfacing the deck, when it collapsed. [/ QUOTE ] One other point: This bridge had no "redundancy". There were no supports under it to keep it in place if the structure started to go. Interesting facts: The thing was 1,900 feet long and was not supported from underneath. According to the MN DOT, as of 2005 the average daily traffic flow on this bridge was 141,000 vehicles per day. From what I understand, it was built 40 years ago and was not up to par with todays engineering standards. The thing I dont understand is, all the "experts" they talk to say that it was not terrorists, it was not due to the maintenance work being performed on it, it was NOT a structural problem, then in the next breath they say it was structural. Seems like someone isn't telling us everything or they are covering their own asses. |
|
#232
08-02-2007, 04:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: OT: [censored] thread, August, READ RULES IN TOP POST
I love August.
That is all. |
|
#236
08-02-2007, 04:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: OT: [censored] thread, August, READ RULES IN TOP POST
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's ridiculous, I mean on the one hand I understand if the state DOT is understaffed / underfunded. But at the same time, if it's people's lives you're dealing with, I think something ought to be done... I mean there should be SOME way to get properly staffed and funded so stuff like this doesn't happen. Maybe I'm just naive about the inner workings of issues like this or whatever, but seems pretty common sense to me that if you have a bridge that may or may not collapse, you should go all out to try to fix it. They even said in one of the reports that road construction was being done a few miles away... So why in God's name wasn't the bridge being worked on? [/ QUOTE ] Some points from Twin Cities news shows today. The Feds require bridges like this to be inspected every 24 months. Minnesota inspects them every 12 months. The last couple of inspections noted some metal fatigue that did not present any immediate safety issues, but indicated that the bridge should be considered for repair or replacement at some point in the future. The bridge was a steel structure with a concrete deck (roadway). A concrete crew was working on the bridge, resurfacing the deck, when it collapsed. [/ QUOTE ] One other point: This bridge had no "redundancy". There were no supports under it to keep it in place if the structure started to go. Interesting facts: The thing was 1,900 feet long and was not supported from underneath. According to the MN DOT, as of 2005 the average daily traffic flow on this bridge was 141,000 vehicles per day. From what I understand, it was built 40 years ago and was not up to par with todays engineering standards. The thing I dont understand is, all the "experts" they talk to say that it was not terrorists, it was not due to the maintenance work being performed on it, it was NOT a structural problem, then in the next breath they say it was structural. Seems like someone isn't telling us everything or they are covering their own asses. [/ QUOTE ] I'm thinking that eventually they are going to come out and say that the report they received in 2005 recommended the bridge needed more urgent work than they are telling us it did. Or, the report wasn't thorough and should have revealed that the bridge needed immediate attention. Either way, if they did proper inspections every 12 months then they should have noticed any major structural faults. |
|
#239
08-02-2007, 05:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: OT: [censored] thread, August, READ RULES IN TOP POST
yea gunnip, missed the bolding on that post, first thing i thought of was fight club. glad to hear your family is safe cha, just craziness.
|
|
#240
08-02-2007, 05:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: OT: [censored] thread, August, READ RULES IN TOP POST
[ QUOTE ]
One other point: This bridge had no "redundancy". There were no supports under it to keep it in place if the structure started to go. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know anything about engineering, but I have never heard of "redundancy". A bridge is supposed to stand on its own. [ QUOTE ] Interesting facts: The thing was 1,900 feet long and was not supported from underneath. According to the MN DOT, as of 2005 the average daily traffic flow on this bridge was 141,000 vehicles per day. From what I understand, it was built 40 years ago and was not up to par with todays engineering standards. [/ QUOTE ] The longest span of the bridge was the arch over the river, about 500 feet if I remember. It was designed that way so no part of it would be in the water and interfere with river traffic. At a news conference today, MNDOT officials said that the bridge was fully up to standards, and was scheduled for a major repair or replace decision in the year 2020. This is the best "before" picture of the bridge I've seen. |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
