another bridge collapse

[dawp]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57586023/no-fatalities-in-i-5-bridge-collapse-in-nw-wash/

as of now it is unknown what caused it. no deaths reported which is somewhat surprising.

 

[Sheep221]

It seems that american transport infrastructure terribly lack maintenance.

 

[BoomerD]

From the local news reports, a truck hauling an over-sized load hit the bridge beams...causing the collapse.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/...ver-after-I-5-Bridge-collapse--208760201.html

Francis said troopers have located a commercial motor vehicle believed to have hit several girders on the bridge just prior to the collapse. The driver is cooperating with investigators.

On the news, they showed damage to the load that was being hauled...consistent with hitting the bridge girders.

 

[her209]

How do we know the truck driver wasn't a terrorist?

 

[K1052]

It seems that american transport infrastructure terribly lack maintenance.

The bridge is listed as being in decent shape. This country does have WAY too many steel truss bridges that don't have redundant load paths and should be slated for replacement.

 

[BlueWolf47]

The bridge is listed as being in decent shape. This country does have WAY too many steel truss bridges that don't have redundant load paths and should be slated for replacement.

The bridge's condition was rated 56 out of 100. With the average bridge condition in washington being 80 i would say the bridge was hardly in decent shape.

 

[TechBoyJK]

The bridge's condition was rated 56 out of 100. With the average bridge condition in washington being 80 i would say the bridge was hardly in decent shape.

If it's 56 out of a 100.. I guess we can say it wasn't halfway bad

 

[Matt1970]

Glad nobody died.

 

[K1052]

The bridge's condition was rated 56 out of 100. With the average bridge condition in washington being 80 i would say the bridge was hardly in decent shape.

Sufficiency rating is more complex, it takes into account functional obsolescence and other factors aside from just the condition of the actual structure. The last inspection lists the superstructure in Fair condition and the deck/substructure as Satisfactory. Even if all were in pristine condition this accident still would have happened because of the design.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Sufficiency rating is more complex, it takes into account functional obsolescence and other factors aside from just the condition of the actual structure. The last inspection lists the superstructure in Fair condition and the deck/substructure as Satisfactory. Even if all were in pristine condition this accident still would have happened because of the design.

I understand that. The bridge was over 50 years old and past its design life. Washington's bridge infrastructure was rated as a C- on Tuesday.

It's pretty ridiculous that we haven't started addressing infrastructure.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I understand that. The bridge was over 50 years old and past its design life. Washington's bridge infrastructure was rated as a C- on Tuesday.

It's pretty ridiculous that we haven't started addressing infrastructure.

Feel good money vs infrastructure $$

See 2009 for example

 

[BlueWolf47]

Feel good money vs infrastructure $$

See 2009 for example

Im not sure what your referring to but our last report was D+. The needed investment estimate by 2020 is 3. 6 trillion.

 

[soundforbjt]

Republicans keep blocking spending on infrastructure for political reasons. They don't care about anything but re-gaining power and blocking anything Dems want to do.

 

[K1052]

Im not sure what your referring to but our last report was D+. The needed investment estimate by 2020 is 3. 6 trillion.

He's referring to ARRA. Though only 100B of 800B went to infrastructure and of that just 50B went to transportation investment.

Realistically a long term solution is needed that could fund 100B worth of infrastructure investments on an annual basis. Also setting up a national Infrastructure bank like yesterday and providing seed grants to states to set up their own would be moving in the right direction.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Ya that's what i thought he was referring to. It was barely a drop in the bucket for what we actually need. There was bipartisan support for an infrastructure bank but then Obama started to talk about it more and republicans all of the suddenly opposed it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Republicans keep blocking spending on infrastructure for political reasons. They don't care about anything but re-gaining power and blocking anything Dems want to do.

Democrats keep directing funds towards other uses. See the 2009 Stimulus, of which only 6% was infrastructure. See the state of Washington where $800 million went into high speed rail, when they clearly need to repair existing infrastructure first.

Money is finite so pick and choose, unless you're Ben Bernanke. Speaking of which, why hasn't he fixed our infrastructure with the $85 billion he gets to print every month?

 

[BoberFett]

Republicans keep blocking spending on infrastructure for political reasons. They don't care about anything but re-gaining power and blocking anything Dems want to do.

Maybe, oh I dunno, the feds shouldn't be responsible for infrastructure spending?

How about we let the states decide how money should be spent rather than sending trillions of dollars to Washington where they can play politics with it? Why the hell would some asshole from Mississippi care if a bridge in Washington is in good condition or not? He wants to direct that money elsewhere.

Big government centralized planning fail.

 

[Matt1970]

Democrats keep directing funds towards other uses. See the 2009 Stimulus, of which only 6% was infrastructure. See the state of Washington where $800 million went into high speed rail, when they clearly need to repair existing infrastructure first.

Money is finite so pick and choose, unless you're Ben Bernanke. Speaking of which, why hasn't he fixed our infrastructure with the $85 billion he gets to print every month?

Here in NY they decided to repave highways that just got repaved 2 years ago. That sure was money well spent.

 

[K1052]

Democrats keep directing funds towards other uses. See the 2009 Stimulus, of which only 6% was infrastructure. See the state of Washington where $800 million went into high speed rail, when they clearly need to repair existing infrastructure first.

Money is finite so pick and choose, unless you're Ben Bernanke. Speaking of which, why hasn't he fixed our infrastructure with the $85 billion he gets to print every month?

The majority of that $800M award for rail improvements in WA went to improve existing infrastructure and replace worn out assets.

If you want to look at replacing all the functionally obsolete (yet still structurally sound) bridges in the US I hope you're cool with raising a few extra trillion dollars to do it.

 

[Fern]

Republicans keep blocking spending on infrastructure for political reasons. They don't care about anything but re-gaining power and blocking anything Dems want to do.

The Dems had a trillion $'s to blow in '09 and decided not to fix the bridge, yet you blame Repubs?

Fern

 

[Atomic Playboy]

There is some irony in this, as I was just reading an article about tax disparity, and Washington (state) has the most regressive tax system in the US. The bottom 20% pay out roughly 17% of their income in taxes, while the top 1% pay out less than 3% of their income in taxes, primarily due to no income tax and most tax income being derived from sales taxes (which is a good way to have the most regressive tax system in America, it turns out). It's no wonder that some of the largest companies in the world would be housed near Seattle (Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks and the like); the executives at those companies get to keep more money by virtue of Washington's tax system than they would in any other state. Wonder if Washington had more progressive taxes in place on people like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen and other mega-rich residents, maybe they could have invested in better infrastructure? I'm not accusing the rich of being greedy, mind you, as many have been extremely charitable. But taxation can't fall primarily on the shoulders of the working classes, and charity doesn't build bridges. There has to be a better compromise.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Democrats keep directing funds towards other uses. See the 2009 Stimulus, of which only 6% was infrastructure. See the state of Washington where $800 million went into high speed rail, when they clearly need to repair existing infrastructure first.

Money is finite so pick and choose, unless you're Ben Bernanke. Speaking of which, why hasn't he fixed our infrastructure with the $85 billion he gets to print every month?

What's wrong with spending money on improving existing rail lines? Maybe you would have preferred they wasted it expanding our highway infrastructure.

Lake County in northeast Ohio got $200 million to reconstruct Route 2, a 4 lane highway into 6. This is a suburb 40 minutes east of Cleveland. Basically widening lanes out in the sticks to encourage more sprawl.

 

[blankslate]

Who cares... the people who matter don't have to drive over crappy bridges...

 

[glenn1]

Who cares... the people who matter don't have to drive over crappy bridges...

Let them eat high speed rail. That only goes between Madera and Bakersfield.

 

[ciba]

It's no wonder that some of the largest companies in the world would be housed near Seattle (Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks and the like);

Really? To support your example, you use a company whose founder was from the area (Microsoft); you cited a company that started as a small business in Seattle (Starbucks); and you noted a company whose founder moved to Seattle because of Washington's relatively small population and interstate sales-tax issues (Amazon).

You also totally overlooked the B&O tax in Washington. Sure, Washington doesn't have an income tax. As a business, you're taxed on revenue

Poor argument, sir.