I'm sorry to say but this idea disgusts me. If they wanted to get rid of that bridge, they could have done that without hurting anyone.

I'm from the suburbs just south of the Twin Cities, and I drove over that bridge more times than I can count. It was always the easiest way to get into Minneapolis from my area. It's sad that it happen, but I guess it's a good thing that only half the bridge was in use at the time. I can only imagine what this will do to the traffic heading in and out of Minneapolis. Anyone who has been to the area could tell you that it was bad enough before.

__________________
If ever I should meet you again, by land or sea,
I will always remember your kindness to me.

Kind of interesting (to me anyway), the bank I work for has a large presence in Minneapolis and a guy from a sister department of mine was on the bridge when it collapsed (not injured, just shaken).

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

Clearly, those are Canadians, eh.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Perhaps it wasn't implied ... perhaps you inferred wrong. I think that the government's statement is that a rating of 50 has meant that the bridge is still safe to use.

Now as you later suggest, maybe that needs to be changed. Or maybe not. Let's wait for the investigation before deciding what is wrong with the system. NPR also mentioned (or maybe it was GMA, not sure) that bridges downstream of dams have higher rates of failures that others, due to weakening of the underwater supports. So maybe a rating of 50 is A-OK, but some other issue needs to be addressed.

It is because our culture (media, opposite political parties, people in general) tends to jump to conclusions that others feel the need to "CYA"

I am quite sure that your risk assessment process has a category like "minimal tolerable limits". You just call it something different.

In fact, it is logically impossible to not have a "minimal tolerable limit". There is always some limit that is tolerable, for which being below the limit is intolerable. If this investigation shows that "50" is no longer tolerable, then perhaps the new "minimal tolerable limit" is 65. Either way, the category exits, no matter what you call it.

And now as the nation descends into the inevitable "Bridge Paranoia" and every public official scrambles to pose concerned, demanding the looking into of every bridge longer than 10 feet, how many weeks before everyone goes back to driving with no thought as to the spans they cross and curse aloud at traffic jams and detour nightmares from the subsequent "bridge checks and repairs" they're already scheduling.

The evening news -hell, ALL the news programs- can't show enough vidblips of Mr and Mrs John Q UnawareDriver now suddenly awash with panic over the precarious state of the bridges. For a nation obsessed with driving road-chewing obesewagons over roads and bridges predating the WPA, people sure seem 'late' to this issue.

I'm not sure what seems more incredible..the President actually having something to say about the collapse or the idea that people actually think he should have had something to say. There's alot of things I suspect he's not, but I'm positive he's not a structural engineer.

__________________
random youtube observation #83:
Nana Mouskouri without glasses is like peanut butter without jelly, like yin without yang, spic without span...

I absolutely agree with that...

But;
No matter where you draw the line on any range of conditions, theres always a point where you are close to the line or far from the line. And its not only a matter of how close you are to that line, but also of how did you determine where that line was drawn.

One example might be the person who relies on the out of fuel warning rather than the fuel guage.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

And, to try to wrench this metaphor into shape, the "safe" line would be at the quarter tank level, and sometimes, just sometimes, something happens where that line is breeched, and failure occurs. IOW, the safe line is usually set a "far" distance away from the break point, not right next to it, but sometimes even that's not sufficient.

What happens is, drivers will think "I gotta get some fuel" and be aware of the danger, but feel safe since the line is so far away from failure. Then, circumstances conspire to entrap them.

I still disagree, at least in concept, on the minimum tolerable limit thing. My criteria for GO versus NO GO on some things is very simple. It is either in perfect working order, with absolutely no damage, or it is a NO GO. I guess maybe you could say my minimum tolerable limit is that it must be functioning at it's uppermost limit - not at all compromised. Granted, that is not practical for a lot of things; and as much as people hate to hear it, there is an economics to safety.

My point on their statements that the rating of 50 meant the bridge was safe to use is that they were very wrong. The bridge obviously was not safe to use. I know, hindsight is perfect, but that is a different issue. It is either going to turn out that we do not have the capability to always know when bridges are safe, or we do have the ability but push the envelope of safe usability. There is either ignorance, negligence, or just a willingness to accept that we'll have some deaths occasionally because it is too expensive to make sure they will never fall.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Not to mention all the cursing when the state and local governments have to raise taxes or cut other programs for all the money they will need for bridge inspections and repairs. TANSTAAFL

There are big economics to safety. Even allowing for the fact that nothing can ever be in "perfect working order", I suspect the cost difference between 65% perfect and 95% perfect is huge.

I hate to be cold and I usually don't like cost-benefit analysis, but I think it is appropriate in these kinds of cases. Just pulling some numbers out of "the air" , if the bridges are kept at their current state of repair and 30 people are killed a year because of that, versus spending $50 billion a year and dropping that number to 5, does that really make economic sense. I suspect more construction workers are killed a year at highway construction sites than were killed in that bridge collapse.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

For what things is that practical? What do you mean by "perfect working order"?

Our own authorities on this side of the pond are now checking bridges in light of what has happened in Minneapolis

Link

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I'm not sure where your $50 billion number came from--is that nationwide? I'll focus on Minnesota though. Our Gov and legislators are in the "no new taxes" mindset and vetoed a major transportation funding bill last spring that many Minnesotans supported.

I'm not implying that this particular bill would have prevented this from happening, I'm just providing context.

Now the city/county/state will have to come up with $350* million to rebuild the bridge. Traffic will be slowed all around the city because it has to be diverted to a "converted" highway for the next two years. I'll have to sit in traffic every time I drive to Minneapolis due to this diversion--and I don't mean rush hour. Those that do use that route for their daily commute will either lose productivity time at work or valuable time at home due to longer stays in the car.

To me, avoiding all of that is worth the extra taxes to keep our roads and bridges safe. Not to mention the lives--5 confirmed, 8 or so still missing, 79 injured, hundreds of family members and friends affected, rescue divers working in unstable conditions, people all around the state having their regular lives disrupted including my boss who was asked to help out in a call center to give people who have been working round the clock a break.

*A number my fiance gave this morning, I don't know his source or how accurate that is.

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

As I said, I pulled the numbers out of my ..... head (yeah, that's it). But the numbers I've heard nationwide are in the high billions. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just saying if we say that we want this never, ever to happen again (zero tolerance) then there is going to be a cost, and it is going to be high. And maybe, we would save more lives spending the money on something else. According to this website, over 40,000 people die in highway accidents every year in the US. If we spent some of that money not on making every bridge perfect, but reducing the causes of those accidents, we might save more people.

You might argue, we should do both. Maybe we should, but There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Either the money has to come from elsewhere, you we have to raise more money.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

From Governor Pawlenty to your fiance.

International Herald Tribune: Search for survivors moves slowly at collapsed Minneapolis bridge (page 2)

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

I viewed the statement as just a way of providing a random number to serve as example...


I'd love to hear the context on that one. While I believe that the number itself could be correct, I'm not sure that the entire amount would be funded at that level, besides, the Feds have already stated funding the re-building.

I agree with you, I'm just glad I'm not the one who has to figure out where to draw the line in the sand.
The better you are at prevention, the less visible the value is, and then the available funds end up going down. A viscious catch 22.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Some may get weary of my using it as a point of comparison, but it is a good example of risk management of something with extreme consequences of error, and it is what I know.

Every single jump my skydiving rig gets a cursory examination by me - mostly along the lines of being sure all visible components are in place, that they are properly stowed & secured, and that everything appears to be able to function the same as it did on jump #1 when the rig was brand new. Nothing gets passed if it looks like it could take 3/4 the load as when new, or if it is almost as tight as it used to be, or stuff like that. I also get a recheck from somebody if I so much as bump into anything and I can not touch and see the place that got bumped.

At the beginning of every jump day, every component other than the reserve canopy (which is sealed by an FAA certified rigger, the seal of which can not be broken unless you want to pay that rigger for another repack) gets a thorough visual inspection. Every snap, connection point, and all the other goodies that wouldn't mean much to non-jumpers gets a hands on check. Grommets are not allowed to be anything but perfectly tight with absolutely no gaps. Critical attachment points are not allowed to have loose or frayed stitching - none. Snag points are dealt with until they have no risk of snag. Not to the point of minimal risk of snag, but NO risk of snag.

Lastly, twice per season the reserve gets pulled out and inspected in a process that is far and away the most anal retentive procedure I've ever seen performed. The rigger crawls inside the cells, checking every inch of stitching of every single seam. No flaws allowed - it must be perfect. The entire rig is given this treatment. And it doesn't matter if it is used for 1 jump or 1000; the 180 day inspection and repack is still required.

Exceptions:

<> There is not much on a rig that is cosmetic; but those few things are given a bit of leeway. Still, if a cosmetic detail in any way poses a risk, then it gets the treatment of a functional component.

<> There are people who either cheat the rules and recommendations, or are just inept at maintenance and inspections. Those people dramatically increase their odds of getting selected out of the sport.

All this maintenance has a cost in terms of time and money. I know these are not apples to apples comparisons, but it is good food for thought. Every year I spend about 10 to 15% of the cost of a new rig to keep it inspected and maintained. I doubt if the money spent annually to inspect and maintain a bridge is anywhere near 10 to 15% of the cost to build. Same with time. On a typical day at the DZ I make 4 jumps. That's a max of 20 minutes of actual use (1 minute of freefall, a couple minutes under canopy). That means I spend about 1/2 as much time inspecting and maintaining as using. (Almost as bad as owning a dirt bike).

Looking over this, I suppose all I've really done is give an example of the economics of safety. We could have perfectly safe bridges. They would cost an unGodly amount to inspect and maintain.

Oh yeah, the issue was the practicality of perfect working order. Seems to me it still boils down to economics and choice (which makes sense since economics is a behavioral science). Most would say practical working order is not practical for bridges - and I agree. However, I'd say anything but perfect working order is not practical for some people doing some things.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

How much does it cost you to not jump if your rig doesn't meet specs?

What's the cost to the city if they close the bridge because it doesn't meet specs?

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

I agree there. One of my pet peeves it what passes for driver training. REAL training to drive would probably be much better money spent in terms of saving lives.

Still got to get the bridges inspected though of course.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

And; I believe we can condense what people are saying down to that statement. Even as rigorous as you are with this example, that individual statement leaves open the following:

Who decides that 3/4 load is sufficient?
How can you tell that it "looks" like it is 3/4 sufficient rather than 11/16?
Is 3/4 still sufficient if someone had some sort of failure when it looked like it was 13/16 sufficient?

I'm sure there are a lot more, but, my aim is merely to point out that drawing a line is not really an all or nothing proposition, and takes some level of judgement.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Well, in my perfect world (just kidding), the quality of construction along with the regularity and quality of inspections, would mean very little down time at all.

Like I said before, nothing speaks like results. What is the cost of it being down in the river? How much was really saved by not doing more diligent inspections and frequent repairs. Now the bridge is gone for probably close to 3 years. What will be the cost of that? Don't forget to include millions for the lawsuits. Could end up costing half as much as the new bridge; or more. Let's say it ends up being 20 dead, with probably about $5 to $10 million per life. Yep, half or more.

Not sure about the first question though. It costs me nothing to not jump. But I miss out on the joy. Which seems a strange comparison. I'm willing to spend the time and money for some fun. They are not willing to spend the time and money (a proportionately much smaller amount) for better and safer bridges.

Interesting comparing the economics of safety to the economics of death. I guess they are kind of the same thing.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Poor wording on my part. I just used 3/4 as an example of anything other than full load. It is NO GO if there is any indication of it not being able to handle the fullest possible load. If I found an attachment point with loose stitching, I would not even bother to calculate how reduced it's capabilities are - it's simply a NO GO. No judgement required and none allowed. The consequence of error is too extreme. Maybe for some people there truly are no all or nothing propositions. I am not one of them.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Fair enough, but I think we are having an issue where your example seems so far removed from the situation of a bridge, that there's no way for us to think of it that way.

So; to take an extreme comparison, I can see that the bridge would have to be torn down, and a new one used in it's place at the first signs of rust on a support column.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

In about three or four hours, I take a bridge that is built from the remains of one that collapsed some 60 years ago. I've done so I-don't-know-how-many times. It's so busy they had to build a second bridge, which I take for the first time this weekend. (It just opened.) And I will take it even though I know it's always possible that it will collapse out from under me; I've always known that to be possible. (Well, after all, I have seen the footage of the first one collapsing, as has pretty much everyone else.)

Life is risk. I go into this hoping that the State of Washington and Pierce County have made that bridge as safe as possible. But given the fury when they added a toll to pay for the new bridge, I'm not sure how they'd be able to afford to make the old one 100% safe.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Surely you are not suggesting we take the analogous precautions with bridges, are you? Should we replace every bridge as soon as a little rust appears on the supports?

I'm not convinced that a zero tolerance of risk is possible, let alone practical, let alone desirable. Consider your example of skydiving: despite lots of precautions, many people die each year. Were they all less safe than you, or is it possible that many take exactly the same precautions as you and still died? (My assumption is the latter). The only "zero tolerance" to prevent deaths in skydiving is to not skydive. The only "zero tolerance" to prevent bridge failures is to not build bridges.

The important thing is that this collapse be understood and engineers learn from it. After Tacoma Narrows, engineers built stiffer bridges, more resistant to wind. After I-95 collapsed in CT, engineers retrofitted similar bridges so that the bridge was still supported if a similar failure occurred.

On the other hand, if nothing new is learned (that is, if whatever caused the MN collapse was well understood, but the inspections didn't pick up on it), then the relevant parties should be held accountable.

I presume you have more activities than jumping out of airplanes. How many bridges do you drive over every year? What are their ratings? You must know they are all GOs, huh? All the bits of technology you stake your life on every day, are all GOs? How do you keep on top of all that?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Agreed on this and all similar points, . . . I think.

Only point I was making is that it is possible to move the safety far closer to the extreme end of the spectrum; but that the economics of safety (and corresponding fatalities) makes that prohibitive. I'd also acknowledge that bridges are a public good where some compromise or consensus amongst a wide variance of opinions is necessary; whereas my example is a private one and each individual can (and does to some degree) find there own comfortable zone of balancing safety with costs.

Most interesting topic those economics.

Have a great weekend all.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I heard somewhere that that particular bill had nothing in it for bridge inspections, or at least that bridge in particular. So while it's being trumpeted as an example of the government failing to prevent this from occurring, it passing would have done nothing to prevent it.

Please re-read my last sentence, I said the exact same thing as you did in your last sentence. I agree--the passing of the bill would not have prevented this.

I crossed that bridge myself just a few hours ago. We were a bit late getting out of town and I was worried about the traditional Friday traffic jam but thanks to the new bridge it was flowing freely. The overall project for the new bridge includes not just that bridge but the upgrading of the old one as well as the highway almost to I5. So the tolls are actually improving the old one.

If I recall correctly, only the piers for the original bridge were used for the replacement. The steel was used in construction of a bridge on the Alaska highway. Which eventually collapsed.

I'm a lot more nervous driving on the Alaska way viaduct than the narrows.

__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.