08-14-2007, 10:37 PM
Quote:You do realize that when Engineers build things, they plan for them to have a certain amount of life before they need to be replaced. My understanding is that bridge was at the end of it's life cycle as are numerous other bridges around the US (most were built during the Eisenhower administration). Now these items are starting to deteriorate rapidly because they have reached the end of their lifecycles.
Right now I am very worried that various power companies are trying to milk their 50+ year old reactors for more electricity. These plants need to be decommished and replaced, but the power companies are unwilling to outlay the costs to replace them. This is trouble because of damage to the molecular structure of the equipment in and around the core from radiation dosage over the years (a short time in an electron beam will cause teflon to turn into powder, so think was hundreds of thousands more length of exposure will do to steel and other materials in a reactor containment building).
We have aging infrastructure that needs to be replaced, not maintained, it's been maintained beyond it's lifecycle. Build something new and tear down the end of lifecycle equipment.
I often wonder to what extent infrastructure deterioration as it pertains to the interstate highway system is a function of the heavy truck traffic which I suspect was not contemplated when the system was first conceived. Back in those days it seems that railroads carried a higher percentage of interstate freight and trucks were mostly used for local cartage. Perhaps our Worst Corporate Neighbors (railroads) have not done their job in keeping up with freight transportation needs and that has resulted in all this heavy cross country truck traffic which is so destructive to roads and bridges. This is, of course, just a perception of one who is daily annoyed by unnecessary train noise and traffic obstructions. I have no supporting statistics:)