The Bridge, the Mine, the Monster Truck

[kandrathe]

We do not need more money for roads in Minnesota. As it is now, in summer you can hardly travel at all due to road construction. We do not have a failing infrastructure issue here, but maybe a misappropriation issue. I heard yesterday that the latest transportation bill (spending federal gas tax money) had earmarks (pork) for Northern Minnesota (James Oberstars District) for over $90 million in projects with most not related to roads at all. $90 million would have been enough to repair and strengthen many bridges...

Coal mining is inherently dangerous, and the miners know the risks.

When attending any motor sports event there is a small chance you will get hit with a flying vehicle.

I really hate the media in the US, and the accompanying crisis response unit in Washington. "Little Girl falls in well." is quickly followed up by "New Legislation banning wells introduced"....

[.Plaid]

"Little Girl falls in well." is quickly followed up by "New Legislation banning wells introduced"....

As often as not, studies are undertaken to improve the infrastructure & safety of our nation's wells. The solution invariably involves a grating that makes it difficult to fetch any future pails of water.

[Delc]

Well a falling bridge while not necessarily a sign of lack of funding, it is certainly a sign that the people who are trusted to inspect them needs to do a better job. As for the never ending construction. If we could build the road right the first time, they wouldn't need to be repaved every couple years. Someday the people that do the budget will learn that our winters are hard on the roads, and invest in some that are designed to withstand them.

[Taem]

As often as not, studies are undertaken to improve the infrastructure & safety of our nation's wells. The solution invariably involves a grating that makes it difficult to fetch any future pails of water.

That reminds me of a website I saw a few years back listing several ridiculous laws in some states. One that comes to mind was it being illegal to chew bubblegum and walk at the same time. Wish I remember what that website was...

[Taem]

Well a falling bridge while not necessarily a sign of lack of funding, it is certainly a sign that the people who are trusted to inspect them needs to do a better job. As for the never ending construction. If we could build the road right the first time, they wouldn't need to be repaved every couple years. Someday the people that do the budget will learn that our winters are hard on the roads, and invest in some that are designed to withstand them.

Now wait a minute, from what I understand the state in which that bridge collapsed has plenty of financial reserves, and furthermore had prior warnings about that bridge but did nothing about it. This is neglect, pure and simple, and you can bet the families of the victims will try and sue the city into the dirt.

[kandrathe]

Now wait a minute, from what I understand the state in which that bridge collapsed has plenty of financial reserves, and furthermore had prior warnings about that bridge but did nothing about it. This is neglect, pure and simple, and you can bet the families of the victims will try and sue the city into the dirt.

MnDOT -- Yes, so now we tax payers will pay millions for something other than bridge repair.

[Swiss Mercenary]

MnDOT -- Yes, so now we tax payers will pay millions for something other than bridge repair.

Maybe you taxpayers could try voting for some 'civil servants' that'll do their jobs right, next time.

[kandrathe]

Maybe you taxpayers could try voting for some 'civil servants' that'll do their jobs right, next time.

This is a blue state. We'd rather build a light rail line between our two cities, or give free health insurance to anyone making <$50K per year rather than do those things intended for government. Did I mention the $90 million in Federal gas tax funded ear marks for hiking/biking trails, etc for northern Minnesota? How many bridges in our State could be repaired/inspected with that money?

Under current law about 87% of the money in the state General Fund will be spent in the next two fiscal years on the following: K through 12 education, higher education, health and human services, and aid to local governments. Note that our local property taxes also go to fund our local governments and K-12 schools.

[Thecla]

This is a blue state... How many bridges in our State could be repaired/inspected with that money?

Well, as a blue state it probably didn't support the Iraq war. At a cost of $10 bn per month, it would apparently take less than two years to inspect and fix every bridge in the US, if one decided that to be the most effective use of those monies.

[kandrathe]

Well, as a blue state it probably didn't support the Iraq war. At a cost of $10 bn per month, it would apparently take less than two years to inspect and fix every bridge in the US, if one decided that to be the most effective use of those monies.

I doubt you will understand this... But, war or not, it wouldn't matter. Bridge and road building isn't sexy like light rail, or hiking and biking trails. The politicians, Republican and Democrats alike, have driven the funding into the realm of vote pandering wretched excess, rather than boring old infrastructure.

[Lissa]

We do not need more money for roads in Minnesota. As it is now, in summer you can hardly travel at all due to road construction. We do not have a failing infrastructure issue here, but maybe a misappropriation issue. I heard yesterday that the latest transportation bill (spending federal gas tax money) had earmarks (pork) for Northern Minnesota (James Oberstars District) for over $90 million in projects with most not related to roads at all. $90 million would have been enough to repair and strengthen many bridges...

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.

[Maitre]

I doubt you will understand this... But, war or not, it wouldn't matter. Bridge and road building isn't sexy like light rail, or hiking and biking trails. The politicians, Republican and Democrats alike, have driven the funding into the realm of vote pandering wretched excess, rather than boring old infrastructure.

I can certainly understand the vote pandering issue. Living in Northern Virginia is a little like living in Austin TX, a bit of a separate little world from the rest of the state. Big campaign promises are in the wind already about making more of the commonwealth’s budget for transportation come our direction and making sure that Richmond pays attention to the woes of the northern Virginian. Personally, I think it's ridiculous, as it seems terribly unlikely that legislation could be enacted to tell VDOT where to spend it's money, but then again, odd things seem to make their way into a lot of funding bills, both state and federal.

In other bridge news, the DC government has sent the head of bridge inspection on the radio circuit lately ensuring folks that the designation of "functionally obsolete" does not mean that a bridge will collapse tomorrow. Though it has brought to light that the majority of bridge inspection in the nation's capital is 1) entirely visual in nature; and 2) outsourced to private contractors.

With regard to building roads properly, the last time major highway construction took place on a national scale was quite a while before I was born. And, many of those projects have, in fact, come to the end of their expected life, so the effort of replacing statewide infrastructure is quite a bit larger project than most states could take on, in addition to the regular improving schools, helping the populace, etc. that they already promise to accomplish. I can understand why the approach is to patch as much as possible in order to avoid outright replacement, but like the so-called crises of Social Security, the time will soon come that major expenses will need to be undertaken, and I don't think personal transportation savings accounts will come close to solving this problem.

[Jester]

I doubt you will understand this... But, war or not, it wouldn't matter. Bridge and road building isn't sexy like light rail, or hiking and biking trails. The politicians, Republican and Democrats alike, have driven the funding into the realm of vote pandering wretched excess, rather than boring old infrastructure.

Good thing there are a few common sense stalwarts in the Senate who just won't take no for an answer when it comes to bridge-building.

Like Ted Stevens.

-Jester

[TheDragoon]

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 largely agree with this, but I would note that sometimes you can refurbish things to help extend the lifecycle. However, that is usually a stop-gap measure as it is more expensive in the long-run to keep pouring money into aging equipment and eventually you'll get to the point where it really is the end of the road.

I would also note that one of the things I have learned through working as a safety engineer is that there is a chance for just about anything to fail despite man's best efforts. Nothing is "safe" -- what you strive for is acceptable risk. Even if you make an effort to add redundancy and margin to your design, there will still be some finite probability that your design could experience multiple failures resulting in the overall failure of the system. It is very possible that this was the sort of thing that this bridge experienced, we'll just have to see what any subsequent investigations can discover. :)

[Thenryb]

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:)

[Thecla]

But, war or not, it wouldn't matter. Bridge and road building isn't sexy like light rail, or hiking and biking trails.

Not true. The trillions of dollars spent on the war will necessarily restrict the availability of funding for all other items, however important --- infrastructure included. A possible proliferation of bike trails is the least of our worries.

[kandrathe]

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 think we agree on this. My point is that they are spending billions each year on new stuff already(e.g. 30 million for a bear exhibit), just not infrastructure (bridge at Stillwater that has been fought over for ten years).

[kandrathe]

Not true. The trillions of dollars spent on the war will necessarily restrict the availability of funding for all other items, however important --- infrastructure included. A possible proliferation of bike trails is the least of our worries.

Has any Federal gas tax money been diverted to the war? Has any new military base been built in the US in the past 20 years? Then again, what is that "war money" being spent on? New schools in Iraq? I think we pay soldiers whether they fight or not, but maybe slightly more when they are in theater. Equipment wear and tear? I doubt we are launching million dollar cruise missiles everyday.

So the last few attempts by the House and Senate to pass war funding legislation have resulted in adding things like;

* $25 million for spinach growers hurt by a 2006 E. coli outbreak
* $75 million for peanut storage
* $500 million for wildfire suppression
* $120 million for shrimp and Atlantic menhaden fishermen
* 4 billion for farmers who had suffered weather-related losses
* $2.9 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, including $1.3 billion for New Orleans levee repairs
* $260 million to dairy farmers for milk loss
* $100 million for citrus loss protections
* $40 million to Liberia for security assistance, as well as $100 million to Jordan for the same purpose
* $450 million for food aid to Sudan and Eastern Chad, Africa; Afghanistan, Southern Africa and the Horn of Africa.
* $10 million for the ongoing mitigation of pollution of the Rio Grande from U.S. and Mexican influences and flood control on the river.
* $50 million for asbestos removal in Washington, D.C.
* $100 million for state and local law enforcement agencies in Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul to provide security for next year's presidential nominating conventions.
* $1.2 billion for small-operation dairy farmers
* $24 million for sugar beet growers in the Red River Valley
* $20 million to combat Mormon crickets.
* $4.2 billion in disaster aid for farmers hurt by drought, floods and other disasters in recent years.
* $6.7 billion to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, including housing aid, public infrastructure funding and aid to Gulf Coast fishermen.
* $500 million to combat Western wildfires.
* $20 million for Walter Reed Army Medical Center
* $60.4 million to help Pacific Coast salmon fishermen
* $94.1 million to repair California levees
* $100 million more than either version provided
* $400 million in energy assistance for low-income families
* $425 million for a rural schools and roads program
* $500 million for wildfire emergencies
* $650 million for the State Children's Health Insurance Program
* $3.5 billion in agricultural assistance
* Nearly $7 billion for Gulf Coast recovery

So when you wenge about war funding, think about what goes to the men and their equipment versus ear marks for some Legislators pet project back home.

[kandrathe]

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:)

Back in the 80's I worked on software systems for a local railroad, later bought by the Canadian Pacific. My impression was that things like 100 cars of coal, or iron ore, or automobiles were very efficient for rail, but not pallets of mixed cargo and refrigerated cargo. There were times when some cars sat on a siding for a week at a time until they were found by some trainmen in the system. I think truck transport is more dependable and quicker for those things that fit easily within them.

[Swiss Mercenary]

So the last few attempts by the House and Senate to pass war funding legislation have resulted in adding things like;

So, in short, the wonders of democracy at work. Such is the case everywhere else, I'm afraid.