that emotion on blaming trucks. Now, we don't know if the problem is trucks, but, and it's definitely a big butt, using common sense can help us to determine that the number of trucks with all of their huge payloads is increasing year over year.
Just as the number of drivers increases yearly in the U.S., the number of semi's increases and their miles driven increases.
Still, aren't we paying large amounts of taxes to support work on our bridges to keep them safe? Whatever caused the bridge to collapse does need to be found out. But if this isn't a wake-up call for local, state and federal municipalities to step up and aggressively fight this problem by OD'ing on maintenance I don't know what it might take. This Minnesota deal is a travesty of justice. From more than one angle.
I've come here on Edmunds and spoke out against the overdosage of trucks many times before. To connect this tragedy to trucking would not really be a longshot IMO. Did Barry Bonds use steroids? Umm....I...I don't know. Do we have too many trucks pounding our highways and not only mulching our freeways up but also driving too fast?
I totally tend to agree with andre1969, the govt doesn't check these withering bridges so such calamities are bound to happen. you cannot expect a Ford F150 to be light although the manufacturers are getting conscious but then you cant expect every truck exterior to use lighter material for their primary aim is towing ... it has to be timely action or else for the manufacturers are playing their part exceedingly well
imho the occurrence of one catastrophic bridge failure does not significantly change the odds of another such failure soon except by having 1 less out of N available to fall.
blaming the big rigs doesn't make sense to me. the trucks contain dinner and laptops and big TVs. BRING IT.
personally i prefer to share my highways with bigrigs than with cars. big 10-4 to the truckers. i'm 10-8, 10-10.
the govt doesn't check these withering bridges so such calamities are bound to happen. You'd be wrong about that. I don't know for a fact about other states, but I do know for a fact that Oregon, Washington and California inspect all bridges on a regular basis.
Part of the problem is money. Not so much what you pay taxes, but how legislation requires the money to be used and where the money comes from. Some states, the money comes soley from fuel taxes, which pays for the roads, signs, bridges, bicycle paths (Grrr) and half the cities main roads.
bicycle paths are awesome. it's not safe to ride a bicycle on a public road, imho. i say it is a good use of tax $ to build more bicycle paths. one nearby is so popular that there have been some cases of "bicycle path rage" between pedestrians, joggers, bicyclists. btw, i think all bridges are designed to carry a static load WAY more than if the entire bridge is packed with overloaded bigrigs, including breakdown lanes: every square foot of the bridge packed with maximum weight. then multiply by 3 or more. that's a lower bound on how much static weight any bridge is designed for, as far as i was taught.
NJ did the quick check of all the bridges and 8 came up in the "Whoa! Better fix this, dude!" Of course the one that connects us with the barrier island 5 miles east is on the list. Not a surprise. I knew it would be.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Most bridges are load rated. The problem with the bridges being designed for a certain weight is that over time, things like joints, deck plates and that start to wear and deteriorate. The load capability starts to change. How do they calculate that?
bicycle paths are awesome. it's not safe to ride a bicycle on a public road, imho. i say it is a good use of tax $ to build more bicycle paths. one nearby is so popular that there have been some cases of "bicycle path rage" between pedestrians, joggers, bicyclists. I know this is off topic, but explain to me where you think the money for these "great" bike paths comes from? Does it come from license and registration of bicycles? Oh wait, they don't pay that. Does it come from a fuel tax that bicycles use? Oh wait, they don't pay that either. Does it come from a mileage tax, like some states charge heavy haulers? Nope, they don't pay that either.
So who pays for these paths? Motorists. Is that fair to the motorists? Nope. Not at all. My opinion, when bikes pay a registration and license, then give them all the bike paths they want. Until then, I'm not too keen on my tax dollars going to them.
I have to agree with you on that one. If the bike paths were designed to handle bicycle commuters to work, it may be a different story. The bike paths in the places I have been were strictly for pleasure. Maybe a toll should be charged. I see no reason for tax payers to subsidize pleasure seekers of any sort.
If we had all the roads and bridges up to date, with money left over it might be a different story. The bike, jogging & ski trails should be put in by the subdivision developers. They are the ones that reap the benefits.
I would agree. However, how many of those bikes are just pleasure and how many are replacing cars on the road? And would they alleviate the problems with the bridges?
I think a percentage of the population would pay more at the pump to get the roads and bridges safer. The problem is that gas tax money is being wasted on projects that are not related to the original purpose that they were imposed for.
The problem is that gas tax money is being wasted on projects that are not related to the original purpose that they were imposed for.
me: On last night's national news, can't remember ABC or NBC, they reported that even when $ is put into a highway-fund there are millions of $'s spent on things like beautifying roadsides. The point was that maybe the priorities are wrong on what to spend the $ on. Should you fix the bridges first, or plant flowers first?
How many of us see the governement spend money on frivolous roadside or road projects, and then hear there is not enough money for repairs? How many of us see repairs that only last a short time; is this just so the construction has more and steady business? Maybe we should also question why the building material of choice for bridges, is one that will oxidize fairly quickly. there are many metal alloys that are corrosion resistant, or what other materials could be used? Couldn't smaller bridges and bridge supports be granite?
"Couldn't smaller bridges and bridge supports be granite?"
I think the concrete contractors may have the best connection to state legislators that there is. You see it in wildly different places. It seems around here every new highway is concrete and then ends up needing to be paved over in asphalt in no time.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Maybe we should also question why the building material of choice for bridges, is one that will oxidize fairly quickly. there are many metal alloys that are corrosion resistant, or what other materials could be used? Couldn't smaller bridges and bridge supports be granite?
Sometimes the oxidation is deliberate and protective, like the green oxide on the Statue of Liberty. As for granite, it would have to be hewn out, inspected for soundness and load bearing, then transported to the site. Concrete is easier, cheaper, and more predictable when competently poured.
It will be interesting to see how many bridges get updated after this tragedy. \
very few I'd imagine. most of the hype is just chicken little, the sky is falling kind of stuff. the vast majority of bridges in the country are perfectly fine.
every 10-20 years a bridge collapses, or a building falls down, or a dam fails and everybody declares our infrastructure is crumbling. when in fact, 99% of the time its an isolated incident that resulted from a miscalculation durring design, or a mistake in construction, or every once in awhile, an insufficent building code that, by following it, caused the bridge or whatever to be less sound.
This will be a real shot in the arm for civil engineering companies. They will study the heck out of all the bridges and very little will be spent on actual upgrades. Good time to be a bridge consultant...
Funny, I was just coming over to this forum to say the same thing! Although I found out about it from my Nintendo Wii. Evidently, pigeon poop, when allowed to sit for a long enough time, turns really salty (hopefully they didn't test this by tasting it! :surprise: ) So every time it gets wet, that salt, and other crap in the poop, causes an electrochemical reaction with the metal that it's in contact with, causing it to corrode. It's also great at breaking down concrete.
Maybe these guys can help out with the pigeon problem...
Comments
It will be interesting to see how many bridges get updated after this tragedy.
Just as the number of drivers increases yearly in the U.S., the number of semi's increases and their miles driven increases.
Still, aren't we paying large amounts of taxes to support work on our bridges to keep them safe? Whatever caused the bridge to collapse does need to be found out. But if this isn't a wake-up call for local, state and federal municipalities to step up and aggressively fight this problem by OD'ing on maintenance I don't know what it might take. This Minnesota deal is a travesty of justice. From more than one angle.
I've come here on Edmunds and spoke out against the overdosage of trucks many times before. To connect this tragedy to trucking would not really be a longshot IMO. Did Barry Bonds use steroids? Umm....I...I don't know. Do we have too many trucks pounding our highways and not only mulching our freeways up but also driving too fast?
Ahhh...I don't know, Ollie.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
blaming the big rigs doesn't make sense to me. the trucks contain dinner and laptops and big TVs. BRING IT.
personally i prefer to share my highways with bigrigs than with cars. big 10-4 to the truckers. i'm 10-8, 10-10.
You'd be wrong about that.
I don't know for a fact about other states, but I do know for a fact that Oregon, Washington and California inspect all bridges on a regular basis.
Part of the problem is money. Not so much what you pay taxes, but how legislation requires the money to be used and where the money comes from.
Some states, the money comes soley from fuel taxes, which pays for the roads, signs, bridges, bicycle paths (Grrr) and half the cities main roads.
one nearby is so popular that there have been some cases of "bicycle path rage" between pedestrians, joggers, bicyclists.
btw, i think all bridges are designed to carry a static load WAY more than if the entire bridge is packed with overloaded bigrigs, including breakdown lanes: every square foot of the bridge packed with maximum weight. then multiply by 3 or more. that's a lower bound on how much static weight any bridge is designed for, as far as i was taught.
The problem with the bridges being designed for a certain weight is that over time, things like joints, deck plates and that start to wear and deteriorate. The load capability starts to change. How do they calculate that?
bicycle paths are awesome. it's not safe to ride a bicycle on a public road, imho. i say it is a good use of tax $ to build more bicycle paths.
one nearby is so popular that there have been some cases of "bicycle path rage" between pedestrians, joggers, bicyclists.
I know this is off topic, but explain to me where you think the money for these "great" bike paths comes from?
Does it come from license and registration of bicycles?
Oh wait, they don't pay that.
Does it come from a fuel tax that bicycles use?
Oh wait, they don't pay that either.
Does it come from a mileage tax, like some states charge heavy haulers? Nope, they don't pay that either.
So who pays for these paths? Motorists.
Is that fair to the motorists? Nope. Not at all.
My opinion, when bikes pay a registration and license, then give them all the bike paths they want. Until then, I'm not too keen on my tax dollars going to them.
If we had all the roads and bridges up to date, with money left over it might be a different story. The bike, jogging & ski trails should be put in by the subdivision developers. They are the ones that reap the benefits.
Doesn't seem to have much to do with the topic in here though; feel free to start up a new discussion if you like.
I think a percentage of the population would pay more at the pump to get the roads and bridges safer. The problem is that gas tax money is being wasted on projects that are not related to the original purpose that they were imposed for.
me: On last night's national news, can't remember ABC or NBC, they reported that even when $ is put into a highway-fund there are millions of $'s spent on things like beautifying roadsides. The point was that maybe the priorities are wrong on what to spend the $ on. Should you fix the bridges first, or plant flowers first?
How many of us see the governement spend money on frivolous roadside or road projects, and then hear there is not enough money for repairs? How many of us see repairs that only last a short time; is this just so the construction has more and steady business? Maybe we should also question why the building material of choice for bridges, is one that will oxidize fairly quickly. there are many metal alloys that are corrosion resistant, or what other materials could be used? Couldn't smaller bridges and bridge supports be granite?
I think the concrete contractors may have the best connection to state legislators that there is. You see it in wildly different places. It seems around here every new highway is concrete and then ends up needing to be paved over in asphalt in no time.
Sometimes the oxidation is deliberate and protective, like the green oxide on the Statue of Liberty. As for granite, it would have to be hewn out, inspected for soundness and load bearing, then transported to the site. Concrete is easier, cheaper, and more predictable when competently poured.
very few I'd imagine. most of the hype is just chicken little, the sky is falling kind of stuff. the vast majority of bridges in the country are perfectly fine.
every 10-20 years a bridge collapses, or a building falls down, or a dam fails and everybody declares our infrastructure is crumbling. when in fact, 99% of the time its an isolated incident that resulted from a miscalculation durring design, or a mistake in construction, or every once in awhile, an insufficent building code that, by following it, caused the bridge or whatever to be less sound.
Funny, I was just coming over to this forum to say the same thing! Although I found out about it from my Nintendo Wii. Evidently, pigeon poop, when allowed to sit for a long enough time, turns really salty (hopefully they didn't test this by tasting it! :surprise: ) So every time it gets wet, that salt, and other crap in the poop, causes an electrochemical reaction with the metal that it's in contact with, causing it to corrode. It's also great at breaking down concrete.
Maybe these guys can help out with the pigeon problem...
Msnbc.com Investigates State of America's Bridges
No blame placed on weight loads.