Thanks for the reasonable tone.

The bridge was designed to carry a certain laod with a certain % margin of error.

When it was designed, the gusset plates used were insufficient to meet the margin of error.

At least twice since it was built there has been weight added - one was for the concrete “jersey barriers” guardrails and I forget what the other was. These were thought to be well within the margin of error for the design capacity, but since it was incorrectly designed, the added weight pushed the bridge much cloeser to it’s limit.

When the 170 tons of construction materials were added, pretty much directly over the gusset plate, the load capacity was exceeded and the bridge fell.

Last week the NTSB gave further insight into their conclusions and were no longer calling this a working theory, but pretty much fact. You are correct that the final report is not out, but I believe that it will reflect their previous position.

I added the “designed under DEM” to counteract all of the vitriol aimed at T-Paw and the current R admin. Yes, the specs might have been federal, but the whole issue is that the specs were not met. We can all agree that it was designed, built, and maintained over 40 years by a wide variety of administrations. Pointing political fingers is not helpful. And quite frankly, for once, I don’t think the pols had anything to do with this.

Let’s point the finger at who is really at fault - some engineer who goofed 40 years ago. If he is still alive, I do feel sorry for him.

MO - The bridge was overloaded in the 21st century, but how can you say it was underdesigned in the early 1960’s? Secondly, while the Dems did control MN at the time, the bridge was part of the Interstate Highway System which was Ike’s baby and much of the $$ and all of the specs were federal not state. Finally, while the early suspect is focused on the gusset plates, I don’t believe the NTSB has reached any final decision yet.

The bridge collapsed becuase it was overloaded and was underdesigned (under a DFl admin, btw). Not due to a lack of inspections or maintenance (per the NTSB)

After a bridge is built, an inspector checks the components for wear, not to see if the plans used the correct components in the first place. (When you look at your house in the spring for loose siding, peeling paint, etc, do you look to see it was built with the correct joists?)

The bridge was rated deficient, not unsafe. Yes, words have meanings and there is a difference.

Wishing it were so does not make it so. TIA.

And it wasn’t the evil liberal media, riding in their commie light rail that rated them unsafe. It was inspectors… who do it for, y’know, a living. And like much of the MN GOP under Pawlenty, those were cosmetic repairs to the surface, when the structure, which was known to be unsafe, rotted away under it.

The Light Rail Utopia you speak of is a figment of the active imagination of the new urbanists.

Traffic has NOT improved around the Hiawatha LRT.
So few people ride it, we not only had to pay to build it, but now we subsidize it to the tune of $20-$30M per year.

The Central Corridor project will replace frequent bus service with less frequent LRT service. How many people live in the downtown of one city and commute to the other? This will be a $1B boondoogle with money (from auto taxes) that could be used to fix roads and bridges.

Please show me a major American city that has built LRT in the past 20 years that was successfully demonstrated to reduce congestion.

Bike to work during MN winters…….hmmmm….I’ll pass.

In fact, isn’t that why other motorists are being lured off the road, so MO can be King of the Road?

In fact, it was the ongoing bridge deck repairs that actually caused the bridge to be overloaded and collapse.

Please tell me how more materials and money would have solved this problem? I’ll wait……………..

Again, using dead bodies and poor logic will not win this argument. It will just cause you to look silly.

Since you seem to be concerned with more funds for materials and labor for roads and bridges, would you be the first to step up to repeal the amendment that gives at least 40% (and possibly 100%) of auto taxes (the things that drive on bridges) for light rail and other “transit ” projects (like bike trails that my car can not drive on).

This does not change, no matter how hard you pray to Ronald Reagan to come down from Heavan and make it all better. You can pray to him all you like, but roads and bridges don’t magically repair themselves at the mention of his name, you credolous fool.

Bodies were still in the water and you libs were already using this as an excuse to raise taxes. The passage of time obviously has not improved your manners.

I don’t think that it will be too hard to sell this bipartisan, Chamber of Commerce-supported bill.

Any bets?