5 ms·

The biggest threat is politicians (and voters) who don't understand that "structurally deficient" means we need to invest in inspections, repairs, and replaceme

by knz 9y ago

The biggest threat is politicians (and voters) who don't understand that "structurally deficient" means we need to invest in inspections, repairs, and replacement. The I-35W collapse was near my house at the time and the fact that Governor Pawlenty had long pushed for reduced government spending (inspections in particular) was not lost on many people. His replacement, Governor Dayton, was partly elected due to promises to rebuild/repair even if taxes had to be raised to fund it (what a radical theory!).

afpx 9y ago
If I build a big tower, and it falls down and injures or damages, I'm liable, right? If government-owned infrastructure falls down (because of lack of funding) and injures or damages, is anyone liable? Not a rhetorical question
- knz 9y ago
  IIRC for 35W there were lawsuits against the engineering company and department of transportation. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/11/14/law/i35w-bridge-settlement-jacobs-engineering http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/11/14/law/i35w-bridge-sett... "After the structure fell into the Mississippi River during rush hour Aug. 1, 2007, killing 13 people and injuring 145 more, Minnesota lawmakers set up a compensation fund for victims. As part of that legislation, they nullified a statute of limitations that would have prevented the state from seeking damages. In May, the nation's highest court declined to hear Jacobs' challenge to that law, and the company had little recourse. State Sen, Ron Latz sponsored the legislation that set up the compensation fund. While the state recovered from Jacobs and another firm less than half of the nearly $37 million paid out in compensation to victims, Latz said it was the right thing to do, not just for the victims and their families but also for Minnesota taxpayers."
- jdavis703 9y ago
  The government can be sued. If they loose the suit they (or rather) taxpayers have to pay. So in theory if you vote for politicians and policies that cause these kinds of failures you the voter are held liable.
  - code_duck 9y ago
    If you vote against them you're held liable, too. It would be wonderful if I could pick what portion of expenditures the government is allowed to use my individual taxes for though.
  - Arizhel 9y ago
    Maybe we should have a system where we no longer have secret ballots, and instead your votes are recorded, but in an encrypted way so that only a proper impartial investigation board (perhaps at the federal level) can have access to it, in cases where it's decided that the voters for bad politicians need to be punished personally for their contribution to the problem. So when the government is sued, everyone who voted for those politicians gets to pay. I really don't see why those who voted against the negligent or criminal politician should be on the hook for it.
- code_duck 9y ago
  Sure, why not? The engineering and construction companies don't have special immunity. Not sure if you can sue the government or individuals in in it. For the i35 bridge case, lets see... From Wikipedia "URS Corporation [...] settled for $52.4M [...] URS had performed fatigue analysis consulting on the bridge for the Mn/DOT." and "Jacobs Engineering Group, the successor of Sverdrup & Parcel, the firm that designed the bridge [...] paid $8.9 million in Nov. 2012 to settle the suit"
  - Arizhel 9y ago
    Not good enough. If some bridge is decades old, I don't think it's fair to expect some firm that is the descendant of whatever firm designed it so long ago to be liable, especially when all the people ever involved in design and building it are probably dead or close to it. The real fault is with the government, and especially the elected politicians who don't run the government properly and get these things inspected and fixed (and worse, run on platforms of shrinking government). Why aren't they ever personally liable? They should be.
    - jakubp 9y ago
      So you're saying it's unreasonable to expect maintenance continuity over multiple decades from a private company and its employees, but it is resonable to expect the very same thing from a party that's less knowledgeable and less financially invested in the project? To me that feels lacking, unless the government bodies responsible for infrastructure maintenance get proper resources and time and expertise to do this on a large scale. Can people today really expect to understand how things were built a 100 years ago? (honest question, imagine the same for IT)
      - yiyus 9y ago
        > Can people today really expect to understand how things were built a 100 years ago? Yes. This can be done. The same as today, 100 years ago designs were based in calculations of the bridge response to the expected loads. Today, we know better what are those loads and how to calculate the response of the structure, but it is the same process. Construction itself has also changed with the years. We have ways to asset materials and machine them that are way ahead of what we had 100 years ago, we can assembly the bridge with much more precision, and the efficiency of our tools has vastly improved, but the principles are the same.
kbutler 9y ago
Even with unlimited budgets for inspections, repairs, and replacement, if we do not understand and anticipate the failure mechanisms, we will have unanticipated failures. Specifically for I-35W, "photos from a June 2003 inspection of the bridge showed gusset-plate bowing" but apparently the inspectors didn't realize they needed to be watching for that. "...inspectors did not routinely check that safety features were functional." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge#Investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge...
- knz 9y ago
  Absolutely. I didn't mean to imply that Governor Pawlenty was responsible for the collapse - it was a combination of engineering, not funding inspections/repairs/replacement adequately, and bad luck.
  - code_duck 9y ago
    Mainly it was that they had parked 270 tons of construction equipment and concrete on top of the bridge, and that they had added 2 inches of pavement over the years. In addition the original design or construction was deficient and some metal plates that should have been 1 inch were 1/2 inch. I drove over that bridge not long before it collapsed, and marveled at how they had concrete and trucks lined up from one end to the other in a closed lane.
    - LoSboccacc 9y ago
      > added 2 inches of pavement over the years yeah that's what scares me most, infrastructure is built to the cheapest bidder that can satisfy safety requirement that often don't account for aging I've recently passed under two (!) overpass that failed at different times due to lack of maintenance, and every time I'm in queue on top of a bridge it scares the heck out of me watching everyone tailgating each other instead of leaving some margin to the car ahead.
- Sunset 9y ago
  >but apparently the inspectors didn't realize they needed to be watching for that. Could we use neural nets to help the inspectors?
Sunset 9y ago
Then use simpler language like: "it's falling apart", and, "Please sign here confirming that you understand it's going to fall over any minute now and it's going to be your fault when people die."
- InclinedPlane 9y ago
  Better yet. Amend the state constitution(s) so that the state is obliged to close to public traffic any bridge, span, or roadway that falls below a certain level of structural sufficiency.

by knz 9y ago

afpx 9y ago

If I build a big tower, and it falls down and injures or damages, I'm liable, right? If government-owned infrastructure falls down (because of lack of funding) and injures or damages, is anyone liable? Not a rhetorical question

knz 9y ago
IIRC for 35W there were lawsuits against the engineering company and department of transportation. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/11/14/law/i35w-bridge-settlement-jacobs-engineering http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/11/14/law/i35w-bridge-sett... "After the structure fell into the Mississippi River during rush hour Aug. 1, 2007, killing 13 people and injuring 145 more, Minnesota lawmakers set up a compensation fund for victims. As part of that legislation, they nullified a statute of limitations that would have prevented the state from seeking damages. In May, the nation's highest court declined to hear Jacobs' challenge to that law, and the company had little recourse. State Sen, Ron Latz sponsored the legislation that set up the compensation fund. While the state recovered from Jacobs and another firm less than half of the nearly $37 million paid out in compensation to victims, Latz said it was the right thing to do, not just for the victims and their families but also for Minnesota taxpayers."
jdavis703 9y ago
The government can be sued. If they loose the suit they (or rather) taxpayers have to pay. So in theory if you vote for politicians and policies that cause these kinds of failures you the voter are held liable.
- code_duck 9y ago
  If you vote against them you're held liable, too. It would be wonderful if I could pick what portion of expenditures the government is allowed to use my individual taxes for though.
- Arizhel 9y ago
  Maybe we should have a system where we no longer have secret ballots, and instead your votes are recorded, but in an encrypted way so that only a proper impartial investigation board (perhaps at the federal level) can have access to it, in cases where it's decided that the voters for bad politicians need to be punished personally for their contribution to the problem. So when the government is sued, everyone who voted for those politicians gets to pay. I really don't see why those who voted against the negligent or criminal politician should be on the hook for it.
code_duck 9y ago
Sure, why not? The engineering and construction companies don't have special immunity. Not sure if you can sue the government or individuals in in it. For the i35 bridge case, lets see... From Wikipedia "URS Corporation [...] settled for $52.4M [...] URS had performed fatigue analysis consulting on the bridge for the Mn/DOT." and "Jacobs Engineering Group, the successor of Sverdrup & Parcel, the firm that designed the bridge [...] paid $8.9 million in Nov. 2012 to settle the suit"
- Arizhel 9y ago
  Not good enough. If some bridge is decades old, I don't think it's fair to expect some firm that is the descendant of whatever firm designed it so long ago to be liable, especially when all the people ever involved in design and building it are probably dead or close to it. The real fault is with the government, and especially the elected politicians who don't run the government properly and get these things inspected and fixed (and worse, run on platforms of shrinking government). Why aren't they ever personally liable? They should be.
  - jakubp 9y ago
    So you're saying it's unreasonable to expect maintenance continuity over multiple decades from a private company and its employees, but it is resonable to expect the very same thing from a party that's less knowledgeable and less financially invested in the project? To me that feels lacking, unless the government bodies responsible for infrastructure maintenance get proper resources and time and expertise to do this on a large scale. Can people today really expect to understand how things were built a 100 years ago? (honest question, imagine the same for IT)
    - yiyus 9y ago
      > Can people today really expect to understand how things were built a 100 years ago? Yes. This can be done. The same as today, 100 years ago designs were based in calculations of the bridge response to the expected loads. Today, we know better what are those loads and how to calculate the response of the structure, but it is the same process. Construction itself has also changed with the years. We have ways to asset materials and machine them that are way ahead of what we had 100 years ago, we can assembly the bridge with much more precision, and the efficiency of our tools has vastly improved, but the principles are the same.

kbutler 9y ago

Even with unlimited budgets for inspections, repairs, and replacement, if we do not understand and anticipate the failure mechanisms, we will have unanticipated failures. Specifically for I-35W, "photos from a June 2003 inspection of the bridge showed gusset-plate bowing" but apparently the inspectors didn't realize they needed to be watching for that. "...inspectors did not routinely check that safety features were functional." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge#Investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge...

knz 9y ago
Absolutely. I didn't mean to imply that Governor Pawlenty was responsible for the collapse - it was a combination of engineering, not funding inspections/repairs/replacement adequately, and bad luck.
- code_duck 9y ago
  Mainly it was that they had parked 270 tons of construction equipment and concrete on top of the bridge, and that they had added 2 inches of pavement over the years. In addition the original design or construction was deficient and some metal plates that should have been 1 inch were 1/2 inch. I drove over that bridge not long before it collapsed, and marveled at how they had concrete and trucks lined up from one end to the other in a closed lane.
  - LoSboccacc 9y ago
    > added 2 inches of pavement over the years yeah that's what scares me most, infrastructure is built to the cheapest bidder that can satisfy safety requirement that often don't account for aging I've recently passed under two (!) overpass that failed at different times due to lack of maintenance, and every time I'm in queue on top of a bridge it scares the heck out of me watching everyone tailgating each other instead of leaving some margin to the car ahead.
Sunset 9y ago
>but apparently the inspectors didn't realize they needed to be watching for that. Could we use neural nets to help the inspectors?

Sunset 9y ago

Then use simpler language like: "it's falling apart", and, "Please sign here confirming that you understand it's going to fall over any minute now and it's going to be your fault when people die."

InclinedPlane 9y ago
Better yet. Amend the state constitution(s) so that the state is obliged to close to public traffic any bridge, span, or roadway that falls below a certain level of structural sufficiency.