7 ms·

This seems like an easy excuse for what happened here. If you can't maintain those 450 bridges, then don't keep 450 bridges. Remove 150 of them and maintain the

This seems like an easy excuse for what happened here. If you can't maintain those 450 bridges, then don't keep 450 bridges. Remove 150 of them and maintain the other 300. You can't just ignore 450 bridges and hope nothing goes wrong because you can't afford to maintain 450 bridges.

steveklabnik 5y ago
Oh yeah, just knocking down 150 bridges is a very easy decision that's going to go over extremely well with the local population, certainly not political suicide as well as a massive, expensive project in its own right. It's not like all those bridges existed for good reason, and just getting rid of them wouldn't have massive impact on an extremely large number of things about the city. They absolutely need better maintenance. It's been a safety hazard for most of my life. But the solutions are not easy.
- recursive 5y ago
  It could well be better to knock some down in an organized way. If the alternative is to have committees and referendums and posturing until nature decides which ones to take.
  - steveklabnik 5y ago
    The devil is in the details. What's "an organized way" if not "committees and referendums"? Even just the traffic impact studies alone to figure out what would happen when taking out each bridge, let alone that very often they'd impact each other and so you'd also need to figure out what happens with traffic for combinations of bridges, seems like a daunting and expensive task to me.
    - FireBeyond 5y ago
      Phase it. You don't have to nominate every bridge and start simultaneously. Like you say. Choose a few, remove those, then re-evaluate what traffic looks like now.
      - steveklabnik 5y ago
        I wouldn't expect anyone, even the OP, to suggest undertaking 150 demolitions simultaneously. That still doesn't help you decide which bridges.
- hardolaf 5y ago
  Pittsburgh itself has actually knocked down quite a few bridges over the last 30 years. The suburbs have not as they just run out of money.
  - steveklabnik 5y ago
    I'm from up route 28 before I moved into the city, PennDOT certainly is always doing quite a bit of work. 100% agree that there's been changes to bridges over the years. But nothing on the scale of "knock down a third of the bridges with no replacement."
- donkeyd 5y ago
  > Oh yeah, just knocking down 150 bridges is a very easy decision that's going to go over extremely well with the local population, certainly not political suicide as well as a massive, expensive project in its own right. I knew this response was coming. However, doing nothing isn’t an option. I also never said it’d be easy. If you can’t afford 450 bridges, you need less bridges or more money. You can’t just ignore the problem.
  - steveklabnik 5y ago
    Yes, it is something that should be done, and yes, it won't be easy. Your comment reflected absolutely none of that, and even was arguing against me saying that it would be extremely difficult, so it did in fact seem like you were saying that this is a simple fix. Heck, you didn't even say "figure out how many bridges you can afford," but simply "remove 150 of them."
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    >"However, doing nothing isn’t an option." Cynically, it actually is for a cash strapped municipality. If they lack the money for proper maintenance - but can afford the bare minimum amount of caretaking - they certainly cannot afford the cost to dismantle the bridge. They will go with bandaid solutions virtually every single time.
    - FireBeyond 5y ago
      And then get screwed with lawsuit costs and payouts. But that's a can they can kick down the road.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      There's no need to dismantle, it can just be closed if it's deemed unsafe.
      - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
        This particular bridge's condition was rated as poor but not unsafe.
- TheCondor 5y ago
  There is a lot to be learned from this. It’s contemporary to talk about the boom/bust cycles of fracking towns out west. Building a bridge or a nuclear power station is a much bigger commitment than simply building the structure and getting it operational. It outlasts political memory. I lived in Pittsburgh and remember one way bridges (like a fast path for morning rush hour, but screw getting home) and lots of sort of ad hoc things. They never had a fire wipe the place out and allow for some replanning or long term planning. Worse, if you were to try to knock some things down, there is a huge emotional reaction to it (the out field walls to Forbes field are still there, two stadiums later) I remember the city tax being fairly high as well, in many places I think increased mass transit (usually costs taxes) plus some tolls or something to discourage use on some bridges (read: another tax to use the bridge you were taxed to build) would make sense. Probably a federal bail out or mass closing of bridges are the only options. You are right, it’s not easy.
- trashface 5y ago
  I agree, I haven't lived in the 'Burgh for a long time, but its geography is basically, lots of little hills and a few big ones. Everywhere you look, you are staring at a hill. And you are on a hill. Plus rivers. A lot of bridges (and tunnels) are needed out there for basic navigation.
ragebol 5y ago
So, what do you propose? Knocking them down? Put fences? Which are you going to do that on? Are you going to fend off all the people using those bridges for destroying their commute? None of those options are cheap either. Even selecting the bridges to keep/not keep takes time and effort and thus money.
- Xylakant 5y ago
  In the town where I’m from in Germany, exactly this happened: a major bridge was unsafe - one of two major roads leading to the crossing of the river rhine. It was closed and torn down, replacement will take a few years. In Berlin, one major river crossing was closed because it was unsafe, then torn down and replaced. Another was severely impacted and partially closed, it’s now replaced with a temporary bridge. Full replacement is expected in a decade or so. People adapt. Life goes on. It’s better than having the bridge collapse with people on it.
  - ragebol 5y ago
    Anything is better than people on a collapsing bridge, obviously. But you can only fence it off when you know its too bad. Checking that can be very expensive. So if you just don't know which of 450 bridges are bad, what do you do? Fence them all of and spark at least outrage? Safest option. Finding out what to do is already expensive
    - onemoresoop 5y ago
      You can start off with warning signs. I doubt bridges would collapse if pedestrians or bicyclists use them but sings could fend traffic off. Second, the size of the vehicle is important. Larger vehicles like trucks get these poor bridges lifespan shortened drastically. Trucks and busses could be rerouted on safe bridges and so on. I generally am not afraid of bridges because they have convinced me that they're safe but if a bridge were to collapse under me and I'd make it out alive I'd probably have a bridge phobia.
      - 5y ago
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
When you go to Pittsburgh for the first time, you will learn that the city has 450 bridges because they're necessary, and you can't just go eliminating a third of them They can, in fact, maintain the bridges. You might not know this from a brief look at a newspaper article. What happened is that the bus was too heavy for the bridge. It's PennDOT's fault. Look up the weight of a bus. Look up the average weight of an American. Look up PennDOT rider numbers. Do the math. They were three tons over on a 26 ton limit.
- Kye 5y ago
  What was the limit when the bridge was new?
  - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
    The limit has been 26 tons for almost 20 years now. I don't know what the limit was originally, but PATransit should be able to accomodate bridge limits within two decades.
- peapicker 5y ago
  "Three‐axle 60‐ft articulated buses are the next most common transit bus in service [in the USA], comprising about 10% of the fleet. The curb weights for these buses currently range between approximately 38,000 and 50,000 pounds, and fully‐loaded weights range from approximately 56,000 to 65,000 pounds." (page iii)[1] Fully loaded weights for 3-axle US buses from the linked report's executive summary are 28 to 32.5 tons, empty range from 19 to 25 tons. So a not-fully loaded 3-axle bus was very likely over the 26 ton limit. Three axle buses should not have been on that bridge. Would be interesting to see if that route was changed recently from 2-axle to 3-axle service. [1] https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/docs/TCRPJ-11Task20-FR.pdf https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/docs/TCRPJ-11Task...
  - joveian 5y ago
    From the Post-Gazette article there was a driver and two passengers on the bus, so it might not have been over limit this time but sounds like it would have been at other times on that route. https://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2022/01/28/pittsburgh-bridge-collapse-forbes-braddock-avenue-point-breeze-squirrel-hill/stories/202201280075 https://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2022/01/28/pittsburg... I used to walk under that bridge quite a bit, hopefully no one was under it when it collapsed (it doesn't sound like they suspect there was, but I guess it could potentially be hard to tell).
throwawayboise 5y ago
If you can't afford to maintain them, how are you going to afford to remove them? Can the value of the scrap pay for the cost of removal?
anm89 5y ago
Pittsburgh lost over half of it's population over a 40 year stretch starting in the 70s. Blaming them in the past for not being able to tell the future doesn't make a lot of sense. When they built these bridges, it probably seemed pretty reasonable
trashface 5y ago
Some unsafe bridges have in fact been closed. Fetterman has a campaign video from 2016 of him driving around to several of them. https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1487099733978095622 https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1487099733978095622

steveklabnik 5y ago

Oh yeah, just knocking down 150 bridges is a very easy decision that's going to go over extremely well with the local population, certainly not political suicide as well as a massive, expensive project in its own right. It's not like all those bridges existed for good reason, and just getting rid of them wouldn't have massive impact on an extremely large number of things about the city. They absolutely need better maintenance. It's been a safety hazard for most of my life. But the solutions are not easy.

recursive 5y ago
It could well be better to knock some down in an organized way. If the alternative is to have committees and referendums and posturing until nature decides which ones to take.
- steveklabnik 5y ago
  The devil is in the details. What's "an organized way" if not "committees and referendums"? Even just the traffic impact studies alone to figure out what would happen when taking out each bridge, let alone that very often they'd impact each other and so you'd also need to figure out what happens with traffic for combinations of bridges, seems like a daunting and expensive task to me.
  - FireBeyond 5y ago
    Phase it. You don't have to nominate every bridge and start simultaneously. Like you say. Choose a few, remove those, then re-evaluate what traffic looks like now.
    - steveklabnik 5y ago
      I wouldn't expect anyone, even the OP, to suggest undertaking 150 demolitions simultaneously. That still doesn't help you decide which bridges.
hardolaf 5y ago
Pittsburgh itself has actually knocked down quite a few bridges over the last 30 years. The suburbs have not as they just run out of money.
- steveklabnik 5y ago
  I'm from up route 28 before I moved into the city, PennDOT certainly is always doing quite a bit of work. 100% agree that there's been changes to bridges over the years. But nothing on the scale of "knock down a third of the bridges with no replacement."
donkeyd 5y ago
> Oh yeah, just knocking down 150 bridges is a very easy decision that's going to go over extremely well with the local population, certainly not political suicide as well as a massive, expensive project in its own right. I knew this response was coming. However, doing nothing isn’t an option. I also never said it’d be easy. If you can’t afford 450 bridges, you need less bridges or more money. You can’t just ignore the problem.
- steveklabnik 5y ago
  Yes, it is something that should be done, and yes, it won't be easy. Your comment reflected absolutely none of that, and even was arguing against me saying that it would be extremely difficult, so it did in fact seem like you were saying that this is a simple fix. Heck, you didn't even say "figure out how many bridges you can afford," but simply "remove 150 of them."
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"However, doing nothing isn’t an option." Cynically, it actually is for a cash strapped municipality. If they lack the money for proper maintenance - but can afford the bare minimum amount of caretaking - they certainly cannot afford the cost to dismantle the bridge. They will go with bandaid solutions virtually every single time.
  - FireBeyond 5y ago
    And then get screwed with lawsuit costs and payouts. But that's a can they can kick down the road.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    There's no need to dismantle, it can just be closed if it's deemed unsafe.
    - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
      This particular bridge's condition was rated as poor but not unsafe.
TheCondor 5y ago
There is a lot to be learned from this. It’s contemporary to talk about the boom/bust cycles of fracking towns out west. Building a bridge or a nuclear power station is a much bigger commitment than simply building the structure and getting it operational. It outlasts political memory. I lived in Pittsburgh and remember one way bridges (like a fast path for morning rush hour, but screw getting home) and lots of sort of ad hoc things. They never had a fire wipe the place out and allow for some replanning or long term planning. Worse, if you were to try to knock some things down, there is a huge emotional reaction to it (the out field walls to Forbes field are still there, two stadiums later) I remember the city tax being fairly high as well, in many places I think increased mass transit (usually costs taxes) plus some tolls or something to discourage use on some bridges (read: another tax to use the bridge you were taxed to build) would make sense. Probably a federal bail out or mass closing of bridges are the only options. You are right, it’s not easy.
trashface 5y ago
I agree, I haven't lived in the 'Burgh for a long time, but its geography is basically, lots of little hills and a few big ones. Everywhere you look, you are staring at a hill. And you are on a hill. Plus rivers. A lot of bridges (and tunnels) are needed out there for basic navigation.

ragebol 5y ago

So, what do you propose? Knocking them down? Put fences? Which are you going to do that on? Are you going to fend off all the people using those bridges for destroying their commute? None of those options are cheap either. Even selecting the bridges to keep/not keep takes time and effort and thus money.

Xylakant 5y ago
In the town where I’m from in Germany, exactly this happened: a major bridge was unsafe - one of two major roads leading to the crossing of the river rhine. It was closed and torn down, replacement will take a few years. In Berlin, one major river crossing was closed because it was unsafe, then torn down and replaced. Another was severely impacted and partially closed, it’s now replaced with a temporary bridge. Full replacement is expected in a decade or so. People adapt. Life goes on. It’s better than having the bridge collapse with people on it.
- ragebol 5y ago
  Anything is better than people on a collapsing bridge, obviously. But you can only fence it off when you know its too bad. Checking that can be very expensive. So if you just don't know which of 450 bridges are bad, what do you do? Fence them all of and spark at least outrage? Safest option. Finding out what to do is already expensive
  - onemoresoop 5y ago
    You can start off with warning signs. I doubt bridges would collapse if pedestrians or bicyclists use them but sings could fend traffic off. Second, the size of the vehicle is important. Larger vehicles like trucks get these poor bridges lifespan shortened drastically. Trucks and busses could be rerouted on safe bridges and so on. I generally am not afraid of bridges because they have convinced me that they're safe but if a bridge were to collapse under me and I'd make it out alive I'd probably have a bridge phobia.
    - 5y ago

JohnHaugeland 5y ago

When you go to Pittsburgh for the first time, you will learn that the city has 450 bridges because they're necessary, and you can't just go eliminating a third of them They can, in fact, maintain the bridges. You might not know this from a brief look at a newspaper article. What happened is that the bus was too heavy for the bridge. It's PennDOT's fault. Look up the weight of a bus. Look up the average weight of an American. Look up PennDOT rider numbers. Do the math. They were three tons over on a 26 ton limit.

Kye 5y ago
What was the limit when the bridge was new?
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  The limit has been 26 tons for almost 20 years now. I don't know what the limit was originally, but PATransit should be able to accomodate bridge limits within two decades.
peapicker 5y ago
"Three‐axle 60‐ft articulated buses are the next most common transit bus in service [in the USA], comprising about 10% of the fleet. The curb weights for these buses currently range between approximately 38,000 and 50,000 pounds, and fully‐loaded weights range from approximately 56,000 to 65,000 pounds." (page iii)[1] Fully loaded weights for 3-axle US buses from the linked report's executive summary are 28 to 32.5 tons, empty range from 19 to 25 tons. So a not-fully loaded 3-axle bus was very likely over the 26 ton limit. Three axle buses should not have been on that bridge. Would be interesting to see if that route was changed recently from 2-axle to 3-axle service. [1] https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/docs/TCRPJ-11Task20-FR.pdf https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/docs/TCRPJ-11Task...
- joveian 5y ago
  From the Post-Gazette article there was a driver and two passengers on the bus, so it might not have been over limit this time but sounds like it would have been at other times on that route. https://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2022/01/28/pittsburgh-bridge-collapse-forbes-braddock-avenue-point-breeze-squirrel-hill/stories/202201280075 https://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2022/01/28/pittsburg... I used to walk under that bridge quite a bit, hopefully no one was under it when it collapsed (it doesn't sound like they suspect there was, but I guess it could potentially be hard to tell).

throwawayboise 5y ago

If you can't afford to maintain them, how are you going to afford to remove them? Can the value of the scrap pay for the cost of removal?

anm89 5y ago

Pittsburgh lost over half of it's population over a 40 year stretch starting in the 70s. Blaming them in the past for not being able to tell the future doesn't make a lot of sense. When they built these bridges, it probably seemed pretty reasonable

trashface 5y ago

Some unsafe bridges have in fact been closed. Fetterman has a campaign video from 2016 of him driving around to several of them. https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1487099733978095622 https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1487099733978095622