I thank you for your useful links, but I feel like you're nitpicking or don't understand what I'm saying. The substructure was rated 6, and the superstructure

I thank you for your useful links, but I feel like you're nitpicking or don't understand what I'm saying. The substructure was rated 6, and the superstructure and deck were rated 4, which is "poor". Yes. This document (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/mtguide.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/mtguide.pdf) appears to define the ratings: "4 POOR CONDITION - advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour. 3 SERIOUS CONDITION - loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scour have seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present. 2 CRITICAL CONDITION - advanced deterioration of primary structural elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present or scour may have removed substructure support. Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge until corrective action is taken. 1 "IMMINENT" FAILURE CONDITION - major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in light service." If a bridge that collapsed was rated 4, and "imminent failure" is three grades below that, then I don't believe it's possible to avoid the conclusion that the process of rating and prioritizing maintenance has some flaw that needs correction. But I wasn't relying on the technical details that I didn't know in my original comment. I just was certain that the odds of all of the thousands of PA bridges being perfectly prioritized and this one being the precise bridge where funds ran out was essentially zero. There is, and will be, a lot of arguing about whether funds that should've been utilized for maintenance were diverted for political purposes. Something that has affected my thinking and made me more "squishy" as a Democrat is reading an article about how maybe the poor condition of the initial ACA website directly resulted from budgeting orders of magnitude too much money. Kind of like, choosing the wrong person to develop your website is one thing, but if say up front the budget is a billion dollars, nobody who's honest will even bid. As I said before, I still believe in "tax and spend" policy, but I am coming to think that overspending isn't just overspending, but also can ensure failure of itself. I don't want to read about the details of wasted spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I know in my gut what I'd expect.