6 ms·

Very interested to hear the outcome of this investigation. As a Pittsburgh resident, it's pretty common knowledge that our ~450 bridges are not in great conditi

Very interested to hear the outcome of this investigation. As a Pittsburgh resident, it's pretty common knowledge that our ~450 bridges are not in great condition, and this just confirms it. The last inspection on this bridge was done in September of 2021 - Although it was determined to be in "poor" condition, it wasn't deemed unsafe. Less than 6 months later it collapses. How many more of our bridges are this close to collapse?

athrun 5y ago
If I remember things correctly about 45,000 bridges across the US are in poor condition and the original Infrastructure Bill targeted 10,000 of them. The Bill got watered down further. There is simply too much infrastructure to maintain, and more and more stuff is being built every day with no realistic plan for long-term maintenance. It's a losing battle.
- spoonjim 5y ago
  Strong Towns makes the case that there is just too much infrastructure in the US and the level of sprawl that we are built at is economically unsustainable in the long run.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    Except for a very generous interpretation of "the long run", I don't buy this. We pay more than enough money in taxes to maintain our infrastructure. The problem is governments misallocating and wasting funds.
    - phonebanshee 5y ago
      Mostly to corporate subsidies labeled "defense" spending.
  - ars 5y ago
    The world Strong Towns wants is emotionally unsustainable. Maybe there are people who can handle it, but I would go insane in the dense cities it suggests. Let the people who like dense towns live there, and stop trying to tell the rest of the people how to live. Strong Towns also tries to creates cities where no one from the outside ever comes in, since there's no way of getting there (no parking, not enough roads). People in large cities also like to "get away" during the summer - but there will be nowhere to go in his world.
    - spoonjim 5y ago
      Nobody’s telling you can’t live in a rural area. Just don’t ask me to pay for a road and a water main out to reach you from the city. Get a Jeep and dig a well and move if the water dries up.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  Why was it possible to build it, but now it is impossible to maintain it?
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Maintaining things is not necessarily less costly or even viable, compared to building things. Also, labor costs have gone up dramatically due to a variety of factors. Increased safety standards, less supply of labor relative to demand, increased liabilities due to tort laws, etc. Also, borrowing from the future to build today is easy when population is exploding and you know everyone is having 3+ kids which will expand the tax base. That has not been true for quite a few decades now, with tax bases declining in many areas and political appetite for subsidizing those areas is waning, in my opinion. Less future growth means more restrained borrowing today. There is also a significant and increasing amount of the country’s resources being spent on keeping old people alive that was not the case when all the old infrastructure was built.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      Have there been no improvements to bridge building technology, that would make it cheaper today?
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        I assume there have been, but based on all the reported costs of building infrastructure, I concluded that any reductions in costs must have been greatly offset by increases in costs.
R0b0t1 5y ago
This one was especially bad -- I can't find the twitter post, but someone had snapped a picture in 2018 where a structural member had rusted completely through. The bridge should have been immediately shut down but was not. To read more in general check out https://infrastructurereportcard.org/infrastructure-categories https://infrastructurereportcard.org/infrastructure-categori.... Bridges with rust is normal, but there is a replacement schedule.
- masklinn 5y ago
  That’s the one where it was unclear whether it was a concern because there was a bunch of more recent cabling around, and the agency responded with some sort of ticket number, yeah?
- peteradio 5y ago
  This one? https://twitter.com/gpk320/status/1078885655634157569?s=21 https://twitter.com/gpk320/status/1078885655634157569?s=21
throwaway984393 5y ago
One problem is steel reinforced concrete is nearly impossible to detect rusting until it makes its way to the outside of a member. The ends of the bridge were reinforced concrete, so it's possible they just couldn't detect the problem and so didn't deem it unsafe.
- ridgered4 5y ago
  IIRC some one traveled under this bridge last year and took photographs of several of the metal supports which were entirely rusted through and not connected to anything.
  - throwaway984393 5y ago
    Which may have been fine if other supports were taking the load. Visibly rusted parts are easy to diagnose, thus if that particular part was unsafe it would have been quickly deemed as such. It could be that it contributed to the collapse, but that it alone wasn't enough to justify it as unsafe.
  - Ancapistani 5y ago
    I saw those photos as well, and the presence of steel cables with turnbuckles to reinforce the structure lead me to believe that the damage was known and someone decided that the minimal reinforcement was adequate. I suspect that if that was the primary cause of the collapse, the NTSB would have mentioned it directly already. Either way, we'll know eventually.

athrun 5y ago

If I remember things correctly about 45,000 bridges across the US are in poor condition and the original Infrastructure Bill targeted 10,000 of them. The Bill got watered down further. There is simply too much infrastructure to maintain, and more and more stuff is being built every day with no realistic plan for long-term maintenance. It's a losing battle.

spoonjim 5y ago
Strong Towns makes the case that there is just too much infrastructure in the US and the level of sprawl that we are built at is economically unsustainable in the long run.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  Except for a very generous interpretation of "the long run", I don't buy this. We pay more than enough money in taxes to maintain our infrastructure. The problem is governments misallocating and wasting funds.
  - phonebanshee 5y ago
    Mostly to corporate subsidies labeled "defense" spending.
- ars 5y ago
  The world Strong Towns wants is emotionally unsustainable. Maybe there are people who can handle it, but I would go insane in the dense cities it suggests. Let the people who like dense towns live there, and stop trying to tell the rest of the people how to live. Strong Towns also tries to creates cities where no one from the outside ever comes in, since there's no way of getting there (no parking, not enough roads). People in large cities also like to "get away" during the summer - but there will be nowhere to go in his world.
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    Nobody’s telling you can’t live in a rural area. Just don’t ask me to pay for a road and a water main out to reach you from the city. Get a Jeep and dig a well and move if the water dries up.
kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
Why was it possible to build it, but now it is impossible to maintain it?
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Maintaining things is not necessarily less costly or even viable, compared to building things. Also, labor costs have gone up dramatically due to a variety of factors. Increased safety standards, less supply of labor relative to demand, increased liabilities due to tort laws, etc. Also, borrowing from the future to build today is easy when population is exploding and you know everyone is having 3+ kids which will expand the tax base. That has not been true for quite a few decades now, with tax bases declining in many areas and political appetite for subsidizing those areas is waning, in my opinion. Less future growth means more restrained borrowing today. There is also a significant and increasing amount of the country’s resources being spent on keeping old people alive that was not the case when all the old infrastructure was built.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    Have there been no improvements to bridge building technology, that would make it cheaper today?
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      I assume there have been, but based on all the reported costs of building infrastructure, I concluded that any reductions in costs must have been greatly offset by increases in costs.

R0b0t1 5y ago

This one was especially bad -- I can't find the twitter post, but someone had snapped a picture in 2018 where a structural member had rusted completely through. The bridge should have been immediately shut down but was not. To read more in general check out https://infrastructurereportcard.org/infrastructure-categories https://infrastructurereportcard.org/infrastructure-categori.... Bridges with rust is normal, but there is a replacement schedule.

masklinn 5y ago
That’s the one where it was unclear whether it was a concern because there was a bunch of more recent cabling around, and the agency responded with some sort of ticket number, yeah?
peteradio 5y ago
This one? https://twitter.com/gpk320/status/1078885655634157569?s=21 https://twitter.com/gpk320/status/1078885655634157569?s=21

throwaway984393 5y ago

One problem is steel reinforced concrete is nearly impossible to detect rusting until it makes its way to the outside of a member. The ends of the bridge were reinforced concrete, so it's possible they just couldn't detect the problem and so didn't deem it unsafe.

ridgered4 5y ago
IIRC some one traveled under this bridge last year and took photographs of several of the metal supports which were entirely rusted through and not connected to anything.
- throwaway984393 5y ago
  Which may have been fine if other supports were taking the load. Visibly rusted parts are easy to diagnose, thus if that particular part was unsafe it would have been quickly deemed as such. It could be that it contributed to the collapse, but that it alone wasn't enough to justify it as unsafe.
- Ancapistani 5y ago
  I saw those photos as well, and the presence of steel cables with turnbuckles to reinforce the structure lead me to believe that the damage was known and someone decided that the minimal reinforcement was adequate. I suspect that if that was the primary cause of the collapse, the NTSB would have mentioned it directly already. Either way, we'll know eventually.