4 ms·

Safety usually isn't the problem. It's the public notice periods, feedback collection, final notices, environmental impact studies, lawsuits over whether the en

Safety usually isn't the problem. It's the public notice periods, feedback collection, final notices, environmental impact studies, lawsuits over whether the environmental impact studies were sufficient, possible need to get the government to invoke eminent domain, studies over which potential version of a project needs the least disruption, and so forth. Near where I live is a bridge over a river that needs replacing. The county had to study three different ways to do it, weighing environmental impact, traffic disruption, total cost of each option, and so forth. The planning and regulatory portion of the project is easily 75% of the timeline, and that's for a fast one due to the condition of the bridge itself. If it were less urgent, it would have likely taken even longer.

AtlasBarfed 3y ago
Meanwhile collapsed Minneapolis I-35W bridge (remember that? Gusset plates, etc?) got replaced in something like 7 months, they picked a colorado company and started construction very quickly. Of course a half dozen local construction companies filed suit but the bridge was built really fast. Right next door to that bridge are three other projects: a cliff/dirt collapse/erosion/retaining project that kept the river parkway closed for like 4 years, and two bridges being reconditioned that have been closed for 3. Those went through the "normal" channels.
- zdragnar 3y ago
  A friend of mine was on I35W, about a half mile or mile before where the bridge collapsed, and had to take an exit to get off the freeway. Lots of small quirks of fate slowed down his trip that day just enough that he wasn't over the portion that collapsed when it went down. I think a part of the difference is that the federal government provides funds for maintenance of the interstates, and the sheer volume of traffic that was being re-routed down other roads that weren't really intended for the extra traffic (adding lanes to 94 certainly helped some). Shame that it requires a catastrophe to see what we can really do when it needs doing.

AtlasBarfed 3y ago

Meanwhile collapsed Minneapolis I-35W bridge (remember that? Gusset plates, etc?) got replaced in something like 7 months, they picked a colorado company and started construction very quickly. Of course a half dozen local construction companies filed suit but the bridge was built really fast. Right next door to that bridge are three other projects: a cliff/dirt collapse/erosion/retaining project that kept the river parkway closed for like 4 years, and two bridges being reconditioned that have been closed for 3. Those went through the "normal" channels.

zdragnar 3y ago
A friend of mine was on I35W, about a half mile or mile before where the bridge collapsed, and had to take an exit to get off the freeway. Lots of small quirks of fate slowed down his trip that day just enough that he wasn't over the portion that collapsed when it went down. I think a part of the difference is that the federal government provides funds for maintenance of the interstates, and the sheer volume of traffic that was being re-routed down other roads that weren't really intended for the extra traffic (adding lanes to 94 certainly helped some). Shame that it requires a catastrophe to see what we can really do when it needs doing.