I found the report card from the structural engineers much more interesting than the article itself, but I'm glad the article was posted because I wouldn't have

I found the report card from the structural engineers much more interesting than the article itself, but I'm glad the article was posted because I wouldn't have know about it otherwise. https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/bridges-infrastructure/ https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/bridges-infras... If I have a thought about this, it's that so much depends on what it means to be labeled "poor". My first assumption is that that means "about to fall down", but that's not necessarily the case. The report also has this paragraph: > Encouragingly, as of 2019, just one in 13, or 7.5%2 of highway bridges were designated structurally deficient, or poor, representing a significant improvement from 12.1% recorded a decade ago. Also encouraging is that the total percentage of bridge deck area that is classified as structurally deficient, or poor, has decreased over the past several years, totaling just 5.5% in 2019, compared to 6.3% in 2016. ... which is much less troubling than the headline. My takeaway is that things have actually improved quite rapidly, given the type of work and the speed of government. As one might cynically presuppose from an organization of professional engineers releasing a report card on bridges, the recommendation turns out to be "we sure do need to spend a lot more money on bridge engineering". That doesn't mean it's not the case, I'm sure it is, but I wonder what it would take for them to release a report concluding that everything is great, and you could actually give us less money if it would help balance the ol' checkbook.