3 ms·

It should be mentioned that structurally deficient does not mean unsafe.

greggsy 2y ago
After reading the measument rules, it is… complicated. From what I can gather, it seem that if any of the components (deck, culverts, sub/superstructure, waterways, etc) receive a ‘poor’ rating, the whole structure is marked as structurally deficient. It also factors in things like the current and expected traffic patterns and mainability. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/18/2017-00550/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highway https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/18/2017-00...
- icegreentea2 2y ago
  Yes, but as illustrated by the original article/video, bridges are designed as a total system. One of the major causes of the Fern Hollow Bridge collapse was certainly the deficient drainage caused by blocked drains. Bridges (and buildings) are designed as systems. Water management is one of the biggest headaches in civil engineering - poor performance of any subsystem with a water management role is a legitimate cause for concern.
michaelt 2y ago
So the industry's rating system maps this bridge - totally fucked, key structural members rusted away entirely, others with large, clearly visible holes right through important points, weakened to the point it ended up falling down - to "structurally deficient" and then maps "structurally deficient" to "not necessarily unsafe" ? Kinda makes me think George Carlin was on to something with his hate of soft, euphemistic language.
- rcxdude 2y ago
  That's one of the points in the video: the paperwork tends to obscure the state of the system to decision makers. It's easy for the bridge inspectors (or even a random member of the public) to see that it needs to be closed down and repaired, but it's not what the decision-makers see: they see a 100-page report with a long list of action items, many of which are not actually incredibly urgent, much like every other bridge they get inspected. It makes it difficult to actually get a good sense of where the bigger problems are. (of course it should actually be the case that they are on top of everything that is highlighted in the inspections, but that's expensive and it seems like no-one wants to pay for it)
  - michaelt 2y ago
    That's related, but it's not my point. Saying "decision-makers miss details in 100-page reports" makes it sound like the report is merely too thorough, and the inspectors did too good a job. My point is the report's summary could have said "This bridge will fall down within 3 years" instead of obscuring the with vague, watered-down jargon like "structurally deficient"
    - rcxdude 2y ago
      The problem is the inspectors aren't even in a position to make a judgement call like that: they're given 100 pages of boxes to fill in and they have to color inside those lines. It's a systemic issue of how the jobs are split up and the communication works between them. (see the fact that the reviews did indeed trigger some work to be done that would actually make that judgement call... by an engineering firm that never actually saw the bridge and in part for that reason screwed up the call).

After reading the measument rules, it is… complicated. From what I can gather, it seem that if any of the components (deck, culverts, sub/superstructure, waterways, etc) receive a ‘poor’ rating, the whole structure is marked as structurally deficient. It also factors in things like the current and expected traffic patterns and mainability. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/18/2017-00550/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highway https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/18/2017-00...

icegreentea2 2y ago
Yes, but as illustrated by the original article/video, bridges are designed as a total system. One of the major causes of the Fern Hollow Bridge collapse was certainly the deficient drainage caused by blocked drains. Bridges (and buildings) are designed as systems. Water management is one of the biggest headaches in civil engineering - poor performance of any subsystem with a water management role is a legitimate cause for concern.

michaelt 2y ago

So the industry's rating system maps this bridge - totally fucked, key structural members rusted away entirely, others with large, clearly visible holes right through important points, weakened to the point it ended up falling down - to "structurally deficient" and then maps "structurally deficient" to "not necessarily unsafe" ? Kinda makes me think George Carlin was on to something with his hate of soft, euphemistic language.

rcxdude 2y ago
That's one of the points in the video: the paperwork tends to obscure the state of the system to decision makers. It's easy for the bridge inspectors (or even a random member of the public) to see that it needs to be closed down and repaired, but it's not what the decision-makers see: they see a 100-page report with a long list of action items, many of which are not actually incredibly urgent, much like every other bridge they get inspected. It makes it difficult to actually get a good sense of where the bigger problems are. (of course it should actually be the case that they are on top of everything that is highlighted in the inspections, but that's expensive and it seems like no-one wants to pay for it)
- michaelt 2y ago
  That's related, but it's not my point. Saying "decision-makers miss details in 100-page reports" makes it sound like the report is merely too thorough, and the inspectors did too good a job. My point is the report's summary could have said "This bridge will fall down within 3 years" instead of obscuring the with vague, watered-down jargon like "structurally deficient"
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    The problem is the inspectors aren't even in a position to make a judgement call like that: they're given 100 pages of boxes to fill in and they have to color inside those lines. It's a systemic issue of how the jobs are split up and the communication works between them. (see the fact that the reviews did indeed trigger some work to be done that would actually make that judgement call... by an engineering firm that never actually saw the bridge and in part for that reason screwed up the call).