More > Media Center 12 (Development Ended)
OT: Minneapolis Bridge
IlPadrino:
--- Quote from: mlefebvre on August 03, 2007, 09:16:36 pm ---Nor can you rule out that the original constructors (who may have skimped on costs like it has been the case around here) have not "influenced" somehow the inspection reports over the years...
Just this one person's opinion...
M.
--- End quote ---
It was built by MnDOT who readily acknowledged that fracture-critical members (FCM) were a concern because there were no redundancies in the truss.
Maybe there's a better chance we've got little green men swimming in Groom Lake...
IlPadrino:
--- Quote from: ADDiCT on August 04, 2007, 02:28:04 am ---OK, let's get a bit political here. I'm pretty sure that the US government _would_ have the money to care about all these important bridges, buildings, etc.. But from what i see, they decided to spend the budget they have on other things instead. We all know that the US military budget was raised to gigantic number in the last few years, and the "war against terrorism" is costing huge amounts of money, too. That's were a large portion of your tax money goes. It's a matter of priorities.
--- End quote ---
You're suggesting the GWOT requirements are the reason MN didn't have enough money so didn't perform immediate repairs on the bridge? Absurd! Over 90% of GWOT costs are emergency funded, not budgeted... so there's no direct way to move money in the existing budget to take from highway maintenance budgets to pay for GWOT. Of course, we could have a great thread about how GWOT is being funded... but it's truly absurd to suggest GWOT contributed to the bridge's failure.
Please help me better understand your point... how much is "gigantic"? what is "huge"? Now I won't argue that all the GWOT costs could replace thousands of bridges.
ADDiCT:
It's quite difficult to get exact numbers, but i suggest a look here. But my statment was based mainly on a simple, logical conclusion: war costs money. I'm no expert in politics, or US politics. I'm from europe, and of course i have a different viewpoint than you may have (i think you're an US citizen). But i think my conclusion is correct nevertheless.
--- Quote ---Over 90% of GWOT costs are emergency funded, not budgeted
--- End quote ---
Hmmm... That sounds illogical to me. Where does that "emergency" money come from, then? Even if it would consist of freshly printed dollars (which i don't think is the case), there would be a price to pay for everyone, in the form of an increased inflation rate. As i said, i'm no expert in politics or economics, but i think i understand the basic principles: people and companies pay taxes to the government. The government decides what to do with that money, and how much to spend on which topic. As the amount of money is (more or less) limited, priorities have to be set. And judging from the current reports about the state of the US traffic system, the preservation of the traffic system was not given a high priority.
Damn, i wish my english was better. I hope i did get my point across. Politics is always a "dangerous" topic, and i don't want to start a fight or something like that. I'm just tying to express my point of view.
IlPadrino:
--- Quote from: ADDiCT on August 04, 2007, 07:04:05 am ---It's quite difficult to get exact numbers, but i suggest a look here. But my statment was based mainly on a simple, logical conclusion: war costs money. I'm no expert in politics, or US politics. I'm from europe, and of course i have a different viewpoint than you may have (i think you're an US citizen). But i think my conclusion is correct nevertheless.
--- End quote ---
Fair enough.
--- Quote from: ADDiCT on August 04, 2007, 07:04:05 am ---Hmmm... That sounds illogical to me. Where does that "emergency" money come from, then? Even if it would consist of freshly printed dollars (which i don't think is the case), there would be a price to pay for everyone, in the form of an increased inflation rate. As i said, i'm no expert in politics or economics, but i think i understand the basic principles: people and companies pay taxes to the government. The government decides what to do with that money, and how much to spend on which topic. As the amount of money is (more or less) limited, priorities have to be set. And judging from the current reports about the state of the US traffic system, the preservation of the traffic system was not given a high priority.
--- End quote ---
The military uses a budget process where six years of future expenditures are presented by the President (in the Presidents Budget) to Congress. While Congress approves an appropriation for just one year, it has visibility into the future. The GWOT requirement is not included in the Presidents Budget so Congress doesn't have the ability to review the expenditures as part of a comprehensive program. Some have called for this "emergency funding" to end so that more oversight and justification is provided.
"Money" is not limited in government spending... that's why we have a deficit!
--- Quote from: ADDiCT on August 04, 2007, 07:04:05 am ---**, i wish my english was better. I hope i did get my point across. Politics is always a "dangerous" topic, and i don't want to start a fight or something like that. I'm just tying to express my point of view.
--- End quote ---
You're English is fine... I think you expressed your view kindly and without malice. What's your first language? I read an interesting article in the Economist last week talking about the languages of Europe and how some feel that English as the standard intermediary language is unfair and counter-productive. Interesting!
KingSparta:
There is a Good Show On The National Geographic Channel, It Is Called "Seconds From Disaster"
It takes every case like this and they go step by step in detail of how Disasters happen. Normally it is not just one action or event but a combination of actions or events build up to create the disaster.
Sometimes it is people doing there job as it is written in their procedures manual that add one key step to the sequence of events to create the disaster.
So lets say you have metal fatigue, cement that was taken off and was being put back on, you could see in the images more than one cement truck on the bridge (they are very heavy), We know the water is swift and 60% of bridge failures happen at the footings, as we know the bridge shifted 50 feet, that could have been because one side of the bridge was heaver that the other, maybe a bad footing, metal over stressed due to the traffic on the bridge, added with the new construction could have created a structure failure, and caused the bridge to shift 50 feet.
"Seconds From Disaster" It is a very good show and here is a link.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/seconds/
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version