Authorities say pigeon poop contributed to bridge collapse

[Mailman56701]

I overheard someone on talk radio screaming about how the MDOT was responsible because they funded the construction of a "useless" light rail system for the Minneapolis/St. Paul region, and could have used that money for upkeep of the bridges. While disagreeing with the main principle, there is some truth that maintenance and upkeep are the step-children of the transportation budget in most cases. It is tough enough to get tax funding for new roads and bridges where they are needed. Mass transit is often demonized as a waste of money, many voters will reject funding it if they don't think they would use it. But I am sure that a few more folks in Minnesota may be considering it now.

  Not really (MN mass transit).  The main "problem" in MN regarding metro roads, transit, etc. is that the Metro area is the only part of the state that it pertains too.

 I.e., every year or so, the legislature comes up with a multi-million dollar transit project, be it new construction, repairs, mass transit or whatever.  Of course, such projects require more taxes, etc. usually.
  If you're not familar with MN, outside of the metro area, it is basically a rural state.  A very BIG, in area, rural state; the metro area is a small part of overall MN.  In terms of mindset, lifestyle, etc.

  Very few non-metro MN residents, myself included, get excited about having to pay for the metro areas transportation projects.  They want it, they can pay for it in other words.

  And so many times, such projects don't happen.

[Mailman56701]

  Hmm......last I heard (few days ago in various media) here in MN, was that the contractor doing construction on the bridge was being looked at, for overloading the bridge with equipment, materials, etc.........hmmmm........

At the time of the collapse, there was 288 tons of equipment and supplies that was placed on the bridge by the contractor who was working on the bridge.  I wonder what their contract stipulated in regard to the weight of equipment and materials that was permitted to be placed on the bridge during this work.  Perhaps the contractor exceeded the stipulation, or maybe the stipulation mistakenly allowed too much weight.  Or maybe there was no stipulation.

  Exactly.  Haven't heard any more details; been to busy.

[Anonymous]

There is a lot of controversy over the issue of Minnesota transportation dollars going to non-road uses.  It is pretty obvious that most of the political class in Minnesota are New Urbanists, and as such, they hate private automobiles and highways, and love light rail and bicycles.  What seems to work for them is to let highway construction and maintenance fall behind so there is always a public clamor to fix it, and in exchange for promises they make to fix it, they get the tax funds to divert to their favorite darlings. 

So broken highways and traffic jams are their golden goose.  They feed the goose deferred highway maintenance and the goose lays golden eggs for light rail and bicycle trails.  Apparently, in the case of the bridge collapse, they got a little careless about what they fed the goose.  Broken highways and traffic jams are the perfect goose diet, but a bridge collapse should not have been on the menu because they guaranteed the bridge would not collapse. 

[Mailman56701]

There is a lot of controversy over the issue of Minnesota transportation dollars going to non-road uses.  It is pretty obvious that most of the political class in Minnesota are New Urbanists, and as such, they hate private automobiles and highways, and love light rail and bicycles.  What seems to work for them is to let highway construction and maintenance fall behind so there is always a public clamor to fix it, and in exchange for promises they make to fix it, they get the tax funds to divert to their favorite darlings. 

So broken highways and traffic jams are their golden goose.  They feed the goose deferred highway maintenance and the goose lays golden eggs for light rail and bicycle trails.  Apparently, in the case of the bridge collapse, they got a little careless about what they fed the goose.  Broken highways and traffic jams are the perfect goose diet, but a bridge collapse should not have been on the menu because they guaranteed the bridge would not collapse. 

  I hear what you're saying, but if there's anything to learn about this collapse, it's the fact that we shouldn't jump to conclusions about lack of maintenance $, etc. being the cause.

  If the contractor overloading the bridge turns out to be the "final" cause of the collapse, lack of maintenance $, etc. had nothing to do with the bridge failure.

[Anonymous]

There is a lot of controversy over the issue of Minnesota transportation dollars going to non-road uses.  It is pretty obvious that most of the political class in Minnesota are New Urbanists, and as such, they hate private automobiles and highways, and love light rail and bicycles.  What seems to work for them is to let highway construction and maintenance fall behind so there is always a public clamor to fix it, and in exchange for promises they make to fix it, they get the tax funds to divert to their favorite darlings. 

So broken highways and traffic jams are their golden goose.  They feed the goose deferred highway maintenance and the goose lays golden eggs for light rail and bicycle trails.  Apparently, in the case of the bridge collapse, they got a little careless about what they fed the goose.  Broken highways and traffic jams are the perfect goose diet, but a bridge collapse should not have been on the menu because they guaranteed the bridge would not collapse. 

  I hear what you're saying, but if there's anything to learn about this collapse, it's the fact that we shouldn't jump to conclusions about lack of maintenance $, etc. being the cause.

  If the contractor overloading the bridge turns out to be the "final" cause of the collapse, lack of maintenance $, etc. had nothing to do with the bridge failure.

I absolutely agree, but just to be clear, I am not jumping to a conclusion that a lack maintenance funding had anything to do with the cause.  In fact I insist that such a cause would be impossible.  Stopping the required maintenance for any reason while leaving the bridge open for public use would be criminal negligence.  So a lack of funding cannot possibly enter into the equation. 

My previous mention of funds being diverted was not to suggest that diverting funds shortchanged bridge maintenance.  My point was that deferring road and bridge maintenance is a political tool to raise funds that can be used elsewhere to expand the power and empire of state government.  This point is perfectly validated by the politicians who immediately blamed the taxpayers for the collapse, saying that they had not paid enough to keep the bridge standing.  It is what they always say when we complain about inadequate highway construction and maintenance. 

If I sound like I am jumping to a conclusion, that conclusion could best be summed up as negligence on the part of the bridge authorities.  And that negligence could have taken several possible forms.  It could have been a failure to properly inspect the bridge, or a failure to properly repair damage.  It also could have been a design flaw or an improper execution of the design in the original construction.  Or it could have been improper oversight of the contractor doing the work at the time of the collapse.  It may have been a combination of all of the above. 

But I won't jump to that conclusion because you are correct that there is one other possible cause that would completely exonerate the bridge authorities.  That would be the possibility that the contractor doing the work at the time of the collapse violated the terms of his contract and exceeded a maximum allowable weight.

[Mailman56701]

There is a lot of controversy over the issue of Minnesota transportation dollars going to non-road uses.  It is pretty obvious that most of the political class in Minnesota are New Urbanists, and as such, they hate private automobiles and highways, and love light rail and bicycles.  What seems to work for them is to let highway construction and maintenance fall behind so there is always a public clamor to fix it, and in exchange for promises they make to fix it, they get the tax funds to divert to their favorite darlings. 

So broken highways and traffic jams are their golden goose.  They feed the goose deferred highway maintenance and the goose lays golden eggs for light rail and bicycle trails.  Apparently, in the case of the bridge collapse, they got a little careless about what they fed the goose.  Broken highways and traffic jams are the perfect goose diet, but a bridge collapse should not have been on the menu because they guaranteed the bridge would not collapse. 

  I hear what you're saying, but if there's anything to learn about this collapse, it's the fact that we shouldn't jump to conclusions about lack of maintenance $, etc. being the cause.

  If the contractor overloading the bridge turns out to be the "final" cause of the collapse, lack of maintenance $, etc. had nothing to do with the bridge failure.

I absolutely agree, but just to be clear, I am not jumping to a conclusion that a lack maintenance funding had anything to do with the cause.  In fact I insist that such a cause would be impossible.  Stopping the required maintenance for any reason while leaving the bridge open for public use would be criminal negligence.  So a lack of funding cannot possibly enter into the equation. 

My previous mention of funds being diverted was not to suggest that diverting funds shortchanged bridge maintenance.  My point was that deferring road and bridge maintenance is a political tool to raise funds that can be used elsewhere to expand the power and empire of state government.  This point is perfectly validated by the politicians who immediately blamed the taxpayers for the collapse, saying that they had not paid enough to keep the bridge standing.  It is what they always say when we complain about inadequate highway construction and maintenance. 

If I sound like I am jumping to a conclusion, that conclusion could best be summed up as negligence on the part of the bridge authorities.  And that negligence could have taken several possible forms.  It could have been a failure to properly inspect the bridge, or a failure to properly repair damage.  It also could have been a design flaw or an improper execution of the design in the original construction.  Or it could have been improper oversight of the contractor doing the work at the time of the collapse.  It may have been a combination of all of the above. 

But I won't jump to that conclusion because you are correct that there is one other possible cause that would completely exonerate the bridge authorities.  That would be the possibility that the contractor doing the work at the time of the collapse violated the terms of his contract and exceeded a maximum allowable weight.

  Good points.