BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

iBoaterer[_3_]

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 11:51:32 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 09:53:38 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

A fairly substantial bridge carrying I-95 over a river in
Greenwich
collapsed about three decades ago.

===

I was over that bridge about an hour before it went down,
couldn't
believe my ears when I heard the news in the morning.

That bridge failed more from engineering/design issues than it
did
from deterioration. It was only about 30 years old at the time.

Again, those "issues" are usually the result of old bridges being
re-
purposed and thus were never engineered to carry the traffic that
they
are getting.

Why not?

Because they weren't intended to be interstate bridges.

------------------------------

A bridge on *Interstate Route 95" is not an interstate bridge?

Whoooosh...... I'll try again. In cities, where interstates were
extended, added, spurs, etc. were placed long after the original
interstate system was in place. A lot of these add ons were aligned to
take advantage of in-place roadways including bridges, tunnels etc.
These in-place infrastructures were not intended to carry the traffic
that interstate travel imposes.