On 9/3/13 9:48 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 9/3/2013 7:51 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 9/2/2013 11:24 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 14:42:08 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

I'll betcha if a national poll was taken the majority of people would
prefer spending money on fixing roads and airports in lieu of
building a
rail system network and trains capable of travelling 200+ mph.

The power grid isn't as big of a problem as you may think. Demand has
basically flat lined in the past several years and has actually dropped
in some. Smart grids and energy efficient devices have helped.



Not to worry. Nothing much is happening in refurbishing roads,
bridges, dams, infrastructure.

That must be a North East problem. Florida maintains it's roads
..

BTW who was talking about dams?
The environmentalists want all of them blown up anyway

Roads don't freeze in Florida. Northerners haven't figured out how to
build roads to survive the harsh winters they experience.

The "infrastructure" is not crumbling... I drive all over the place with
a trailer. The roads are fine... the bridges are fine....

Please do tell us, then, about the structural state of bridges that were
never designed for the loads and frequency of travel that they now get.
Of course, you'd much rather make your own idiotic conclusions than get
real data.....

http://t4america.org/resources/bridges/

And here's a GREAT site to ponder:

http://www.infrastructurereportcard....rade-sheet/gpa


Aviaton that Greg says is just great!

http://www.infrastructurereportcard....ation/overview


A fairly substantial bridge carrying I-95 over a river in Greenwich
collapsed about three decades ago. There was another bridge collapse in
Minnesota and, of course, the Silver Bridge collapse in West Virginia.
And many, many others.

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.

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.

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.

===

Not in this case. There was an extensive engineering review
conducted and it was concluded that the design was unsuited for that
particular bridge configuration. The span that failed was not
rectangular since the bridge makes a turn, more of a trapezoidal shape
if my memory is correct. That creates an asymetrical rocking motion
as traffic passes over it, and that caused a so called link pin to
fail prematurely. It was always known that the bridge would be
subject to heavy traffic but the span couplings were unsuitable for
the type of unusual loading encountered.

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.

"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?

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.

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...


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.

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

Sorry. I don't buy that at all. As pointed out in a previous post, a
roadway or bridge that is "added" to the federal interstate roadway
system must be built or upgraded to the specifications contained in
DOT and specifically the Federal Highway Commission requirements.
The requirements and specs today are much more stringent than they
were back in the 50's and certainly more stringent than those for
non-federal, local roads.

Go ahead and type your four-letter word starting with "C".

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 08:17:47 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

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.

Ah, the story changes. Not shocking from you.

Nope, that's what I've said all along.

On 9/3/2013 10:26 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
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, another red herring... That bridge has nothing to do with this
conversation...