When in the U.S. ...
I’ve been in England and Italy where I’ve seen bridges that are more than 2,000 years old and are still strong and sturdy. If the Romans can build a bridge that lasts 2,000 years, why do our bridges only last less than 50 years?
Time we copy the Romans.
Jim Petraglia, Denver
Jim,
I assume you are referring to the recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis? The first thing that comes to mind is that Minneapolis endures temperature fluctuations of up to 100 degrees F in the summer and down to 30 degrees below 0 F (or more) in the winter. Last time I looked, Rome was pretty temperate. Also, I have also been to Europe and seen their old bridges. Most do not come close to handling the volume of traffic that a modern US bridge is asked to handle. I am not making excuses - trust me - I am not thrilled about how we maintain our infrastructure in the US. But I do believe you have pulled an 'apples to oranges' comparison on your observation.
Jim,
How many of these Italian bridges carried eight lanes over 1,900 feet?
Posted by James Jones on August 16, 2007 05:24 AMMaybe it has something to do with the fact that Rome tended to look upon itself as being THE "Eternal City" of what was also regarded as an equally "eternal empire"; while here in the U.S.A., the basic philosophy of "consumerism" is based upon "built in obsolescence" to keep up the sales volume for the "newest model".
Most of our famous Interstate Highway system was totally obsolete before the politicians cut the ribbon to open it to traffic. But that's O.K. Just float anther bond issue; run another T-Rex project, and then open something else obsolete before it's even finished.
Bridge failures and such like? All part of the ever ongoing game of catch-up. So? This one couldn't stand up to 8 lanes; but make the next one 10 lanes; and when it goes, we won't be around anyway.
Anyone remember the wonderful old "Mousetrap" at I-70 and I-25?
Posted by Old Grouch on August 16, 2007 08:20 AMUnfortunately for all of us, Old Grouch has both reasons right - planned obsolescence & underplanning for the future (being penny wise & pound foolish); however, he also forgets to mention the folks who choose not to understand that government (at federal, state & local levels) must have the job of maintaining infrastructure (or are we each supposed to build a section ourselves) - and that must be funded thru taxes. The feds are notorious for taking taxes (such as those in the highway fund & Social Security) and putting them in the general fund so they have been spent on other 'pet projects' before they are needed to cover what they were intended to cover - and the state must deal with that - normally by raising taxes. What's a taxpayer to do?
Posted by Mary on August 16, 2007 08:49 AMOld Grouch...or any fellow grayhair out there. What was that tower next to the mousetrap? Or am I thinking the wrong place? It looked like an old airport tower right along I25 and I70 (I think).
Posted by larkspur on August 16, 2007 08:55 AMLarkspur, the tower was for traffic management and observation. As it was useless it was torn down.
Posted by mickey on August 16, 2007 09:16 AMAs a QA manager for a Colorado bridge fabricator I can tell you even with the strictest bridge code requirements today no bridge is built without some minor flaws. These flaws are what we call stress risers. Over time with the dynamic loading and fatique these stress risers can open and eventually could cause failure. Also another problem is corrosion. The new zinc coated paints and weathering steels and welding consumables can help but there is no paint that over time that will not fail. Now this doesn't mean all bridges will fall down. It means that good inspections must be done any repairs made or bridges replaced. A lot of bridges that are just in need of repainting can be repainted but when they are over rivers the cost of repainting excedes building a new bridge. For enviromental reasons the bridge must be bagged so sandblast and paint materials don't go into our water supply. I hope I didn't paint an ugly picture here. It takes good inspections of these bridges and government bodies to listen to these inspectors and engineers findings to keep us all save. But Jim is comparing apples & oranges. Our bridges today take thousands more punishments then those old bridges. We have old old bridges in this country too. But they don't have thousands of cars & 50,000 lb trucks going over them daily.
Posted by larry on August 16, 2007 11:39 AMIf we were not blowing billions of dollars in foreign lands to take their natural resources away, and to rebuild their infrastructure which we had just destroyed, we could be spending it here, in our own nation, rebuilding our own infrastructure and obtaining our own natural resources. Maybe if we were told the whole truth about why we are in the Middle east right now, we could understand the importance of being there. But since all we seem to get are lies, we can complain all we want about our government as that is still our right. At least I think we still have that right. Even with the B.S. Patriot Act.
Posted by Jay on August 16, 2007 03:22 PMAh: A letter with insufficiency dripping off of it did not attract any scathing remarks letting the "apples and oranges" analogy suffice. This may be a first. Good job, Jim Petraglia; however, you had to have known what the responses would be. Locomotives with many cars attached did not traverse Roman bridges. Today's engineers must decline copy of 2000 year old bridges.
Posted by RG on August 16, 2007 04:59 PMBecause>>>>>>>>>
We have 300 million people and
12-20 mil..illegals. Population explosion,
way too much traffic for our bridges,etc.
Posted by jl on August 18, 2007 10:32 PM