It IS Minnesota's fault.

In WA, we have the Alaskan Way Viaduct that will likely collapse before they agree who to fix it. Stupid bureaucracy.

Note that the bridge that collapsed was part of the Interstate Highway System, I-35W, and as such was first the responsibility of the Federal government to see to it that there were sufficient funds to properly maintain the bridge and other physical aspects of the highway. While it may be true that the various states are responsible for seeing to it that the work is done, virtually all of the money to build and maintain the Interstate Highway System, including I-35W, came from the federal taxes paid on motor fuels, gasoline and diesel. If it can be shown that inadequate federal funds were made available to properly maintain this particular bridge, the federal government could ultimately be held legally responsible for its collapse.

OCU

OCD

In 1998 Clinton's fiscal year budget set aside $43.3 billion for the DOT infrastructure (which included building and repairing bridges)

TEN YEARS LATER...

In 2008 Bush plans to set aside only $40.3 billion.

Bush CUT the highway fund budget by $3.3 BILLION down from TEN years ago -- and at today's value that's even less money Bush is setting aside. Instead, the states' infrastructure funds all were diverted to Bush's war and massive tax cuts back to himself and his billionaire buddies.

That makes Bush GUILTY as far as I'm concerned. You know he's guilty too because Bush had his henchmen out there first thing this morning blaming everything on Minnesota.

I guess it's not possible that the inspections were done on time, but unproperly by a lazy inspector or a myriad of other things.

Here we go again, blaming the party we hate without knowing all the facts first.

If Bush is to blame, by all means, crucify him. But how can you say, CC that he is to blame less than 24 hours after the incident. I mean, the dust has literally not settled yet.

Christ, this is wearisome and too, too, predictible by the Democratic sheeple.

"Christ, this is wearisome and too, too, predictible by the Democratic sheeple."

But then again, on second thought, no one has ever accused a far left or far right idiot of coming up with an original thought, so I guess the auto-blame game makes perfect sense coming from them.

We're in Bush's prayers. We should be fine now.

I'm watching Lou Dobbs now and could swear he must of read my earlier posts and used them for his show's script today about the bridge.

LOU DOBBS FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008

If Bush is to blame, by all means, crucify him. But how can you say, CC that he is to blame less than 24 hours after the incident. I mean, the dust has literally not settled yet....

Easy -- our infrastructure is rotting worse by the day, Bush spends $3.2 billion LESS on our interstate infrastructure than Clinton spent in 1999, and gives more to fixing up Iraq than he does to us. Not a real brain stretcher to see where the blame lies. Dobbs was even "hinting" at it today, emails (not from me) he read were furious about money in Iraq and none for us. You are only seeing the tip of the iceburg.

If we are looking to assign blame here I think there is plenty to go around. Bush has set this country back and it will take decades to recover but as for this bridge I think it's many politicians fault as well as the people.

Unfortunately it took this to be a wake-up call to the population at least here in Minnesota that cutting taxes or at least not upping them (Republican golden child governor Pawlenty vetoed a 5 cent gas tax that would have gone directly to transportation) and instead focused on getting a new major league ballpark was greedy and ignorant.

That ballpark is corporate welfare at it's finest and it took people dieing and a tragedy like this for people to realize there are more important things like 'safety'.

the bridge that collapsed was part of the Interstate Highway System, I-35W, and as such was first the responsibility of the Federal government to see to it that there were sufficient funds to ....... virtually all of the money to build and maintain the Interstate Highway System.....

Posted by oldCADuser at 2007-08-02 06:01 PM | Reply

The Interstate Highways were built under a simple concept: the federal government would pay up to 90% of CONSTRUCTION costs, while each state was responsible for 90% of MAINTENANCE costs. This is a 40-year-old bridge, so the feds have already done their part.

But, still, a valiant attempt at trying to pin another disaster on the Bush Administration.

After all, Bush is responsible for every bad thing in the world, from tsunamis to storms to levee failures to bad coffee.

But don't let your lack of knowledge keep you from making such deeply 'informed' comments.

Somewhere a structural engineer is drinking a lot.

After all, Bush is responsible for every bad thing in the world, from tsunamis to storms to levee failures to bad coffee

Glad you finally admit it.

"In WA, we have the Alaskan Way Viaduct that will likely collapse before they agree who to fix it. Stupid bureaucracy."

Yup i hope both nichols and sims are on it when it does. (not killed just get their toes crushed, maybe a pinky too )

Tony Snow is not looking too well. I noticed it a couple weeks ago too. His hair is getting whiter and thinner and I'm assuming it's from continuing treatment for his cancer. Too bad. I don't agree with his politics but do wish the guy well.

"This doesn't mean there was a risk of failure, but if an inspection report identifies deficiencies, the state is responsible for taking corrective actions," he [Snow] said. The bridge was 40 years old.

Okay, the way I read this, it is very matter of fact, not as deflecting blame. So this should be easy to confirm or rebuke. If a report identifies deficiencies is the state responsible for taking corrective actions? If they are then it doesn't really matter what the budget was, does it, since that money wouldn't have gone to the repairs if the repairs were the responsibility of the state. If it is not correct then some blame should go to the fed.

You need an answer to that question before you can assign blame to anyone.

"Easy -- our infrastructure is rotting worse by the day, Bush spends $3.2 billion LESS on our interstate infrastructure than Clinton spent in 1999, and gives more to fixing up Iraq than he does to us. Not a real brain stretcher to see where the blame lies. Dobbs was even "hinting" at it today, emails (not from me) he read were furious about money in Iraq and none for us. You are only seeing the tip of the iceburg."

Just as I did in the other thread about the money spent on infrastructure (which I provided half of the equation you quoted above, BTW in the spirit of fairness) I'll wait until the final report -- read, facts -- come out before I lay blame.

Anyone remember the KC Hyatt Regency sky bridge collapse that killed over 100 in the '80s? I remember every engineer and engineer wannabe in the first day or two saying it was harmonics from the dancing. The MSM picked it up. Before you know it, everyone "knew" it was the harmonics from dancing. After the final report came out, it was determined it was an engineering flaw. A support, instead of being contiguous to the lower floors, was instead staggered on one floor.

So, yes, I'll wait until the facts come out. Then, if Bush is to blame, I'll drive the first nail at his crucifiction. Until then, I refuse to make a fool of myself with speculation and "not a real brain stretcher" comments.

I'm actually surprised this kind of stuff doesn't happen more often--I'm even more shocked that it happened to such a modern bridge.

Our country has a lot of ageing infrastructure, much of which has been grossly neglected for years. It seems like a very large percentage of bridges, roads, sewer systems, utility lines, etc. date to the Great Depression, and many older cities don't have the resources to modernize them. It's a ticking time bomb.

"I'm even more shocked that it happened to such a modern bridge."

Tacoma narrows, sweetie.

Our country has a lot of ageing infrastructure, much of which has been grossly neglected for years. It seems like a very large percentage of bridges, roads, sewer systems, utility lines, etc. date to the Great Depression, and many older cities don't have the resources to modernize them. It's a ticking time bomb.

How old are the bridges in Europe? The bridge was 40 years old. Is that old??

So it would appear that Minnesota has had 17 years to fix this problem...

But you're right Chris, let's just blame Bush.

Another way of putting it is that it doesn't matter whether we spent $5 in Iraq or $5 trillion.




That bridge was still going to collapse.

"How old are the bridges in Europe?"

Posted by eberly


duh

The Bridge of Sighs.

London Bridge.

Root cause: Same one that let the Shuttles fail.

"Tacoma narrows, sweetie."

Right. and it was, what, months old? Roosevelt was president then. If he wasn't supplying England with arms during WWII, they would've probably had more money for better engineering.

The more telling analogies are the Shuttle disasters.

All the Red Flags went up and nobody did shit.

The NTSB announced today that more than 700 bridges in the U.S. are in the same condition and ordered an immediate inspection. (They must have done some fast checking on this stuff last night.) If these people had to die, at least they maybe didn't die for nothing if it prevents further loss of life from another shoddy bridge collapse.

All the Red Flags went up and nobody did shit.



Posted by Zatoichi


For 17 years... someone in Minnesota needs to go to jail for this.

It seems like a very large percentage of bridges, roads, sewer systems, utility lines, etc. date to the Great Depression, and many older cities don't have the resources to modernize them. It's a ticking time bomb.

Posted by katieberry at 2007-08-02 09:26 PM | Reply |

And so we go around full circle to THE question -- why don't these cities -- older or not -- in the richest nation in the world have the "resources to modernize them."

The rules of flight are written in blood.

Ignore the world at your peril.

NIght.

"Tacoma narrows, sweetie."

Right. and it was, what, months old? Roosevelt was president then. If he wasn't supplying England with arms during WWII, they would've probably had more money for better engineering.
Posted by goatma



The first Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsed months before the Lend-Lease began.

GONG!

All the Red Flags went up and nobody did shit.

Posted by Zatoichi


For 17 years... someone in Minnesota needs to go to jail for this.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-08-02 09:57 PM | Repl

This bridge was inspected in 2005 and in 2006 by an independent company. They came up with the finding that Minnesota had TWO choices -- (1) they could either use steel reinforcements in certain "fatigued" areas of the bridge and a couple other maintenance items OR (2) they could just re-inspect the bridge every year until the year 2020 when they planned on replacing it.

The state and powers that be chose number (2) -- re-inspect the bridge every year.

If these people had to die, at least they maybe didn't die for nothing if it prevents further loss of life from another shoddy bridge collapse

What concerns me is that is is quite possible that 100 times as many people could die in high traffic construction zones created by the work we will start doing on these bridges.

I understand the notion of making bridges safe but 1 bridge collapsed. Either we don't care about the inspection reports or the inspection reports are crap. Either way, I don't know what we really know about anything at this point.

NIght.


Posted by Zatoichi at 2007-08-02 09:5

Sleep tight.

re-inspect the bridge every year.

Posted by CalifChris


Until it's a real fuck-up.

I'm sticking to small private aircraft.
Or nothing at all.
No bridges needed.

I'm sticking to small private aircraft.

thousands and thousands of people have died in those Zat.

"The first Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsed months before the Lend-Lease began."

Roosevelt was still president, so he must be to blame somehow. After all, our president is to blame for everything bad in this country -- somehow.

Nonetheless, America was preparing for war before the lend lease program officially began.

The Bridge of Sighs.

London Bridge.


What's with the songs, Zat? One's by Robin Trower, the other a childhood ditty.

Tony Snow looks like death warmed over. I fear He will be gone soon and I mean PERMANENTLY Gone.

Larry

"One's by Robin Trower, the other a childhood ditty.'

Posted by goatman

I'm saddened that you have never been to Venice.

Please folks--do not start blaming Bush for this awful event. You look foolish...That is for Kos and Huffington--DR is better than that!


This was a catastrophe. We don't know why the bridge failed. There were heroes who helped save lives. Can't we just concentrate on that and give prayers to the folks who died and their families?

And now they want to inspect all the bridges in the country. That is a good thing! Something good should come out of this tragedy.

Murphy

"I'm saddened that you have never been to Venice."

I've been there, Zat -- twice. Most recently last October. London, too. This was a joke! Sometimes they are hard to get in type, I guess

"I'm sticking to small private aircraft.

thousands and thousands of people have died in those Zat.

Posted by eberly "



Your point is?

I have my Brioni suits fitted there.

Been to Cips?

"I've been there, Zat -- twice. "



woo fucking hoo

"I'm saddened that you have never been to Venice."

"woo fucking hoo"

I just didn't want you to be saddened any more, that's all. You can smile again.

"I have my Brioni suits fitted there.

Been to Cips?"

What is a Brioni suit? Where is Cips?

I have my Brioni suits fitted there.

woo fucking hoo

Our aging infrastructure is a time bomb, be it bridges, dikes, sewer systems, water purification, schools or whatever. It's more important to spend trillions on ball parks and a pre-emptive war over non-existent wmd's to kill the terrorist's 'over there'.

And praying will do absolutely nothing to actually help the situation. Finding out what went wrong and how to prevent it as well as being a bit more thorough and maybe spending money on the things that really matter will help. And if someone I knew died on that bridge I'd want to know who was responsible for it being in the shape it was in and why more actions weren't taken to prevent it.

Please folks--do not start blaming Bush for this awful event. You look foolish...That is for Kos and Huffington--DR is better than that!...

DR is fairly non-partisan and no one ever hestitates to put the blame where it belongs -- in this bridge disaster there is a lot of blame to go around but it STARTED with Bush cutbacks to funding for the states' interstate highway funds.

HOW ELSE can you explain Clinton's budget allowing $43.3 billion for interstate highway funds in 1999 dollars and Bush only allowing $40.3 billion in today's "cost more" dollars for the same funding.

Bush's funding cutback started the ball rolling and forced Minnesota to pick and choose which repairs and replacements they needed with their portion of the highway funds and, rightly or wrongly, the needed replacement of the bridge got pushed down in priorities.

FACE IT -- Bush has been cutting back, cutting down, and eliminating every single program and dollar for our country and for the American people since that snob got in office.

Bush has as his agenda (initially started by Daddy Bush) to PRIVATIZE all our roads, bridges, highways, federal national parks and everything possible in the U.S. that sob could sell off to foreign countries and foreign companies.

If you think it's bad when the government is responsible for repairs and replacement wait until you get a load of privatization when private corporations will skimp on every repair and replacement they possibly can to make a buck for the corporate bottom line. At least the governments are not in it for pure profit like Bush's corporate buddies would be if they owned the bridges, toll roads, etc.

Bush does not consider himself an American.
When will you Bush toadys get that in your heads?

Bush is an out and out pure globalist who considers himself a "corporatist" an "elite" and a "citizen of the world" and that our U.S. Constitution is nothing more than that "damn piece of paper" -- as he shows daily with his arrogance and attitude.

To Bush, America is nothing more than a place to park his ass and his assets.

Cali,

Just got back from LA. Went down to pick up a bike and ride it home and man, LA sucks!

9:00 o'clock at night and the gangsters appeared out of nowhere.

Boy are there alot of immigrants there, do you now separate yourself by calling yourself a normy!

Those are some fucked up looking Hoity Toity Mr Prissy Suits. I hope like hell I ain't buried in something that Gaudy. Bury Me naked if You have to but for pete sake no Suits and especially ones that would require Me to hold out My Pinky. Fuck that.

Larry

"Hmmm, Brioni suits start at around $3000, or do you and Donald Trump BUY YOUR BRIONI SUITS ON EBAY? hahahahaha"

I don't ever have to wear suits. hahahahahahahaha

CC -- I'll Still wait for the facts from the final report before I make a judgement. I'm just funny that way.

Note that the bridge that collapsed was part of the Interstate Highway System, I-35W, and as such was first the responsibility of the Federal government to see to it that there were sufficient funds to properly maintain the bridge and other physical aspects of the highway.

Posted by oldCADuser

The feds give gas tax money back to the state and the state spends the funds where they see fit on the highway system. For an old fart you don't know much about how the highway system works. There are many federal highways in every state, not just the interstate system. The state is responsible for the mainanence of all federal and state roads within their borders. The only time there is any arguement is with the cities and counties. All fed and state roads are under the control of the state highway department.

Sniper,

It's already been established that the Cheney/Bush administration has reduced highway spending levels to well below what Clinton was allocating to the states, and that's not even in inflation adjusted dollars but raw dollars so the reductions are much larger then first appearance. Now if we weren't spending $200 MILLION per DAY on the war in Iraq, we just might have something left over to spend on projects and programs that benefited AMERICANS, but of course we can't be talking about stuff like that, not when we might be attacked by terrorists at any moment. Hell, we don't need to worry about some dirty bomb destroying our cities. We're doing a pretty good job ourselves watching it all rust away and collapsing around us.

OCU

Question: What's the chance that Bush is going to open the money spigots and pull out all stops in order to get that I-35W bridge replaced, say by around the first week of September, 2008?

And what's so special about September 1, 2008 you ask?

Don't you know, that's the day the Republican National Convention opens in, you guessed it, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota?

Now I wonder what the response would have been if it were the Democrats that were going to be meeting in the Twin Cities next year rather than in Denver?

OCU

You know I got to thinking. Couldn't it be possible that BOTH the Jackhammer AND the train(Does anyone know if that train was moving) caused a vibration that produced enough force to shear off the pins and rivets?? Just a Hunch.

Larry

I'm actually surprised this kind of stuff doesn't happen more often--I'm even more shocked that it happened to such a modern bridge.

Our country has a lot of ageing infrastructure, much of which has been grossly neglected for years. It seems like a very large percentage of bridges, roads, sewer systems, utility lines, etc. date to the Great Depression, and many older cities don't have the resources to modernize them. It's a ticking time bomb.

Posted by katieberry

yep..

It will take 1.6 trillion dollars to fix it all(estimated) and this asshole is again blaming the state. Can you say New Orleans..Bad Karma begets bad Karma.

We are pissing away 12-14 billion a month into iraq sand that COULD have been used to fix this stuff.
One day americas right that supports these morons will wake up.. or perhaps they wont and then they get to experience a NO or MInneapolis incident first hand..

First alarm about bridge raised in 1990. Funny, Bush wasn't president and the highway budgets were higher then yet still nothing was done. Let's see your spin on this, CChris. Be sure and use caps lock to make sure everyone knows it's true.

www.lasvegassun.com

Posted by goatman at

more fucking lies by the right..you assholes NEVER take responsibility for anything.. You could be in power 50 years and still blame FDR for building it wrong..scumbags all.

"It will take 1.6 trillion dollars to fix it all(estimated) and this asshole is again blaming the state"

Should be "states" No single state could afford to fix all the other states' road issues.

The feds build it, the states finance it. But we must march to the beat of the party boss, though, right?

Bush Ba-a-a-a-a-ahd. Republicans Ba-a-a-a-a-a-hd.

Bleat it to the rooftops!

"ore fucking lies by the right..you assholes NEVER take responsibility for anything.. You could be in power 50 years and still blame FDR for building it wrong..scumbags all."

I posted a link from a reputable news source. You call names. I know in the eyes sheeple blinded by their party, name calling is the better arguement. But to us thinking people, facts are the preferred argument of choice.

I'll bet Haley Barber and Mississippi will make out like bandits again off this tragedy. And the Miss.retards love him??????????? How's Brownie doing on this job?

Screw investments in infrastructure. The rich need more tax cuts, and we need to increase our dependence on foreign oil. That would rule out higher gas taxes to fix roads and upgrade public transit.

Remember the growth of the 90's? President Clinton - despite the howls of the criminal repub minority (until Jan 95 when they became the majority) in Congress -- made targeted investments in national infrastructure as part of his economic recovery plan -- and the economy boomed.

The longest period of economic growth resulted from this slimmed down program -- the repubs wouldn't support increased infrastructure investments (roads, transit, water systems, etc.), labeling it as pork (unlike today's republican 223 million dollar bridge to nowhere -- an island with 50 residents -- that's a sound investment). Imagine if President Clinton had been able to double or triple that infrastructure investment? A stronger economy and stronger roads and transit.

I live in PA -- 22.4 percent of all bridges are structurally deficient (worse than all states except OK and RI). Slowest economic growth of the Mid-Atlantic States. See a correlation?

Flash back to FDR and the New Deal. A major historic criticism about it was that it only reduced unemployment in half (to about 12 percent from 25 percent). The republicans then also limited spending. The Pennsylvania Turnpike was the famous New Deal highway (funded around 1940, just before the war as the New Deal was winding down). Imagine if bridges and highways had been built before the war and Eisenhower's highway act.

The war economy conversion of the U.S. was astounding in the 40's, but we could have had even lower unemployment, and greater productive capacity that may have sped up the war (and experienced a greater post war boom) if the New Deal had doubled it's spending. Let the dams, dykes, and highways collapse -- Murdoch needs another house in Malibu.

"After all, Bush is responsible for every bad thing in the world, from tsunamis to storms to levee failures to bad coffee."

I knew it! I just knew it!!! The coffee this morning was crap. ENOUGH!!! You say "Bring it on!"? I'll bring it on. Mess with my coffee will y'a, you slob you slob! It's bad enough that I can be the cranky bee-yoch in the morning and now you mess with my coffee????!!!!! Amp up my bee-yoch meter and you'll pay! Oh boy are you gonna pay!!

{rottenlousypresmessingwithmyc
offewhothehelldoeshe thinkheismumblemumblemumble...
....}

I live in PA -- 22.4 percent of all bridges are structurally deficient (worse than all states except OK and RI). Slowest economic growth of the Mid-Atlantic States. See a correlation?


You know if one of those is the Whitman or the Ben Franklin or the Betsy Ross? I've been hauling ass over those the past couple days...

I don't go near the Tacony Palmyra to get into philly... that thing is a hunk of shit.

PS Budget-cuts, smudget-cuts... Minnesota had 17 years to fix this problem. I don't know if its a GOP or DNC governor or who controls the legislative branch in that state but they are to blame... this problem has spanned 3 presidential administrations... Even if it is the job of the Fed to fix bridges like this, its obvious they weren't since it was discovered 17 years ago. Minnesota should have knuckled up and fixed this bridge a long time ago. And PA should get on those 22.4% also.

Rob: I live in Philadelphia (You are in the metro, based on your writings). Port Authority bridges are in very good shape. The reason is simple: those tolls you pay. Yes, the Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA) is a source of pork, but the cash flow also helps ensure frequent inspection, repair, and safety. The Walt Whitman is about to be redecked. The cables were replaced 2 decades ago. The Ben Franklin was also recabled and redecked). The Tacony is sturdier than you think -- not DRPA, but it is still fairly well maintained -- tolls! (Remember the 70's when it was a nickel?).

Look at what is happening in PA: There is a battle over whether to toll I-80. Trucks going across the country from New York or New England have a few choices -- I-90 (toll), Pa turnpike (I-276, I-76) - toll, I-80 - free. So which do you think the trucks use? Why should PA taxpayers subsidize out-of state truck traffic (Don't hand me the high truck-tax line. All studies show that truck wear out roads far in excess of the federal taxes they pay (plus, states pay maintenance, as this administration reminds us, so states don't benefit from that revenue).

Of course, they can always use I-78/81/40 if they are headed toward the south or middle Midwest. Toll that also? Pay for the roads you use -- what a novel concept!

Rob: Forgot about the Ross. It's only 31 years old, and a steel truss style. But your tolls fund maintenance (one eastbound has been closed for a month for who-knows what type of work or inspection!)

Pedestrian bridge here in MD collapsed in 1999, killing one on 695 (baltimore beltway).

I can't believe Clinton let this happen.

Sound stupid?

Just as stupid as blaming a sitting president for a bridge collapse.

But keep beating the blame Bush drum. I'm just hoping the voters see your BULLSHIT.

We're all guilty. Our taxes are supposed to pay for this, yet the money always seems to go to some thing that only directly benefit very few.
From farm subsidies that should go to family farming operations, to many other corporate/special interest tax and policy interests.
We hear all the speeches, all the propaganda, get taken to the cleaners for all matters not related to the general well being of our society.

Rob: I live in Philadelphia (You are in the metro, based on your writings)

GO BIRDS!!! No, I don't work in metro...

The Tacony is sturdier than you think

I just don't trust that one... it doesn't look like it can stand up to a good pounding.

And so we go around full circle to THE question -- why don't these cities -- older or not -- in the richest nation in the world have the "resources to modernize them."

Posted by CalifChris at 2007-08-02 09:58 PM | Reply | Flag:



In the case of my town (a typical, post-industrial Ohio River city), it's a complete lack of resources and a nearly bankrupt city from loss of industry and population decline (as well as flight to the 'burbs). Our biggest problem is an out dated sewer system dating to the 1920's (which constantly floods, leaving a mix of sewage and rain water in basements and on streets, as well as into the river itself). Since the system was built, the city has lost close to half of its population (mostly since the mid-1980's), and there's simply no money to fix it. You can only raise user fees so much when the median income is $25k.

This is also the case with our roads and bridges too. At some point, our country will have to start re-investing and re-developing. We can only build outwards for so long. I don't think abandoning our urban cores and small towns for new sprawl is a viable solution.

I think the only thing saving our asses right now is the high quality and over-engineering of infrastructure built prior the 1950's.

I heard some professor from the Georgia Institute of Technology talking the other day, and he put things into a good perspective.

Sure, we spend $40ish billion on road infrastructure maint, but that number is very pale in comparison to the money spent on new construction.

I suspect we're going to see more infrastructure failures, unless things are corrected now.

Katieberry, I think you posted some valid points too.

First alarm about bridge raised in 1990. Funny, Bush wasn't president and the highway budgets were higher then yet still nothing was done. Let's see your spin on this, CChris. Be sure and use caps lock to make sure everyone knows it's true.

www.lasvegassun.com

Posted by goatman at 2007-08-03 06:33 AM | Reply | Flag

Yes, something WAS done in 1990. The government for the first time used the category "structurally deficient" and stepped up inspections and made what they thought were necessary repairs. (see paragraph from your OWN link below.)

...It was 1990 when the federal government first issued an ominous label for the state's busiest bridge: "structurally deficient." In the ensuing years, inspectors found cracks and corrosion on the Interstate-35W bridge. They stepped up inspections from once every two years to every year, and made what they thought were the necessary repairs. They were convinced that the bridge had no safety issues at all.

Your pathetic attempt to go back in time so you can link the downfall of a 40 year old bridge to Clinton -- who put up BILLIONS more money for highway/bridge repairs than Bush did TEN YEARS LATER -- is sad.

The bridge was old, it got older, it needed more repairs than ever, traffic over the bridge increased by the thousands so did Bush provide MORE money? No. Bush provided LESS money.

INFRASTRUCTURE IS SUFFERING ALL OVER THE USA.

But we spend BILLIONS for Halliburton and thugs to rebuild the infrastructure in IRAQ.

Spin away, spin away, but your boy Bush is a thug and wants to cut back on every cent for Americans and privatize the entire country putting everything we own in the hands of private companies and foreign corporations -- an idea originally put forth by Daddy Bush.

correction -- after the paragraph with the bold print and in blockquotes, the rest should not be in quotes -- it's my own comment

I will reprint that portion of my 1:49 p.m. post that was wrongly put in blockquotes:


Your pathetic attempt to go back in time so you can link the downfall of a 40 year old bridge to Clinton -- who put up BILLIONS more money for highway/bridge repairs than Bush did TEN YEARS LATER -- is sad.

The bridge was old, it got older, it needed more repairs than ever, traffic over the bridge increased by the thousands so did Bush provide MORE money? No. Bush provided LESS money.

INFRASTRUCTURE IS SUFFERING ALL OVER THE USA.

But we spend BILLIONS for Halliburton and thugs to rebuild the infrastructure in IRAQ.

Spin away, spin away, but your boy Bush is a thug and wants to cut back on every cent for Americans and privatize the entire country putting everything we own in the hands of private companies and foreign corporations -- an idea originally put forth by Daddy Bush.

""...It was 1990 when the federal government first issued an ominous label for the state's busiest bridge: "structurally deficient." In the ensuing years, inspectors found cracks and corrosion on the Interstate-35W bridge. They stepped up inspections from once every two years to every year, and made what they thought were the necessary repairs. They were convinced that the bridge had no safety issues at all.""

And the bridge continued to work fine for 17 years.
The past six under president Bush and logically the last six years were more critical than the earlier eleven years.

and yet..... they built new stadium..... TONS of work on I494 into the high property tax suburbs...

You all kill me, LOL

"Yes, something WAS done in 1990. The government for the first time used the category "structurally deficient" and stepped up inspections and made what they thought were necessary repairs. "

Sounds like they should've spent more money and bought better engineers who would've made better repairs.

Somewhere emails are being deleted and memos shredded.

This is like the shuttle disasters. I bet some engineer was overruled to save money.

This is a state issue all the way just like Katrina. These liberal whackjobs blame everything from natural disasters, alleged climate change, poverty, poor graduation rates in inner cities, random acts of violence and even obesity on President Bush. It's out of control. If Bush is responsible, what are these liberal state legislators, Governors, Congressmen & Senators doing? Oh right, those liberals do and are worth absolutely nothing.

When a bridge collapses, whose fault it? The builders 40 years ago? The Inspectors? The agency that oversees Inspectors? The State government? The Federal government? Frankly, I don't know. The collapse of a bridge happens. It shouldn't, but it does. It seems difficult to apportion blame for such an event.
On the other hand, once the bridge has collapsed, clearly it is the responsibility of local, state and federal governments to respond. The bigger the crisis, the larger the responsibility of the federal government. Which is why Katrina left the Bush administration looking so completely inept. This tragedy is on a much smaller scale. Still, we as citizens have every right to demand that the governmental agencies respond zealously.