Nearly 56,000 Bridges Called Structurally Deficient (usatoday.com)

schwit1 quotes a report from USA Today: Nearly 56,000 bridges nationwide, which vehicles cross 185 million times a day, are structurally deficient, a bridge construction group announced Wednesday. The list is based on Transportation Department data. The department scores bridges on a nine-point scale, and while the deficient ones might not be imminently unsafe, they are classified in need of attention. More than one in four bridges (173,919) are at least 50 years old and have never had major reconstruction work, according to the ARTBA analysis. State transportation officials have identified 13,000 bridges along interstates that need replacement, widening or major reconstruction, according to the group. "America's highway network is woefully underperforming," said Alison Premo Black, the group's chief economics who conducted the analysis. "It is outdated, overused, underfunded and in desperate need of modernization." The five states with the most deficient bridges are Iowa with 4,968, Pennsylvania with 4,506, Oklahoma with 3,460, Missouri with 3,195 and Nebraska with 2,361. The eight states where at least 15% of the bridges are deficient are: Rhode Island at 25%, Pennsylvania at 21%, Iowa and South Dakota at 20%, West Virginia at 17%, and Nebraska, North Dakota and Oklahoma at 15%.

Comments

Hoorah

[subk]

Finally a list of items ranked by state in which Alabama and Mississippi aren't the worst.

Re:Hoorah

[Anonymous Coward]

What a coincidence

The five states with the most deficient bridges are Iowa with 4,968, Pennsylvania with 4,506, Oklahoma with 3,460, Missouri with 3,195 and Nebraska with 2,361. The eight states where at least 15% of the bridges are deficient are: Rhode Island at 25%, Pennsylvania at 21%, Iowa and South Dakota at 20%, West Virginia at 17%, and Nebraska, North Dakota and Oklahoma at 15%.

All states controlled by Republicans whose number one priority is cutting taxes for businesses and the wealthy, which causes significant reduction in revenue to the state and leaves no money for infrastructure.

Re:Hoorah

[Anonymous Coward]

All states controlled by Republicans whose number one priority is cutting taxes for businesses and the wealthy, which causes significant reduction in revenue to the state and leaves no money for infrastructure.

Explain Texas.
Republicans are in control of that one.

I think environment is to blame.
California - earthquakes
Midwest - flooding
northern states - weather

Re:Hoorah

[skr95062]

That may be true, but how about California?
Fully controlled by Democrats and still deferring the infrastructure maintenance.
Look at that states Roads, Dams and Bridges.
Just pointing out that the Democrats are not the angels you are making them out to be and they are just as complicit as the Republicans.

Re:Hoorah

[Rakarra]

That may be true, but how about California?

What about it? It was pretty far down on the list. Not in the "under 5%" for the states with the fewest infrastructure problems, but not in the "over 9%" group of states with the most problems.

propaganda headline

[Anonymous Coward]

bridges that need to be widened to handle additional traffic are not "structurally deficient"

Just because a bridge is old doesn't mean it's unsafe. In Europe, a 50 year old bridge is likely to be called "the new bridge" and have people griping that it's not as good/pretty/whatever as the "old" bridge

how many of the other bridges are just fine as is, but could stand to be upgraded for various reasons other than that they are deteriorating?

once you start lying about things, how can we trust anything that you say?

David Lang

Re:propaganda headline

[PPH]

bridges that need to be widened

Or raised. Because truck drivers basically say 'Fuck you' when you put up a sign for an over height/weight/width detour.

Re:propaganda headline

[fisted]

Have fun raising a railroad bridge

Re:propaganda headline

[Opportunist]

You can break the speed limit, but height limits are not so easy to bargain with.

Re:propaganda headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Lower the road.

Re:propaganda headline

[ScienceofSpock]

bridges that need to be widened to handle additional traffic are not "structurally deficient"

I'd say technically, that is EXACTLY what they are. Their structure is lacking the width to handle current traffic levels, therefore it's structurally deficient. What you probably mean is that a bridge that is labeled as "structurally deficient" doesn't necessarily mean unsafe, but a bridge that needs to be widened to handle traffic is most certainly structurally deficient.

/pedantry

Re:propaganda headline

[PPH]

Sometimes the truck wins

Re:propaganda headline

[toastjam]

Pretty sure they both lost in that situation....

Re:propaganda headline

[ChoGGi]

That poor crash beam has taken a number of hits over the years
https://youtu.be/LmTEoZJA5-w?t...

Re:propaganda headline

[ChoGGi]

That road has a sewer mains below.

Re:propaganda headline

[tipo159]

bridges that need to be widened to handle additional traffic are not "structurally deficient"

Well, yes and no.

If traffic patterns result in a bridge continually carrying more load (of slowly moving and stopped cars) than it was designed for, then it is "structurally deficient". Widening it to handle additional traffic could remedy the issue.

The report distinguishes between "structurally deficient" and "functionally obsolete", which refers to bridges that simply don't meet current standards, like lane width.

Re:propaganda headline

[JonnyCalcutta]

In Europe, a 50 year old bridge is likely to be called "the new bridge" and have people griping that it's not as good/pretty/whatever as the "old" bridge

Its true that, although sometimes the new bridge isn't even that new - http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/...

Re:propaganda headline

[Richard_at_work]

A good opportunity to replace the sewer as well. Its not like this isn't done all the time - in my city they just replaced the south bound mainline railway bridge overnight with no disruption with a complete new bridge (and not a second bridge build alongside the first). Why? Because of the bridge strikes that had weakened the old one.

These sorts of things are done all the time - railway bridges over motorways, replaced in one night due to the disruption a longer replacement would take.

Re:propaganda headline

[dffuller]

Actually, I'm fairly familiar with the data here. Structurally Deficient in essence means a bridge that is in poor condition in either it's deck, superstructure or substructure. Bridges that do not meet current standards (e.g., not being wide enough for the number of lanes they carry) are called Functionally Obsolete. The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) system allows states only 3 categories: 1) Structurally Deficient, 2) Functionally Obsolete or 0) Neither. Bridges that are both Functionally Obsolete and Structurally Deficient are coded as 1) Structurally Deficient.

I'm not sure why the group decided to confound SD and FO bridges when there really wasn't any reason too, unless they were ignorant of or confused by FHWA's system or they were trying to make the problem seem worse than it actually is. Advocate groups will advocate, after all.

Re:propaganda headline

[wired_parrot]

The linked report provides their criteria for classifying bridges as structurally deficient, based on FHWA guidelines:

According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a bridge is classified as structurally deficient if the condition rating for the deck, superstructure, substructure or culvert and retaining walls is rated 4 or below or if the bridge receives an appraisal rating of 2 or less for structural condition or waterway adequacy.

They're rating the bridge based on whether one or more of the bridge key structural elements are in poor condition or not. The need to widen the bridge is secondary to their assessment.

Re:propaganda headline

[thegarbz]

If you're going to be pedantic it's worth actually learning how civil engineers use terms rather than simply typing out of context words into a dictionary and picking a definition to suit your pedantry.

Structurally deficient has not, nor will ever have anything to do with its fit for purpose. The bridges may no longer be fit for purpose, but the terms structurally deficient can only be based on the original design requirements. /engineering pedantry.

Re:propaganda headline

[ChoGGi]

The bridge has a lowered crash beam that protects it from harm, so the railway company doesn't want to spend the money; something tells me the city also doesn't want to.
Since the city added an LED sign with an automatic red light wait it has cut down on the entertaining videos.

They could always get inventive like Sydney
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix...

other cities?

[TimMD909]

Those bridges are all in Pittsburgh alone. Wonder how many there would be if other cities were considered ...

Surprising

[amicusNYCL]

The most surprising thing about this story for me is that Iowa needs 5,000 bridges.

Re:Surprising

[DogDude]

Iowa gets a LOT of welfare from the coastal states. The infrastructure there is great. Tons and tons of barely used roads (and bridges, obviously). People in the least dense parts of the state even get fiber to their doors.

Re:Surprising

[Harlequin80]

Not really. You probably don't even notice the vast majority of the ones you drive over. Every small water course will be crossed by a small pre-stressed concrete bridge. Installation costs on those are tiny, they last for ages and the engineering component of them is minimal. Generally when people say bridge they imagine the large span ones, where as the huge majority are tiny tiny things.

Construction wise pushing 2 piles of dirt each side of railway line, waiting 12 months for it to settle and harden and then sticking a 6m concrete span across is a very cheap. very easy way of crossing the rail line. It is marginal on cost on a controlled crossing and heaps more efficient and safer.

Re:Surprising

[rickb928]

A common complaint against rural America.

Considering the cost of s single mile of subway in Manhattan, or the cost of a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Fransicso, bridges in Iowa are probably cheap per mile, foot, or pound.

And considering that Iowa is where much food for Manhattan, LA, and San Francisco comes from, roads and bridges there should be of some interest to urban Americans.

THIS is why we should either look to Washington to continue to pay for maintenance and improvement of the Interstate highway system, and feeders, or stop collecting tax money for that and let the states do the jobs.

And I'm in favor of federal funding - just do it. Our new President understands facilities maintenance and renovation as necessary and profitable.

Re:Surprising

[quonset]

The most surprising thing about this story for me is that Iowa needs 5,000 bridges.

You shouldn't be. I drove through part of it last year (a very small corner of it) and being a relatively flat state (compared to PA), they need bridges to cross the roads, otherwise you'd have intersections all over the place, not to mention any rivers (creeks compared to rivers in the east) and those oddball depressions one comes across.

For example, if you take Exit 10 off of 29 N, you are at a bridge. That bridge is 29 N but under it is Route 2. Imagine if you had an intersection of 29, which is a highway, meeting a smaller, slower road such as Route 2.

Nebraska and South Dakota were the same way. Relatively flat states but lots of bridges to go over the other roads.

Re:Surprising

[PopeRatzo]

And considering that Iowa is where much food for Manhattan, LA, and San Francisco comes from

"Much of"? How much of? The agriculture in Iowa is federally subsidized with tax money collected from Manhattan, LA and San Francisco. Without those subsidies, Iowa would be Oklahoma.

Re:Surprising

[Ichijo]

And considering that Iowa is where much food for Manhattan, LA, and San Francisco comes from, roads and bridges there should be of some interest to urban Americans.

Sure, we will maintain the roads and bridges on our side of the state line, but if Iowa wants to sell us food, isn't that sufficient economic incentive for them to maintain the roads and bridges in their state?

Let Washington give them enough money to do so but give it to them unconditionally so we can see whether maintaining ALL of their existing roads and bridges is really the best use of that money. Without strings attached, I suspect Iowa might close down some lesser-used bridges to motor traffic so they no longer need to be maintained, and they might expand their rail lines to get some long haul trucks off the road so they cause less traffic congestion and road wear.

Re:Surprising

[swb]

If Iowa wants to sell you food or if you want to eat?

I also don't think "Iowa" as in the State Government makes a lot of decisions as to whether its commodities move by rail or road, I think the private sector makes that decision as to which makes the most economic sense.

I'd also wonder how many of these bridges in trouble are on main transit/shipping routes and how many are highway overpasses or creek/river bridges on small highways. Farmer Jones may rely on them to get to fields or get agricultural consumables delivered.

Re:Surprising

[psycho12345]

"If Iowa wants to sell you food or if you want to eat?"

There is a reason agriculture is at the bottom of the economic food chain. I can choose to buy my food elsewhere, it will be just more expensive. Iowa being unable to sell its food, will have basically nothing.

This is a common argument against urban america "You urbanites need our food!". The reality is, no they don't, but the rural areas surely need the technology, transportation, trade and manufacturing. The real world examples of this in action is Hong Kong and Singapore, neither of which can produce food on any scale, yet have no issues with feeding their populaces.

There is a reason the US and most of the developed world has steadily urbanized. In more recent history, see the mass migrations from eastern China to the coasts.

Re:Surprising

[Harlequin80]

Why the hell is your maintenance cost so high?!?!?! A stabilised earth embankment with suitable drainage will last ages. If you are having to retain it you have done it wrong. The whole idea of an earth ramp is that it has settled to its natural angle of repose. Planting some grasses and initial covering with a geo-membrane is all you need to do.

Maintenance of the bridge is going to be tiny. You would have regular yearly inspections checking for concrete cancers and cracking but thats about it.

Maintenance of a level crossing on the other hand is continuous. The bituminous surface will spread under the loads of cars and trucks, this will push the surface closer and closer to the rail. This has to be continuously cut back otherwise bad things happen. The rail cutting also acts as a water channel causing the sealed surface to break up.

As for the lawsuits that is never something you can control for.

Re:Surprising

[AHuxley]

Different areas of the USA had different funding over the decades and ideas about what to do about rural isolation.
e.g. one existing toll bridge vs building more free bridges.
Louisiana politician Huey Long
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"... built 111 bridges and started construction on the first bridge over the Mississippi entirely in Louisiana ..."
The problem for the USA is later funding needed to look after what was built over the years.

Re:Surprising

[QuasiEvil]

Yeah, Iowa's #43 in per capita Federal spending for 2013 based on the 2014 Pew Trust spending report, getting roughly $25B. (Source: Wikipedia...) Meanwhile, we were #37 on per capital Federal tax contributions for 2015 (roughly $24B). Sorry, I can't quickly find numbers from the same exact year, but 2013 vs. 2015 wasn't that much different. Really suckin' at the ol' government teat there, eh?

We'd do just fine without the coastal states, but we have no oil, and they have inadequate agriculture to feed their populations. It makes a decent trade.

Plus, we're just plain smarter than you coastals:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

I miss home. One of these days I'll give corporate America the finger and move back to the farm.

Re:Surprising

[adam.voss]

Umm... citation needed? I live in Iowa.

The infrastructure there is great.

Tell that to people from Wisconsin, it is recognized by both sides that theirs is better. We are better than we were thanks to a tax hike in 2015. I would not be one to call what we have bad, but it is not "great."

Tons and tons of barely used roads (and bridges, obviously).

Barely used? I suppose you could find ways to measure it to make that case, but no one here is thinking that way. If you look at the number of cars per unit time compared to some congested California corridor sure it would seem barely used but that is not really a fair comparison if you consider, say, population density. It might be worth mentioning that a lot of the lesser roads are limestone / gravel.

People in the least dense parts of the state even get fiber to their doors

I am reading this over an expensive (>$90/mo for 50 GB of daytime usage) satellite Internet connection because that is the only access available. It is so slow at the moment, that I cannot even load my account information to see what the exact cost it.

The most surprising thing about this story for me is that Iowa needs 5,000 bridges

In the 5 miles to get from my home to the post office, I cross 5 bridges. Really not sure how else to deal with all the running water that needs to be crossed.

Re: Surprising

[rickb928]

Then Iowa would be shipping beef to Manhattan.

Re: Surprising

[fustakrakich]

They would probably ship it to Japan for a much higher profit.

Re: Surprising

[rickb928]

Just a different direction.

Re:Surprising

[mmell]

I grew up in California. I've lived in Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska at various points in my life.

At all times, I needed roads and bridges which I could count on to keep me from becoming an organic smear on the inside of a steel Hot Pocket. Whether the product was avocados, oranges, corn or pigs it's nice for those of us who eat to know that the people making our food can get it to us.

I've made this point over and over - it's hard enough getting people to pay the bill to build infrastructure. The stuff is expensive, after all, and doesn't generally produce a profit by itself. ROI isn't obvious. It's vastly harder to get people to pay for maintenance/repairs/improvement when the average Joe can plainly see that it "looks fine to me". Never mind replacing it when the original item passes the lifespan originally set for it by the architects and engineers who originally designed and built the thing - it's always smarter to just replace or reinforce the critical parts, or to inspect it more often.

This was the one and only thing which POTUS said on the campaign trail which I found myself agreeing with - we need to put a lot of time, effort and resources into our infrastructure, starting yesterday. Incidentally, I don't mean building the Great Wall of America - I mean roads, bridges, dams, power plants, power grids, aqueducts, pipelines, flood control, . . .

Re:Surprising

[Dog-Cow]

You provided evidence for the position you argued against. The comment you replied to isn't the stupid one.

Re:Surprising

[coofercat]

Surely they could use tunnels to avoid having so many bridges?

Re:Surprising

[jittles]

Our new President understands facilities maintenance and renovation as necessary and profitable.

I'm seriously dying laughing over here. Have you ever stayed at a Trump hotel? They're great when they're brand new but they never get maintained or renovated when they really need it.

Re:Surprising

[apoc.famine]

At multiple times the cost of a bridge, for sure. Tunneling isn't cheap, and at that scale you're going to need ventilation, lighting, and drainage systems. In a fairly flat place, a tunnel is going to be the lowest point for miles around. This isn't like mountain tunneling where you can use a slight incline at the center of the tunnel or have one end higher than the other to ensure that you don't make a lake in the middle of it.

Re:Surprising

[KlomDark]

I was very shocked a couple weeks ago. I went to visit an old friend who now lives in a tiny Iowa town called Dayton. While I had zero signal on my AT&T phone there, he had gig fiber to his house. A total WTF moment. I live in the downtown area of a mid-large city and cannot get fiber to my house.

Re:Surprising

[Whorhay]

As you say the cost of food is usually the main issue when it comes to importing food. The question is whether or not it is cheaper to pay for infrastructure and grow food in country, or neglect infrastructure and import most of the food.

Of course even if importing ends up being the cheaper option what happens in times of emergency or changes in the political landscape. What if relations with food importers sour and they refuse to sell us food, are you going to suddenly restart the agriculture industry that was killed off and rebuild all that infrastructure? What about natural disasters where you need to have the transportation capacity and throughput to flood an area with supplies on very short notice?

Re:Surprising

[amicusNYCL]

Plus, we're just plain smarter than you coastals*:

*void in Massachusetts

Re:Surprising

[amicusNYCL]

I live in a landlocked state, but thanks for the info.

Re:Surprising

[Harlequin80]

True if you are replacing an existing level crossing with a bridge structure. I was more imagining a new road and new bridge crossing.

Once you are dealing with legacy installs it is terrible.

We clearly have a difference structure for bridge management to you though. Roads are broken into 3 levels. Federal, state and council. All roads and bridges will fall into one of those 3 categories and will be their responsibility for maintenance. Also per perspective the annual budget for my local council is $2.6billion per annum

Re:Surprising

[CanadianMacFan]

Politicians are only interested in creating new infrastructure. It gives then photo ops and the chance to name things. You win votes by expanding highways, building new bridges, and things like that. Never mind that adding lanes to a road will just add to the traffic there as people hear that it's just been expanded and go there.

What you need politicians to do is the unsexy stuff. Hire more inspectors to catch problems earlier and then provide the funds to fix those problems. This will extend the life of the infrastructure from current practice and save more money in the long run. Lives will be saved too as infrastructure that is unsafe will be found before it fails.

In Canada we have similar problems with our infrastructure. Our stimulus spending program was geared towards building new things though lots of roads got resurfaced. But something is wrong when the city I'm living has a huge maintenance backlog but can spend $6M on a new pedestrian bridge because of the spending program. With our last federal government if the infrastructure project got funds from them then the project had to put up a large sign solely for that program. That sign couldn't include information about anything else. You needed a second sign for that.

A bridge construction group announced...

[rmdingler]

In other news, 90% of the time I take my automobile to a mechanic or my body to a physician, it turns out I need some work done.

Re:A bridge construction group announced...

[theguyfromsaturn]

That's different, the mechanic gets money from you directly (the physician analogy is not relevant in many countries). The people writing these reports are NOT getting a direct benefit from th reports. It's a lazy statement of someone unaware of their function. Most likely it's a group of people from academia, public works and yes industry that make the point. While the guys from the industry may have some monetary interest, it doesn't affect the other groups.

Actually, if you bother reading those reports, you'll find out that what they advocate is not waiting until things are about to crumble to make the investment because the work is so close to being a rebuild that it's much more expensive over any given period of time to do so than quickly making a little patchwork early on. The reports actually advocate spending less money on repairs... by doing them in a timely manner. So the entire analogy is flawed.

You don't even need to be a civil engineer to understand it either. If you've ever lived in a house whose owner decided to not spend the money to fix a little leak in pipes, or in the roof only to have to dish out an order of magnitude larger amount of money to fix the damages resulting from the neglect, then you have a healthy appreciation for the soundness of the advice.

But Infrastructure spending is not sexy, as John Oliver would no doubt agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Dams, too

[Archangel Michael]

I partially blame the Environmental groups involved, because of previous hyperbole used in previous reports. That being said (and being a nearby resident), I can assure you that most of the issue was due to the FAILED Primary Spillway not being maintained. The topover caused by the failed spillway was fully preventable, had the DWR and ACE and the rest done their job the last 7 years.

But, instead, we have more infrastructure projects proceeding even though we can't maintain what we got. After all, we need a High Speed Rail Train between Fresno and Bakersfield ASAP!!!!

Structurally Deficient

[turkeydance]

was on one of my evaluation reports. i think.

Re:Structurally Deficient

[Anonymous Coward]

+1. It's also worth noting that even if the bridge is in perfect condition, if localized flooding EVER causes the bridge to overtop (no matter how rare and even if this does not harm the bridge), the bridge is deemed to be structurally deficient. (not enough clearance) Further, "structurally deficient" is not a severity rating, even though it sounds like it.

http://nationalbridges.com/guide-to-ratings

and

http://nationalbridges.com/nbiDesc.html

Re:Structurally Deficient

[psmoot]

"Structurally Deficient" has legal and engineering meaning...and does not necessarily mean a bridge is unsafe.

Thank you for clarifying. I'm quite certain the average Joe reading the article thinks "structurally deficient" means "dear Lord, you wouldn't catch me driving over that death trap." I don't think the authors, a construction group, has much interest in clarifying that. They want to drum up fear and dollars.

Re:Structurally Deficient

[dffuller]

Structurally Deficient in the context of the National Bridge Inventory (NBI), which this report is based on, is well-defined federally, not by states. It means that the bridge is rated 4 or less for its Deck, Superstructure, or Substructure (or if a culvert, Culvert rating is 4 or less) or if its Structural Evaluation or Waterway Adequacy is 2 or less. The structural evaluation is generally just the lower of the Deck, Superstructure and Substructure ratings (or culvert rating), with some guidance involving average daily traffic and Inventory Rating.

TLDR: Feds define criteria for SD, not states.

Re:Dams, too

[Zaelath]

You can't Chicken Little away negligence.

Re:And after 200,000 people had to flee because of

[rickb928]

Mod parent funny, please. If it's actually *not* a joke, please let the sad AC off the hook at least.

Liquid fuels tax

[tomhath]

FTFA:

The five states with the most deficient bridges are Iowa with 4,968, Pennsylvania with 4,506, Oklahoma with 3,460, Missouri with 3,195 and Nebraska with 2,361....

Finding a new funding stream for road and bridge construction is a priority for state and federal officials because the gas tax that primarily funds the highway trust fund hasn’t kept pace with construction priorities as cars become more efficient.

Efficient cars aren't the problem. The problem is that legislatures can't keep their grubby hands off that money. Pennsylvania is second on the list, yet it has the highest fuel tax rate in the country, How can that be? Because about half the money is diverted away from road and bridge construction to projects like mass transportation and funding the state police.

Re:Liquid fuels tax

[bdcrazy]

As part of the election last november in Illinois. A lockbox provision was approved so that "transportation taxes" must only be spent on "transportation." I have been doing professional engineering services and consulting for IDOT, the Illinois Tollway, O'Hare, UP, CN railways etc. for 17 years, and it STILL took me a while to go through all the legalese on that question. It seems pretty thorough; Alas, I'm not a lawyer and currently waiting for all the legal contortions that will be spent to still spend that money on things that aren't quite related to transportation.

Re:Liquid fuels tax

[Uberbah]

Because about half the money is diverted away from road and bridge construction to projects like mass transportation

Mass transit reduces stress on roads and bridges. Sounds like you're cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Re:Liquid fuels tax

[bluegutang]

"Mass transportation", like its name indicates, transports massive numbers of people. When more people use mass transit, fewer roads need to be built (and then maintained). This can save money overall for the government.

Re:Liquid fuels tax

[Richard_at_work]

Only if mass transit is worth using....

So much for that Trillion or so that Obama Spent.

[Noishkel]

Funny thing too, because I remember how Obama's stimulus plan was supposed to go towards this sort of issues. Although where I lived the money my town got for it was all spent on replacing the fully functional street lamps with new ones that looked nicer and a bike land literally no one has ever used due to being in rural Mississippi.

Re:Dams, too

[MightyMartian]

Yeah, the best thing to do is to totally shoot the messenger!

Re:And after 200,000 people had to flee because of

[tomhath]

Trump has shown he doesn't give a damn about Americans. He withheld federal money to pay for the dam that the state of CA build and maintained.

Seriously? He's been in office less than a month.

Re:And after 200,000 people had to flee because of

[Opportunist]

Erh... you ARE aware that there were 8 years between the "Bush Crime Family" and the hairpiece? Why didn't that one do anything?

And more interestingly, why doesn't he get any blame?

Infrastructure bill

[Tablizer]

USA's infrastructure has been neglected a long time and both T and the Democrats want an infrastructure bill. GOP are apathetic, but there may be enough on board to pass it. Let's do it!

Some blame O for not including more infrastructure in the 2009 stimulus bill instead of spending on state teachers and first responders, but many economists felt "big metal" infrastructure projects would take too long to ramp up to be sufficient for a stimulus.

Re:Infrastructure bill

[Tablizer]

It wasn't to increase teachers, it was keep them at the same level, since teachers otherwise tend to get cut during deep recessions; states just let class sizes get bigger. It's a way to cut expenditures without outright closing institutions.

Whether we have "too many teachers" in general is another debate.

Re:So much for that Trillion or so that Obama Spen

[tomhath]

Funny thing too, because I remember how Obama's stimulus plan was supposed to go towards this sort of issues.

No, the point of that program was to buy votes for the Democrats. It had nothing to do with anything useful to the general public.

Structurally Deficient

[ChrisMaple]

"Structurally Deficient" has legal and engineering meaning (which may vary by state) and does not necessarily mean a bridge is unsafe. Quite often, it means that the bridge must have a sign in front of it stating a maximum gross vehicle weight.

Also, what qualifies as a bridge subject to government attention? Do you have a 20 foot concrete culvert passing under the road? That's a bridge, and the government (correctly) pays attention to it. But it isn't necessarily a big deal.

Re:Dams, too

[Freischutz]

I partially blame the Environmental groups involved, because of previous hyperbole used in previous reports. That being said (and being a nearby resident), I can assure you that most of the issue was due to the FAILED Primary Spillway not being maintained. The topover caused by the failed spillway was fully preventable, had the DWR and ACE and the rest done their job the last 7 years.

But, instead, we have more infrastructure projects proceeding even though we can't maintain what we got. After all, we need a High Speed Rail Train between Fresno and Bakersfield ASAP!!!!

Blame this on the environmentalists all you want but the Obama admin. tried to get infrastructure reform done for 8 years and the GOP blocked it for no purpose other than spite and a Machiavellian effort to further the interests of the GOP and make Obama look bad. If anybody is to blame for this it is Mitch McConnell and his predecessors. http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Re:Dams, too

[Bartles]

The erosion on the main spillway had no effect on how much water they were releasing from the reservoir. The reason the water flowed from the emergency spillway was because it rained too much, and there was poor water management while levels were rising.

Unless on the interstate system

[Osgeld]

Bridges are a local problem (state and county level) interestingly enough the top 4, maybe 5 are the biggest butthurt about "dey took ur jeobs"

how's that small limited government working for you, oh you want aid to fix your bridges AND your horse and buggy economies

ugh

Re:Unless on the interstate system

[Areyoukiddingme]

Missouri had just switched from a Republican trifecta to Republican controlled state houses with a Democratic governor when it started and successfully completed a project to replace or repair 802 bridges in 4 years, with project planning beginning in late 2008 and construction starting in 2009 and ending in 2012, on budget and 14 months ahead of schedule. And then the Republicans cut the budget so now we can only handle 100 bridges a year, just barely keeping our heads above water, as about 100/year go into "poor" condition. We proved we're capable of twice that rate, if the budget is available. Admittedly, some of that money was Federal stimulus money after the Great Recession (we actually used it to repair infrastructure), but the rest of it was ours.

Missouri is nearly a Democratic state, but we got gerrymandered into appearing Republican with the 2000 census. Our state voting districts are so fucked up they have actual holes in them, with discontiguous pieces. We have one Republican and one Democratic Federal senator, a Democratic governor, and Republican state houses. At least one of the state houses would be Democratic if we had honest voting districts. It's not visible on the maps here but can be seen at the address by address level if you zoom in far enough in Google Maps. Our state Senate districts are fairly honest, since there's considerably fewer of them, but our state House districts are downright creative. Also, we'd be less Republican, but the Baptists are a force to be reckoned with, and they're stilling buying the anti-abortion bullshit the Republicans claim, but don't actually follow up on.

Geographically, we have a lot of hills, a lot of rivers, and a lot of streams. We have the largest river in the country, the Mississippi, making up the entirety of our eastern border and we have the Missouri river, the third largest river in the country that isn't mostly Canadian, after the Mississippi and the Ohio. Those two huge rivers have carved bluffs all over the place, many of which were subsequently abandoned as the river shifted. In short, we need a lot of bridges to get around. Replacing 800 in 4 years was significant, but we do still have a long ways to go. And we're not quite as politically backwards as we appear to be. By just a little bit.

Re:Unless on the interstate system

[moeinvt]

Explain exactly how the problem with infrastructure is "small, limited government"? I see government at all levels growing every single year.

The only states that are really cutting things right now are the Dakotas, but that's only because they cranked up spending like crazy with the extra revenue from the oil boom(government couldn't just keep budgets stable and have a surplus, they had to spend every last f***ing penny) and are now having to scale back as those revenues have dried up.

Yeah, we sure have "small limited government" when government at all levels sucks more than 40% of GDP out of the economy every year. Do you think maybe the problem is with their spending priorities and not their overall size?

Re:And after 200,000 people had to flee because of

[Anonymous Coward]

because a Republican-controlled Congress was dead-set on doing nothing in order to obstruct Obama at all costs. This is, seriously, no shit, because the Republicans would be damned if they even APPEARED to be supporting a president that some still swore was not a citizen.

Re:News for bridge nerds?

[Zontar The Mindless]

You got a problem with physics, architecture, materials science, civil engineering, design, graph theory, and a whole bunch of other nerdy subjects? News flash: "Technology" doesn't mean "only technical stuff that *you* happen to be interested in".

Re:Bridge construction group.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Because anyone who actually knows something about a subject and speaks up about it is by definition motivated only by greed. Uh-huh...

2013

[Pretzalzz]

In 2013, 66,749 bridges were considered structurally deficient. This is a 17% decrease in the last 4 years. I think this should count as good news.

Re:So much for that Trillion or so that Obama Spen

[Sperbels]

What's a bike land?

Re:POTUS Obama said that he would fix failing brid

[wvmarle]

I'm afraid your new POTUS isn't any better than that - he's even doing his work on the golf course!

Re:So much for that Trillion or so that Obama Spen

[Noishkel]

That's pretty much what everyone in town said too.

Re:POTUS Obama said that he would fix failing brid

[peragrin]

it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that republicans voted no against anything obama tried to do.

The president doesn't control the purse strings congress does. unless Congress votes for it the bridges will go unfunded.

it is something that has some bi partisain support but knowing republicans they will throw a rider in that only white males can do the construction work or some other bullshit rider.

Should be, "Nearly 56,000 Bridges IN THE U.S." ...

[TheDarkener]

I mean I know the article came from USA Today but other than that, there was no indication that these bridges all resided in the United States.

I live in California but I think this really should be addressed. Slashdot isn't a U.S. only tech site.

Cheers,
NowGetOffMyLawn

In other news...

[Notabadguy]

Nearly 56,000 bridges nationwide, which vehicles cross 185 million times a day, are structurally deficient, a bridge construction group announced Wednesday.

Let's see what I can do with this sort of headline.

-Nearly 56,000 projects nationwide are managed by insufficiently trained project managers, the Project Manager Institute announced Wednesday.
-Nearly 56,000 unions nationwide, which employ 36 million workers are insufficiently funded, a union advocacy group announced Wednesday.
-Nearly 56,000 XYZ nationwide, which are important for ABC reasons, need more money, said a group who's business is XYZ, and who would get most of the money if such money were allocated.

To any interested parties, the Notabadguy Institute would like to note that Notabadguy needs structural investment and more money. Perhaps some of that internet money.

In other news, to no one's surprise, BeauHD continues her unbroken record of being a shitty editor looking for partisan news to throw at the slashdot masses. Thanks for being a cuntwaffle.

Re:Dams, too

[dbIII]

I partially blame the Environmental groups involved

Why? Did you see a protest group opposing spillway repair?

Re:cheap taxpayers

[PPH]

and just pay a bit extra on infrequent truck shipments.

So the truckers just pocket the extra and chance squeezing under/over/through the tight spot anyway.

Buck fridges

[Iamthecheese]

Sure we need some new bridges, and there are probably a thousand or so that actually need to be replaced. But our infrastructure is deficient in many more important ways. I just hope money needed for less sexy projects doesn't go to bridges. Her e are some of the things we need more than bridges:

Municipal water supplies. Flint wasn't just a case of local mismanagement, it was just the most visible. Local election reform is needed, but more importantly there are thousands of towns with aging, blocked-up pipes and waterworks. They don't get fixed until someone's house burns down because there wasn't enough mains pressure for the hydrant. Sewage overflows that cost millions to fix, inappropriate water savings programs, and high water taxes for businesses are just three of the symptoms of an aging water supply.

Research on longer-lasting roads. If we spend a billion on this now we'll save a billion per year from now on.

Better isolation and more intelligent routing for the high voltage mesh electrical network. We've spent a good deal on this, but shortcuts have been made. Sagging lines can cascade into regional failure. The most effective and least sexy way to deal with it is building more electrical transit capacity for cities that need it. A few places could definitely use municipal and larger power storage via hydroelectric, batteries, or whatever's clever.

And while we're talking about electricity it's time to reform municipal power to encourage user level solar power. Switch pricing to grid plus/minus usage with an instant rebate for the poor. I know that's not something the federal government regulates, but a study that strongly proves the economics should encourage local adoption of the plan. If it doesn't add in some bullshit grant to encourage it. After it's been working well and obviously saving money for a few dozen cities phase out the grants.

Nuclear power, and use the united house, congress, and prez to tell the NIMBY's to stuff it. Sell it politically by pointing out the fact that coal jobs are never coming back and jobs jobs jobs.

My 2 cents.

Too much traffic...

[SeattleLawGuy]

Maybe we should reduce the number of cards on the road rather than trying to rebuild 1076 bridges per week... We could build places where people live together and call them cities, and build vehicles that carry multiple people and call them trains, and hire a plumber from Brooklyn to fix the evil in the world and call him Mario...

Down from 73,000 ten years ago

[RogueWarrior65]

Roughly.
https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/s...

Re:All Trumps fault.

[OrangeTide]

Bridges are primarily the responsibility of state governments, either to pay for them or to apply to the federal government for funding.

You can blame your own voting record for the past 2 decades and not Trump or liberals.

Re:Bridge construction group.

[OrangeTide]

You've discovered the playbook of climate deniers.

Re:And after 200,000 people had to flee because of

[amiga3D]

They'll blame him for everything back to the start of the Clinton administration. It's gotten so silly that I just quit listening. There are zero unbiased sources of news. It's either Pro Trump or Anti Trump. He's a grade A asshole but all he's done so far is try to stop people from coming in from 7 countries and build a Cabinet. Since he's done next to nothing they'll just use whatever is at hand to stick him with.

Re: And after 200,000 people had to flee because o

[amiga3D]

My Dad voted for Hilliary 3 times and he's dead.

Re:Dams, too

[R3d M3rcury]

I can assure you that most of the issue was due to the FAILED Primary Spillway not being maintained. The topover caused by the failed spillway was fully preventable, had the DWR and ACE and the rest done their job the last 7 years.

Hear hear! Of course, their budget was cut so they didn't actually have the money to maintain the spillway, but hey! That doesn't matter! They should have been maintaining it anyway! Out of the goodness of their hearts!

I mean, they're public servants, right?

Don't worry....

[erp_consultant]

Obama has thousands of "shovel ready" jobs ready to fix our roads and bridges and...oh, wait a minute.

Re:So and independent source ...

[serviscope_minor]

Independent of what, or is this just a hurr durr gubbermint post?

Re:Dams, too

[Applehu Akbar]

Not to mention certain dams in California.

If only they'd listened to the environmental groups and shored it up during that long drought....

Had we listened to Greens, there would be no more dams.

But to address the bridge inspection problem, I say: Hire more trolls!

Re:Dams, too

[lgw]

Cali has the highest income taxes in the US, so why wasn't the funding there? Answer: pension funding. State, county, and local level are all screwed by pension obligations. Decades of pushing the problems forward by raising pensions for government workers instead of raises, because that was politically acceptable. But the pigeons have come home to roost.

Re:Dams, too

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Blame this on the environmentalists all you want but the Obama admin. tried to get infrastructure reform done for 8 years and the GOP blocked it for no purpose other than spite and a Machiavellian effort to further the interests of the GOP and make Obama look bad. If anybody is to blame for this it is Mitch McConnell and his predecessors. http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Bingo.

Mitch McConnell was instrumental in blocking proposed bills that would have started addressing the aging infrastructure. Not just once, but over and over again.

Re: Dams, too

[Bartles]

I recommend staying away from Krugman. Republicans were pushing for more infrastructure spending in the bill. You can't change history. The ARRA only spent about 3% of the bill on infrastructure, which is why many R's opposed it. You can read about their alternative bill here Suck it.

Re:Dams, too

[ShoulderOfOrion]

Nonsense. The "erosion" on the main spillway was a huge crater many yards (meters) across, with increased flows spewing additional chunks of concrete into the air and into the Feather River. As the inflows exceeded the outflows (65000 CFS out, 120000 CFS plus in) the lake went to 100% and over the emergency spillway. The erosion on the emergency spillway threatened to destroy it, and they had to up the flow on the main spillway to 100000 CFS to start lowering the lake levels. There is now a HUGE crater at the end of the main spillway, and not much left of the main spillway below that point. Basically, they would have been able to manage the water IF they could release water from the main spillway (it can handle 250000 CFS, but that would flood the levees downstream). They could not. When it became clear the emergency spillway wasn't up to the task, they opened up the main spillway to just below levee-flood stage, which effectively assured the destruction of the rest of the lower half of the main spillway.

The big problem they have now, which is little-discussed in the media, is how long can they hold out. The rain season still has a few months to go, March is typically the wettest month, and the snowpack in the 6200 sq mile Feather River basin is about 175% of normal. Every day they run that main spillway at 100000 CFS they erode what's left of that hillside, and they have no option but to run it at that level if the storms keep coming. If the hillside erosion starts breaking off more of the main spillway it could threaten the integrity of the spillway gates, and then they're really in trouble. That's part of the reason they're desperately trying to shore up the hillside below the emergency spillway, because they might have no choice but to use it again soon.

Of course, even though much of California is washing away, just last week the Sacramento bureaucrats declared we're still in a drought. Bureaucracy and regulation is a ratcheting mechanism--it only turns in one direction. I'm sure they'll announce we're still in a drought next month too, even if they have to make the announcement from a rowboat moored to the top steps of the Capital building.

Re:Dams, too

[Uberbah]

I partially blame the Environmental groups involved

Because you're a RWNJ looking for an excuse to hippie punch, even if it has no relation to facts or reality in general.

I question the list

[tipo159]

The list of 'structurally deficient' bridges includes the WA Hwy 520 bridge over Lake Washington, completed in 2016. It is not structurally deficient.

Re:I question the list

[dffuller]

There's no reason a recently completed bridge can't be Structurally Deficient. It shouldn't be, but poor construction could lead to it being classified as such.

Re:Bridge construction group.

[OrangeTide]

This fallacy is a common mistake, I would categorize it as Poisoning the well.

Re:So much for that Trillion or so that Obama Spen

[bluegutang]

Well, maybe you Mississippi politicians should have chosen to spend their stimulus funds on more useful things.

Re:Dams, too

[silentcoder]

>Of course, even though much of California is washing away, just last week the Sacramento bureaucrats declared we're still in a drought.

You can't be sure they're wrong. Droughts are commonly broken by flooding events - but a flooding event may not mean the end of a drought. It depends how much more rain is coming. A few floods in the middle of a drought generally fails entirely to actually RELIEVE the drought.

Now it's likely the drought WILL be ending since that terrible El Nino does appear to have been broken - but it would indeed by very premature to declare that it is broken.

Re:And after 200,000 people had to flee because of

[Richard_at_work]

Some people just don't like the truth...

Re:Should be, "Nearly 56,000 Bridges IN THE U.S."

[omnichad]

With terms like "nationwide" and naming several states in the summary, I think it's a reasonable thing to assume.

Infrastructure

[Tenebrousedge]

Our new President understands facilities maintenance and renovation as necessary and profitable.

This is untrue, at least effectively. The problem with infrastructure in this country is that it isn't compatible with our current politics. Infrastructure doesn't get out the vote -- it's not a divisive issue. It's also not something where you can distribute pork around the country in the form of, say, NASA supply contracts. I have a bit of a hobby horse going on with this issue, but I do see this as being a result of two-party politics and ultimately our voting method (FPTP). Since our political process demands that we be sorted into two groups which proceed to scream at each other, infrastructure is only ever going to get lip service from national politicians, except where concerns the national defense. I'm certainly willing for events to contradict me, but I think that our current crop of politicians are too self-interested for that.

Re:Infrastructure

[rickb928]

"Since our political process demands that we be sorted into two groups"

No, but it is certainly simpler for the method we use. And behold, while we have a party nominee elected, he is not really a member of that party. He usurped the nomination process, and there is some fairly weak but useful evidence that he could have won if he had not, but been a third-party candidate - he did, after all, receive little support from that party.

But 'demands' is hopefully your shorthand for 'encourages'.

And a two-party system, with its drawbacks, can be better than coalition governance. In our system in the US this would result, I believe, in gridlock - as any coalition abandoned the majority or switched sides, in response to an issue, the majority would be at risk, and chaos on a regular basis. Yes, this does sound a lot like caucusing.

Re:Infrastructure

[Tenebrousedge]

Thanks for taking the time to engage me on this, I'd really like to see broader discussion of these issues as I think they are vital to our future.

Without slicing our shades of meaning too finely, Duvuger's Law suggests that a two-party system is the inevitable result of first-past-the-post voting. It's not an entirely rigorous result, but it seems to me plausible enough to warrant a stronger word than "encourages".

The ultimate problem as I see it is that our voting method measures popularity, not quality. McDonald's is popular, but if someone asked you about a good restaurant in town, it wouldn't be your first pick. But say you didn't have a friend to ask about an eatery, do you know what you would do? You'd go online to some marketplace, and next to every product and service the first thing you will see is a five-star rating. The takeaway is, we need to stop picking Presidents like we pick prom queens, because otherwise that's exactly what we're going to get. We need to rate these bastards, or at least rank them. Everyone that has shopped online knows that this is a system that works. We just need to apply it to politics.

The problems of coalition government certainly exist. There is often less ability to make large-scale changes. Having a broader political field would be more populist and potentially give undue weight to more extremist opinions. However, the downsides of our current strategy are pretty manifold, and I think that capturing more information about voter preferences on the ballot is an unambiguous benefit. I mean, I may be an idiot or idealist for thinking so, but despite all potential evidence to the contrary I do think that the American people can severally and collectively work together to make this country a better place. We've had enough of corporatism and cronyism, and the anti-Establishment voters are right: there's a problem at the top. We just need to fix the problem instead of voting for some guy who says he's going to fix the problem because that's what we've always done.

Anyhow, I apologize for the length here, this is my own personal obsession at the moment and to the degree that sanity is described as a consensus view of reality, this is pretty much crazy talk. But if you had any particularly good arguments against any of this nonsense I would be very interested to hear them. Slashdot is a pretty good battleground for ideas.

As far as recent history goes, I think that, notwithstanding the results of the popular vote, that an alternate voting method may have given Gary Johnson an electoral win. I don't necessarily like his flavor of politics any better, mind you, but I think he could have garnered broader support as a conservative candidate if there had been any reason to believe that he could win. On the other hand, the candidates all pretty much sucked for one reason or another, so who knows. Anyhow, thanks for your time and opinions.

Re:Infrastructure

[rickb928]

"next to every product and service the first thing you will see is a five-star rating. "

And I click through to read the reviews - starting with the worst.

If bad reviews show a trend, I'm alerted to possible problems if I fall into the bucket of 'happened to me'. After that, scanning the best reviews I look for the shallow stuff and ignore it.

Similarly with political candidates, I'm not as interested at first in their supporters, but their detractors. Common themes by their enemies often illuminate some trait or belief that alarms me, but often it shows that I agree with the candidate, and their detractors I do not.

It's pretty common to dismiss our choices of candidates as 'beauty contests', but truly we have no good idea what they will do in office. Every elected official tends to change to suit the office. The ones that have not often raise the ire of both the opposition (ZOMG they are DOING WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD!!!!) and their supporters (But they aren't doing THIS); you cannot please everyone all the time.

And now we see a President pretty muich doing precisely what he said he would. Some are alarmed, outraged, aghast that he is following through, both because they oppose his policies and because they genuinely did not expect him to do so. Others not so much, they actually voted to have those things done.

We shall see what the outcomes are, but this political era is a new, uncharted one. Some things we have not seen for decades.

Re:Infrastructure

[Tenebrousedge]

It definitely seems like politicians don't keep many of their campaign promises, especially because it tends to get thrown in their faces when they don't, but it turns out that most politicians keep their election promises. Given the extravagance of many of his campaign promises, it seems like there will be an exceedingly good chance that he will have the highest rate of broken promises in modern history. Politifact seems to be keeping score here, and they mark some accomplished goals already.

You have quite mistaken your argument. But you're also mistaken in trying to focus this discussion on Trump, and this issue is actually more important than any given candidate. If he's successful, great, but that's not an argument for the process that put him there, which was stupid. Election science did not exist when we designed our system. I'm not trying to argue anything but some basic facts. Tell me why, absent any considerations of the present officeholder, a simple measure of popularity is preferable to rating or ranking candidates. Do you not consider it better that voters should express their opinion about each candidate? Do you not have an opinion of each candidate? Would you, given the opportunity, not choose to express those opinions?

Again, to me this is pretty clear-cut, but since nobody else seems to think so I'm left searching for the problem with the reasoning. Frankly I'd have thought the anti-Establishment crowd would be all over it, and for that matter the Libertarians too. I would certainly think it highly likely that both factions would enjoy greater representation, and think that's a good thing. To the degree that I have political opinions, they run pretty much directly counter to Libertarianism, but millions of our fellow citizens feel differently, so I feel they should be heard. I think this needs to be done not to further some partisan principle, but to preserve our democracy, and while I am certainly crazy, I do not believe I am wrong.

Re:Infrastructure

[rickb928]

Choosing in the affirmative is a ranking. I had several choices in the last Presidential election, and you may infer from my vote that all but one did nmot gain myu approval.

I believe, sadly, that election science would be gamed to ensure the election of candidates favored by those who are unsure they could prevail in a FPTP election. Most of the multiple-choice (I don't care if that's not the proper terminology) methods seem intended to make sense of chaotic or coalition-based governments. Ours doesn't work like that for a variety of reasons.

And if my own experience is a guide, the current effort to discredit the Electoral College method is virtually entirely inspired by the failed candidate's supporters. They neglect the nature of our Republic. You may not like the outcome, but the process worked as intended.

Discussing this with an eye to, and focus on, the outcome and the successful candidate is important. He 'gamed' the system, if you would like it better by that definition, by focusing on the votes he *could* win. A previous candidate, caught admitting that he could not win as many as 48% of the votes under any circumstances, was excoriated for saying so out loud. And it was the truth. Our system seems to be struggling not because it is inherently flawed, but because our nation is in a state of turmoil unmatched. How this is resolved remains to be seen.

Re:Infrastructure

[Shane_Optima]

Respond to RFC:

It's been a long time since I thought of the nuts and bolts of voting system reform. It would take some hours of pondering to come up with a fine-honed product with a clear strategy or goal and I'm pressed for time, so I'm going to give you more of a brain dump and you can make of it what you will. * I instinctively think it needs to happen because our big tent two-party system is FUBAR and seems to be responsible for dangerous amounts of polarization in recent years, and also because a lot of important reforms aren't ever going to make it through either of the two parties' leaderships.

* It's a chicken or egg thing, and for that reason I almost want to say it has to happen simultaneously. You need a revolt in congress to create a new party (largely enough to actually accomplish things, which is... optimistic, I know) and the first thing they do has to be enable voting reform to ensure their continued survival.

* Moving away from first past the post voting is only one of many changes that need to happen, and I'm not sure it will be easiest to try to make it the first. You need to do everything possible to weaken the stranglehold of the two party system.

* I think that preventing federal facilities from being used in any party primaries would be a wonderful start.

* Although I haven't figured out a way to square it with free speech that would actually be workable in practice, I'd also love it if we figure out how to ban paid political advertisements entirely.

* Failing the above, campaign finance reform will help. I'm not fond of public campaign financing, but if we're in a system where campaigns need money to function this might be the only way to prevent widespread corruption. I don't know. Really, the first priority needs to be on finding a way where campaigns can be run on volunteer effort, hard work and (obviously) good politicians and good policies. I'm not sure what Wolf PAC is up to, but they're probably worth checking out.

* May need to go deeper. Attacking the way laws are made might be a decent start, both by directly improving the political process and possibly by leading to changes in the way parties and elections work. Failure Standards, as explained in an episode of "Yes, Prime Minister", are an excellent idea whereby you attach goals (preferably numeric) to laws and if the law fails to achieve the goal by such and such date, it's deemed a failure (and maybe can auto-sunset or something.) I would go a step further and prefer a ground-up constitution re-write where the government only has the right to pass laws for a limited, enumerated list of purposes, with the courts periodically clarifying which sub-purposes are logically valid and what they nest under, with every law fully explaining its purpose and the permissible governmental goal it's trying to serve with that purpose. Then, instead of a two dimensional one-off failure standard, the courts would be free to interpret , strike down or send back to congress laws in light of their stated goals.

This last bit may be a bit of a stretch to imagine being implemented.

* Media changes... no idea. The media plays a massive part in the election (if for no other reason than it pays the most attention to the two main parties), but the mainstream media is going to be changing a lot in the coming years. The "fake news" thing which started in such a funny little way has rapidly snowballed and the media are, *astoundingly enough*, lying more frequently, thus playing right into the hands of the alt-right. People apparently don't understand how to be strong-willed and aggressive without lying. This is a subject I will dissect in length, but not here.

* For voting alone, nothing else, no other changes, it's hard to see what would be an objective improvement. I don't think any of the simpler alternative voting methods would have prevented Trump (again, I"m not devoting a lot of brain CPU cycles to this), which is remarkable given the narrow margin

Re:And after 200,000 people had to flee because of

[Raenex]

As well as sacking an acting-AG that wouldnt support him without question.

An Obama-appointed AG that was on their way out the door anyways and was playing leftist politics.

As well as taking a combative stance toward the judicial system that threw out his EO.

He criticized a ruling. Boo hoo. Kinda like when Obama embarrassed the Supreme Court judges at his State of the Union address for the Citizens United ruling? Actually, Obama's was worse:

"It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices' faces."

That's from the New York fucking Times, back before they completely went anti-Trump apeshit.

As well as positioning himself in opposition to all the mainstream media, and siding with a horrific shit of a news outlet.

Because the mainstream clearly had a bias against Trump, and became "horrific shits" themselves.

As well as dumping 90% of the experience of the National Security Council, and putting the former chairman of that shit of a news outlet onto the Principle Committee of the NSC.

A neutral and non-screechy article on the matter provides a different perspective.

As well as pissing off major foreign leaders.

Wah, wah. He's not Obama and he's not afraid to ruffle some feathers.

As well as inviting un-vetted guests, including foreign nationals, to stand over him while he reads top secret intelligence on North Korea and south east asia.

Yeah, he fucked up.

And lets not talk about his child-like attitude on Twitter...

Sounds like you're talking about it. Boo hoo, he's mean on Twitter, just like he was during the campaign.

Some other things he's done:
- Put the focus back on American jobs.
- Put a spotlight on government waste via over-priced mega projects.
- Met with foreign leaders.
- Ramped up deportation of illegal immigrants.
- Set goals for reducing regulations and their costs.
- Nominated a Supreme Court justice.

Mitch McConnell would like a word with you

[Tenebrousedge]

McConnell is still railing against infrastructure spending, to this day. From your link the proposed bill (which seems to have got very little traction from the party leaders) would have spent $114 billion versus the version that passed the House which offered $90 billion. Frankly I don't know why you seem to think that the RNC is interested in infrastructure spending. A cursory review of recent headlines shows that this is the only issue that Democrats are willing to work with Trump on, and McConnell is very clearly having none of it. And since he's the one with the actual power over what happens with the legislation, well, I'd have to say that if you think that infrastructure should be something we spend money on, you might want to take that up with him.

Re:So and independent source ...

[mi]

Independent of what

"Independent" as in "free of conflict of interest". Trump was elected promising to "drain the swamp". The alligators are now all busy protesting their own importance. Maybe the bridges really are crumbling — but the people, who'd most benefit from our attention to the problem can not be trusted to justify it.

Even if the evil RethugliKKKunt$ have limited the benevolent Democrats' attempts to fix these 55000 bridges for eight years (including when the Democrats controlled the entire Congress and the White House), there was enough money to fix the 10000 most in need...

Remember the wonderful term "shovel ready"?

or is this just a hurr durr gubbermint post?

Well, if the government is to be trusted on this one, the government is failing to maintain the bridges properly...

Congress and waste

[fyngyrz]

Republicans were pushing for more infrastructure spending in the bill.

I can't help but wonder if the approximately five trillion dollars we completely wasted in attacking Iraq and Afghanistan might have been enough to fix a bridge or two...

Re:Congress and waste

[JackieBrown]

Will this line ever get old?

Re:Congress and waste

[fyngyrz]

Not until we spend more on attacking Iraq or North Korea, I suspect.

Re:Dams, too

[LynnwoodRooster]

Don't forget that the Governor gets great emergency powers when there is a drought, especially with regards to land use and areas around lakes/rivers/streams... There is a strong political reason to keep the drought - power.

Re:And after 200,000 people had to flee because of

[amiga3D]

The funny thing is how democrats bitched about over-priced mega projects until Trump attacked them and now they're suddenly for them. He actually is on the side the democrats claimed to support on some issues and I think that pissed them off more than anything else. Probably because they were all smoke and mirrors. It's nice to have a president that despite some truly awful flaws, isn't an owned bitch like the last 2 clowns that were there. If I were the democratic party's supporters I'd try nominating a billionaire for president that isn't a political whore. Oh! I forgot, the left's voters don't control who their party nominates, the DNC does!

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

[whitroth]

Shocked that it reads almost *exactly* like the report that came out in Reagan's first term, in the early eighties. Oddly enough, the GOP REFUSES to raise taxes to do massive spending on infrastructure. I guess that not only is it not "sexy" (maintenance never is), but it's not big buck profits for their buds.

Same for headlines

[micahraleigh]

Nearly 56000 headlines are deficient in remarkability

Fund rail

[MoarSauce123]

One way to reduce the amount of traffic on roads is to fund rail way more. It is not only cheaper to maintain than highways, but also much more efficient to operate. The problem with any infrastructure project is that once it is built it is forgotten. Instead, right after the ribbon cutting make plans on how to replace the structure and set funds aside.

Glaze

[poofmeisterp]

I'm sorry, I lost interest when I read that a "bridge construction group" announced something that they could make billions off of being involved in correcting.

Re:Dams, too

[thegarbz]

The phrase "don't shoot the messenger" comes from the theory that you would get nothing from eliminating a completely impartial party which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I don't see a "messenger" here. Just the usual politically and money oriented groups on both "sides", and when you have "sides" talking, there is no "messenger".

Re:Dams, too

[ShanghaiBill]

A person drinks a gallon of bacon grease a day for 40 years, then suddenly dies of a heart attack.

Here's a better analogy: Millions of people eat bacon everyday. The medical establishment claims this is a crisis and many bacon eaters are going to die within 40 years unless the medical establishment gets a lot of money to "fix" the problem. The money isn't spent, and 40 years comes and goes. Few people die, and bacon eaters aren't dying any faster than danish eaters.

Would you still insist that the "crisis" was real? Or would you maybe consider that bacon isn't as bad as you were told?

Disclaimer: I eat oatmeal for breakfast.

Re:Dams, too

[Archangel Michael]

I wouldn't be surprised if a different environmental group was opposing spillway repairs because some subspecies of Meadowfoam lived nearby. Or some tree infestation beetle. Or fairy shrimp.

You think I am joking? All three of those have been used to obstruct repairs and infrastructure projects in Butte County. They will literally classify same thing as a "endangered subspecies". I wouldn't be surprised if some local Environmental Group was protesting anything. They do that a lot around here.

Re:Dams, too

[Archangel Michael]

This is what I hear from the Democrats in Sacramento ...

Help 'Not our President', we need Federal Funds to fix Calexit infrastructure that has nothing to do with federal anything!

Re:Dams, too

[silentcoder]

And you're assuming nefarious motives with no evidence for them ? It's perfectly reasonable not to call of drought measures after a single case of flooding - if the rainy season keeps up and it's still claimed at the END - then there is grounds to be upset. Right now, the realities of the drought are by no means solved. Farmers still have to recover from years of bad crops, one flooding storm doesn't fix that. Dams and reservoirs need to get full, animal and plantlife has to recover. Until they do - you're still dealing with the results of the drought and it is insane to end mitigation procedures.

This has been the worst drought in living memory (unless you know somebody who is 118 years old - because that's how far the records reliably go and no other el nino drought in that time was this bad), it didn't just affect California either. In South Africa food prices are up 25% (and more in some cases) and food imports had to increase almost 70% due to crop and livestock losses, in neighboring Madasgar at least 4 million people have been killed by this drought. There are 6 year old children there who have never had a bath in their lives. What little water there is gets drunk - and people are litterally eating rocks because every crop has failed for years, and even the wild plants are gone. So is the livestock - Madagascar is in the midst of the worst famine in it's history because of this drought. Do you really think one big flood and all that just goes away ?
Now it looks like this El Nino cycle is broken, there is hope that the drought will end this year in all the regions affected - but it's effects will not be over tomorrow or even next months. Try next September or so - when everywhere affected has had their rainy seasons. If they all have good seasons throughout - THEN you can say the drought is over.

Re:Dams, too

[Bartles]

Yes, but the main spillway is not eroding "uphill". I stand by my statement that the damage to the main spillway does not affect how fast they can release water from the reservoir. All the damage is occurring below the initial breach. Water flows down the concrete and is projected beyond the end preserving the bedrock support for the remainder of the spillway. Flow was kept at 100,000 cfs for days, and all the erosion occurred downslope from the initial breach. They could increase the flow all the way up to capacity, without compromising the integrity of the dam. The emergency spillway is another matter entirely. All efforts should be made to keep levels below 901 feet where the emergency spillway comes into play. The bedrock below the emergency spillway is not stable, and erosion there could very well affect the integrity of the dam.

Re:Dams, too

[dbIII]

You think I am joking?

No I think you would be sadly deluded when what should be a joke that badly fails a reality test is put forward as if it is real.
However I do not think you are deluded. I think you are mocking me - not the same thing as a joke at all.

Is this how your mocking goes?
"Ha ha - we wasted all that money on the high life for executives and laid off the people who do the repairs - so what are you going to do about it peon - hold a sign?"
Did I nail it or did you have something more specific in mind?

Voting Methods

[Tenebrousedge]

Choosing in the affirmative is a ranking only in the degenerate sense of the term. In the same sense you could say that a dictatorship is a voting system of one. If that is the only choice you want to make, that's fine, but that's not an argument against trying to capture more information from voters.

The Electoral College doesn't need to change. Please don't argue against positions I haven't taken. I am not a Democrat and do not see this as a partisan issue, and the DNC is likely to view this idea as an existential threat.

Multiple-choice methods of voting have nothing to do with any particular form of government. They are associated with larger numbers of political parties simply in reflection of the fact that people have a broad range of political views. The idea that there should be only two political parties is clearly nonsense, and you yourself can point to many factions and divisions not only within the major political parties but in all walks of life. We have the voting method that we have simply because there wasn't another to choose from in 1780. The fundamental goal of election science is to represent voter preference in as fair and accurate a manner as possible. Unfortunately, it's been mathematically proven that there is no perfect voting method, but the one that we have is one of the worst, and various groups in various countries have been campaigning to end it for years.

Please stop talking about Trump. I have not based any part of my argument on his election. You may not have looked into election science very deeply, but this has been the only political issue I have cared about for just about the last two decades. I think that all options this cycle were bad, and that that represents a failure of our system, but that's also not what's driving my concerns.

America has made itself impenetrable to everything but information warfare, and is an information war there can be no higher target than a major political party headquarters, especially during an election cycle. It takes minimal skill and technology to attempt to hack someone. There is minimal risk of detection. And now someone has shown that it is possible, and that there is very little to fear in the way of repercussions. Getting hacked is going to be massively destabilizing for any organization of any kind, political or not, and I do not see a particularly good reason to let hackers of whatever stripe hijack American politics at their whim.

The nation is in unmatched turmoil because our leaders have to keep splitting us apart with social wedge issues in order to make sure that we vote for the right teams. We are not on opposite teams, we are both citizens who want to make our country better. Across the US people have more in common with each other than that divides them, because that's what it means to be a citizen of a country. We're allowing ourselves to be split into warring camps, but it doesn't have to be that way. This is a way to resolve it. It's not a perfect solution, but I do see this as a vital existential issue for our democracy, and an extremely urgent one. But, all that said, I'm not necessarily enjoying feeling compelled to try to talk the entire country into going with me on this one, and I would be grateful for a better opposing argument, so rest assured that I am giving your opinions their due consideration.

Please also excuse any lack of copyediting in the above, I'm running late for an appointment.

Re:So much for that Trillion or so that Obama Spen

[Rakarra]

video of them calling me racist when I pointed it out.

Convinced me to NEVER vote DNC for the rest of my life because of that.

So when you called out your local officials for the bike lane, they said you were racist for asking them (the local officials) why they weren't spending money more wisely?

Re:So much for that Trillion or so that Obama Spen

[Rakarra]

What's a bike land?

Bunch of half-pipes to do tricks on.

THis is why we need smart funding

[WindBourne]

We need to start raising the tax on gasoline and diesel by .01 / gal / month.
Note that the gasoline portion should go to the state in which it was collected, while the diesel portion should remain with the feds. Then there has to be a stipulation that all of this will go ONLY INTO INFRASTRUCTURE.

By doing this slowly, it will not harm the economy in any way. Likewise, by raising money, rather than borrowing, it builds today, without taking from tomorrow.

Re:Republicans wont

[WindBourne]

the gop is already talking about making earmark money available for other GOP.
The GOP has a LOT more in common with Russia or CHina's Communist parties than with the Republicans of old.

Re:POTUS Obama said that he would fix failing brid

[I75BJC]

POTUS Truman had a little sign on his Presidential Desk: "The Buck Stops Here". POTUS Clinton received credit for an improved economy which the Republican Congressional Majority created. POTUS Obama didn't try very hard – except traveling, golfing and pontificating.

Re:POTUS Obama said that he would fix failing brid

[peragrin]

Trump has golfed more in his first month than Obama did in his first six months(6 rounds so far). Obama took 3 months before he played 1.

Trump has left classified top secret materials on his desk in a meeting with no. Classified people and had a non classsified phone(device) sitting on top of them

Trump is using a non classified device hourly meaning unless he is carrying two phones he has classified info on a nonsecured device.

You know everything you blamed Hillary and Obama for doing trumps us down twice as bad in just his first month.

Lastly how the hell does he hire people who can't pass background checks? The turn over in his staff has been record setting. Not to mention the hundreds of important posts that are still unfilled.

Re:So and independent source ...

[Coren22]

The whole story is a bridge repair company publishing statistics gathered from the Transportation Department. The bridge repair company has quite the conflict of interest. They must be looking for more repair contracts.