Slashdot Mirror


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 "It is outdated, overused, underfunded and in desperate need of modernization."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%.

42 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. Hoorah by subk · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
  2. propaganda headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:propaganda headline by fisted · · Score: 2

      Have fun raising a railroad bridge

    2. Re:propaganda headline by Opportunist · · Score: 2

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

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:propaganda headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lower the road.

    4. Re:propaganda headline by ScienceofSpock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

    5. Re:propaganda headline by ChoGGi · · Score: 3, Informative

      That road has a sewer mains below.

  3. Surprising by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    1. Re:Surprising by DogDude · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Surprising by Harlequin80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Surprising by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re:Surprising by quonset · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Surprising by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Surprising by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    7. Re:Surprising by psycho12345 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    8. Re:Surprising by QuasiEvil · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:Surprising by mmell · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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, . . .

    10. Re:Surprising by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

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

    11. Re:Surprising by apoc.famine · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  4. A bridge construction group announced... by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  5. Re:Dams, too by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!!!!

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  6. Structurally Deficient by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Funny

    was on one of my evaluation reports. i think.

    1. Re:Structurally Deficient by psmoot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.

  7. Liquid fuels tax by tomhath · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:Liquid fuels tax by bdcrazy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Tonights forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning
  8. So much for that Trillion or so that Obama Spent. by Noishkel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:And after 200,000 people had to flee because of by tomhath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. Structurally Deficient by ChrisMaple · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  11. Re:Dams, too by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Informative

    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/...

  12. Re:Dams, too by Bartles · · Score: 2

    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.

  13. Re:And after 200,000 people had to flee because of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  14. Re:News for bridge nerds? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

    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".

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  15. 2013 by Pretzalzz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  16. Re:So much for that Trillion or so that Obama Spen by Sperbels · · Score: 2

    What's a bike land?

  17. In other news... by Notabadguy · · Score: 2

    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.

  18. Down from 73,000 ten years ago by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2
  19. Re:And after 200,000 people had to flee because of by amiga3D · · Score: 2

    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.

  20. Re:Dams, too by lgw · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  21. Re:Dams, too by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  22. Re:So much for that Trillion or so that Obama Spen by bluegutang · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  23. Re:And after 200,000 people had to flee because of by Raenex · · Score: 2

    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.

  24. Re:Dams, too by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    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.