Maybe not!

I know this flies in the face of "conventional wisdom" but that's what I do. Click on the links below and delve deeper for yourselves. The facts may surprise you. Ask yourself where are all these crumbling roads and bridges at? Why aren't thousands of people dying every day if things are so dire?! Why can I drive virtually anywhere coast to coast and not be hindered by anything other than other motorists and occasional road construction?

The nation’s bridges appear to be in better condition than ever, as indicated by data from the Federal Highway Administration.(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/deficient.cfm) The FHWA’s inventory of bridges identifies those that are “structurally deficit” and “functionally obsolete.” Definitions for those terms are here.(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2002cpr/ch3c.htm)


The chart shows that the share of the 100,000+ bridges in the National Highway System that are either S.D. or F.O. has declined steadily since 1992.



This is hardly a "crumbling infrastructure"

"For all its shortcomings, U.S. infrastructure is still among the most advanced in the world — if not the most advanced. I base this not on selective personal experience but on the same data alarmists cite.

The contiguous United States (that is, excluding Alaska and Hawaii) cover 3.1 million square miles, including deserts, mountain ranges, rivers and two oceanic coastlines. In a world of vast dictatorships (China), tiny democracies (Switzerland) and everything in between, from Malta to Mexico, the challenge of building and maintaining first-rate roads, bridges, railroads, airports and seaports in a country like the United States is extraordinary — and so is the degree to which the United States succeeds."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-infrastructure-argument-that-crumbles-upon-examination/2011/10/31/gIQAnILRaM_story.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/283453/our-infrastructure-crumbling-veronique-de-rugy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2012 02:22PM by mcsmack.

I know saying this is so cliche... but you really need to get a blog.

 

From the NYT, January 27, 2009:

"More than a quarter of the nation’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Leaky pipes lose an estimated seven billion gallons of clean drinking water every day. And aging sewage systems send billions of gallons of untreated wastewater cascading into the nation’s waterways each year."

"These are among the findings of a report to be released Wednesday by the American Society of Civil Engineers, which assigned an overall D grade to the nation’s infrastructure and estimated that it would take a $2.2 trillion investment from all levels of government over the next five years to bring it into a state of good repair."

friskydingo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know saying this is so cliche... but you really
> need to get a blog.

No shit. I'd sooner lick Satan's taint. Which probably isn't much worse than this forum come to think about it. My god! Time for another vacation.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is hardly a "crumbling infrastructure"


Want to put my arms around you, feel your breath in my ear
You can bend me, you can break me
But you better stand clear:

When the walls, come crumblin' down!
When the walls, come crumblin' crumblin'!
When the walls come tumblin' tumblin', dowwwwwwn!

Infrastructure is more than just bridges, Smacky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From the NYT, January 27, 2009:
>
> "More than a quarter of the nation’s bridges are
> structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
> Leaky pipes lose an estimated seven billion
> gallons of clean drinking water every day. And
> aging sewage systems send billions of gallons of
> untreated wastewater cascading into the nation’s
> waterways each year."
>
> "These are among the findings of a report to be
> released Wednesday by the American Society of
> Civil Engineers, which assigned an overall D grade
> to the nation’s infrastructure and estimated
> that it would take a $2.2 trillion investment from
> all levels of government over the next five years
> to bring it into a state of good repair."

First of all, look at the definition of "functionally obsolete" and "structurally deficient" (like I freaking told you to do in the OP!)Learn to listen. Listen to learn.


" A bridge can become functionally obsolete because of highway improvements
on the approaches to the bridge, such as lane additions or the widening
of approaching roads. In other cases, a bridge may be classified as
functionally obsolete through a redefinition of desired standards."

This does not make it dangerous or crumbling.

same with "structural deficiencies"

And as the Federal Highway Administrations own data shows we have been improving our bridges substantially since 1992.

The chart above is an FHWA chart. So your 25% # is wrong.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2012 02:56PM by mcsmack.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A bridge can become functionally
> obsolete because of highway improvements
> on the approaches to the bridge, such
> as lane additions or the widening
> of approaching roads.
>
> This does not make it dangerous

You don't see how a four-lane highway
approaching a three-lane bridge could
be dangerous?

> A bridge may be classified as
> functionally obsolete through a
> redefinition of desired standards.
>
> This does not make it dangerous

Possible meanings of "a redefinition
of desired standards" would include a
bridge build 40 years ago to carry 20,000
cars per day that cannot support the current
volume of of 35,000 care per day. That's
not dangerous?

What about surface roadways? I know you don't live in Fairfax, but our roads are literally falling apart. How about tunnels? Parking structures?

What about non-transportation infrastructure? Sewers, sewage treatment plants, water pipes, dams, canals, aquifers, the electrical grid, schools, public buildings, etc.?

> Possible meanings of "a redefinition
> of desired standards" would include a
> bridge build 40 years ago to carry 20,000
> cars per day that cannot support the current
> volume of of 35,000 care per day. That's
> not dangerous?


Are all 35,000 cars on the bridge at the same time? If not, then the bridge will most likely hold up. (It will certainly need to be repaved more often, but that's not a "structural" problem.)

</non-civil-engineer> checking in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2012 03:13PM by bledbetter.

Of course, I will say that here in Virginia, VDOT is doing a phenomenal job of not making even the perfunctory effort at maintaining our roads. How many thousands of miles of storm drains do we have in Fairfax County alone, where every drain has some plant or another growing out of it due to all of the debris that the third-world VDOT contractors dump down there each time they mow.

Or how about the 7100 extension in Newington, that's already beginning to rust due to the fact that the steel was never painted?

(I'm not a civil engineer, though, so I have no idea if either of these things are ultimately "harmful" to the health of the project. It's just unsightly, and helps contribute to the Commonwealth's image of decline. Considering that we spent most of the 80's mocking North Carolina for their poor road conditions, and ours look unfathomably worse now, *something's* different.)

bledbetter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are all 35,000 cars on the bridge at the same
> time? If not, then the bridge will most likely
> hold up.

I don't know about you, but when I'm driving over
a bridge with my family, "will most likely hold up"
really isn't good enough.

I guess it only matters if you are on one of those 4.9% bridges....



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

From the NTSB's report:

"On November 13, 2008, the NTSB released the findings of its investigation. The primary cause was the under-sized gusset plates, at 0.5 inches (13 mm) thick. Contributing to that design or construction error was the fact that 2 inches (51 mm) of concrete were added to the road surface over the years, increasing the dead load by 20%. Also contributing was the extraordinary weight of construction equipment and material resting on the bridge just above its weakest point at the time of the collapse. That load was estimated at 578,000 pounds (262,000 kg) consisting of sand, water, and vehicles. The NTSB determined that corrosion was not a significant factor, but that inspectors did not routinely check that safety features were functional.[135]"

It sounded like improper maintenance was more a problem there than lack of maintenance. So to use that as an example that our bridges are "crumbling" is somewhat inaccurate.

Not to pick nits or anything...

Not to pick nits, but it was obviously structurally deficient, which was the term used in the chart that I referenced.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Infrastructure is more than just bridges, Smacky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What about surface roadways? I know you don't
> live in Fairfax, but our roads are literally
> falling apart. How about tunnels? Parking
> structures?
>
> What about non-transportation infrastructure?
> Sewers, sewage treatment plants, water pipes,
> dams, canals, aquifers, the electrical grid,
> schools, public buildings, etc.?

Move to Detroit.

> Move to Detroit.

That's just the sort of insightful,
witty response you're known for on
FFU, Smacky.