Bridge collapse in Pittsburgh’s Frick Park(triblive.com)
triblive.com
Bridge collapse in Pittsburgh’s Frick Park
https://triblive.com/local/frick-park-bridge-collapses-natural-gas-smell-in-area/
408 comments
Commenters in this thread are making a lot of generalizations about tax structures and so on, but it important to keep in mind this is a special case at a number of levels. Pittsburgh has an unusually large number of bridges. These bridges were built during times of relative wealth when the local steel and related industries were doing well. Since the decline of American industry Pittsburgh has scaled way back and had to rebuild itself as a medical and technology center. This recovery is mostly a success story, but the infrastructure cannot be maintained. For example, the greater Pittsburgh area has some of the first suburban areas to be completely abandoned with services withdrawn, Penn Hills being a poignant example of this. Obviously no bridges should be coming down, but there is a real problem here of how to build and maintain a modern city that is smaller than the older one that it replaces.
The issue is not unique to Pittsburgh, even if the location has its own specific challenges.
More than 30% of US bridges are in need of repair or preservation work, and on rating bridges in either "good" or "fair" condition, the total bridge population has fewer than 50% rated as "good". [0] About 7-8% are rated poor.
[0] https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/bridges/
More than 30% of US bridges are in need of repair or preservation work, and on rating bridges in either "good" or "fair" condition, the total bridge population has fewer than 50% rated as "good". [0] About 7-8% are rated poor.
[0] https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/bridges/
The issue isn’t unique to Pittsburgh, but the scale is. At ~450 bridges, it has one of the highest amounts in the world, especially for its size.
(I am from Pittsburgh originally and used to bike over this bridge quite often.)
(I am from Pittsburgh originally and used to bike over this bridge quite often.)
This seems like an easy excuse for what happened here. If you can't maintain those 450 bridges, then don't keep 450 bridges. Remove 150 of them and maintain the other 300. You can't just ignore 450 bridges and hope nothing goes wrong because you can't afford to maintain 450 bridges.
Oh yeah, just knocking down 150 bridges is a very easy decision that's going to go over extremely well with the local population, certainly not political suicide as well as a massive, expensive project in its own right. It's not like all those bridges existed for good reason, and just getting rid of them wouldn't have massive impact on an extremely large number of things about the city.
They absolutely need better maintenance. It's been a safety hazard for most of my life. But the solutions are not easy.
They absolutely need better maintenance. It's been a safety hazard for most of my life. But the solutions are not easy.
> Oh yeah, just knocking down 150 bridges is a very easy decision that's going to go over extremely well with the local population, certainly not political suicide as well as a massive, expensive project in its own right.
I knew this response was coming. However, doing nothing isn’t an option. I also never said it’d be easy. If you can’t afford 450 bridges, you need less bridges or more money. You can’t just ignore the problem.
I knew this response was coming. However, doing nothing isn’t an option. I also never said it’d be easy. If you can’t afford 450 bridges, you need less bridges or more money. You can’t just ignore the problem.
I'm amused that people are willing to contextualize this bridge failure within what is essentially the entire 20th century economic history of Pittsburgh; and then act like that history somehow excuses the complete failure of local governments over that same time period to either repair or eliminate unsafe infrastructure. It's honestly nothing short of absurd.
No one is honestly expecting the local governments throughout the Pittsburgh metropolitan area to eliminate 150 bridges (or some other arbitrarily large number) by 2023... They expected the local governments (and the state and federal governments) to behave competently and never let it get to this point. The decline of Pittsburgh as an industrial hub started over half a century ago... They've had plenty of time to address things like this in that context.
The fact that keeping infrastructure safe is "political suicide" or "costs too much money" is essentially the entire problem - and it's a problem that is not at all unique to Pittsburgh.
No one is honestly expecting the local governments throughout the Pittsburgh metropolitan area to eliminate 150 bridges (or some other arbitrarily large number) by 2023... They expected the local governments (and the state and federal governments) to behave competently and never let it get to this point. The decline of Pittsburgh as an industrial hub started over half a century ago... They've had plenty of time to address things like this in that context.
The fact that keeping infrastructure safe is "political suicide" or "costs too much money" is essentially the entire problem - and it's a problem that is not at all unique to Pittsburgh.
One can wish that the city spent less time and money building new sports stadiums, spent more time and money investing in infrastructure, yet still acknowledge that the political reality on the ground makes doing so hard to near-impossible.
I guess for me, the fact that the political reality makes infrastructure "hard" is profoundly obvious... And, while the specific details may change with the city, that reality is quite common throughout the US (even the relatively specific economic conditions discussed earlier in the context of Pittsburgh are not really that unique)...
Pretending like this type of infrastructure decline is somehow unique to Pittsburgh, which, at least implicitly, the top level comment does, does a great disservice to actually finding solutions to the problems with that "political reality on the ground" - and not just in Pittsburgh.
Pretending like this type of infrastructure decline is somehow unique to Pittsburgh, which, at least implicitly, the top level comment does, does a great disservice to actually finding solutions to the problems with that "political reality on the ground" - and not just in Pittsburgh.
That's fair. I do also agree that it seems obvious, but given the number of the people in this thread and elsewhere suggesting that fixing it would just simply be so easy, it doesn't seem like that's the case for many others.
I didn't read the OP as saying "nowhere else has infrastructure problems" but "bridges are a particularly acute problem in Pittsburgh for these reasons." I would certainly agree that suggesting this kind of issue is unique to Pittsburgh would be misguided.
I didn't read the OP as saying "nowhere else has infrastructure problems" but "bridges are a particularly acute problem in Pittsburgh for these reasons." I would certainly agree that suggesting this kind of issue is unique to Pittsburgh would be misguided.
That's also fair. I think my initial reading of the top comment, and some of the replies, was overly assumptive; and my take on the nature of the cause was a direct result of my already pessimistic view of contemporary American political structures.
> The fact that keeping infrastructure safe is "political suicide"
Is this a good reason why politics should always include term limits? It would prevent anyone from NOT doing something that is in the good for the constituents, but is seen as "political suicide". Since no one can be in politics long term, you might as well make the tough decisions.
Is this a good reason why politics should always include term limits? It would prevent anyone from NOT doing something that is in the good for the constituents, but is seen as "political suicide". Since no one can be in politics long term, you might as well make the tough decisions.
Yes, it is something that should be done, and yes, it won't be easy. Your comment reflected absolutely none of that, and even was arguing against me saying that it would be extremely difficult, so it did in fact seem like you were saying that this is a simple fix. Heck, you didn't even say "figure out how many bridges you can afford," but simply "remove 150 of them."
>"However, doing nothing isn’t an option."
Cynically, it actually is for a cash strapped municipality. If they lack the money for proper maintenance - but can afford the bare minimum amount of caretaking - they certainly cannot afford the cost to dismantle the bridge. They will go with bandaid solutions virtually every single time.
Cynically, it actually is for a cash strapped municipality. If they lack the money for proper maintenance - but can afford the bare minimum amount of caretaking - they certainly cannot afford the cost to dismantle the bridge. They will go with bandaid solutions virtually every single time.
There's no need to dismantle, it can just be closed if it's deemed unsafe.
This particular bridge's condition was rated as poor but not unsafe.
And then get screwed with lawsuit costs and payouts. But that's a can they can kick down the road.
It turns out not only is not doing anything an option, it’s the option that has been selected.
I think the other option is to just restrict the weight limit on these and change bus routes.
I agree, I haven't lived in the 'Burgh for a long time, but its geography is basically, lots of little hills and a few big ones. Everywhere you look, you are staring at a hill. And you are on a hill. Plus rivers. A lot of bridges (and tunnels) are needed out there for basic navigation.
It could well be better to knock some down in an organized way. If the alternative is to have committees and referendums and posturing until nature decides which ones to take.
The devil is in the details. What's "an organized way" if not "committees and referendums"? Even just the traffic impact studies alone to figure out what would happen when taking out each bridge, let alone that very often they'd impact each other and so you'd also need to figure out what happens with traffic for combinations of bridges, seems like a daunting and expensive task to me.
Phase it. You don't have to nominate every bridge and start simultaneously. Like you say. Choose a few, remove those, then re-evaluate what traffic looks like now.
I wouldn't expect anyone, even the OP, to suggest undertaking 150 demolitions simultaneously.
That still doesn't help you decide which bridges.
That still doesn't help you decide which bridges.
Pittsburgh itself has actually knocked down quite a few bridges over the last 30 years. The suburbs have not as they just run out of money.
I'm from up route 28 before I moved into the city, PennDOT certainly is always doing quite a bit of work. 100% agree that there's been changes to bridges over the years. But nothing on the scale of "knock down a third of the bridges with no replacement."
There is a lot to be learned from this. It’s contemporary to talk about the boom/bust cycles of fracking towns out west. Building a bridge or a nuclear power station is a much bigger commitment than simply building the structure and getting it operational. It outlasts political memory.
I lived in Pittsburgh and remember one way bridges (like a fast path for morning rush hour, but screw getting home) and lots of sort of ad hoc things. They never had a fire wipe the place out and allow for some replanning or long term planning. Worse, if you were to try to knock some things down, there is a huge emotional reaction to it (the out field walls to Forbes field are still there, two stadiums later) I remember the city tax being fairly high as well, in many places I think increased mass transit (usually costs taxes) plus some tolls or something to discourage use on some bridges (read: another tax to use the bridge you were taxed to build) would make sense. Probably a federal bail out or mass closing of bridges are the only options. You are right, it’s not easy.
I lived in Pittsburgh and remember one way bridges (like a fast path for morning rush hour, but screw getting home) and lots of sort of ad hoc things. They never had a fire wipe the place out and allow for some replanning or long term planning. Worse, if you were to try to knock some things down, there is a huge emotional reaction to it (the out field walls to Forbes field are still there, two stadiums later) I remember the city tax being fairly high as well, in many places I think increased mass transit (usually costs taxes) plus some tolls or something to discourage use on some bridges (read: another tax to use the bridge you were taxed to build) would make sense. Probably a federal bail out or mass closing of bridges are the only options. You are right, it’s not easy.
Some unsafe bridges have in fact been closed. Fetterman has a campaign video from 2016 of him driving around to several of them. https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1487099733978095622
Pittsburgh lost over half of it's population over a 40 year stretch starting in the 70s. Blaming them in the past for not being able to tell the future doesn't make a lot of sense.
When they built these bridges, it probably seemed pretty reasonable
When they built these bridges, it probably seemed pretty reasonable
If you can't afford to maintain them, how are you going to afford to remove them?
Can the value of the scrap pay for the cost of removal?
Can the value of the scrap pay for the cost of removal?
So, what do you propose? Knocking them down? Put fences? Which are you going to do that on? Are you going to fend off all the people using those bridges for destroying their commute? None of those options are cheap either. Even selecting the bridges to keep/not keep takes time and effort and thus money.
They could install micro-tolls ie ezpass and charge everyone a use fee.
Make some free. Let the communities who need them pay for them.
Make some free. Let the communities who need them pay for them.
In the town where I’m from in Germany, exactly this happened: a major bridge was unsafe - one of two major roads leading to the crossing of the river rhine. It was closed and torn down, replacement will take a few years. In Berlin, one major river crossing was closed because it was unsafe, then torn down and replaced. Another was severely impacted and partially closed, it’s now replaced with a temporary bridge. Full replacement is expected in a decade or so. People adapt. Life goes on. It’s better than having the bridge collapse with people on it.
This very thing occurred in PGH with the Greenfield Bridge[0]. This caused significant disruption because the bridge spans a major highway to the eastern suburbs. Of course, the infrastructure issues with that bridge were rather obvious, since chunks of concrete would fall on to the highway (necessitating netting to be installed).
[0] http://greenfieldbridge.otmapgh.org/
[0] http://greenfieldbridge.otmapgh.org/
Anything is better than people on a collapsing bridge, obviously. But you can only fence it off when you know its too bad. Checking that can be very expensive.
So if you just don't know which of 450 bridges are bad, what do you do? Fence them all of and spark at least outrage? Safest option. Finding out what to do is already expensive
You can start off with warning signs. I doubt bridges would collapse if pedestrians or bicyclists use them but sings could fend traffic off.
Second, the size of the vehicle is important. Larger vehicles like trucks get these poor bridges lifespan shortened drastically. Trucks and busses could be rerouted on safe bridges and so on.
I generally am not afraid of bridges because they have convinced me that they're safe but if a bridge were to collapse under me and I'd make it out alive I'd probably have a bridge phobia.
Second, the size of the vehicle is important. Larger vehicles like trucks get these poor bridges lifespan shortened drastically. Trucks and busses could be rerouted on safe bridges and so on.
I generally am not afraid of bridges because they have convinced me that they're safe but if a bridge were to collapse under me and I'd make it out alive I'd probably have a bridge phobia.
Here's a tweet with a picture from December of 2018 of the bridge that collapsed today, showing a large steel beam rusted completely through.
So you could start with the lowest hanging fruit, the bridges that are in such bad condition that people post pictures of them on Twitter.
So you could start with the lowest hanging fruit, the bridges that are in such bad condition that people post pictures of them on Twitter.
Here's the tweet you were referring to, I think: https://twitter.com/gpk320/status/1078885655634157569
How did people in that town pay for tearing down and replacing the bridge?
The problem Pittsburgh encounters is even demolition costs money. Can't squeeze blood from a stone.
The problem Pittsburgh encounters is even demolition costs money. Can't squeeze blood from a stone.
The solutions are easier in a growing city than a declining one.
I know of a relatively small bridge in rural Ohio that simply has barriers placed in front of it. It's still walkable.
They did the same with an old wooden bridge near where I grew up. In the early 80s, you could still drive across it. Later they closed it and barricaded it. Eventually in the 2000s, they preserved it and built a park around it.
Of course, this bridge only carried about 10 cars a day, mostly as a novelty, prior to closing. It's an entirely different animal to close a bridge in a major city.
Of course, this bridge only carried about 10 cars a day, mostly as a novelty, prior to closing. It's an entirely different animal to close a bridge in a major city.
> It's an entirely different animal to close a bridge in a major city.
Minneapolis/St. Paul managed to adapt when the busiest bridge in the state collapsed.
Minneapolis/St. Paul managed to adapt when the busiest bridge in the state collapsed.
I know of a couple of medium-sized bridges in upstate NY that have completely collapsed and the state has just abandoned them, with some barriers thrown in front and that's it. Funnily enough they still show up as routes on Google Maps, but OSM has them removed. I decided to leave it as is to fight the Google mapping monopoly power.
When you go to Pittsburgh for the first time, you will learn that the city has 450 bridges because they're necessary, and you can't just go eliminating a third of them
They can, in fact, maintain the bridges. You might not know this from a brief look at a newspaper article.
What happened is that the bus was too heavy for the bridge. It's PennDOT's fault.
Look up the weight of a bus. Look up the average weight of an American. Look up PennDOT rider numbers. Do the math. They were three tons over on a 26 ton limit.
They can, in fact, maintain the bridges. You might not know this from a brief look at a newspaper article.
What happened is that the bus was too heavy for the bridge. It's PennDOT's fault.
Look up the weight of a bus. Look up the average weight of an American. Look up PennDOT rider numbers. Do the math. They were three tons over on a 26 ton limit.
"Three‐axle 60‐ft articulated buses are the next most common transit bus in service [in the USA], comprising about 10% of the fleet. The curb weights for these buses currently range between approximately 38,000 and 50,000 pounds, and fully‐loaded weights range from approximately 56,000 to 65,000 pounds." (page iii)[1]
Fully loaded weights for 3-axle US buses from the linked report's executive summary are 28 to 32.5 tons, empty range from 19 to 25 tons. So a not-fully loaded 3-axle bus was very likely over the 26 ton limit.
Three axle buses should not have been on that bridge. Would be interesting to see if that route was changed recently from 2-axle to 3-axle service.
[1] https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/docs/TCRPJ-11Task...
Fully loaded weights for 3-axle US buses from the linked report's executive summary are 28 to 32.5 tons, empty range from 19 to 25 tons. So a not-fully loaded 3-axle bus was very likely over the 26 ton limit.
Three axle buses should not have been on that bridge. Would be interesting to see if that route was changed recently from 2-axle to 3-axle service.
[1] https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/docs/TCRPJ-11Task...
From the Post-Gazette article there was a driver and two passengers on the bus, so it might not have been over limit this time but sounds like it would have been at other times on that route.
https://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2022/01/28/pittsburg...
I used to walk under that bridge quite a bit, hopefully no one was under it when it collapsed (it doesn't sound like they suspect there was, but I guess it could potentially be hard to tell).
https://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2022/01/28/pittsburg...
I used to walk under that bridge quite a bit, hopefully no one was under it when it collapsed (it doesn't sound like they suspect there was, but I guess it could potentially be hard to tell).
oh wow, i hadn't even noticed that it was a three axle
i've been making this argument on skepticism that a two axle bus should have been on that bridge. the standard patransit two axle fleet bus, a cummins isl (which is more than half their fleet) is 2 tons shy of max load when empty, and average american weight breaks load at bus half full.
that's the 61b. when i lived in pittsburgh it was often packed to the gills. i have a hard time imagining that that has changed.
you're right. if it was a 3 axle, that's very significant. hell, an empty three axle (i think they use man sg 220 gawr, which is ~30 tons curb weight) would likely be too much. i'm glad you pointed this out; thank you.
i've been making this argument on skepticism that a two axle bus should have been on that bridge. the standard patransit two axle fleet bus, a cummins isl (which is more than half their fleet) is 2 tons shy of max load when empty, and average american weight breaks load at bus half full.
that's the 61b. when i lived in pittsburgh it was often packed to the gills. i have a hard time imagining that that has changed.
you're right. if it was a 3 axle, that's very significant. hell, an empty three axle (i think they use man sg 220 gawr, which is ~30 tons curb weight) would likely be too much. i'm glad you pointed this out; thank you.
> i have a hard time imagining that that has changed.
Fun trivia, https://www.portauthority.org/system-map/ shows stats on this. It doesn't support deep linking, but I went to the outbound stop just after the bridge, and it says
In FY2021:
Average Weekday Ons: 0.32
Average Weekday Offs: 5.1
Pre-pandemic ridership for CY2019:
Average Weekday Ons: 1.00
Average Weekday Offs: 37.00
It has dropped by quite a bit since the pandemic. The 61A has a daily ridership of 1,643 and the 61B has 1,312.
Fun trivia, https://www.portauthority.org/system-map/ shows stats on this. It doesn't support deep linking, but I went to the outbound stop just after the bridge, and it says
In FY2021:
Average Weekday Ons: 0.32
Average Weekday Offs: 5.1
Pre-pandemic ridership for CY2019:
Average Weekday Ons: 1.00
Average Weekday Offs: 37.00
It has dropped by quite a bit since the pandemic. The 61A has a daily ridership of 1,643 and the 61B has 1,312.
those are indeed much lower numbers than i had expected
that said, the other person pointing out that it's a three axle bus makes me relatively confident that the fleet contains no domain-relevant busses that had any business going over that bridge in the first place
it's worth noting that when i was growing up, patransit tried to send heavy construction trucks across the larimer bridge. one of the crew members stopped them at the last minute when they saw the bridge and called it in (this is way before pocket internet,) and good thing - basically this would have happened, and in that case, it's a probably five or so story drop onto an active highway. would have been a catastrophe.
that said, the other person pointing out that it's a three axle bus makes me relatively confident that the fleet contains no domain-relevant busses that had any business going over that bridge in the first place
it's worth noting that when i was growing up, patransit tried to send heavy construction trucks across the larimer bridge. one of the crew members stopped them at the last minute when they saw the bridge and called it in (this is way before pocket internet,) and good thing - basically this would have happened, and in that case, it's a probably five or so story drop onto an active highway. would have been a catastrophe.
What was the limit when the bridge was new?
The limit has been 26 tons for almost 20 years now.
I don't know what the limit was originally, but PATransit should be able to accomodate bridge limits within two decades.
I don't know what the limit was originally, but PATransit should be able to accomodate bridge limits within two decades.
> At ~450 bridges, it has one of the highest amounts in the world
This factoid is repeated on many websites - but some hero has done the work, and maybe not:
https://nolongerslowblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/what-city-has-...
> especially for its size
Okay maybe.
This factoid is repeated on many websites - but some hero has done the work, and maybe not:
https://nolongerslowblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/what-city-has-...
> especially for its size
Okay maybe.
Being fourth in total size still counts as "one of the highest amounts in the world."
It points out an issue, which is "defining bridge". If a walking path bridge in Venice collapses it likely will barely be news in Venice, whereas this one is bigger news because it's a bigger bridge.
Your link shows Pittsburg as number 4, which completely validates the statement "At ~450 bridges, it has one of the highest amounts in the world."
I couldn't find ratings specific to Pittsburgh to determine what proportion of them fit into the Good/Fair/Poor categories. That's what would really be needed to assess the scale of the problem for Pittsburgh relative to the rest of the country. Although knowing what I do about the area I wouldn't be surprised if it is disproportionately worse: It's only somewhat recently that it's made a bit of an economic comeback from its downtrodden rustbelt days. I just wanted to clarify that, as much as Pittsburgh may be particularly problematic, its infrastructure issues were still replicated across most of the US.
So, I actually did look this up four days ago, but it seems that PennDOT changed their website? https://www.penndot.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/Bridges/Pages/def... Those excel spreadsheets don't seem to do anything when I click on them.
The note I took was "There are 25,437 bridges in PA. 9.59% of them were rated in “poor” condition last month, with only 34.37% of them being “good”". The original sheet was broken out by county, with Allegheny County basically being the same as the city of Pittsburgh in this regard.
> I just wanted to clarify that, as much as Pittsburgh may be particularly problematic, its infrastructure issues were still replicated across most of the US.
Absolutely, it is an issue everywhere for sure.
The note I took was "There are 25,437 bridges in PA. 9.59% of them were rated in “poor” condition last month, with only 34.37% of them being “good”". The original sheet was broken out by county, with Allegheny County basically being the same as the city of Pittsburgh in this regard.
> I just wanted to clarify that, as much as Pittsburgh may be particularly problematic, its infrastructure issues were still replicated across most of the US.
Absolutely, it is an issue everywhere for sure.
[deleted]
The bus was over bridge weight.
Before you go trying to fix the bridges, take the time to figure out what the problem was.
Before you go trying to fix the bridges, take the time to figure out what the problem was.
Citation needed.
Are you saying the bus driver deviated from the usual route? Did the driver allow more passengers to board than is normally allowed? Perhaps a passenger boarded with their collection of lead figurines. I don't see how the bus could have been overweight without someone knowing the risks. It's not an Uber, they know where that bus will be traveling every time it leaves the station.
Are you saying the bus driver deviated from the usual route? Did the driver allow more passengers to board than is normally allowed? Perhaps a passenger boarded with their collection of lead figurines. I don't see how the bus could have been overweight without someone knowing the risks. It's not an Uber, they know where that bus will be traveling every time it leaves the station.
Hard agree that this is "citation needed."
It is the normal route for that bus: https://www.portauthority.org/pdfs/112016/61B.pdf (you can check the map at the bottom) They run pretty often.
It is the normal route for that bus: https://www.portauthority.org/pdfs/112016/61B.pdf (you can check the map at the bottom) They run pretty often.
Oh wow, it was the 61B? I used to ride that bus route all the time (and 61A/61C) when I was in undergrad.
I mean in a sense it's clear, there's a collapsed bridge with a bus on it ...
https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1986/11/26
But if it was actually over the posted weight limit, that'll come out shortly.
https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1986/11/26
But if it was actually over the posted weight limit, that'll come out shortly.
> Are you saying the bus driver deviated from the usual route?
I didn't say anything like that, no, nor any of the other invented things you tried to add to my actual statement.
.
> Perhaps a passenger boarded with their collection of lead figurines.
Pew says the average American weighs 181 pounds.
I'm not sure why you think you need lead figurines. Two tons, 181 pounds at a time, is only 22 people.
PATransit busses are rated for 42 people plus two wheelchair bound people.
This bus is over weight at half load.
Please be less sarcastic. Thanks.
.
> It's not an Uber, they know where that bus will be traveling every time it leaves the station.
Yes, that's why I blame them.
.
> Citation needed.
Feel free to look it up.
I didn't say anything like that, no, nor any of the other invented things you tried to add to my actual statement.
.
> Perhaps a passenger boarded with their collection of lead figurines.
Pew says the average American weighs 181 pounds.
I'm not sure why you think you need lead figurines. Two tons, 181 pounds at a time, is only 22 people.
PATransit busses are rated for 42 people plus two wheelchair bound people.
This bus is over weight at half load.
Please be less sarcastic. Thanks.
.
> It's not an Uber, they know where that bus will be traveling every time it leaves the station.
Yes, that's why I blame them.
.
> Citation needed.
Feel free to look it up.
> ... the 447-foot-long span is rated in poor condition and is restricted to vehicles of up to 26 tons ...
The weight limit was 26 tons, not 2 tons. My Chevy Volt would frequently brush up against a 2 ton weight limit.
The weight limit was 26 tons, not 2 tons. My Chevy Volt would frequently brush up against a 2 ton weight limit.
> The weight limit was 26 tons, not 2 tons.
85% of PATransit busses are from the 1996 acquisition (Cummins ISL, ISB, IS9; Voith 864; Allison D) those busses weigh either 24 or 25 tons. Their other busses (except the 28x airport flyer) are heavier. Other than the flyers, SEPTA's lightest bus is 24 tons. Some of them, like the XE40 or the X12, are significantly heavier. About 1/5 of PATransit's fleet is over-weight for this bridge without a single person on board.
26 tons is so little of a load that nobody should ever have been sending a bus over it.
The 2 tons is for the human load, above and beyond the weight of the vehicle. The vehicle already accounts for 24 of the 26 tons, bare minimum by definition.
If it was an XE40, it was two tons over load without even a driver.
That is to say, "there's more weight here than just the human beings. You should also consider the bus itself."
I did spell this out, but it was in a different comment tree. I thought I had here too. Sorry; I could have been clearer.
Someone in a different thread pointed out that it was a three axle bus. I've been making this case based on two-axle busses being too heavy. PATransit's lightest three-axle bus is MAN SG 220 GAWR, just shy of 30 tons curb weight, which is nearly 4 tons over limit.
Look, if you're from Pittsburgh, the last thing you want to do is stand up for PennDOT.
But looking at the numbers, to me, this really looks like "too big bus," not "bridge go boom"
Not all infrastructure failures are the fault of the infrastructure. Many, maybe even most, but not all. It's important to differentiate.
85% of PATransit busses are from the 1996 acquisition (Cummins ISL, ISB, IS9; Voith 864; Allison D) those busses weigh either 24 or 25 tons. Their other busses (except the 28x airport flyer) are heavier. Other than the flyers, SEPTA's lightest bus is 24 tons. Some of them, like the XE40 or the X12, are significantly heavier. About 1/5 of PATransit's fleet is over-weight for this bridge without a single person on board.
26 tons is so little of a load that nobody should ever have been sending a bus over it.
The 2 tons is for the human load, above and beyond the weight of the vehicle. The vehicle already accounts for 24 of the 26 tons, bare minimum by definition.
If it was an XE40, it was two tons over load without even a driver.
That is to say, "there's more weight here than just the human beings. You should also consider the bus itself."
I did spell this out, but it was in a different comment tree. I thought I had here too. Sorry; I could have been clearer.
Someone in a different thread pointed out that it was a three axle bus. I've been making this case based on two-axle busses being too heavy. PATransit's lightest three-axle bus is MAN SG 220 GAWR, just shy of 30 tons curb weight, which is nearly 4 tons over limit.
Look, if you're from Pittsburgh, the last thing you want to do is stand up for PennDOT.
But looking at the numbers, to me, this really looks like "too big bus," not "bridge go boom"
Not all infrastructure failures are the fault of the infrastructure. Many, maybe even most, but not all. It's important to differentiate.
I'm curious about this, where did you get the info about the fleet? Wikipedia suggests that the fleet is almost entirely Gillig, but has no citations. I couldn't find it on the Port Authority's site either.
> Look, if you're from Pittsburgh, the last thing you want to do is stand up for PennDOT.
Agreed, but "runs bus service every ~30 minutes where a single bus would make the entire bridge overweight" would be an entirely new level of "I can't believe it."
> Look, if you're from Pittsburgh, the last thing you want to do is stand up for PennDOT.
Agreed, but "runs bus service every ~30 minutes where a single bus would make the entire bridge overweight" would be an entirely new level of "I can't believe it."
> Agreed, but "runs bus service every ~30 minutes where a single bus would make the entire bridge overweight" would be an entirely new level of "I can't believe it."
structural damage is incremental. situations where the trigger is dramatically smaller than peak load are quite common. consider the florida condominum: it collapsed in fair weather, despite that under rain load it would have hundreds of tons more support carry. you've seen many videos on youtube where a sinkhole opened up under a small car on a large road which carries freight.
this is one of the things you're taught very early in the relevant schooling.
you've tried to pull my card in fairly aggressive ways several times in this thread. it's making me somewhat uncomfortable.
structural damage is incremental. situations where the trigger is dramatically smaller than peak load are quite common. consider the florida condominum: it collapsed in fair weather, despite that under rain load it would have hundreds of tons more support carry. you've seen many videos on youtube where a sinkhole opened up under a small car on a large road which carries freight.
this is one of the things you're taught very early in the relevant schooling.
you've tried to pull my card in fairly aggressive ways several times in this thread. it's making me somewhat uncomfortable.
I am sorry to make you feel uncomfortable. I am trying to make sense of something that happened to something very near and dear to me. Not trying to do anything to you.
I asked the question about the fleet not to "pull your card" but because I am interested and spent a bunch of time trying to find this information and could not, and am interested in how you came across it. You started off with "look up the weight of a bus" and I that's exactly what I tried to do, and what I found is not the same as what you're saying, so I asked for where you got your data to see if I found bad data or you did.
(And yes, absolutely structural damage is incremental, but that's not material to the claim that this bus weighs over 26 tons.)
I asked the question about the fleet not to "pull your card" but because I am interested and spent a bunch of time trying to find this information and could not, and am interested in how you came across it. You started off with "look up the weight of a bus" and I that's exactly what I tried to do, and what I found is not the same as what you're saying, so I asked for where you got your data to see if I found bad data or you did.
(And yes, absolutely structural damage is incremental, but that's not material to the claim that this bus weighs over 26 tons.)
You sound like someone who knows about this, and I'm just someone Googling [how much bus weigh], so I'm hesitant to keep posting on this topic, but I'm still really curious where you're getting these weights from.
All of my Googling keeps turning up weights in the 15-20 ton range for fully loaded busses, with city busses more towards the low end of that range, so I'm curious why these busses would be almost twice as heavy.
EDIT: Ah-ha, looking at the picture shows it was an articulated bus, and Googling [how much does an articulated bus weigh] gives weights in the range you listed. So yeah, you're right and that bus should not have been going over that bridge.
All of my Googling keeps turning up weights in the 15-20 ton range for fully loaded busses, with city busses more towards the low end of that range, so I'm curious why these busses would be almost twice as heavy.
EDIT: Ah-ha, looking at the picture shows it was an articulated bus, and Googling [how much does an articulated bus weigh] gives weights in the range you listed. So yeah, you're right and that bus should not have been going over that bridge.
Without knowing anything, "needs some repair" and "unexpectedly collapses in broad daylight" are very different things.
Worth noting that these figures are according to the American Road and Transportation Builder’s Association, a lobbying and advocacy group for the construction and civil engineering industry.
The optics of minimizing their input aren't going to be good, even if normal "don't ask the barber if you need a haircut" skepticism is applicable.
Yep. There's a balance to be found here. On one hand, a group of construction groups and civil engineers likely know what they're talking about more than most people, on the other hand, massive infrastructure spending that they advocate for directly lines their pockets.
It's like when you hear all the engineers and geologists at the American Petroleum Institute talk about fracking. Maybe we should keep a grain of salt.
It's like when you hear all the engineers and geologists at the American Petroleum Institute talk about fracking. Maybe we should keep a grain of salt.
The American Society for Civil Engineers publishes this report. I’m sure they’re all great people, but I take with a grain of salt any information that comes from an interested party.
Do you happen to know if their dataset is available to the public?
> These bridges were built during times of relative wealth when the local steel and related industries were doing well.
This is a problem that needs to be solved everywhere. Governments build infrastructure with nothing but hope that future tax revenue will support maintenance. There should be something like a retirement plan for this infrastructure where a certain amount is invested at the time of construction to support maintenance ongoing.
This is a problem that needs to be solved everywhere. Governments build infrastructure with nothing but hope that future tax revenue will support maintenance. There should be something like a retirement plan for this infrastructure where a certain amount is invested at the time of construction to support maintenance ongoing.
The problem is that the entire car hyper-focused model is unsustainable. Cities are expected to maintain huge amounts of infrastructure for people who don't pay much, if anything, in taxes for it but since cars don't scale well there's a constant demand for even more expansion.
Recognizing that involves telling a lot of people that they need to switch from driving cars to using transit, biking, etc. and there are a lot of people who don't want to hear that, especially if most of their personal net worth is equity in a building which is too far away at anything less than freeway speeds. It's much easier just to keep pretending that a one-time tax or bond issue will solve it, and so we keep doing the same cycle over and over again.
Recognizing that involves telling a lot of people that they need to switch from driving cars to using transit, biking, etc. and there are a lot of people who don't want to hear that, especially if most of their personal net worth is equity in a building which is too far away at anything less than freeway speeds. It's much easier just to keep pretending that a one-time tax or bond issue will solve it, and so we keep doing the same cycle over and over again.
I agree that this is the problem. But the problem is possible in part because governments are not forced to set aside funds for the future maintenance. If they had to fund an annuity to cover lifetime maintenance, then the budget would prove unattractive relative to public transit projects which suffer currently from the appearance of higher up-front costs (but most likely have lower total lifetime costs).
There's nothing about using transit that would decrease the number of bridges in a city like Pittsburgh. The transit needs bridges to cross rivers and hollows too.
An awful lot of these bridges started as footpaths and ox-cart turnpikes.
An awful lot of these bridges started as footpaths and ox-cart turnpikes.
The question is twofold: how many bridges do you need with much better efficiency? A two lane bridge with buses costs less than the 10 lane car bridge you need to carry the same number of people.
If you go on a road diet your maintenance costs go down because you’re building fewer lanes, not having tons of bypasses and bridges which exist only to take pressure off of congestion at chokepoints, etc. Those reductions mean you can spend correspondingly more on the necessary core infrastructure.
If you go on a road diet your maintenance costs go down because you’re building fewer lanes, not having tons of bypasses and bridges which exist only to take pressure off of congestion at chokepoints, etc. Those reductions mean you can spend correspondingly more on the necessary core infrastructure.
Broadly-speaking yes, but none of that would have addressed this collapse. This was a two-lane bridge between two major neighborhoods. People need to get to those neighborhoods and they'd have to divert about a mile north to do it without this bridge.
Pittsburgh is built at the intersection of three rivers and atop the folded spine of the Alleghenies. Any way you slice it that city's gonna have either a lot of bridges or a lot of grumpy people who can't get anywhere.
Pittsburgh is built at the intersection of three rivers and atop the folded spine of the Alleghenies. Any way you slice it that city's gonna have either a lot of bridges or a lot of grumpy people who can't get anywhere.
Yes, the point was just that if you use infrastructure more efficiently your maintenance dollar won't have to be stretched as much. They'll still have plenty of bridges but if they focused maintenance on the things used by residents rather than people driving in from the suburbs that'd free up a lot of funding.
The people driving in from the suburbs are who work in the city. Taxes and a huge percentage of the land being owned by non-profits keeps residents to a minimum (not to mention most of what can be used for housing in city limits is rental, not ownable, and property in the county is still extremely cheap relative to rental rates).
They could replace the car bridges with train bridges or dedicated bus bridges (after knocking down a lot of houses, which if history repeats itself will be minority-owned houses), but this is a city with a small downtown and uptown where residents have always lived in the suburbs ever since the industrial revolution, well before ubiquitous car ownership.
Residents were using bridges to get to work in the days they walked there. There's sort of a lower bound on how many bridges a city of this geography will have.
They could replace the car bridges with train bridges or dedicated bus bridges (after knocking down a lot of houses, which if history repeats itself will be minority-owned houses), but this is a city with a small downtown and uptown where residents have always lived in the suburbs ever since the industrial revolution, well before ubiquitous car ownership.
Residents were using bridges to get to work in the days they walked there. There's sort of a lower bound on how many bridges a city of this geography will have.
> The people driving in from the suburbs are who work in the city.
This is true but that doesn't mean that the city should go broke catering to their whims — that could be putting tolls on the bridges, encouraging use of transit, etc. but they need some way to balance the budget.
> They could replace the car bridges with train bridges or dedicated bus bridges (after knocking down a lot of houses, which if history repeats itself will be minority-owned houses)
… or simply dedicate a lane for transit. It's not an iron law that the least efficient mode of transportation be given the highest priority.
This is true but that doesn't mean that the city should go broke catering to their whims — that could be putting tolls on the bridges, encouraging use of transit, etc. but they need some way to balance the budget.
> They could replace the car bridges with train bridges or dedicated bus bridges (after knocking down a lot of houses, which if history repeats itself will be minority-owned houses)
… or simply dedicate a lane for transit. It's not an iron law that the least efficient mode of transportation be given the highest priority.
Isn’t this bridge four lanes?
Two lanes on each side + protected sidewalk on each side, yeah.
This problem might be a subset of the entire premise of every current economic system: they only keep working if growth is assumed
It's a big challenge with climate change facing us, too: one of the best things we could do is continue lowering the average birthrate but doing so would break one of the fundamental principles that our economy is based on.
> Recognizing that involves telling a lot of people that they need to switch from driving cars to using transit, biking, etc.
The issue here is latency, availability, and comfort. Cars are great for these three. Can transit compete?
> and there are a lot of people who don't want to hear that, especially if most of their personal net worth is equity in a building which is too far away at anything less than freeway speeds
If you offer them a better investment, they will. But then, you will have to convince people who put most of their personal net worth into tiny cramped downtown condos that it’s ok for them to lose it due to the massive amount of housing you plan to build.
The issue here is latency, availability, and comfort. Cars are great for these three. Can transit compete?
> and there are a lot of people who don't want to hear that, especially if most of their personal net worth is equity in a building which is too far away at anything less than freeway speeds
If you offer them a better investment, they will. But then, you will have to convince people who put most of their personal net worth into tiny cramped downtown condos that it’s ok for them to lose it due to the massive amount of housing you plan to build.
> > Recognizing that involves telling a lot of people that they need to switch from driving cars to using transit, biking, etc.
> The issue here is latency, availability, and comfort. Cars are great for these three. Can transit compete?
It's not that simple: cars are great for those when nobody else has them. When you live in a place with enough people to get traffic, they're terrible on the first two and the third is a question of how bad the outside is and how much you enjoy sitting for long periods of time without moving. Similarly, you need to factor in things like parking: car availability and latency both take a huge hit when you can't park in front of your destination, and comfort takes a hit if that means walking in uncomfortable weather, too.
That makes the underlying decisions more obvious: if you reserve lanes for transit or build separate right-of-way, taking the bus is a lot better than driving because the 50 people on the bus don't have to wait behind the 3 blocks of 50 people driving cars but if you focus on cars, the bus will be stuck in traffic as well.
> But then, you will have to convince people who put most of their personal net worth into tiny cramped downtown condos that it’s ok for them to lose it due to the massive amount of housing you plan to build
There's a lot of hyperbole in that sentence, and it's missing the key point that car travel is so inefficient that this pressure is always there even without overt public policy. Urban living is expensive because people like to live in places with fun things to do (i.e. which improves as a function of density) and they don't spend long periods of time stuck in traffic. Removing the public subsidies for suburban commuters will only make it more pronounced.
> The issue here is latency, availability, and comfort. Cars are great for these three. Can transit compete?
It's not that simple: cars are great for those when nobody else has them. When you live in a place with enough people to get traffic, they're terrible on the first two and the third is a question of how bad the outside is and how much you enjoy sitting for long periods of time without moving. Similarly, you need to factor in things like parking: car availability and latency both take a huge hit when you can't park in front of your destination, and comfort takes a hit if that means walking in uncomfortable weather, too.
That makes the underlying decisions more obvious: if you reserve lanes for transit or build separate right-of-way, taking the bus is a lot better than driving because the 50 people on the bus don't have to wait behind the 3 blocks of 50 people driving cars but if you focus on cars, the bus will be stuck in traffic as well.
> But then, you will have to convince people who put most of their personal net worth into tiny cramped downtown condos that it’s ok for them to lose it due to the massive amount of housing you plan to build
There's a lot of hyperbole in that sentence, and it's missing the key point that car travel is so inefficient that this pressure is always there even without overt public policy. Urban living is expensive because people like to live in places with fun things to do (i.e. which improves as a function of density) and they don't spend long periods of time stuck in traffic. Removing the public subsidies for suburban commuters will only make it more pronounced.
> the entire car hyper-focused model is unsustainable
I disagree. There's nothing magic about the car. What is unsustainable is not budgeting for real costs nor planning for the future. E.g. we install pipes that are supposed to last 100 years, which just means that everyone alive figures they can ignore it and let the people three generations from today figure out how to deal with it.
I disagree. There's nothing magic about the car. What is unsustainable is not budgeting for real costs nor planning for the future. E.g. we install pipes that are supposed to last 100 years, which just means that everyone alive figures they can ignore it and let the people three generations from today figure out how to deal with it.
Cars aren't magic but they're very inefficient. Supporting the model where everyone owns a car and drives themselves around means that each person uses hundreds of square feet of road, buildings are usually required to maintain hundreds of square feet of car storage space per resident, business are often required to pay for storage as well (even if it's something like a bar which we really shouldn't have people driving to), and the high safety risks mean that beyond the basic road itself you end up with a lot of expensive dedicated infrastructure which is protecting people from cars or reducing congestion.
All of that adds up to a lot of built-in carrying cost that people don't see directly but requires upfront payment and ongoing maintenance. Owning a car isn't just the $10-12k average annual expense but also things like paying a double-digit percentage more for housing to get off-street parking, having all of the prices at local businesses be higher to subsidize the bundled parking, etc.
All of that adds up to a lot of built-in carrying cost that people don't see directly but requires upfront payment and ongoing maintenance. Owning a car isn't just the $10-12k average annual expense but also things like paying a double-digit percentage more for housing to get off-street parking, having all of the prices at local businesses be higher to subsidize the bundled parking, etc.
This viewpoint makes sense for dense urban areas where space really is at a premium, but most of the united states is sparse and land is relatively cheap.
> Owning a car isn't just the $10-12k average annual expense but also things like paying a double-digit percentage more for housing to get off-street parking
I'm very skeptical of these figures. $10-12K is more than I'll pay for my brand new Tesla, and it's a hell of a lot less than that when you amortize those figures over its expected lifetime. Yeah, there's also the cost of fuel and maintenance, but I'm very skeptical that these costs added onto the car payment bring the cost up to $10k on average. Moreover, the average cost isn't very useful--it's influenced by people like me and people even wealthier than me who can afford to splurge. It doesn't tell you anything about the actual cost required to own and maintain a car--chip shortage aside, a used Toyota Camry with decent miles probably costs about $10-15k total and amortized over its ~20 year lifetime including fuel and maintenance it's probably on the order of $2k/year. And of course, if we're worried about people who can't afford that, as with anything, the government can subsidize those people.
Similarly, off-street parking isn't an issue outside of large cities (virtually everyone else has a driveway, and the minimum viable cost of maintaining a driveway isn't anywhere near $1k/year).
Ultimately, this conversation illustrates one of the major problems with federalizing infrastructure. You get people from urban centers making policies based on incorrect assumptions about other areas of the country.
> Owning a car isn't just the $10-12k average annual expense but also things like paying a double-digit percentage more for housing to get off-street parking
I'm very skeptical of these figures. $10-12K is more than I'll pay for my brand new Tesla, and it's a hell of a lot less than that when you amortize those figures over its expected lifetime. Yeah, there's also the cost of fuel and maintenance, but I'm very skeptical that these costs added onto the car payment bring the cost up to $10k on average. Moreover, the average cost isn't very useful--it's influenced by people like me and people even wealthier than me who can afford to splurge. It doesn't tell you anything about the actual cost required to own and maintain a car--chip shortage aside, a used Toyota Camry with decent miles probably costs about $10-15k total and amortized over its ~20 year lifetime including fuel and maintenance it's probably on the order of $2k/year. And of course, if we're worried about people who can't afford that, as with anything, the government can subsidize those people.
Similarly, off-street parking isn't an issue outside of large cities (virtually everyone else has a driveway, and the minimum viable cost of maintaining a driveway isn't anywhere near $1k/year).
Ultimately, this conversation illustrates one of the major problems with federalizing infrastructure. You get people from urban centers making policies based on incorrect assumptions about other areas of the country.
Older cars in rural areas can be a lot cheaper to own.
But, ~10k/year is normal in a city. Don’t forget ~100$/month in insurance, 100-200+$/month parking, ~50-100+$/month property taxes, 100-200$/month in fuel etc. Not everyone needs to pay tolls but those add up extremely quickly.
But, ~10k/year is normal in a city. Don’t forget ~100$/month in insurance, 100-200+$/month parking, ~50-100+$/month property taxes, 100-200$/month in fuel etc. Not everyone needs to pay tolls but those add up extremely quickly.
That's the whole point--the economics of urban, suburban, and rural areas vary widely. It doesn't make sense to impose policies which assume urban economics on suburban and rural areas, but that's what tends to happen when you federalize things.
Every state has similar breakdowns so you can say the same thing at the state level.
Alaska is thought of as open wilderness with 1.2 people per square mile, but 40% of the state live in inside Anchorage and 54% live in it’s metro area. That’s quite similar to New York State with 44% living inside NYC.
So, I am not sure what you’re feeding about national policy here.
Alaska is thought of as open wilderness with 1.2 people per square mile, but 40% of the state live in inside Anchorage and 54% live in it’s metro area. That’s quite similar to New York State with 44% living inside NYC.
So, I am not sure what you’re feeding about national policy here.
That seems like a good argument in favor of localizing. I do agree that urbanization is increasingly presenting challenges with respect to governance at the state and federal levels, however.
I think there are good reasons to push the responsibility up to the state level though—e.g., places with low density may lack the funds for even critical infrastructure and are too sensitive to small or short-lived fluctuations in population. But all states are collectively large enough to afford their own critical infrastructure.
I think there are good reasons to push the responsibility up to the state level though—e.g., places with low density may lack the funds for even critical infrastructure and are too sensitive to small or short-lived fluctuations in population. But all states are collectively large enough to afford their own critical infrastructure.
> I'm very skeptical of these figures. $10-12K is more than I'll pay for my brand new Tesla, and it's a hell of a lot less than that when you amortize those figures over its expected lifetime.
Here's the source:
https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-...
The big things people forget is the cost of insurance in addition to consumables and depreciation.
> Ultimately, this conversation illustrates one of the major problems with federalizing infrastructure. You get people from urban centers making policies based on incorrect assumptions about other areas of the country.
Note that the vast majority of the population lives in areas where this is an issue. The number of people who are truly rural is a lot smaller than the number of people who live in cities or their suburbs and still end up paying for things like parking.
My position isn't that someone should _ban_ cars but that we stop heavily subsidizing them and start factoring in pollution, too. There a ton of problems which could be solved quickly by market pressure but we've been really resistant to that as a society because it means rethinking the dominant view of the American ideal from the 20th century. A suburban house costs more due to all of the infrastructure requirements amortized over fewer residents but a lot of policy decisions have allowed people not to see that until the maintenance bill eventually comes due.
Here's the source:
https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-...
The big things people forget is the cost of insurance in addition to consumables and depreciation.
> Ultimately, this conversation illustrates one of the major problems with federalizing infrastructure. You get people from urban centers making policies based on incorrect assumptions about other areas of the country.
Note that the vast majority of the population lives in areas where this is an issue. The number of people who are truly rural is a lot smaller than the number of people who live in cities or their suburbs and still end up paying for things like parking.
My position isn't that someone should _ban_ cars but that we stop heavily subsidizing them and start factoring in pollution, too. There a ton of problems which could be solved quickly by market pressure but we've been really resistant to that as a society because it means rethinking the dominant view of the American ideal from the 20th century. A suburban house costs more due to all of the infrastructure requirements amortized over fewer residents but a lot of policy decisions have allowed people not to see that until the maintenance bill eventually comes due.
> Here's the source
The headline stipulates "new vehicles" and the figure it cites is $9,282 (outside of the $10-12K range). The article isn't dated, but I assume it's referencing some time period during the pandemic in which car prices are unusually inflated due to supply chain issues--the figure for a normal year is almost certainly going to be lower than this (at least when adjusting for inflation). This is even less useful than the overall average car payment since it's even more biased toward affluent Americans.
> The big things people forget is the cost of insurance in addition to consumables and depreciation.
Yeah, I forgot insurance too, but that's $1200/year for my brand new Tesla in a major metropolitan city. I'm pretty sure full coverage for our hypothetical used Camry is going to be closer to $300/year, bringing the figure up to the ~$2300/year range (still a far cry from $10-12K).
> Note that the vast majority of the population lives in areas where this is an issue. The number of people who are truly rural is a lot smaller than the number of people who live in cities or their suburbs and still end up paying for things like parking.
Agreed that the majority of Americans are either suburban or rural; I'm skeptical that suburban land costs resemble urban land costs; however, regarding your claim that off-street parking costs upwards of $1000/year, according to Bloomberg the total cost of urban land for an average parking space is only $2000k (obviously there's costs for paving and maintaining, but I doubt the total costs come close to $1k/year averaged across the country). Ultimately, my point is: "your figures seem off by an order of magnitude".
> My position isn't that someone should _ban_ cars but that we stop heavily subsidizing them and start factoring in pollution, too.
Fully agree that we should factor in pollution, but why stop at car ownership? We should factor in the cost of pollution to everything, via border-adjusted carbon pricing.
The headline stipulates "new vehicles" and the figure it cites is $9,282 (outside of the $10-12K range). The article isn't dated, but I assume it's referencing some time period during the pandemic in which car prices are unusually inflated due to supply chain issues--the figure for a normal year is almost certainly going to be lower than this (at least when adjusting for inflation). This is even less useful than the overall average car payment since it's even more biased toward affluent Americans.
> The big things people forget is the cost of insurance in addition to consumables and depreciation.
Yeah, I forgot insurance too, but that's $1200/year for my brand new Tesla in a major metropolitan city. I'm pretty sure full coverage for our hypothetical used Camry is going to be closer to $300/year, bringing the figure up to the ~$2300/year range (still a far cry from $10-12K).
> Note that the vast majority of the population lives in areas where this is an issue. The number of people who are truly rural is a lot smaller than the number of people who live in cities or their suburbs and still end up paying for things like parking.
Agreed that the majority of Americans are either suburban or rural; I'm skeptical that suburban land costs resemble urban land costs; however, regarding your claim that off-street parking costs upwards of $1000/year, according to Bloomberg the total cost of urban land for an average parking space is only $2000k (obviously there's costs for paving and maintaining, but I doubt the total costs come close to $1k/year averaged across the country). Ultimately, my point is: "your figures seem off by an order of magnitude".
> My position isn't that someone should _ban_ cars but that we stop heavily subsidizing them and start factoring in pollution, too.
Fully agree that we should factor in pollution, but why stop at car ownership? We should factor in the cost of pollution to everything, via border-adjusted carbon pricing.
> double-digit percentage more for housing
I'm skeptical. The most expensive housing in my city is in the urban core. Houses a few miles out are much cheaper, even if currently overpriced. Everything about living in the city is more expensive, too. Friend of mine has a 40 year old condo downtown and he pays more than a thousand bucks a month in building fees.
You might argue that this is just a sign that the suburbs are being subsidized, but I'd argue that it really just shows that the budget problem is real, we're not correctly budgeting for future expenses. If each homeowner also had to drop another 10K+ a year in maintenance, suburbia can be maintained indefinitely.
I'm skeptical. The most expensive housing in my city is in the urban core. Houses a few miles out are much cheaper, even if currently overpriced. Everything about living in the city is more expensive, too. Friend of mine has a 40 year old condo downtown and he pays more than a thousand bucks a month in building fees.
You might argue that this is just a sign that the suburbs are being subsidized, but I'd argue that it really just shows that the budget problem is real, we're not correctly budgeting for future expenses. If each homeowner also had to drop another 10K+ a year in maintenance, suburbia can be maintained indefinitely.
It does require care to compare true equivalents but consider what fraction of your house’s land goes to a driveway, parking, etc. and if you have a garage, shed, etc. how much you pay to build that, maintain the structure and roof, etc.
My point really isn’t that it’s innately terrible but that it’s mostly hidden so people think of it as free. Exposing the total cost makes it easier for everyone to reconsider, which is good because climate change means we’re all going to be forced to make changes.
My point really isn’t that it’s innately terrible but that it’s mostly hidden so people think of it as free. Exposing the total cost makes it easier for everyone to reconsider, which is good because climate change means we’re all going to be forced to make changes.
That's just saying the same thing in a different way. It is unsustainable given our current model of taxation and government spending. Good luck convincing the populace to pay significantly more in taxes while the government "hoards" their money for some future expense beyond the average person's lifetime.
Georgia uses SPLOSTs for stuff like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special-purpose_local-option_s...
Here's an example of the result in this local interchange conversion from an intersection that wasn't designed for all the traffic going through it: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9462412,-83.7533688,476m/dat...
It looks sparse in traffic now, but it used to take 5-30 minutes to cross!
Another underway closer to Athens: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9400062,-83.7207463,3a,75y,2...
This is part of a years-long project to turn highway 316/University Parkway between Athens and I-85 into a controlled-access highway to handle the next few decades of growth as what used to be sprawl from Atlanta turns into major population centers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special-purpose_local-option_s...
Here's an example of the result in this local interchange conversion from an intersection that wasn't designed for all the traffic going through it: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9462412,-83.7533688,476m/dat...
It looks sparse in traffic now, but it used to take 5-30 minutes to cross!
Another underway closer to Athens: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9400062,-83.7207463,3a,75y,2...
This is part of a years-long project to turn highway 316/University Parkway between Athens and I-85 into a controlled-access highway to handle the next few decades of growth as what used to be sprawl from Atlanta turns into major population centers.
My point is that switching to urbanized infrastructure isn't going to suddenly make the population more willing to fork out more in taxes. It just moves the problem.
They will, however, be seeing significant economies of scale. A suburban street with 20 houses on it has similar maintenance costs to an urban block but the latter expense can spread across hundreds of taxpayers and living in a city means they need less parking because many people don’t need a personal car to function.
I agree this is a good idea, but history has shown that if there is a pile of money sitting somewhere, governments blow it, just like many states have blown through public retirement funds.
The fundamental problem is that people running governments are spending other people's money and they never have a problem doing that.
The fundamental problem is that people running governments are spending other people's money and they never have a problem doing that.
> The fundamental problem is that people running governments are spending other people's money and they never have a problem doing that.
This wording makes that seem passive and that's a key gap in understanding the problem. Almost everyone has high expectations for government services — they want great schools, smooth uncongested roads, safe water, responsive police and fire departments, support for their elderly friends and neighbors, etc. The problem is that fewer people are willing to pay what it takes to actually provide those services, and an entire industry of people misdirecting attention for political reasons — e.g. you'll hear a lot about wasteful spending for stuff which is like 0.1% of the budget but trips someone's political agenda, and they won't mention that you could cut that entire program and it'd fund 2 extra prisoners in jail or a block and a half of street.
The other problem is that a lot of our taxes aren't indexed for inflation or have been actively cut. Things like the gas tax used to pay for a higher percentage of road construction, and the massive tax cuts given to rich people have removed a lot of general revenue, and that means that a lot of what was previously covered by that revenue now has to be paid for in ways which are very noticeable to the average voter: property taxes, use fees (as a Californian, the example I use is that the UC system had free tuition until the 1980s — that shifted the cost to the students which made it FAR more noticeable since it went from what you could do with a summer job to the price of a new car annually), etc.
All of that tends to mean that a politician who runs on a platform of needing to raise taxes to pay for the things we all use will likely lose to the one saying they can cut the mythical “waste & abuse”, and it has to get bad before that changes.
This wording makes that seem passive and that's a key gap in understanding the problem. Almost everyone has high expectations for government services — they want great schools, smooth uncongested roads, safe water, responsive police and fire departments, support for their elderly friends and neighbors, etc. The problem is that fewer people are willing to pay what it takes to actually provide those services, and an entire industry of people misdirecting attention for political reasons — e.g. you'll hear a lot about wasteful spending for stuff which is like 0.1% of the budget but trips someone's political agenda, and they won't mention that you could cut that entire program and it'd fund 2 extra prisoners in jail or a block and a half of street.
The other problem is that a lot of our taxes aren't indexed for inflation or have been actively cut. Things like the gas tax used to pay for a higher percentage of road construction, and the massive tax cuts given to rich people have removed a lot of general revenue, and that means that a lot of what was previously covered by that revenue now has to be paid for in ways which are very noticeable to the average voter: property taxes, use fees (as a Californian, the example I use is that the UC system had free tuition until the 1980s — that shifted the cost to the students which made it FAR more noticeable since it went from what you could do with a summer job to the price of a new car annually), etc.
All of that tends to mean that a politician who runs on a platform of needing to raise taxes to pay for the things we all use will likely lose to the one saying they can cut the mythical “waste & abuse”, and it has to get bad before that changes.
First, we get rid of stuff we don't need. If we don't need roads, we don't need as many cars. As Elon Musk said, the best part is no part. Cars was a luxury that became necessary to live in most places of America.
Then, we can talk about raising taxes and funding enough infrastructure.
What we cannot do is fund financially inefficient infrastructure.
Then, we can talk about raising taxes and funding enough infrastructure.
What we cannot do is fund financially inefficient infrastructure.
>The fundamental problem is that people running governments are spending other people's money and they never have a problem doing that.
I would go further and state that voters are spending tomorrow's taxpayers' money and they never have a problem doing that.
As a politician advocating for paying for things today, you are not going to win elections against someone who promises to push cash flow into the future and lower taxes today.
Try replacing taxpayer funded defined benefit pensions (which can be pushed onto taxpayers decades in the future) with purchasing equivalent annuities from an insurance company today (which have to be properly accounted for and paid for today, requiring higher taxes today).
I would go further and state that voters are spending tomorrow's taxpayers' money and they never have a problem doing that.
As a politician advocating for paying for things today, you are not going to win elections against someone who promises to push cash flow into the future and lower taxes today.
Try replacing taxpayer funded defined benefit pensions (which can be pushed onto taxpayers decades in the future) with purchasing equivalent annuities from an insurance company today (which have to be properly accounted for and paid for today, requiring higher taxes today).
> I would go further and state that voters are spending tomorrow's taxpayers' money and they never have a problem doing that.
This is what happens to retail politics when the population is trained to think for the short term. After all (successful) politicians merely follow trends.
This is what happens to retail politics when the population is trained to think for the short term. After all (successful) politicians merely follow trends.
If there is a pile of money somewhere, some politicians will choose to cut taxes and "give back" that money for political gain as well. Both are a problem.
Isn't this a problem that the pile of money isn't ring-fenced from the general coffers?
New shiny projects win elections.
Maintaining existing things instead do not.
Maintaining existing things instead do not.
With some caveats. Suburban sprawl is impossibly unsustainable: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...
“Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance.”
-Kurt Vonnegut
-Kurt Vonnegut
governments are going to face huge problems as the world de-populates. so much infrastructure and buildings to maintain and no one to maintain / use them
At the risk of seeming callous, I am not convinced it is obvious that bridges should never collapse. This is an unreachable goal that will just make bridges more expensive and create excessive regulation. No artifact of man is 100% reliable, the only rational goal is a certain number of "nines." The users of a system should decide how many nines they are willing to pay for. For me personally, A bridge with a 99.9% chance of not collapsing in a given year is good enough.
Nobody is advocating for object permanence.
People advocate for understood constraints of critical infrastructure. Engineers usually have knowledge about longevity and reliability of components.
There are examples of man-made systems which absolutely require 100% reliability, but those still have lifetimes and will be destroyed at some point to be replaced with something else[0].
A bridge can be destroyed, but it should not collapse without prior warning.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY-XHAoVEeU
People advocate for understood constraints of critical infrastructure. Engineers usually have knowledge about longevity and reliability of components.
There are examples of man-made systems which absolutely require 100% reliability, but those still have lifetimes and will be destroyed at some point to be replaced with something else[0].
A bridge can be destroyed, but it should not collapse without prior warning.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY-XHAoVEeU
100% reliability is physically impossible. "reliability" is defined to include resistance to abnormal situations. A bridge might be 100% reliable when winds don't exceed 100mph...an event that might have a 1% probability per year in its area of construction, which is clearly highly unlikely, but still something that is accounted for in reliability, uptime, and failure rate metrics.
I don't even know if you can achieve 100% reliability given a set of plausible situations/usage, because you'd have to imagine every single possible failure mode for the thing that you're building.
That is - the threat of "destruction" proper (which you contrasted with "collapse without prior warning") is included in the reliability metrics for a device.
The point stands. Nothing that humans build can be 100% reliable - the only thing you can do is asymptotically approach it.
Now, that said - three nines per year is way too low for me, personally. Five nines is more comfortable (and if it's cheap I'd like to go higher).
I don't even know if you can achieve 100% reliability given a set of plausible situations/usage, because you'd have to imagine every single possible failure mode for the thing that you're building.
That is - the threat of "destruction" proper (which you contrasted with "collapse without prior warning") is included in the reliability metrics for a device.
The point stands. Nothing that humans build can be 100% reliable - the only thing you can do is asymptotically approach it.
Now, that said - three nines per year is way too low for me, personally. Five nines is more comfortable (and if it's cheap I'd like to go higher).
> Nobody is advocating for object permanence.
I am. People need to understand that bridges continue to exist when they're not looking at them.
(Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence)
I am. People need to understand that bridges continue to exist when they're not looking at them.
(Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence)
Did you watch this video? Tom claims in the video that the barrier is designed for up to a thousand year tide. That's essentially the same as the three nines standard I advocated.
> For me personally, A bridge with a 99.9% chance of not collapsing in a given year is good enough.
So you are ok if in a city with 100 bridges there is an average of one collapse every 10 years?
So you are ok if in a city with 100 bridges there is an average of one collapse every 10 years?
Yes one bridge collapse a decade would be acceptable to me provided it keeps the cost down. Other people may be willing to pay for more nines, the point is that infinity nines costs infinity dollars.
Pittsburgh has well over 200 bridges. It’d be a failure every 5 years.
Ill stick to our current failure rate, thank you. IT “reliability” rates isn't that impressive in other fields of engineering.
Ill stick to our current failure rate, thank you. IT “reliability” rates isn't that impressive in other fields of engineering.
Made a whopper of a mistake. Pittsburgh has over 2000 bridges.
You are ok with a bridge collapse every 10 years? Do you understand how rare bridge collapses are today and that this would be a massive increase in the rate of failure?
They were just giving their personal comfort threshold.
I mean, technically, one would need to look at the reliability-cost curve. opwieurposiu would almost certainly be fine with eight 9's of reliability if it only cost twice as much as three 9's. The fact that they have a really high risk tolerance in this area don't really undermine their general point.
I mean, technically, one would need to look at the reliability-cost curve. opwieurposiu would almost certainly be fine with eight 9's of reliability if it only cost twice as much as three 9's. The fact that they have a really high risk tolerance in this area don't really undermine their general point.
If a person’s risk tolerance on something is out of whack of what almost everyone else is comfortable with then there is a problem with that position. At least as it pertains to public policy. I’ll rephrase and say that I hope OP is not in a position to have his/her views in this area become policy.
> At the risk of seeming callous, I am not convinced it is obvious that bridges should never collapse.
Nobody is saying that a bridge should last forever. They're saying repair it as long as you can, then replace the bridge so that a collapse never happens.
Nobody is saying that a bridge should last forever. They're saying repair it as long as you can, then replace the bridge so that a collapse never happens.
A rope bridge with wood planks will last as long as someone maintains the rope and the planks.
Nobody is advocating that "the perfect bridge" be built. They are advocating that already built bridges receive regular maintenance.
Expecting that a bridge doesn't collapse is an entirely achievable goal. Expecting that a bridge doesn't collapse without maintenance is very unlikely.
Nobody is advocating that "the perfect bridge" be built. They are advocating that already built bridges receive regular maintenance.
Expecting that a bridge doesn't collapse is an entirely achievable goal. Expecting that a bridge doesn't collapse without maintenance is very unlikely.
[deleted]
> Penn Hills being a poignant example of this
Link? I'm interested in reading more, but quickly searching didn't turn up anything
Link? I'm interested in reading more, but quickly searching didn't turn up anything
I think GP is referring to this resort and not the still-functioning inner-ring suburb of Pittsburgh? https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/penn-hills-resort
Weird example, since it's in Eastern PA, despite sharing a name with that suburb.
Weird example, since it's in Eastern PA, despite sharing a name with that suburb.
An abandoned resort doesn't sound like a city abandoning a suburban area and withdrawing services?
Yeah but 40k people live in Penn Hills so…
EDIT: Maybe it’s this [0], but lol Pittsburgh is not unique in having some abandoned homes. Literally every municipality ever in history has an area with abandoned homes.
[0] https://archive.triblive.com/local/penn-hills/some-penn-hill...
EDIT: Maybe it’s this [0], but lol Pittsburgh is not unique in having some abandoned homes. Literally every municipality ever in history has an area with abandoned homes.
[0] https://archive.triblive.com/local/penn-hills/some-penn-hill...
It's been a while, but IIRC, Penn Hills (the one in Allegheny county) has seen reduced service from the Port Authority over the last 20 years, with many bus lines being outright discontinued/consolidated.
> Obviously no bridges should be coming down, but there is a real problem here of how to build and maintain a modern city that is smaller than the older one that it replaces.
If an area's population shrinks such that it doesn't need / can't afford all of its bridges, why not prioritize the critical bridges for maintenance and close the others as they become unsafe. Why is this always posed as a dichotomy between letting bridges fail and funding maintenance for each and every bridge?
If an area's population shrinks such that it doesn't need / can't afford all of its bridges, why not prioritize the critical bridges for maintenance and close the others as they become unsafe. Why is this always posed as a dichotomy between letting bridges fail and funding maintenance for each and every bridge?
[deleted]
The politics get nasty real fast. Nobody wants the bridge they regularly use to be shut down, regardless of whether the number of regular users is very small. In US politics, especially at the local level a fiercely-motivated vocal minority is very powerful (because hardly anyone else pays attention).
I'd say bad publicity. People are afraid of hard conversations and US politicians doesn't have any incentives to treat the voters are adults. Politicians treat ppl as children at best and cattle at worst. No one asks children what compromise to make: to buy bread or to buy milk if money are running low. This is the root cause of the problems from my point of view.
$250 million for public safety
$59 million for public works
2021 Amended Operating Budget:
https://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/redtail/images/15962_2021_Amen...
$59 million for public works
2021 Amended Operating Budget:
https://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/redtail/images/15962_2021_Amen...
> there is a real problem here of how to build and maintain a modern city that is smaller than the older one that it replaces.
I'm nearly certain Pittsburgh itself, the city, and its immediate surrounding boroughs has grown in population pretty steadily (though not significantly) since the steel boom even while the population of it's suburbs (and PA in general) have steadily lost population, though some areas around the city have grown, like near the airport, property values have skyrocketed to the point that I see a real estate bubble (cookie cutter single family houses built in the 1960's are going for $250K-$350K now, a lot to pay for a 60yo house in the burbs), which contrasts the other areas that have been completely gutted in population and deteriorated (like Ambridge, Aliquippa).
I'm nearly certain Pittsburgh itself, the city, and its immediate surrounding boroughs has grown in population pretty steadily (though not significantly) since the steel boom even while the population of it's suburbs (and PA in general) have steadily lost population, though some areas around the city have grown, like near the airport, property values have skyrocketed to the point that I see a real estate bubble (cookie cutter single family houses built in the 1960's are going for $250K-$350K now, a lot to pay for a 60yo house in the burbs), which contrasts the other areas that have been completely gutted in population and deteriorated (like Ambridge, Aliquippa).
The population of metro area Pittsburgh has declined in the last 20 years and is over 100,000 people less than it was in 1970 [1]. Pittsburgh’s population today is 10% less than it was in 2000 and is considerably smaller than it was at its peak [2].
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23100/pittsburgh/populati...
[2] https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/pittsburgh-pennsylvania
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23100/pittsburgh/populati...
[2] https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/pittsburgh-pennsylvania
Your near certainty is not justified by numbers which are publicly available and could have been consulted.
The population of Pittsburgh proper is half what it was in 1950. Here's a convenient tabulation:
http://population.city/united-states/pittsburgh/
You're equally wrong about the suburbs, which have grown as the city center shrank.
The population of Pittsburgh proper is half what it was in 1950. Here's a convenient tabulation:
http://population.city/united-states/pittsburgh/
You're equally wrong about the suburbs, which have grown as the city center shrank.
> You're equally wrong about the suburbs, which have grown as the city center shrank.
Nonsense. My mistake, but my math is at least good enough to know I was not equally wrong. That would be far too unlikely, but if so, some kind of bizarre coincidence.
Nonsense. My mistake, but my math is at least good enough to know I was not equally wrong. That would be far too unlikely, but if so, some kind of bizarre coincidence.
Pittsburgh is having a rebirth in the last ten years.
Before that, it was bleeding population for 50 years
Before that, it was bleeding population for 50 years
It's not just a "oh whoops the city shrank" problem, it's endemic to all American infrastructure. The problem is that local governments are permitted to de-prioritize public safety.
The media made it a show case for Biden's infrastructure plan, but it almost proves the opposite.
It was first rated poor in 2011, from Pittsburgh Post Gazette [1].
The collapse came in the wake of troubling inspections dating to 2011 that show the aging span has been rated in poor condition, according to the National Bridge Inventory.
Records from the inventory show that the bridge was consistently found to be in poor shape during inspections from 2011 to 2017, with estimated repairs at $1.5 million.
Mr. Gainey said the bridge was last inspected in September 2021. A statewide report from last year noted the bridge was still in poor condition.
The repair estimate was $1.5 mil in 2011. As someone posted in another comment, they spend 4 times more on public safety than on public works: $250 million vs $59 million. This seems like a failure of the city and state governments to prioritize. I know that Pittsburg has lots of bridges, but if they can't support it, then they should close some. This issue is neither unexpected, not a global or cataclysmic event. If the city needs constant maintenance help from the Federal government to maintain its infrastructure, then it simply can't afford it.
[1] https://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2022/01/28/pittsburg...
It was first rated poor in 2011, from Pittsburgh Post Gazette [1].
The collapse came in the wake of troubling inspections dating to 2011 that show the aging span has been rated in poor condition, according to the National Bridge Inventory.
Records from the inventory show that the bridge was consistently found to be in poor shape during inspections from 2011 to 2017, with estimated repairs at $1.5 million.
Mr. Gainey said the bridge was last inspected in September 2021. A statewide report from last year noted the bridge was still in poor condition.
The repair estimate was $1.5 mil in 2011. As someone posted in another comment, they spend 4 times more on public safety than on public works: $250 million vs $59 million. This seems like a failure of the city and state governments to prioritize. I know that Pittsburg has lots of bridges, but if they can't support it, then they should close some. This issue is neither unexpected, not a global or cataclysmic event. If the city needs constant maintenance help from the Federal government to maintain its infrastructure, then it simply can't afford it.
[1] https://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2022/01/28/pittsburg...
What a tragic white elephant of a gift.
XnoiVeX(7)
Its stuff like this that scares me. Pittsburgh claims to have more bridges than any other city in the world.[0] You're driving around here, and you cross little ones without noticing. I hope I'm not ever near (or using) a collapsing one. The rivers are big here.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-30187252
Edit: not bridge related, but a sinkhole opened downtown over 2 years ago, also swallowing a bus: https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2019/10/28/...
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-30187252
Edit: not bridge related, but a sinkhole opened downtown over 2 years ago, also swallowing a bus: https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2019/10/28/...
Well, statistically then, this all makes sense.
As these things come it could have been a lot worse. I immediately thought back to the bridge collapse in Italy not all that long ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponte_Morandi
As these things come it could have been a lot worse. I immediately thought back to the bridge collapse in Italy not all that long ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponte_Morandi
It looked like light traffic on a morning commute. Unfortunate a bus was on there. But during rush hour, traffic is fully backed up there and stacked on the road. It could have easily been 30-40 cars + a bus instead of what was there.
Very, very lucky. Taking into account the kinds of vehicles you come across every day, hazardous goods, school buses and so on.
I think the city of Hamburg could have more bridges, but it depends a lot on how you count. Do you count only road bridges? Do you count only the city centre?
BBC article mentions 446 bridges in Pittsburgh, Wikipedia mentions 2,496 bridges in Hamburg, with 1,172 road bridges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridges_in_Hamburg
Other obvious comparison points off the top of my head would be Venice (~400 bridges, much smaller than Pittsburgh if you count the island city rather than the broader region), Amsterdam (bigger, but has 1200 bridges apparently) and Birmingham UK (no total for bridges found with a quick Google but there's 100 miles of canal and a lot of elevated urban motorway and railway). But the great thing about being the place with the 'most bridges in the world' is that if you've got an impressive number of bridges, who's counting?
I imagine it is just a quirk of the city and people given it also says "and don't try telling locals otherwise."
It looks like that's still more bridges per capita for Pittsburgh, maybe that's the metric they're using.
This sort of thing always crops up when comparing US cities to cities in other countries.
Other countries tend to count more of the surrounding built up areas as part of the city itself. Whereas every time I look at a US city there's places chock full of buildings right next door that somehow don't count.
Looking at Pittsburg there's a bunch of "townships" and things which would be considered part of the city in most other countries, which makes it difficult to compare absolute metrics like "number of bridges in the city".
Other countries tend to count more of the surrounding built up areas as part of the city itself. Whereas every time I look at a US city there's places chock full of buildings right next door that somehow don't count.
Looking at Pittsburg there's a bunch of "townships" and things which would be considered part of the city in most other countries, which makes it difficult to compare absolute metrics like "number of bridges in the city".
That's definitely not true in general, in fact my impression has always been the exact opposite. France, in particular, has a very large number of distinct municipalities (called communes). Paris proper includes only the very high-density central and historical core of the city. The inner ring suburbs still appear very urban. Compared to New York it would be like comparing the 5 boroughs = 1 city with the entire Paris region which probably contains dozens of distinct municipalities.
US cities are usually considered by their city limits, which are almost always pretty small, and have lots of smaller suburbs surrounding them.
The other countries definition seems more analogous to the US Census Bureau metro areas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area
The other countries definition seems more analogous to the US Census Bureau metro areas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area
Pittsburgh, by population, is 6 times smaller than Hamburg (300k vs 1.8m). I'm not sure about size, but Pittsburgh is pretty small and the bridge density is pretty high. I think that's where the "city of bridges" title comes from.
The pittsburgh metro area is larger than the city itself, area wise the city is only about 50 square miles vs hamburgs 200+
It’s weird that Pittsburg is so small and yet as a midwesterner (who’s driven through PA into NY a couple of times) I’d never heard of Hamburg until this thread.
There’s a Hamburg, NY FYI
[deleted]
[deleted]
I seem to recall Rick Sebak citing some statistics in his documentary about Pittsburgh's bridges, but I'm unsure of the details. The documentary reviews different types of bridges on the river, shows an inspection, and interviews people working on them. (All of Sebak's documentaries are recommended! I can't think of any other series that brings out the warmth and charm of a city.)
https://www.wqed.org/watch/pittsburgh-history-series/flying-...
https://www.wqed.org/watch/pittsburgh-history-series/flying-...
Bridge became disjointed in Albany: https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=130405
I remember it pretty vividly because the woman who drove over it was on the local news in tears. Could have been much worse.
I remember it pretty vividly because the woman who drove over it was on the local news in tears. Could have been much worse.
Lot of talk about the Federal government need to step into a city and manage the bridges.
Cities have (often highly) paid inspectors to do just that, inspect bridges and make recommendations, and issue warnings. As noted by PascLeRasc et al. the degradation of the bridge has been reported to the city.
As for funding through Federal government, my experience has always been:
The resident pays their Federal tax. The Fed takes their administrative cut.
Fed allocates remaining funds to the State. The State takes their administrative cut.
State allocates remaining funds to the City (or county). The city takes their administrative cut.
City allocates remaining funds to contractors to fix the bridges.
Put it in an other way, humans value things exponentially more when their own sweat went into the things, than if it was just given to them. By coming at State level, residents have a closer connection and understanding where the money came from, and would demand higher accountability.
Just my opinion.
Cities have (often highly) paid inspectors to do just that, inspect bridges and make recommendations, and issue warnings. As noted by PascLeRasc et al. the degradation of the bridge has been reported to the city.
As for funding through Federal government, my experience has always been:
The resident pays their Federal tax. The Fed takes their administrative cut.
Fed allocates remaining funds to the State. The State takes their administrative cut.
State allocates remaining funds to the City (or county). The city takes their administrative cut.
City allocates remaining funds to contractors to fix the bridges.
Put it in an other way, humans value things exponentially more when their own sweat went into the things, than if it was just given to them. By coming at State level, residents have a closer connection and understanding where the money came from, and would demand higher accountability.
Just my opinion.
[deleted]
Or they just oppose doing anything at all. Plenty of condos are in a similarly extremely dilapidated condition because the owners never want to pay for anything.
People won’t fund the infrastructure that supports their bedroom when it comes out of their own pocket.
People won’t fund the infrastructure that supports their bedroom when it comes out of their own pocket.
You should look into Strong Towns, they basically make the same argument. The Federal govt providing so many grants for infrastructure projects have basically made cities spread out, overgrown and fiscally insolvent.
Federal taxes redistribute tax money to areas where the burden exceeds the local ability to cover the cost. While PA as a whole received a bit more than it sends to the Feds, cities like Pittsburgh almost always send significantly more on both the state & federal level than they receive in return. (I could not find specific data for Pittsburgh, so it's possible this trend does not apply there.)
Centers of commerce &/or industry like Pittsburgh also tend to generate more economic benefits than can easily be measure by tax dollars alone.
Administrative costs for programs also don't usually to exceed more then 1-2% after accounting for Fed & State administrative costs [0] While not great, If the cost of repairing infrastructure in a given region is $500,000,000,000, then $100M in administrative costs is not going to significantly alter the what that pool of money can accomplish, and no matter the tax system can never be diminished to 0%.
"Skin in the game" is also not an apt metaphor here. It implies that a sufficient number of local residents will care enough about something like this, but in reality a bridge or other piece of infrastructure 20-30 miles away that a person rarely uses is still too abstract of a thing to really feel "Hey, I'd be willing to pay more of my own money to cover its cost". If you lower their fed taxes and raise their local taxes to cover costs I still don't think they'll feel any more sense of ownership over the issue than before. For most people, most things that are just a little bit outside of their usual experience are simply too intangible to feel much skin in the game. The situation we're already in with respect to infrastructure is a case in point.
[0] https://www.cbpp.org/research/romneys-charge-that-most-feder...
Centers of commerce &/or industry like Pittsburgh also tend to generate more economic benefits than can easily be measure by tax dollars alone.
Administrative costs for programs also don't usually to exceed more then 1-2% after accounting for Fed & State administrative costs [0] While not great, If the cost of repairing infrastructure in a given region is $500,000,000,000, then $100M in administrative costs is not going to significantly alter the what that pool of money can accomplish, and no matter the tax system can never be diminished to 0%.
"Skin in the game" is also not an apt metaphor here. It implies that a sufficient number of local residents will care enough about something like this, but in reality a bridge or other piece of infrastructure 20-30 miles away that a person rarely uses is still too abstract of a thing to really feel "Hey, I'd be willing to pay more of my own money to cover its cost". If you lower their fed taxes and raise their local taxes to cover costs I still don't think they'll feel any more sense of ownership over the issue than before. For most people, most things that are just a little bit outside of their usual experience are simply too intangible to feel much skin in the game. The situation we're already in with respect to infrastructure is a case in point.
[0] https://www.cbpp.org/research/romneys-charge-that-most-feder...
Check out the 311 report from 2018: https://twitter.com/gpk320/status/1078885655634157569?s=21
The Google street view [December 2020] under the bridge appears to show a pair of cross braces entirely missing from one side of the main supports [0] (compared with the other side[1]).
[0] https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4393756,-79.9003658,3a,75y,2...
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4393756,-79.9003658,3a,75y,8...
[0] https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4393756,-79.9003658,3a,75y,2...
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4393756,-79.9003658,3a,75y,8...
Seems confirmed by a follow-up: "Some work was actually done a couple of weeks after I reported it: they removed the rusted beam. Obviously, that wasn't sufficient, though."
https://twitter.com/gpk320/status/1487099756644114435
https://twitter.com/gpk320/status/1487099756644114435
Wow! you may be right.
Does indeed appear to be the side with the missing braces—the piping seems to match.
Hopefully it won’t get a blur censor like the damaged pylon in the Mexico City Metro viaduct collapse https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27046462
Text for anyone who can't access it:
>"@Pgh311 I hope someone is keeping an eye on the underside of the Forbes Avenue bridge over Frick Park? One of the big "X" beams is rusted through entirely (and, yes, I see the cables, so it's probably not a crisis)." -Dr. G Kochanski @gpk320
>"Service Request #307260 has been created. https://qalert.me/GRea13511a408a4282815637644fd5a13a" -Pittsburgh 311 Response Center @Pgh311
>"@Pgh311 I hope someone is keeping an eye on the underside of the Forbes Avenue bridge over Frick Park? One of the big "X" beams is rusted through entirely (and, yes, I see the cables, so it's probably not a crisis)." -Dr. G Kochanski @gpk320
>"Service Request #307260 has been created. https://qalert.me/GRea13511a408a4282815637644fd5a13a" -Pittsburgh 311 Response Center @Pgh311
I just went over to the Penn DOT website to see how many other bridges around the state are in "poor" condition. Answer: 4,157. :-O. There's even more local bridges in "poor" condition than in "good" condition.
Screens of the report (server is slow):
https://ibb.co/YjZDSWr
https://ibb.co/zFCtmCp
Tool links:
https://gis.penndot.gov/paprojects/BridgeConditionsMap.aspx#
https://gis.penndot.gov/paprojects/Reports/BridgeConditionsR...
Screens of the report (server is slow):
https://ibb.co/YjZDSWr
https://ibb.co/zFCtmCp
Tool links:
https://gis.penndot.gov/paprojects/BridgeConditionsMap.aspx#
https://gis.penndot.gov/paprojects/Reports/BridgeConditionsR...
I just want to throw this out as a counterpoint to the "our infrastructure is crumbling" narrative: https://www.slowboring.com/p/roads-and-bridges (look specifically at the bridge part)
Which isn't to say there aren't targeted places we should improve, but I think these discussions often boil down to "everything is awful and unmaintained" which isn't true.
Which isn't to say there aren't targeted places we should improve, but I think these discussions often boil down to "everything is awful and unmaintained" which isn't true.
All infrastructure is always crumbling. Nothing ever gets better with age, from the second a project is done it starts “crumbling”.
Not exactly true. Concrete gets stronger as it cures. It can take months or years to cure (or decades for the Hoover dam). So technically it gets better with some aging.
"these discussions often boil down to "everything is awful and unmaintained" which isn't true."
Have you been to western PA? (Half serious)
Have you been to western PA? (Half serious)
I think the big deal here is the difference between local and national levels. The levels of gun from in the United States are high. The levels of gun crime in Detroit are catastrophic.
Overall the level of infrastructure across the nation is ok. In some areas the level of infrastructure is catastrophic and local funding probably won't improve it any time soon.
A bridge collapsing is a big deal especially in urban areas. I can only wonder at the luck that seems to have avoided mass casualties in this case.
Overall the level of infrastructure across the nation is ok. In some areas the level of infrastructure is catastrophic and local funding probably won't improve it any time soon.
A bridge collapsing is a big deal especially in urban areas. I can only wonder at the luck that seems to have avoided mass casualties in this case.
This surprises me. My only experience with Pennsylvania was making the mistake of not unchecking "Avoid Tolls" when driving across the state. I got a bill for over $80 for taking the turnpike. That's one way on a single day in a normal passenger vehicle without a trailer. I thought I had been busted by a speed camera or something, because an amount like that is closer to a fine than any toll I've ever paid. I would've thought they used that money for infrastructure.
It's not just PA, unfortunately. It's every state. I don't even need to look up the numbers in my own state (MA) because I've been paying enough attention to know already that "far too many" will be the answer. We've been neglecting this kind of infrastructure for far too long, because there's not enough political capital in making it a priority. Nobody cares until after the disasters happen. Just like computer security, I guess.
MA at least is willing to improve things. I think the best example is the upcoming Allston throat I-90 viaduct replacement.
Today, the interstate is elevated above another minor highway, in a narrow strip of land between Boston University and the Charles River, which also includes a bike path and pedestrian walkway AND a major rail artery. The viaduct is in need of replacement, and viaducts are way, way more expensive to maintain than at-grade highways. The new plan is pretty impressive: thanks in part to Boston University giving up some land, the planners found a way to squeeze everything onto the ground level, with the two highways, the railroad, and the pedestrian area all side-by-side. It’s kind of a mess to have so much going on in the throat, but it checks all the boxes, and is a more future-proof solution than building yet another viaduct that won’t last.
That project is gonna SUCK for commuters and cost a fortune, but the end state will be a better, safer, easier-to-maintain critical piece of infrastructure that supports cars, buses, rail, bikers, and pedestrians.
Today, the interstate is elevated above another minor highway, in a narrow strip of land between Boston University and the Charles River, which also includes a bike path and pedestrian walkway AND a major rail artery. The viaduct is in need of replacement, and viaducts are way, way more expensive to maintain than at-grade highways. The new plan is pretty impressive: thanks in part to Boston University giving up some land, the planners found a way to squeeze everything onto the ground level, with the two highways, the railroad, and the pedestrian area all side-by-side. It’s kind of a mess to have so much going on in the throat, but it checks all the boxes, and is a more future-proof solution than building yet another viaduct that won’t last.
That project is gonna SUCK for commuters and cost a fortune, but the end state will be a better, safer, easier-to-maintain critical piece of infrastructure that supports cars, buses, rail, bikers, and pedestrians.
Ah, but you should, as MA has increased infrastructure spending (at least in this area) and started to see results for it.
MA bridge condition improved over the past decade fairly significantly, about $3bn was spent on the Accelerated Bridge Program that was authorized in 2008 and concluded around ~2017. You can look at the more details and the results here: https://www.mass.gov/service-details/accelerated-bridge-prog...
Last year's transportation bill (which passed) cues up various additional infrastructure investment, including another $1.25bn for state bridge work (+$70m for small local bridges), and is projected to reduce the % of bridges in poor condition further over the next couple of years.
There are some nice slides here about where things are projected to go over the next few years thanks to that (11 + 14 in particular). Generally speaking, you can expect to see continued improvement in roadway infrastructure in the state. https://files.engineers.org/file/ACECMA-2021-Highway.pdf
And that was all before the federal infrastructure bill.
---------
I am less familiar with PA, but AFAIK they hiked their gas tax significantly to raise infrastructure spending a few years back. Whether it was enough or not I don't know. However, as MA illustrates, it takes a while of making sustained investments to start to see noticeable results and dig yourself out of long-term infrastructure investment deficits.
MA bridge condition improved over the past decade fairly significantly, about $3bn was spent on the Accelerated Bridge Program that was authorized in 2008 and concluded around ~2017. You can look at the more details and the results here: https://www.mass.gov/service-details/accelerated-bridge-prog...
Last year's transportation bill (which passed) cues up various additional infrastructure investment, including another $1.25bn for state bridge work (+$70m for small local bridges), and is projected to reduce the % of bridges in poor condition further over the next couple of years.
There are some nice slides here about where things are projected to go over the next few years thanks to that (11 + 14 in particular). Generally speaking, you can expect to see continued improvement in roadway infrastructure in the state. https://files.engineers.org/file/ACECMA-2021-Highway.pdf
And that was all before the federal infrastructure bill.
---------
I am less familiar with PA, but AFAIK they hiked their gas tax significantly to raise infrastructure spending a few years back. Whether it was enough or not I don't know. However, as MA illustrates, it takes a while of making sustained investments to start to see noticeable results and dig yourself out of long-term infrastructure investment deficits.
MA's problem is they spent all their money for 30yr on the big dig leaving nothing left for anything beyond the most minimal maintenance of every other piece of infrastructure. Basically everything got rode hard and put away wet for 30yr. That'll come back to bite them but the people responsible will be comfortably retired by then.
This is the type of stuff that concerns me heavily. As I drive across bridges or walk across them, I'm always wondering about who checks up on them. I always try to convince myself that someone is and that there's followups to things. I think when I was younger, I always assumed that someone was taking care of things, and then as I get older, I found out no one really is.
I wonder if there's a tipping point for American infrastructure and institutions, just like there will be with climate change. There's only so much you can push growth, tax breaks for the wealthy, corruption, etc. and not see eventual repercussions.
I wonder if there's a tipping point for American infrastructure and institutions, just like there will be with climate change. There's only so much you can push growth, tax breaks for the wealthy, corruption, etc. and not see eventual repercussions.
It turns out that sometimes no one is checking.
https://apnews.com/article/business-lifestyle-681c35ee3afdd4...
https://apnews.com/article/business-lifestyle-681c35ee3afdd4...
As a former resident of the Pittsburgh region, it's not surprising. It seems like the same problem as convincing business owners to invest in backup or disaster recovery solutions. No one who can do anything about it cares until the worst happens, and then it's too late.
I once had the opportunity to visit a department of homeland security fusion center in Philadelphia. They had walls of displays showing surveillance cameras looking at bridges that were actively rusting apart. You would think the better public safety investment would be fewer fusion centers and more bridges that aren't rusting.
I’ve always been weary that we have solely relied on the incredible infrastructure investments of our ancestors. Time to build some of our own.
And it's not just bridges, it's also homes, schools, roads, and railroads. Basically while the older generations were in charge is was policy from local to federal level to build. It was policy to build plenty of homes, plenty of roads, airports, universities, even new cities. Then as soon as the Boomers ascended to political power, everything flipped: we suddenly ceased to build anything, and the only goal of government policy became to enrich the people who had already enormously benefitted from their parents' investments, while impoverishing the next generation. Taxes were cut. Budgets were cut.
Unfortunately the only way out of this mess is to extract wealth from those same Boomers, but as long as their stranglehold on political power remains - and let's face it, they are not even done ascending into power, considering that people like Feinstein, Biden, and Pelosi are even older than them - it won't happen. The nation will continue to fall to pieces.
Unfortunately the only way out of this mess is to extract wealth from those same Boomers, but as long as their stranglehold on political power remains - and let's face it, they are not even done ascending into power, considering that people like Feinstein, Biden, and Pelosi are even older than them - it won't happen. The nation will continue to fall to pieces.
Unfortunately, the downside of the steel boom is that nothing about the ability to create all of that infrastructure implied anyone put investment into maintaining that infrastructure.
I don’t understand why maintaining local infrastructure should be a responsibility of the federal government. I certainly don’t want my bridges to depend on Congress’s ability to cooperate.
So weird to me these sort of statements. It doesn't need to have a 100% success rate, but if you don't even aim at having your democratic institutions cooperate, then what are they for exactly?
And what do you propose as an alternative? private sector? As if they are not known for cutting every possible dollar they can on anything they do. At the expense of lives if they can get away with it.
The alternative is to have state and local governments allocate funding for infrastructure maintenance. There's no need for the federal government to get involved; that just creates an extra layer of bureaucracy and waste. Congress should only be funding major projects with a significant impact on interstate commerce.
If we could get billionaires – who can apparently afford their own hobby space agencies – to pay their taxes, we wouldn't need to catastrophize every little perceived "waste".
This feels like argument by meme, and a very tired meme at that. FWIW, I probably agree with you that it would be nice to have a steeper effective tax rate curve, I just find this kind of rhetoric to be very dull.
That's fair. I feel the same way about your moribund federal waste meme.
I didn't reference federal waste. Can you link me to the comment that you're interpreting as "my federal waste meme"?
I'm confused by your confusion. :)
> If you don't even aim at having your democratic institutions cooperate, then what are they for exactly.
I think they can cooperate, but I don't see why that means everything needs to be pushed to the federal level? It seems pretty reasonable that local infrastructure should be managed by local governments, state infrastructure by state governments, and federal infrastructure by federal governments.
That said, I'm particularly confused by why you think that the purpose of democratic institutions is "cooperation" rather than something like "maintaining the rights and upholding interests of the public". Cooperation is just a means to that end.
> If you don't even aim at having your democratic institutions cooperate, then what are they for exactly.
I think they can cooperate, but I don't see why that means everything needs to be pushed to the federal level? It seems pretty reasonable that local infrastructure should be managed by local governments, state infrastructure by state governments, and federal infrastructure by federal governments.
That said, I'm particularly confused by why you think that the purpose of democratic institutions is "cooperation" rather than something like "maintaining the rights and upholding interests of the public". Cooperation is just a means to that end.
Oh, I see. You meant "federal" government, I get it now (European here).
Hmm that's a tough question. I am not sure I trust most local municipalities to fund infrastructure properly. I would much rather have the Feds capabilities and funding.
How do you land on trusting the municipality?
How do you land on trusting the municipality?
If infrastructure is federally maintained and a bridge in Pittsburgh collapses, voters in Alaska, California, or Texas aren't really going to care. Or at least not care enough to push their congresscritter to actually do something about it.
If Pittsburgh pays for its own infrastructure (or potentially if it's done at the state level) then voters are far more likely to care and to hold their elected representatives to task.
A separate reason is that a sizeable chunk of people want their tax money to mostly go towards supporting their own city/county/state. They don't want tax money from taxpayers in Mobile, Alabama funding bridges in Vancouver, Washington or vice versa.
Edit: Also if they were federally managed that would likely mean the feds giving that money for the states to manage, and that always comes with strings attached. See, for example, highway funding to states being dependent on raising the minimum drinking age to 21
If Pittsburgh pays for its own infrastructure (or potentially if it's done at the state level) then voters are far more likely to care and to hold their elected representatives to task.
A separate reason is that a sizeable chunk of people want their tax money to mostly go towards supporting their own city/county/state. They don't want tax money from taxpayers in Mobile, Alabama funding bridges in Vancouver, Washington or vice versa.
Edit: Also if they were federally managed that would likely mean the feds giving that money for the states to manage, and that always comes with strings attached. See, for example, highway funding to states being dependent on raising the minimum drinking age to 21
If infrastructure was all locally funded, wouldn't there be even worse disparities between rich and poor states? From the federal government's point of view, you'd want to invest in weaker areas and bring them up to the same level as the rest of the country.
> From the federal government's point of view, you'd want to invest in weaker areas and bring them up to the same level as the rest of the country
Building bridges to nowhere in Alaska or fancy bridges/tunnels in places with zero population density is extremely unlikely to make these areas a net contribution to the federal budget over the long term - just the opposite.
Arguably extremely rural areas are already oversubsidised and will be never self-sustaining in terms of infrastructure, in terms of just meeting the cost of maintaning roads, power, water, mail delivery infrastructure...
Building bridges to nowhere in Alaska or fancy bridges/tunnels in places with zero population density is extremely unlikely to make these areas a net contribution to the federal budget over the long term - just the opposite.
Arguably extremely rural areas are already oversubsidised and will be never self-sustaining in terms of infrastructure, in terms of just meeting the cost of maintaning roads, power, water, mail delivery infrastructure...
What makes you think the federal government is going to care more? My impression is that the higher up in government you go, the stronger the hold of special interests (special interests work for the rich, not the poor).
These seem like arguments to eliminate the federal government entirely. If the citizens don't want it and don't care about people in other states, then we aren't really a union. Meanwhile, the voter in Alaska has a huge portion of their infrastructure funded by tax payers in other states.
> Also if they were federally managed that would likely mean the feds giving that money for the states to manage
It is done that way today because no state collects enough gas tax to actually fund their own roads and bridges. All money comes with strings attached, it's one of the characteristics of money.
> Also if they were federally managed that would likely mean the feds giving that money for the states to manage
It is done that way today because no state collects enough gas tax to actually fund their own roads and bridges. All money comes with strings attached, it's one of the characteristics of money.
> then we aren't really a union
A republic union in military protection and legal/political bridges/agreements.
If the fed is in charge of everything, then there is no union, just a large federal state. This is what we're becoming as everyone places their hope in Congress for solutions.
Like most large countries with a single rule instead of unified states, we're going to regret this more as time goes on. (Excluding countries smaller in population than a single US state)
A republic union in military protection and legal/political bridges/agreements.
If the fed is in charge of everything, then there is no union, just a large federal state. This is what we're becoming as everyone places their hope in Congress for solutions.
Like most large countries with a single rule instead of unified states, we're going to regret this more as time goes on. (Excluding countries smaller in population than a single US state)
The Feds do things besides move our money around different States to inefficiently spend on local infrastructure.
If you want to go all in on the eliminating the Federal government, you’d have to also go after the Military, Federal Courts and the Department of State.
If you want to go all in on the eliminating the Federal government, you’d have to also go after the Military, Federal Courts and the Department of State.
If you don't trust local municipalities to fund it properly why would you trust the federal government to do so. The federal goverment is just as politically motivated as a local government and even further removed from the problems than your local municipality.
I think the idea is the Feds are fundamentally more capable at big civil engineering. E.g. the Army Corp of Engineers probably knows a lot more about bridges than your city streets department.
Yeah but the city streets department isn't actually going to repair, replace the bridge. They'll hire an accredited engineering firm who will in fact be at least as competent as the Army Corp of Engineers to build it. Heck the inspections are even hired out for small municipilities. They don't keep on someone on staff to inspect the 5 bridges in typical small rural town rural America.
Or that local private company that won the RFP through a corrupted process because they are friends with the local small town politicians who will cut corners on safety and maintenance while over billing the community.
Thankfully special interests are exclusively a local government problem. Imagine if we had this kind of corruption at the federal level!
I think the military stands alone as a semi-competent federal entity, and I don't think anyone is thinking "let's have the military do it" when they're talking about putting infrastructure under federal jurisdiction. Asking ACoE to manage our national infrastructure is like asking the VA to manage our country's healthcare. These things aren't well-aligned with the missions of these organizations.
The big problem with ACOE is that they'll show up and do shit right for the technical definition of right instead of the political one and the local moneyed interests don't like getting steamrolled like that.
Gee, wish they’d done that in New Orleans with the levee piers before Katrina
Plus there are opportunity costs. You can't fund infinite bridges.
Perhaps you built too many bridges and some of them don't service enough people to warrant replacement or repair. If you're getting free federal dollars, people don't tend to ask about it. High power people might divert funds to their preferred projects. Or maybe the spending is just outright careless.
By keeping the money local, you tie it to local spending and local opportunity cost. There's more oversight, more deliberation, and more care as to how the money is disbursed. They become political talking points, and there's accountability.
Not that there isn't a time and place for federally funded projects, but small town bridges probably aren't it.
Perhaps you built too many bridges and some of them don't service enough people to warrant replacement or repair. If you're getting free federal dollars, people don't tend to ask about it. High power people might divert funds to their preferred projects. Or maybe the spending is just outright careless.
By keeping the money local, you tie it to local spending and local opportunity cost. There's more oversight, more deliberation, and more care as to how the money is disbursed. They become political talking points, and there's accountability.
Not that there isn't a time and place for federally funded projects, but small town bridges probably aren't it.
If you find your local municipality corrupt, you can appeal higher, or move, or run for office. They answer directly to the local voters.
Congress as a whole? Not so much.
Congress as a whole? Not so much.
For the last two decades local and state governments have been getting things done in the absence of a functional federal government. Obviously this isn't uniformly distributed--some state and local governments probably do suck--but on balance state and local governments are outperforming the federal government so it stands to reason that far more bridges will be maintained if it's the responsibility of state and local governments.
The work is all done by private contractors, so there's probably not a material difference in capabilities (just funding, which could be routed differently).
Ultimately, the economics of every one of the states depends on the federal government. The government creates dollars in locations like vector field sources, and creates sinks by way of taxes, thereby setting up flow, motivating activity. For the federal government, the vector field is non-conservative.
States, however, don't have a money printer. Every dollar they spend, they do have to tax or borrow.
Some questions arise in my head: If local infrastructure isn't being maintained, is it because it's not worth maintaining? How would we measure that? Does the stochastic nature of the problem make it intractable for local/state governments?
For example, if I have 4200 bridges that are in need of repair in such a way as I can expect two to fail this year, and I am unable to predict which two, does preventing two collapses necessitate addressing all 4200? Is that scale entirely too large for my local government? If it is, is that because those 4200 bridges serve too few people? If not, is that situation unprecedented (can the local government adapt to address a problem that it hasn't had to before)? What if the local government is unhealthy (ideologically opposed to service, disenfranchised citizens, perhaps a southern state)?
States, however, don't have a money printer. Every dollar they spend, they do have to tax or borrow.
Some questions arise in my head: If local infrastructure isn't being maintained, is it because it's not worth maintaining? How would we measure that? Does the stochastic nature of the problem make it intractable for local/state governments?
For example, if I have 4200 bridges that are in need of repair in such a way as I can expect two to fail this year, and I am unable to predict which two, does preventing two collapses necessitate addressing all 4200? Is that scale entirely too large for my local government? If it is, is that because those 4200 bridges serve too few people? If not, is that situation unprecedented (can the local government adapt to address a problem that it hasn't had to before)? What if the local government is unhealthy (ideologically opposed to service, disenfranchised citizens, perhaps a southern state)?
I guess I figured "yes, you do all inspections and maintenance on all bridges all the time and pay for it with taxes". If taxes go up, so be it.
> What if the local government is unhealthy (ideologically opposed to service, disenfranchised citizens, perhaps a southern state)?
Yeah, that's a general argument against giving any government any kind of responsibility (for any issue, how do you know that the government in question will be healthy enough to manage the responsibility?). But I think we can agree that some government should do this, and given the choice between state and local governments which might be dysfunctional (but which have collectively outperformed the federal government for the last two decades) and the federal government which we know to be completely dysfunctional, I would pick the former.
> What if the local government is unhealthy (ideologically opposed to service, disenfranchised citizens, perhaps a southern state)?
Yeah, that's a general argument against giving any government any kind of responsibility (for any issue, how do you know that the government in question will be healthy enough to manage the responsibility?). But I think we can agree that some government should do this, and given the choice between state and local governments which might be dysfunctional (but which have collectively outperformed the federal government for the last two decades) and the federal government which we know to be completely dysfunctional, I would pick the former.
Article says this bridge was built in 1970 so not that ancient.
Yeah, lets build a bunch more and stick our descendants with the maintenance cost!
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [1] provides many more photos and in-depth reporting.
[1] https://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2022/01/28/pittsburg...
[1] https://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2022/01/28/pittsburg...
The condition of the bridge was rated "Poor" in 2017. To understand what "Poor" can mean, here's a photo taken from underneath the bridge in 2018:
https://twitter.com/gpk320/status/1078885655634157569
https://twitter.com/gpk320/status/1078885655634157569
Wow, I wonder if the "Service Request" that came out of that tweet being marked Closed meant they ever fixed that: https://pittsburghpa.qscend.com/311/request/view/?id=ea13511...
My guess is no.
My guess is no.
I live in Pittsburgh and it is fairly common for 311 requests to be marked Closed without any resolution or follow up communication.
Since we're talking decaying infrastructure and Pennsylvania, it seems a good time to remind people that US dams need work, too.
A collapsed bridge is nothing compared to a failed dam like the Austin Dam failure, which is worth a visit if you're ever in the area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Dam_failure_(Pennsylvan...
A collapsed bridge is nothing compared to a failed dam like the Austin Dam failure, which is worth a visit if you're ever in the area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Dam_failure_(Pennsylvan...
The Johnstown Flood (also caused by a failing dam) also happened nearby.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood
Great place to explore and it's run by an awesome group of people!
Curious on liability here. If a bridge collapses is the municipality liable for repairs to your car / medical?
Do you assume this risk when you drive that infrastructure failure is your liability?
Do you assume this risk when you drive that infrastructure failure is your liability?
Interesting question. I would think the courts would come into play. I assume failure to maintain or close the bridge when they knew of the poor rating would constitute negligence on the part of the city. I think we would have to know what the weights of the other vehicles are to see if the weight limit was exceeded.
Even if it was just failure and they didn’t know, I feel like the city needs to have insurance for these things no?
Would seem insane for the city to just put it on the individual using it.
Would seem insane for the city to just put it on the individual using it.
Somewhat ironically, President Biden is scheduled to be about 3-4 miles away this afternoon to discuss the infrastructure plan focused on repairing America's infrastructure. With over 400+ bridges in the City of Pittsburgh, it feels like it's only a matter of time.
This particular bridge is known as the Fern Hollow Bridge, I've driven over it probably hundreds of times and walked under it hundreds more. It always felt... temporary.
Here's Google Street view of underneath the bridge: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4394129,-79.9003702,3a,75y,2...
Here's the bracing underneath the Fern Hollow Bridge: https://bridgehunter.com/photos/40/56/405643-M.jpg And here's another similar bridge in a nearby Schenley Park: http://pghbridges.com/pittsburghE/0589-4477/schenley0695.jpg
This particular bridge is known as the Fern Hollow Bridge, I've driven over it probably hundreds of times and walked under it hundreds more. It always felt... temporary.
Here's Google Street view of underneath the bridge: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4394129,-79.9003702,3a,75y,2...
Here's the bracing underneath the Fern Hollow Bridge: https://bridgehunter.com/photos/40/56/405643-M.jpg And here's another similar bridge in a nearby Schenley Park: http://pghbridges.com/pittsburghE/0589-4477/schenley0695.jpg
Wow what is even holding that up (well of course nothing anymore)? Its purely planer apart from those stilts, did the bridge just give out or did the stilts lose a footing?
Check out this 2018 photo of the footing... spooky! https://twitter.com/gpk320/status/1078885655634157569?s=21
That leads to a closed incident report whose only history is its creation. You'd think the history of a closed incident might have more detail.
Bridge collapse are so jarring especially when the post-mortems are like "ya we just didn't fix it while it was falling apart and now its fallen down". How often does it come down to rusty parts? I guess this is sort of a new era of learning for our generation of Engineers. "This is what a bridge looks like thats about to fall"
Bridge collapse are so jarring especially when the post-mortems are like "ya we just didn't fix it while it was falling apart and now its fallen down". How often does it come down to rusty parts? I guess this is sort of a new era of learning for our generation of Engineers. "This is what a bridge looks like thats about to fall"
Your last example has its own Wikipedia page -- it was built in 1897 (!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenley_Bridge (*not* the collapsed bridge)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenley_Bridge (*not* the collapsed bridge)
Wonder if the original route of his motorcade would have crossed this bridge?
No. This was released yesterday: https://pittsburghpa.gov/press-releases/press-releases/5590
Additionally, it appears a route from Allegheny County Airport to Mill 19 would not have crossed the bridge in Frick Park.
https://goo.gl/maps/9UF4kL1bxNvAFjx96
https://goo.gl/maps/9UF4kL1bxNvAFjx96
NYTimes story had a telling quote: [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/28/us/pittsburgh-bridge-coll...]
" Greg Kochanski, a software engineer, was walking his dog under the bridge about three years ago when he noticed that one of the X beams that stabilized the bridge was so rusted that it had disconnected from the column to which it had been attached.
"He reported this to the city in a tweet and, several weeks later, he said, noticed that the rusted beam had been removed."
" Greg Kochanski, a software engineer, was walking his dog under the bridge about three years ago when he noticed that one of the X beams that stabilized the bridge was so rusted that it had disconnected from the column to which it had been attached.
"He reported this to the city in a tweet and, several weeks later, he said, noticed that the rusted beam had been removed."
Only a tiny exaggeration by the submitter there! Makes it sound like a bridge over the Monongahela collapsed, which it didn't.
Most of those photos don't do it justice, they make it look like a few meters of concrete block over a stream.
This is the only one that shows the scale: https://assets-varnish.triblive.com/2022/01/4691113_web1_ptr...
This is the only one that shows the scale: https://assets-varnish.triblive.com/2022/01/4691113_web1_ptr...
This one is another great shot for scale:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FKMeYsZXEAYzpan?format=jpg&name=...
[from: https://twitter.com/shadow/status/1487065719028207627/photo/...]
[from: https://twitter.com/shadow/status/1487065719028207627/photo/...]
It is a "major" bridge. I've driven over it more than a thousand times, given that it was on my commute route for several years of my career. Had this collapsed at rush hour, 5pm, two of four lanes would have been filled with cars backed up waiting in traffic.
The best photo I can find of it to see the scale:
https://twitter.com/shadow/status/1487051654121807875/photo/...
It is the bridge on the bottom.
The best photo I can find of it to see the scale:
https://twitter.com/shadow/status/1487051654121807875/photo/...
It is the bridge on the bottom.
This image from Streetview, taken about halfway across the bridge, shows the scale well, I think: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.439515,-79.9004771,3a,75y,99...
It's major for impact. This bridge carries a significant thoroughfare between two of the neighborhoods on the edge of town. It's a primary avenue for several bus routes.
Traffic is going to be an absolute nightmare until they restore it.
Traffic is going to be an absolute nightmare until they restore it.
2025
Properly maintained bridges of any size shouldn’t randomly collapse. It’s always major.
Maybe it's the weird capitalization, or that I'm not a native English speaker, but "Major Bridge Collapses" to me sounds like the title of something. Aka a list of collapses, a book, long article about some history or whatever. Not something happening right now. So to me the title was underwhelming, not an exaggeration, because of that misunderstanding.
Since the phrase is an article title it follows the capitalization rules. It does get confusing with proper nouns sometimes, so there is a slight ambiguity. In this case it's probably also confusing that the ending of collapse is the same for plural and different tenses.
It is very major. There are only 3 roads that cross this (nearly 3 mile) ravine that cuts off a huge portion of the city's population: a local 2-lane neighborhood road, Forbes (this bridge), and the limited access interstate.
Maybe not major for Pittsburgh, land of bridges, but sure would be major elsewhere. The thing is huge!
Looks pretty big to me. Granted, it's not the Mississippi but as long as an articulated bus is involved with lots more "bridge" that felt I'd say is pretty big.
It only goes over a little creek. Not even a river.
A 150+ ft deep ravine, according to the article:
> Jones estimated that rescue crews had to rappel 100 to 150 feet down the ravine to rescue motorists.
> Jones estimated that rescue crews had to rappel 100 to 150 feet down the ravine to rescue motorists.
It’s probably a 50-60 ft ravine and the bridge was probably 200ft long (these are guesstimates from just being around it).
Edit: I just checked - it was 447 feet. Height is probably right, but I might be under by a bit.
Edit: I just checked - it was 447 feet. Height is probably right, but I might be under by a bit.
I used to live two blocks from this bridge. At evening rush hour it’s bumper to bumper traffic
Not as bad as like the fort Pitt bridge collapsing or something, but still a big deal
Not as bad as like the fort Pitt bridge collapsing or something, but still a big deal
I also think the bridge is pretty high up, I'd say around 40-50 feet high.
Thankfully below it was a nature trail. Could have been worse if it was one of the bridges over the rivers or highways.
Thankfully below it was a nature trail. Could have been worse if it was one of the bridges over the rivers or highways.
Thankfully there didn't seem to be anyone on the trail! That is a heavily trafficked trail during the day, and there is a dog park in the shadow of the bridge. I use that trail all the time to access the mountain bike trails that Frick Park has.
Seriously! I imagine if this was the summer some would be out.
I believe my family and I drove over this bridge, when we were in Pittsburgh 4 years ago.
I hate to say this, but the condition of bridges like this is one of the major reasons that Pennsylvania currently has one of the highest gas taxes in the country.
And whatever PennDOT is spending the tax money on, this bridge-- in one of the two largest cities in our state-- collapsed anyway.
I hate to say this, but the condition of bridges like this is one of the major reasons that Pennsylvania currently has one of the highest gas taxes in the country.
And whatever PennDOT is spending the tax money on, this bridge-- in one of the two largest cities in our state-- collapsed anyway.
Come on, we know they spent it on the perpetual projects on the PA Turnpike. Not sure about the eastern half of the state, but Philly probably gets more money than Pittsburgh. At least the fixed the Greenfield Bridge[1].
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenfield_Bridge
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenfield_Bridge
The Turnpike funds itself, and is required to give the state hundreds of millions to fund other projects.
A bridge in Kenmore (near Seattle) collapsed two years ago. They've been rebuilding it constantly for 2 years now.
For perspective, the first transcontinental railroad was built by hand in 6 years, for 1900 miles, including a large number of bridges.
For perspective, the first transcontinental railroad was built by hand in 6 years, for 1900 miles, including a large number of bridges.
For further perspective, over a thousand individuals died during the construction of the transcontinental railroad. OSHA might have reduced the death count, but that comes at the expense of efficiency. Compound the endless other regulations implemented since that time, and it's surprising that anything gets built at all anymore.
20,000 people died on the Oregon Trail, it's predecessor.
The thousand deaths is a claim that has never been verified. https://www.iccsafe.org/building-safety-journal/bsj-dives/th...
I couldn't find a reference to how many people worked on the railroad, other than 20,000 Chinese. I suppose it was likely on the order of 50,000 people. When you have 50,000 people for 6 years, some of them are going to die no matter what. Disease was common and untreatable, and medical care was poor, too, in those days.
In other words, without context, saying 1000 people died is meaningless.
The thousand deaths is a claim that has never been verified. https://www.iccsafe.org/building-safety-journal/bsj-dives/th...
I couldn't find a reference to how many people worked on the railroad, other than 20,000 Chinese. I suppose it was likely on the order of 50,000 people. When you have 50,000 people for 6 years, some of them are going to die no matter what. Disease was common and untreatable, and medical care was poor, too, in those days.
In other words, without context, saying 1000 people died is meaningless.
The context was that one single new bridge that has taken a full one-third of the time that it took to build a railroad across the majority of this country. Given the standards put forth by OSHA, I strongly suspect that construction of that new bridge has not been the proximate cause of even one death.
[deleted]
Unbelievable photo of the decrepit state three years ago: https://twitter.com/gpk320/status/1078885655634157569
I've been across this bridge probably a hundred or so times since childhood... scary stuff. Our geography is pretty prohibitive to population increase for a larger tax base to support the infrastructure. Lots of plateaus and rivers are the reason for the large number of bridges and tunnels. Even as a local, Pittsburgh is really difficult to get around. The T doesn't go to many places around the city. Buses have the same problems as cars. The inclines stopped being useful. Have fun getting hit by a car while cycling (you'll have the strongest calves to make up for it). The roads are hard to navigate and there isn't enough space for the innovative roundabout. There are some benefits from the geography like culturally distinct neighborhoods but the infrastructure issue really needs addressed. Fortunately, we have our best civil engineers working on the problem [0]
[0] https://www.theonion.com/urban-planner-stuck-in-traffic-of-o...
[0] https://www.theonion.com/urban-planner-stuck-in-traffic-of-o...
This hits close to home… I’ve run under and over that bridge many, many times. I really hope no one was on their morning run under it, but it looks like everyone who was on it got away with minor injuries.
It is a main artery for connecting two neighborhoods… there are many bridges like this all over Pittsburgh, but it’s not the “big” ones over one of the three rivers.
Odd timing, but Biden is also in town today. Talk about crumbling critical infrastructure…
It is a main artery for connecting two neighborhoods… there are many bridges like this all over Pittsburgh, but it’s not the “big” ones over one of the three rivers.
Odd timing, but Biden is also in town today. Talk about crumbling critical infrastructure…
there are many bridges like this all over Pittsburgh
This is the really scary part. Given PGH's geography, it is nearly impossible to travel through the city in an efficient way without crossing a bridge.
Also, let's not forget the sinkhole incident[0].
[0] https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2019/10/28/port-authority-bu...
This is the really scary part. Given PGH's geography, it is nearly impossible to travel through the city in an efficient way without crossing a bridge.
Also, let's not forget the sinkhole incident[0].
[0] https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2019/10/28/port-authority-bu...
I worked as a project manager doing construction contracts for federal and state governments at one point for nearly a decade.
My take is that more tax money might not necessarily get better results. At least not at a cost in proportion to value realized.
It would also take capable leaders at multiple levels extremely focused on end results rather then various forms of grift, and those would be fought every step of the way by numerous and very clever trough feeders.
I don't know the answer but certainly we can do a little better with what we have and eventually we will have to. Or do without. There is no free money in the end.
My take is that more tax money might not necessarily get better results. At least not at a cost in proportion to value realized.
It would also take capable leaders at multiple levels extremely focused on end results rather then various forms of grift, and those would be fought every step of the way by numerous and very clever trough feeders.
I don't know the answer but certainly we can do a little better with what we have and eventually we will have to. Or do without. There is no free money in the end.
It blows my mind that the richest country in the world can't afford better infrastructure. I know that's not how economies and capitalism works, but it really shouldn't be like that.
I think you're missing a key point here: this bridge is maintained by PennDOT. That's not federal, that's state. PennDOT's own report, according the article, showed that the bridge was in poor condition. It's a failure on PennDOT, a local bureaucracy, not the entirety of the "richest country in the world."
In the U.S., different pieces of infrastructure is delegated to different authorities. It's up to those authorities to maintain those pieces. They choose how to spend and where to spend. Now, the argument could be made that funding is an issue, and in some states it is. Hence the latest bill to fund more infrastructure repair. But it's not such an issue in many places in the country. Anecdotally, growing up in a Northern state, we would always complain about how much better the roads in our neighboring state to the South were. And they actually were, because the folks who ran Ohio's DOT straight up managed it better.
I now live in the South, and I'm very pleased with how the State and Counties here manage and maintain roads, bridges, and rail line crossings.
In the U.S., different pieces of infrastructure is delegated to different authorities. It's up to those authorities to maintain those pieces. They choose how to spend and where to spend. Now, the argument could be made that funding is an issue, and in some states it is. Hence the latest bill to fund more infrastructure repair. But it's not such an issue in many places in the country. Anecdotally, growing up in a Northern state, we would always complain about how much better the roads in our neighboring state to the South were. And they actually were, because the folks who ran Ohio's DOT straight up managed it better.
I now live in the South, and I'm very pleased with how the State and Counties here manage and maintain roads, bridges, and rail line crossings.
The failure of the richest country is a lack of methods to capture that wealth and funnel it to where it's needed.
Google has offices in Pittsburgh. Want to take a guess at what percentage of Google's tax money went to maintaining a bridge its employees drive on every day?
ETA: the problem in Pittsburgh in particular is compounded by the nature of the major employers in the city.
Often, taxes for things like bridges in town would be paid by real estate taxes. But four of the largest employers in Pittsburgh are UPMC, Highmark / Allegheny Health Network, University of Pittsburgh, and Carnegie Mellon University.
As non-profit institutions, they don't pay taxes on the real estate they use. It is not certain that a city the size of Pittsburgh with so much real estate out of the taxability space is a sustainable model in any sense.
Google has offices in Pittsburgh. Want to take a guess at what percentage of Google's tax money went to maintaining a bridge its employees drive on every day?
ETA: the problem in Pittsburgh in particular is compounded by the nature of the major employers in the city.
Often, taxes for things like bridges in town would be paid by real estate taxes. But four of the largest employers in Pittsburgh are UPMC, Highmark / Allegheny Health Network, University of Pittsburgh, and Carnegie Mellon University.
As non-profit institutions, they don't pay taxes on the real estate they use. It is not certain that a city the size of Pittsburgh with so much real estate out of the taxability space is a sustainable model in any sense.
Speaking of anecdotes, I grew up in Pittsburgh, later lived in Ohio, then Michigan. Ohio roads were pothole city and I always thought Michigan roads were good.
I now live in North Carolina and the roads around here are pretty crap. Shoulders either non-existent or crumbling off from rain erosion. Not many pot holes however since we don't see much freeze/thaw compared to Ohio.
I now live in North Carolina and the roads around here are pretty crap. Shoulders either non-existent or crumbling off from rain erosion. Not many pot holes however since we don't see much freeze/thaw compared to Ohio.
I don't see how that negates my point, a failure of a State Government is still a failure of the US. India works in a similar way, but when we here news about bad infrastructure or sanitation, nobody blames the State of Maharashtra - we blame the country.
The US doesn't just mean the Federal Government, it means every local and federal authority that runs the country.
The US doesn't just mean the Federal Government, it means every local and federal authority that runs the country.
The roads are better maintained in New York to the north. Same weather conditions. Pennsylvania has a special sort of infrastructure neglect.
The US is the richest country because it has quite a few of the richest individuals. But the enormous amounts of money spent on armaments has reduced the amount of money available for infrastructure maintenance and other necessities.
>> But the enormous amounts of money spent on armaments has reduced the amount of money available for infrastructure maintenance and other necessities.
Which is odd because (I think) part of government spending seems to be redistribution of money, which would be better achieved through maintenance of infrastructure.
Which is odd because (I think) part of government spending seems to be redistribution of money, which would be better achieved through maintenance of infrastructure.
The US is amassing through taxes a smaller percentage compared to other developed nations. The US taxes lightly. Then it's putting a ton of that money (and even more through debt) into the military.
The money available is not a zero-sum game. The US could raise its taxes.
The money available is not a zero-sum game. The US could raise its taxes.
The US is having a hard time making a cultural transition from a boom mindset to a sustaining mindset. We are about one generation out, maybe one and a half, since there was significant value in tooling our manufacturing and development process for territorial conquest. That tooling got a shot in the arm during World War II and a second shot in the arm during the space race that kept it going longer than it would have otherwise, but America is a coast to coast country with no more frontier, and Americans need to learn how to sustain what exists and find value in sustaining what exists rather than rewarding primarily those who create new.
... Or just be comfortable with the idea that we're going to always have shiny things that wear out faster than they should and fail when we're relying on them.
... Or just be comfortable with the idea that we're going to always have shiny things that wear out faster than they should and fail when we're relying on them.
Rise of the maintenance engineering mindset!
(This is my subjective, personal, and probably poorly-educated take)
It feels like the US has shot itself in the foot by demonizing socialism and communism. Not because those ideologies would have fixed this issue, but because so many US residents have translated "socialism is bad" into "all government spending is bad".
In my town, there's a vocal group of older people who rant against using their taxes to pay for schools. Their argument is that they don't use those services, their children are older or nonexistent. They reject the "rising tide lifts all boats" argument, and reject that an educated populace improves their quality of life. They only see the short term bill of property tax. I think that attitude is present in a lot of people, encouraged by the argument against government spending and collective action.
I'm not sure what the end state of this attitude will be. The selfishness that exists in our culture doesn't seem to be slowing, if anything it feels like it is accelerating. I think there's going to be a lot more bridge collapses, people stuck in snow drifts on interstates for 36 hours, a lot more disaster and suffering before anything changes.
(I also don't have any solutions for this. I don't wish for disaster and doom, and human suffering is utterly awful especially in what is supposed to be an enlightened future. But I wonder if things will have to get a lot worse before society changes its course)
It feels like the US has shot itself in the foot by demonizing socialism and communism. Not because those ideologies would have fixed this issue, but because so many US residents have translated "socialism is bad" into "all government spending is bad".
In my town, there's a vocal group of older people who rant against using their taxes to pay for schools. Their argument is that they don't use those services, their children are older or nonexistent. They reject the "rising tide lifts all boats" argument, and reject that an educated populace improves their quality of life. They only see the short term bill of property tax. I think that attitude is present in a lot of people, encouraged by the argument against government spending and collective action.
I'm not sure what the end state of this attitude will be. The selfishness that exists in our culture doesn't seem to be slowing, if anything it feels like it is accelerating. I think there's going to be a lot more bridge collapses, people stuck in snow drifts on interstates for 36 hours, a lot more disaster and suffering before anything changes.
(I also don't have any solutions for this. I don't wish for disaster and doom, and human suffering is utterly awful especially in what is supposed to be an enlightened future. But I wonder if things will have to get a lot worse before society changes its course)
I don't think government spending is necessarily bad, but a lot of it is wastefully spent with little productive to show for it.
People have been talking shovel ready jobs forever. Where are the Trump infrastructure jobs? The Obama "shovel ready" jobs? Think this time will be any different? I don't.
I do agree the whole system breaking (sadly) may be requirement to return to productive and rational behavior. There is entirely too much grift and performative rather then productive behavior at many levels right now and that is very hard to displace once it becomes institutionalized.
People have been talking shovel ready jobs forever. Where are the Trump infrastructure jobs? The Obama "shovel ready" jobs? Think this time will be any different? I don't.
I do agree the whole system breaking (sadly) may be requirement to return to productive and rational behavior. There is entirely too much grift and performative rather then productive behavior at many levels right now and that is very hard to displace once it becomes institutionalized.
There was an article posted on HN about a year ago, which said that most/all urban areas in the US (and I suspect in many other countries) cannot afford to maintain their infrastructure and are just buying time before major problems with water/sewerage/roads etc.
I can honestly imagine that any local authority who might apply for e.g. $50M to build a bridge do not make sure they can either amortize that cost over 50 years to replace it or otherwise add a reasonable amount of yearly expenditure to make repairs as needed. Concrete seems particularly bad since it is very hard to "repair" and the knowledge of how to build it properly only 50 years ago was poor. Lots of major concrete structures have not lasted long.
I can honestly imagine that any local authority who might apply for e.g. $50M to build a bridge do not make sure they can either amortize that cost over 50 years to replace it or otherwise add a reasonable amount of yearly expenditure to make repairs as needed. Concrete seems particularly bad since it is very hard to "repair" and the knowledge of how to build it properly only 50 years ago was poor. Lots of major concrete structures have not lasted long.
If you live in the state, this is not a surprising story. Residents are well aware of huge number of bridges rated as poor or requiring maintenance. Not to mention the terrible condition of many roads. Granted PA is one of the states with the most miles of roads. One would think that one of the highest gas taxes and hundreds of millions in funding from the turnpike would be sufficient...
As a PA resident, I've been hearing one of many reasons for the poor infrastructure is that a fairly big chunk of the road and bridge maintenance budget is being redirected to the State Police: https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/lehigh-county/2019/04/42-bi...
What happens in town after town is that the anti-tax folks decide that there's no need to fund a local police department when the PA State Police is obligated to take over policing. There's currently no mechanism for the state to charge these towns for this service and their state reps fight any effort to put one in place. So year after year the State Police's budget grows out of control and infrastructure funds are an easy way to cover the costs.
What happens in town after town is that the anti-tax folks decide that there's no need to fund a local police department when the PA State Police is obligated to take over policing. There's currently no mechanism for the state to charge these towns for this service and their state reps fight any effort to put one in place. So year after year the State Police's budget grows out of control and infrastructure funds are an easy way to cover the costs.
True, they need to figure out state police funding. I wonder how much they pay out in law suits.
I don't like the per capita fee structure proposed. PSP routinely operate in municipalities that already have police forces. If they want to make it more "fair", they should charge municipalities based on the number and/or type of call, regardless of whether they have a police force.
There seem to be many of these funding oddities in the state. For example, dept ag complains that they can't fund dog wardens, so they want to increase license costs. Yet the law caps the amount of funding they can get from enforcement (I think the rest goes to the general fund). It would make sense to uncap the amount they get from enforcement. They would likely still need to increase license cost. But maybe they would actually do their job. We had a problem with a dog and found out it wasn't even licensed ($300 fine; the other party was the one who wanted to get the law involved, yet they didn't have a license). When I reported it to the dog warden, they laughed and didn't care. That's your job and you laugh. WTF do you actually do?
I don't like the per capita fee structure proposed. PSP routinely operate in municipalities that already have police forces. If they want to make it more "fair", they should charge municipalities based on the number and/or type of call, regardless of whether they have a police force.
There seem to be many of these funding oddities in the state. For example, dept ag complains that they can't fund dog wardens, so they want to increase license costs. Yet the law caps the amount of funding they can get from enforcement (I think the rest goes to the general fund). It would make sense to uncap the amount they get from enforcement. They would likely still need to increase license cost. But maybe they would actually do their job. We had a problem with a dog and found out it wasn't even licensed ($300 fine; the other party was the one who wanted to get the law involved, yet they didn't have a license). When I reported it to the dog warden, they laughed and didn't care. That's your job and you laugh. WTF do you actually do?
I checked the TxDOT bridge report out of curiosity.
"Out of 55,000 Bridges in Texas, Only 787 (1.4%) are in Poor Condition—much lower than the national average.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/library/reports/gov/bri...
"Out of 55,000 Bridges in Texas, Only 787 (1.4%) are in Poor Condition—much lower than the national average.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/library/reports/gov/bri...
[deleted]
In Montreal, all of the bridges are in terrible condition, in part because they were built by the Mafia but also because of the weather and the road salt. This is probably st least in part responsible for the difference between Pennsylvania and Texas, though the states' finances and management of course also play a role.
List of bridge conditions by state
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/no10/condition21.cfm
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/no10/condition21.cfm
I notice that several people are bringing up Texas bridges in this thread for some reason.
One extremely major difference between bridges located in Pittsburgh and Texas is that Texas does not need to salt its roads. Municipalities that salt their bridges are literally demolishing them with chemicals.
One extremely major difference between bridges located in Pittsburgh and Texas is that Texas does not need to salt its roads. Municipalities that salt their bridges are literally demolishing them with chemicals.
As someone from Pittsburgh now living in Texas this thread is wild indeed.
Infrastructure is not simple, and localities have different challenges. Sure, Texas may have bridges in better conditions, but when the snowstorm hit last year I didn’t go running around saying “Dang the city of Austin has only one snowplow?”
(Okay, actually I did, but only as a “that makes perfect sense, no wonder this snowstorm hit so hard here even though it didn’t seem bad by my standards, we have no infrastructure or general cultural understanding of what to do, it makes sense that this is a terrible storm here even if it wouldn’t have been a big deal back home.”)
Infrastructure is not simple, and localities have different challenges. Sure, Texas may have bridges in better conditions, but when the snowstorm hit last year I didn’t go running around saying “Dang the city of Austin has only one snowplow?”
(Okay, actually I did, but only as a “that makes perfect sense, no wonder this snowstorm hit so hard here even though it didn’t seem bad by my standards, we have no infrastructure or general cultural understanding of what to do, it makes sense that this is a terrible storm here even if it wouldn’t have been a big deal back home.”)
Really, what does the conditions for bridges in the largest state in the continental US, in the South, with one of the highest rates of population grow in the US have to do with a small city in the Northeast that has, in the last 50 years, lost its huge industrial base and halved its population?
Well, other than a very roundabout warning for Texas to continue to invest in their infrastructure even if the oil and refinery money starts to go.
Well, other than a very roundabout warning for Texas to continue to invest in their infrastructure even if the oil and refinery money starts to go.
I was curious to see how each state was doing and Google didn’t disappoint:
https://artbabridgereport.org/state/map
https://artbabridgereport.org/state/map
[deleted]
US is set to collect approx. $3.86 trillion in taxes this year and 18.5% ($715 billion) of it is allocated for military budget and 1.3% ($51 billion) of it will be handed-out as Foreign Aid to other nations while another 8% ($300 billion) will be used to pay interest payments on our national debt. Only 3% ($115 billion) is allocated to modernize the bridges, highways, roads, and main streets that are in most critical need of repair. Maybe the government is the largest/legal ponzi scheme after all.
Edit: I provided a wrong figure earlier for Foreign Aid. As per @whatkim, the correct amount should be approx. 1.3% ($51 billion) for 2021.
You can see a complete categorical breakdown here: https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/spend...
Still, there are a few areas of concern:
1. Income Security > Other Income Security $831 billion
2. Education is 41% of the military budget! $296 billion
Edit: I provided a wrong figure earlier for Foreign Aid. As per @whatkim, the correct amount should be approx. 1.3% ($51 billion) for 2021.
You can see a complete categorical breakdown here: https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/spend...
Still, there are a few areas of concern:
1. Income Security > Other Income Security $831 billion
2. Education is 41% of the military budget! $296 billion
I mean, building all that car-centric infrastructure was always going to be unsustainable in the long run.
It really is sustainable, though. This take has been going around for some time and I think it is pretty wrong headed. (1) we seem to pay more for roads than any other industrialized nation and (2) infrastructure of all kinds, including roads, is criminally underfunded in America, as the parent was pointing out
Sprawl has thinned out development to the point that tax revenues from low-density cities can't support the crumbling infrastructure that has been built for it.
Over the past 50 years, Pittsburgh and other similar cities have tripled their developed areas while the region's population remains flat. That's a lot of additional infrastructure - roads, sewers, power, water and gas lines - to maintain without new revenue to maintain it.
Strong Towns has referred to this as the "growth ponzi scheme" and it's only going to get worse as population growth slows in this country.
https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme
Over the past 50 years, Pittsburgh and other similar cities have tripled their developed areas while the region's population remains flat. That's a lot of additional infrastructure - roads, sewers, power, water and gas lines - to maintain without new revenue to maintain it.
Strong Towns has referred to this as the "growth ponzi scheme" and it's only going to get worse as population growth slows in this country.
https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme
[deleted]
Strongtowns is just wrongheaded too. I have seen several articles debunking this one recently. I don't think it is a growth ponzi scheme for several reasons. It gets referenced here a lot, but it isn't very credible when you dig into their figures and math.
Would you happen to have the rebutting articles? I'd be curious to hear their criticism.
To me it adds up. I live in the a city that's sprawled without growth. I see the lifecycle
1. Used to be a dense city with most houses being doubles, and 3-5 story apartment buildings.
2. Built area has tripled since 1970 into mostly SFH suburbs, but population is the same
3. Outside the very newest suburbs, infrastructure has decayed tremendously. Taxes haven't really increased, the only time sewers or roads ever get repaired is with grants from the feds.
It happened to the city and now it's happening to the post-war suburbs.
To me it adds up. I live in the a city that's sprawled without growth. I see the lifecycle
1. Used to be a dense city with most houses being doubles, and 3-5 story apartment buildings.
2. Built area has tripled since 1970 into mostly SFH suburbs, but population is the same
3. Outside the very newest suburbs, infrastructure has decayed tremendously. Taxes haven't really increased, the only time sewers or roads ever get repaired is with grants from the feds.
It happened to the city and now it's happening to the post-war suburbs.
I've been waiting a decade to read a good rebuttal to this. Please, post it here so I can read it and respond.
It's usually not federal money that pays for this stuff though (at least directly).
The argument is it could or should be. It has in the past.
I must of missed the actual argument because I can't find where it was made other than complaining about a 3% allocation which is explained due to the large state & city budgets for this type of thing.
Then vote in politicians who supports your views
If you ever own a condo, you will realize that an extremely large number of people won’t even vote to fund the infrastructure that supports their bedroom.
Infrastructure is theoretically already popular but most would put it off for a few extra dollars.
Infrastructure is theoretically already popular but most would put it off for a few extra dollars.
> 8% ($300 billion) of it will be handed-out as Foreign Aid to other nations while another
And how much of that $300 billion is actually just serving intelligence goals?
And how much of that $300 billion is actually just serving intelligence goals?
A lot of it is just backdoor appropriations to defense contractors. The aid is expected to be spent on materiel from US companies.
Who cares? The point is that 8% of US taxpayer money goes outside the US. Why shouldn't I be upset about that, or at least question it?
Most U.S. foreign aid is credit to be spent with U.S. defense manufacturers. In other words, "foreign aid" is a way to hand out U.S. hardware to allies or those for whom it's an effective bribe. The best example of this is Egypt, which has enjoyed ~$3B annually in U.S. gear as the payoff for making and keeping peace with Israel since the Yom Kippur war in 1973.
So the money does stay in the U.S., at least.
So the money does stay in the U.S., at least.
I don't really consider money going from my pocket, to Egypt, then to the US military industrial complex as "staying in the US." My taxes should go to things that benefit me and other regular citizens, not war profiteers.
If foreign aid is more affordable than foreign intervention, it could be an effective way to reduce military spending.
You definitely should question it. The US had the highest foreign aid budget in the world but little to show for it.
If you are an effective altruist and want foreign aid to benefit the world, you should be concerned that it's funnelled to defence contractors instead.
If you just think the US wastes too much money on it's military you should be concerned that they are sneaking more money to defence contractors under the guise of humanitarianism.
If you are an effective altruist and want foreign aid to benefit the world, you should be concerned that it's funnelled to defence contractors instead.
If you just think the US wastes too much money on it's military you should be concerned that they are sneaking more money to defence contractors under the guise of humanitarianism.
US citizens enjoy a lot of wealth that was extracted (sometimes very violently) from the rest of the world, and you could make the argument that maybe the US citizens should give something back to the people whose exploitation they enjoy.
But in this case "foreign aid" seems to mean mostly "weapons for dictators", so it doesn't look like a constructive use of the funds.
But in this case "foreign aid" seems to mean mostly "weapons for dictators", so it doesn't look like a constructive use of the funds.
[deleted]
What is your source for the foreign aid number (or any of your numbers, though defense and interest sound right to me)? Quick googling hasn’t let me confirm that, and it sounds high, my recollection was that it was more like 1%.
Yeah kinda puts the BBB bill in focus doesn't it. A bit of an own goal not investing in infrastructure there.
No, the infrastructure bill was bipartisan and it passed.
Pittsburgh got a lot of money from it for this kind of thing, although there obviously wasn't time to do anything yet.
The BBB bill wasn't for this, it was social spending.
Pittsburgh got a lot of money from it for this kind of thing, although there obviously wasn't time to do anything yet.
The BBB bill wasn't for this, it was social spending.
Whatever you think of foreign aid, US foreign aid spending in 2021 was $51bn, not $300bn [1].
[1] https://foreignassistance.gov/
[1] https://foreignassistance.gov/
"Foreign aid is when the poor people of a rich country give money to the rich people of a poor country"
—Michael Parenti
—Michael Parenti
Think that $300 Billion is over multiple years. E.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/08/04/new... has $300B over six years, or between 1 and 2 percent.
So in fact, if your other number is correct, about 1/2 of the bridge budget.
So in fact, if your other number is correct, about 1/2 of the bridge budget.
Your $300 billion number just isn't true. If you're looking at that Forbes article, well, it covers 6 years. So it's only $50 billion a year. About 30% of that you're counting twice because that was money from the US military budget they spent on foreign aid. So, a bit under a whopping $35 billion a year, or less than 1% of either tax receipts (which are actually over 4 trillion) or less than 0.5% of the US budget itself (6.8 trillion)
0.5% not 8%. These numbers are very different.
Although this bridge seems disconnected from the highway system, so I'm not even sure the US government even funds it at all.
0.5% not 8%. These numbers are very different.
Although this bridge seems disconnected from the highway system, so I'm not even sure the US government even funds it at all.
Pennsylvania DOT is one of the more corrupt agencies related to transportation. As but one example:
https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/taking-action/former-penndot...
https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/taking-action/former-penndot...
I'm just guessing, but it seems like the bus by itself was probably between 40% and 80% of the rated load of the bridge (buses have remarkably variable weight). Add in some snow and ice and I can see how it became overloaded.
The BBC recently had a programme about the Genoa bridge collapse: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0007mxm
I remember hiking under this bridge - it's a nice park but often this area was super crowded on nice days during warm weather. Lots of people with their dogs. In the years I lived in PGH I always thought about how it was just a matter of time before a bridge would collapse - there's an insane amount of bridges throughout the city and just by the looks of some of them, gravity was going to win sooner than later. It's amazing that no one was killed, glad it wasn't the middle of the Summer when Frick Park is full, it could have been a lot worse.
An unfortunate punctuation mark for the infrastructure speech the President is about to give in PA.
For readers outside of the US, how are similar infrastructure issues?
For readers outside of the US, how are similar infrastructure issues?
Unfortunate? It makes the case as to why passing the infrastructure bill was so important. It should make people think twice about reelecting those who voted no on the bill. If they had their way we'd still have a collapsed bridge and no infrastructure bill to pay for a new one.
Of the $1.2 trillion, less than half ($550 billion) is even intended for infrastructure at all. Of the $550 billion, only $110 billion is for actual roads, bridges, and major infrastructure projects. That we have to spend $1.2 trillion to get $110 billion in possible improvements is exactly why our infrastructure is in terrible shape, and still will be in terrible shape after this grift is distributed. The infrastructure bill just highlights the problem, and puts us further into debt.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/28/politics/infrastructure-bill-...
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/28/politics/infrastructure-bill-...
No, it's all infrastructure. The rest of the money is funding previously authorized plans. I'm not sure why that bill was necessary to find them separately from the original auhorization, but it's all still infrastructure.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanpo...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanpo...
> Of the $1.2 trillion, less than half ($550 billion) is even intended for infrastructure at all.
Citation needed
Citation needed
See my sibling comment-- it is actually all infrastructure, there's some idiosyncracy over how previous plans are only now being funded.
The collapse is unfortunate. (I don't use "tragic" since it appears the were no deaths yet)
The timing, if it was going to happen anyway, is useful. But the whole entire situation is bad, so I'm not going to use any positive language to describe it even if this incident has a silver lining.
The timing, if it was going to happen anyway, is useful. But the whole entire situation is bad, so I'm not going to use any positive language to describe it even if this incident has a silver lining.
Any chance people were under there? A park bridge in the winter, I wonder if any homeless were around.
There generally aren't any homeless in Frick park. Under that bridge is a dog park, but this was 7am with around 1° weather, so probably not.
I used to live next to the bridge mentioned here by John Oliver. Pittsburgh is something.
https://youtu.be/Wpzvaqypav8?t=447
"One of these arch bridges actually has a structure built under it to catch falling deck ... see that structure underneath it, they actually built that to catch falling concrete." ... "They built a bridge under the bridge..."
They've since repaired this one.
https://youtu.be/Wpzvaqypav8?t=447
"One of these arch bridges actually has a structure built under it to catch falling deck ... see that structure underneath it, they actually built that to catch falling concrete." ... "They built a bridge under the bridge..."
They've since repaired this one.
A deck will be replaced several times over before the bridge is. A little bit of stuff falling onto a roadway below can cause a lot of mayhem. On boring overpasses they stick boards across the bottom flanges of the I-beams. On fancier types of bridges they have to come up with more elaborate ways to catch stuff.
Like other short term focused decisions made by the baby boomer generation, the US bridge situation is dire. Within 20 years this will be a common news story.
Unfortunately, spending on infrastructure which benefits most people (including the business owners who vote against it) is now equated with socialism as a dirty word and something which only the evil liberals want, because they want to take your hard work and money and distribute it to people who don’t want to work. At least, that’s almost verbatim what I’m hearing right now on my Texan parents’ Fox tv while I visit.
The US is headed for a very dismal half century, and fighting or even trying to debate appears to not be an option. I see no solution except to call it dead and move to more progressive countries.
Unfortunately, some of the smarter more educated other countries are now being brainwashed by the same tactics that allowed Fox News and conservative radio hosts to lead masses to vote aggressively against their own interests.
Unfortunately, spending on infrastructure which benefits most people (including the business owners who vote against it) is now equated with socialism as a dirty word and something which only the evil liberals want, because they want to take your hard work and money and distribute it to people who don’t want to work. At least, that’s almost verbatim what I’m hearing right now on my Texan parents’ Fox tv while I visit.
The US is headed for a very dismal half century, and fighting or even trying to debate appears to not be an option. I see no solution except to call it dead and move to more progressive countries.
Unfortunately, some of the smarter more educated other countries are now being brainwashed by the same tactics that allowed Fox News and conservative radio hosts to lead masses to vote aggressively against their own interests.
One block from my friends house! Holy shit glad nobody is hurt.
Title of the article: "10 injured in bridge collapse in Pittsburgh’s Frick Park"
So, 10 people were hurt. But they say none of the injuries appear life-threatening, so there's that.
So, 10 people were hurt. But they say none of the injuries appear life-threatening, so there's that.
Such a useless article by itself, and shows lack of engineering experience in HN.
Lacking crucial details:
1) Inspection Data (When last inspection, any indications of stress fractures, etc etc)
2) Original Estimated Lifetime at expected loads
3) Real World Loading Data
4) Updated Estimated Lifetime Following Real World Loading data
It almost impossible to make any judgements about failure conditions without data. 'Bridge Failed" by itself is useless
Lacking crucial details:
1) Inspection Data (When last inspection, any indications of stress fractures, etc etc)
2) Original Estimated Lifetime at expected loads
3) Real World Loading Data
4) Updated Estimated Lifetime Following Real World Loading data
It almost impossible to make any judgements about failure conditions without data. 'Bridge Failed" by itself is useless
You could argue that the data is irrelevant for this initial discussion, because somewhere along the way, something went wrong, or the bridge wouldn't have collapsed. Someone is responsible, and I am sure the appropriate organizations will investigate the data to find out whom to blame this on.
This is a news article, not the NTSB final report.
markx2(3)
Chinese people: we can build so fast
Americans: Well, that’s because you don’t build it to not fall down. That’s why we build slowly.
Americans: our shit falls down anyway
Americans: Well, that’s because you don’t build it to not fall down. That’s why we build slowly.
Americans: our shit falls down anyway
And it started! The collapse of the US infrastructures.
They need to reinvest continually, not every 20 years with big trillion dollars programs.
Midterm elections maybe
Bridges have been collapsing in the United States for decades. Life just goes on.
You almost sound happy at the prospect that one day, thousands of bridges are going to collapse all at once.
You almost sound happy at the prospect that one day, thousands of bridges are going to collapse all at once.
I'm not happy about any of those, it's a weird claim to infer from my comment!
I wish this fight against public good stopped in the USA, money spent on public services in infrastructure are good for everyone.