If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Quad City Times)   Norm McDonald, director of bridges and structures for the Iowa DOT, says the state is the second-worst for structurally deficient bridges in the country. Who is to blame for this terrifying mess? You guessed it: Frank Stallone   (qctimes.com) divider line 11
    More: PSA, Iowa Department of Transportation, Norm McDonald, illinois dot, Iowa, executive directors, bridges, Scott County, Moline  
•       •       •

4831 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 May 2014 at 9:58 AM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-05-05 08:23:04 AM
2 votes:
The study by the American Road & Transportation Builders Association said there are 63,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country and if they were laid end to end, they would stretch from Boston to Miami.

This is an excellent idea. It would ease congestion along I-95, and put the added risk on Florida and Boston drivers.
2014-05-05 12:17:05 PM
1 votes:

Cybernetic: If you're assigning blame for the lack of progress in repairing and replacing our critical infrastructure, take a long hard look at the liberal interest groups who can't stop playing identity politics long enough to build some goddamned bridges--even though people of all genders, races, and sexual orientations would benefit from the safer, modern infrastructure that we'd get from it.


media.giphy.com
2014-05-05 11:58:37 AM
1 votes:
We can't spend money on something as useless as civil infrastructure!  There's subsidies for obscenely profitable industries to pay, and costly useless military hardware bondoggles to requisition!
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-05-05 11:40:57 AM
1 votes:

max_pooper: aerojockey: Carn: Yeah, what would the American Society of Civil Engineers know about roads and bridges anyway?

It's a group that benefits directly when there are more repairs to be made.

It would be like the union of coal miners doing a "study" and concluding that we should use more coal.  Well, duh.

For whatever reason, people are willing the ASCE a pass, maybe because they figure engineers are professionals who are above that sort of thing.  But I am always leery of numbers that come from people who might benefit from those numbers.


Bridges are designed by structural engineers.


We can't hire structural engineers!  That money is earmarked for more managers!
2014-05-05 11:35:42 AM
1 votes:

Dog Welder: firefly212: Carn: We actually got a C+ in bridges.   Only one in nine is structurally deficient and we're only spending $8 billion less per year than we need to.  Only.

Why is it that we approach real dangers like diseases, road infrastructure, pipeline infrastructure, power grid problems, etc... like this... but when it comes to statistically near-zero threats like terrorism, we'll piss away trillions of dollars? Would it be so much better to die in a natural failure bridge collapse than a terrorist-devised bridge collapse that it's just not worth the same attention?

Because there's no political glory in making sure the roads work, diseases don't happen, or for bridges to stay in one piece.  Those only make the news if something bad happens.

It's easier to make a political name for yourself by yammering about how Obamacare will destroy us all or Benghazi instead of actually fixing our crumbling infrastructure.


Right. Because the Republicans were the ones complaining that those "shovel-ready" infrastructure jobs would go to "white male construction workers". Oh, wait. That was Robert Reich (posting back in 2009 on his now-deleted blog). The Boston Globe (in a 2008 opinion column), and the New York Times (in a 2008 op-ed piece) similarly weighed in with hand-wringing columns about the lack of stimulus jobs for women and the unskilled. The upshot of this was that infrastructure projects (which require skilled laborers who do happen to be mostly male and white) went nowhere.

If you're assigning blame for the lack of progress in repairing and replacing our critical infrastructure, take a long hard look at the liberal interest groups who can't stop playing identity politics long enough to build some goddamned bridges--even though people of all genders, races, and sexual orientations would benefit from the safer, modern infrastructure that we'd get from it.
2014-05-05 11:17:54 AM
1 votes:

firefly212: Carn: We actually got a C+ in bridges.   Only one in nine is structurally deficient and we're only spending $8 billion less per year than we need to.  Only.

Why is it that we approach real dangers like diseases, road infrastructure, pipeline infrastructure, power grid problems, etc... like this... but when it comes to statistically near-zero threats like terrorism, we'll piss away trillions of dollars? Would it be so much better to die in a natural failure bridge collapse than a terrorist-devised bridge collapse that it's just not worth the same attention?


==========

When you spend lots of money on 'security', you hire a lot of people to walk around all day to carry guns and push around the peasantry.  You hire people to fix shiat, that's like work.  What would you rather do?  Get well paid to walk around all day with a gun and badge, or spend your day doing actual work?
2014-05-05 11:14:28 AM
1 votes:
According to the "report" on California:

Bridges
2,978 of the  24,812 bridges in California  (12.0%) are considered structurally deficient.
4,178 of the  24,812 bridges in California  (16.8%) are considered functionally obsolete.
California received  $429.3 million from the Federal Highway Bridge Fund in FY2011.

i.e. California is in worse shape than Ohio. Of course we spend $6 Billion on a replacement bridge which is probably no safer than the bridge it replaces, and had so much corruption during the build, that parts of it may be more dangerous with bad concrete and non-replaceable corroding cables for earthquake support.
2014-05-05 10:37:51 AM
1 votes:

firefly212: Carn: We actually got a C+ in bridges.   Only one in nine is structurally deficient and we're only spending $8 billion less per year than we need to.  Only.

Why is it that we approach real dangers like diseases, road infrastructure, pipeline infrastructure, power grid problems, etc... like this... but when it comes to statistically near-zero threats like terrorism, we'll piss away trillions of dollars? Would it be so much better to die in a natural failure bridge collapse than a terrorist-devised bridge collapse that it's just not worth the same attention?


Because there's no political glory in making sure the roads work, diseases don't happen, or for bridges to stay in one piece.  Those only make the news if something bad happens.

It's easier to make a political name for yourself by yammering about how Obamacare will destroy us all or Benghazi instead of actually fixing our crumbling infrastructure.
2014-05-05 10:31:40 AM
1 votes:
nothing will be done until people die.  sad but true.
2014-05-05 10:31:35 AM
1 votes:

Carn: We actually got a C+ in bridges.   Only one in nine is structurally deficient and we're only spending $8 billion less per year than we need to.  Only.


Why is it that we approach real dangers like diseases, road infrastructure, pipeline infrastructure, power grid problems, etc... like this... but when it comes to statistically near-zero threats like terrorism, we'll piss away trillions of dollars? Would it be so much better to die in a natural failure bridge collapse than a terrorist-devised bridge collapse that it's just not worth the same attention?
2014-05-05 10:15:50 AM
1 votes:
Maybe they could think up a plan to fix it with a giant mustard stain.
 
Displayed 11 of 11 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report