[jim_trent]

This is total BS. It is an attempt to sweep the entire thing under the rug.

It has been long known that the bridges built during the original Interstate building program had flaws. I have no doubt that the bridge (indlucing the gussets) fully met design standards WHEN IT WAS BUILT. Since then we have learned a LOT more and the design standards have changed.

The problem is that there are still a lot of those bridges out there. They need to be replaced, but until there is money to do so, they need to be INSPECTED. This one was inspected regularly (the last time just 6 months or so before it collapsed) and found a mirad of problems. SOMEONE high up in the MNDOT decided to keep the bridge in service in spite of the problems. They are totally ignoring that here.

I only hope that the inevitable lawsuits will allow outside inspection of the documents that they are trying to keep hidden here.

[Abigail Adams]

They said the calculations were wrong. The error may have been in one of several stages—design, drafting, etc., I can’t remember exactly. The calculations were not reviewed after the point at which the error occured.

[Adder]

Yet amazingly, this flawed bridge stood for what? 50yrs?

[KC Burke]

I think that a small connective part (of member assemblies that did not have corresponding redundancies as we have today) has been found to not be sized properly and the State of Minnestota is pinning its inspection level deficiency excuse on this finding.

It appears that the high level of inspection and maintenance needed for bridges of this era in question will be known to the industry and governmental bodies but be tooooooo tooooo inflamatory to discuss in the public media.

[Between the Lines]

This is total BS. It is an attempt to sweep the entire thing under the rug.

It has been long known that the bridges built during the original Interstate building program had flaws. I have no doubt that the bridge (indlucing the gussets) fully met design standards WHEN IT WAS BUILT. Since then we have learned a LOT more and the design standards have changed.

I tend to agree with you. In 1988, when the four shoulders were converted to traffic lanes, all calculations concerning the structural integrity of the bridge should have been done again. Why was this "design flaw" not spotted then?

[festus]

Yup. Throw the original engineer under the bus, despite the fact that if the folks, including the latest engineers to approve the ongoing renovations, knew the thickness of everything and still went ahead and put large uneven loads on the structure.

Going to be a whole lot of arguing about these points for a long time.