This was no “simple “ pedestrian bridge. It was 30 ft wide for walking and biking. It had some kind of cover so it could also be used for spectators(???). Design pictures also showed the vertical support was not going to be in the middle of the road but off to one side of the road. If that would have been the middle of the bridge, might that mean that half of the bridge was over grass, not the road? Sounds rather extravagent to me.
correction: over a canal and shorter than the part over the road
Well, right. It was ( apparently ) conceived of as a pedestrian space, or whatever. That is to say, an attractive area, not a narrow path. Great concept, but obviously the execution failed. They got ahead of themselves, one way or another.
Heads will roll.
I just saw a picture on the news and it looks like the center support column punched right through the slab with NO largeer top bar steel added over the column to resist failure of the tension face, NO sheer studs either. Also the fracture patterns of the concrete were absolute crumbling and not from sheer or flexural stress. if the concrete was mature the fracture patterns would be larger, not crombles like a cookie. It looks like the concrete was not fully cured and not ready for stress loading. Someone mentioned sensors. I wonder if the engineers tried to rely on maturity meters embedded in the concrete and not on back up Field Cure ASTM C-39 compression tests using flexural beam specimens, all common mistakes leading to structural disasters [/speculation]