I was under the impression that newer bridges were built with enough redundancy for single failure survival and that it was some of the mid and early twentieth century structures that were not? I am I being too hopeful?
“A University of Minnesota Civil Engineer in a report to MN-DOT recently noted that this bridge is considered to be a non-redundant structure. That is, if any one member fails, the entire bridge can collapse. A key factor is that there are only four pylons holding up the arch. Any damage to any one pylon would be catastropic.”
From this link: http://www.johnweeks.com/bridges/pages/ms16.html
Yes you are. We’re doing things cheaply now - haven’t you noticed how strictly utilitarian bridges are now, instead of pretty? (Only recently have some places made beautification efforts in upgrades.)
That means they want to save money.
For which I don’t blame them. However....
a) income tax. Makes it impossible for anyone to accumulate enough wealth to personally finance public projects.
b) welfare state. Sucks money away from things for which government actually HAS the right to do - and the obligation.
And I’m sure there are many more facets to our overweening government which make many infrastructure issues worse.
Yes, you are being too hopeful. It is the exact opposite. Partial redundancy usually happens, however, total redundancy costs money and has to be designed in. Consequently, it is not.