[Dead Dog]

It was build using 1960s The problem I see with this is the concept of Obsolete. It ain't like computers, how many bridges in Europe are pre-1960 "obsolete". These damned things should last longer then the Roman empire. Concrete and Steel is forever...until you get Water or Salt infiltration.

The question should be "what did they use for di-icing"? Otherwise, we need to replace the Golden Gate, ect. This whole thing is a tax scam.

[MNJohnnie]

Well yes and no. There probably is a problem with de-icing since they installed an automatic de-icing system on some of the bridges just a few years ago. Not real sure if this one has the system or not. There could be some unforeseen structural problems caused by that.

Here is what I am trying to say. We have learned a lot about building bridges over the years. Both with computer modeling and experience we understand now better how systems work. I guess obsolete is not the word so much as, not build with the redundancies modern bridges are built with. We also have a better technology.

For example, bridges in earthquake zones now have their rebar bent in a “cork screw” fashion (forgive me if I get this wrong because I am remembering a Science channel TV shows from years ago. It was one of the things we learned from the big earthquake out in California during the 1990s.

It isn’t that the engineering then was bad, it just that we have 40 years more experience and a whole host of tools that they did not have.

The point here is we, in Minnesota, could of upgraded that bridge any time since 1990 but choose instead to spend our “infrastructure” dollars on new projects and gimmicks. The problem here is not that the Government doesn't have enough money, but that it miss spends too much of the money it does have.