You are saying steel is steel and we don’t know how to protect it better now then we did in the 1960s? That computer modeling doesn’t add anything to our understanding of how and why all the bridges that have failed since 1967 failed?
As someone who has been on and under this bridge that failed a bunch of times, I got to say, it sure looked like a poor design to me. Long spindly steel legs supporting a whole lot of concret WAY way way up in the air. However, not being an engineer I just always assumed they knew way more then me about their job.
So basically, what you are saying is it is bad design. That we could do a much better job?
Another question? How come my 1st car in the 1980s rusted so much and my current one doesn’t yet I have/had both the same amount of time? I assumed that meant we were better at protecting them now.
We haven’t learned enough to make enough of a difference to warrent changing out all of these bridges. If properly maintained they should last indefinately.
Advances in FEA and CAD are great if you want to reduce weight (FEA) or build to tighter tolerances. This is importantin autos and airplanes...Bridges are best left overbuilt and under engineerd. It’s cheaper and more durable that way.
As far as corrosion protection, sacrificial zinc is hard to beat. It would be interesting to see what is being used now. Probably nothing new.
If money as spent on maintenance instead of light rail (reflecting your frustration) then all of this infrustruction should last hundreds of years.