No design is perfect, and some flaws in this design must have been known back then, as the standards for bridges changed shortly after it was built. The fact that they don't make them like this anymore should have told the MNDOT that this bridge needed a more vigorous inspection regime than newer bridges. If the know flaws of this design included total collapse due to unpredictable single part failure, then replacement should have been scheduled.
It's not like the bridge got a 100% rating at the last review. Then you could blame somebody in the LBJ era.
thanks for revising and extending as well as educating. I think a subtle difference in the press coverage may have come about that time (i.e. the thought that excessive wear and tear was the only factor to be considered, failure to invest in infrastructure under Bush, etc.) because up until that time, it seemed to me that they were going to try to make this into another Katrina, that is blame the faults and foibles of man against nature into an indictment of Bush.