More than 30% of US bridges are in need of repair or preservation work, and on rating bridges in either "good" or "fair" condition, the total bridge population has fewer than 50% rated as "good".  About 7-8% are rated poor.
(I am from Pittsburgh originally and used to bike over this bridge quite often.)
The note I took was "There are 25,437 bridges in PA. 9.59% of them were rated in “poor” condition last month, with only 34.37% of them being “good”". The original sheet was broken out by county, with Allegheny County basically being the same as the city of Pittsburgh in this regard.
> I just wanted to clarify that, as much as Pittsburgh may be particularly problematic, its infrastructure issues were still replicated across most of the US.
Absolutely, it is an issue everywhere for sure.
Before you go trying to fix the bridges, take the time to figure out what the problem was.
Are you saying the bus driver deviated from the usual route? Did the driver allow more passengers to board than is normally allowed? Perhaps a passenger boarded with their collection of lead figurines. I don't see how the bus could have been overweight without someone knowing the risks. It's not an Uber, they know where that bus will be traveling every time it leaves the station.
It is the normal route for that bus: https://www.portauthority.org/pdfs/112016/61B.pdf (you can check the map at the bottom) They run pretty often.
(from the AP story: https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-pittsburgh-bri...)
But if it was actually over the posted weight limit, that'll come out shortly.
I didn't say anything like that, no, nor any of the other invented things you tried to add to my actual statement.
> Perhaps a passenger boarded with their collection of lead figurines.
Pew says the average American weighs 181 pounds.
I'm not sure why you think you need lead figurines. Two tons, 181 pounds at a time, is only 22 people.
PATransit busses are rated for 42 people plus two wheelchair bound people.
This bus is over weight at half load.
Please be less sarcastic. Thanks.
> It's not an Uber, they know where that bus will be traveling every time it leaves the station.
Yes, that's why I blame them.
> Citation needed.
Feel free to look it up.
The weight limit was 26 tons, not 2 tons. My Chevy Volt would frequently brush up against a 2 ton weight limit.
85% of PATransit busses are from the 1996 acquisition (Cummins ISL, ISB, IS9; Voith 864; Allison D) those busses weigh either 24 or 25 tons. Their other busses (except the 28x airport flyer) are heavier. Other than the flyers, SEPTA's lightest bus is 24 tons. Some of them, like the XE40 or the X12, are significantly heavier. About 1/5 of PATransit's fleet is over-weight for this bridge without a single person on board.
26 tons is so little of a load that nobody should ever have been sending a bus over it.
The 2 tons is for the human load, above and beyond the weight of the vehicle. The vehicle already accounts for 24 of the 26 tons, bare minimum by definition.
If it was an XE40, it was two tons over load without even a driver.
That is to say, "there's more weight here than just the human beings. You should also consider the bus itself."
I did spell this out, but it was in a different comment tree. I thought I had here too. Sorry; I could have been clearer.
Someone in a different thread pointed out that it was a three axle bus. I've been making this case based on two-axle busses being too heavy. PATransit's lightest three-axle bus is MAN SG 220 GAWR, just shy of 30 tons curb weight, which is nearly 4 tons over limit.
Look, if you're from Pittsburgh, the last thing you want to do is stand up for PennDOT.
But looking at the numbers, to me, this really looks like "too big bus," not "bridge go boom"
Not all infrastructure failures are the fault of the infrastructure. Many, maybe even most, but not all. It's important to differentiate.
> Look, if you're from Pittsburgh, the last thing you want to do is stand up for PennDOT.
Agreed, but "runs bus service every ~30 minutes where a single bus would make the entire bridge overweight" would be an entirely new level of "I can't believe it."
structural damage is incremental. situations where the trigger is dramatically smaller than peak load are quite common. consider the florida condominum: it collapsed in fair weather, despite that under rain load it would have hundreds of tons more support carry. you've seen many videos on youtube where a sinkhole opened up under a small car on a large road which carries freight.
this is one of the things you're taught very early in the relevant schooling.
you've tried to pull my card in fairly aggressive ways several times in this thread. it's making me somewhat uncomfortable.
I asked the question about the fleet not to "pull your card" but because I am interested and spent a bunch of time trying to find this information and could not, and am interested in how you came across it. You started off with "look up the weight of a bus" and I that's exactly what I tried to do, and what I found is not the same as what you're saying, so I asked for where you got your data to see if I found bad data or you did.
(And yes, absolutely structural damage is incremental, but that's not material to the claim that this bus weighs over 26 tons.)
All of my Googling keeps turning up weights in the 15-20 ton range for fully loaded busses, with city busses more towards the low end of that range, so I'm curious why these busses would be almost twice as heavy.
EDIT: Ah-ha, looking at the picture shows it was an articulated bus, and Googling [how much does an articulated bus weigh] gives weights in the range you listed. So yeah, you're right and that bus should not have been going over that bridge.
They absolutely need better maintenance. It's been a safety hazard for most of my life. But the solutions are not easy.
I knew this response was coming. However, doing nothing isn’t an option. I also never said it’d be easy. If you can’t afford 450 bridges, you need less bridges or more money. You can’t just ignore the problem.
No one is honestly expecting the local governments throughout the Pittsburgh metropolitan area to eliminate 150 bridges (or some other arbitrarily large number) by 2023... They expected the local governments (and the state and federal governments) to behave competently and never let it get to this point. The decline of Pittsburgh as an industrial hub started over half a century ago... They've had plenty of time to address things like this in that context.
The fact that keeping infrastructure safe is "political suicide" or "costs too much money" is essentially the entire problem - and it's a problem that is not at all unique to Pittsburgh.
Pretending like this type of infrastructure decline is somehow unique to Pittsburgh, which, at least implicitly, the top level comment does, does a great disservice to actually finding solutions to the problems with that "political reality on the ground" - and not just in Pittsburgh.
I didn't read the OP as saying "nowhere else has infrastructure problems" but "bridges are a particularly acute problem in Pittsburgh for these reasons." I would certainly agree that suggesting this kind of issue is unique to Pittsburgh would be misguided.
Is this a good reason why politics should always include term limits? It would prevent anyone from NOT doing something that is in the good for the constituents, but is seen as "political suicide". Since no one can be in politics long term, you might as well make the tough decisions.
Cynically, it actually is for a cash strapped municipality. If they lack the money for proper maintenance - but can afford the bare minimum amount of caretaking - they certainly cannot afford the cost to dismantle the bridge. They will go with bandaid solutions virtually every single time.
I lived in Pittsburgh and remember one way bridges (like a fast path for morning rush hour, but screw getting home) and lots of sort of ad hoc things. They never had a fire wipe the place out and allow for some replanning or long term planning. Worse, if you were to try to knock some things down, there is a huge emotional reaction to it (the out field walls to Forbes field are still there, two stadiums later) I remember the city tax being fairly high as well, in many places I think increased mass transit (usually costs taxes) plus some tolls or something to discourage use on some bridges (read: another tax to use the bridge you were taxed to build) would make sense. Probably a federal bail out or mass closing of bridges are the only options. You are right, it’s not easy.
That still doesn't help you decide which bridges.
They can, in fact, maintain the bridges. You might not know this from a brief look at a newspaper article.
What happened is that the bus was too heavy for the bridge. It's PennDOT's fault.
Look up the weight of a bus. Look up the average weight of an American. Look up PennDOT rider numbers. Do the math. They were three tons over on a 26 ton limit.
Fully loaded weights for 3-axle US buses from the linked report's executive summary are 28 to 32.5 tons, empty range from 19 to 25 tons. So a not-fully loaded 3-axle bus was very likely over the 26 ton limit.
Three axle buses should not have been on that bridge. Would be interesting to see if that route was changed recently from 2-axle to 3-axle service.
I used to walk under that bridge quite a bit, hopefully no one was under it when it collapsed (it doesn't sound like they suspect there was, but I guess it could potentially be hard to tell).
i've been making this argument on skepticism that a two axle bus should have been on that bridge. the standard patransit two axle fleet bus, a cummins isl (which is more than half their fleet) is 2 tons shy of max load when empty, and average american weight breaks load at bus half full.
that's the 61b. when i lived in pittsburgh it was often packed to the gills. i have a hard time imagining that that has changed.
you're right. if it was a 3 axle, that's very significant. hell, an empty three axle (i think they use man sg 220 gawr, which is ~30 tons curb weight) would likely be too much. i'm glad you pointed this out; thank you.
Fun trivia, https://www.portauthority.org/system-map/ shows stats on this. It doesn't support deep linking, but I went to the outbound stop just after the bridge, and it says
Average Weekday Ons: 0.32
Average Weekday Offs: 5.1
Pre-pandemic ridership for CY2019:
Average Weekday Ons: 1.00
Average Weekday Offs: 37.00
It has dropped by quite a bit since the pandemic. The 61A has a daily ridership of 1,643 and the 61B has 1,312.
that said, the other person pointing out that it's a three axle bus makes me relatively confident that the fleet contains no domain-relevant busses that had any business going over that bridge in the first place
it's worth noting that when i was growing up, patransit tried to send heavy construction trucks across the larimer bridge. one of the crew members stopped them at the last minute when they saw the bridge and called it in (this is way before pocket internet,) and good thing - basically this would have happened, and in that case, it's a probably five or so story drop onto an active highway. would have been a catastrophe.
I don't know what the limit was originally, but PATransit should be able to accomodate bridge limits within two decades.
Second, the size of the vehicle is important. Larger vehicles like trucks get these poor bridges lifespan shortened drastically. Trucks and busses could be rerouted on safe bridges and so on.
I generally am not afraid of bridges because they have convinced me that they're safe but if a bridge were to collapse under me and I'd make it out alive I'd probably have a bridge phobia.
So you could start with the lowest hanging fruit, the bridges that are in such bad condition that people post pictures of them on Twitter.
The problem Pittsburgh encounters is even demolition costs money. Can't squeeze blood from a stone.
Of course, this bridge only carried about 10 cars a day, mostly as a novelty, prior to closing. It's an entirely different animal to close a bridge in a major city.
Minneapolis/St. Paul managed to adapt when the busiest bridge in the state collapsed.
Make some free. Let the communities who need them pay for them.
When they built these bridges, it probably seemed pretty reasonable
Can the value of the scrap pay for the cost of removal?
This factoid is repeated on many websites - but some hero has done the work, and maybe not:
> especially for its size
It's like when you hear all the engineers and geologists at the American Petroleum Institute talk about fracking. Maybe we should keep a grain of salt.
This is a problem that needs to be solved everywhere. Governments build infrastructure with nothing but hope that future tax revenue will support maintenance. There should be something like a retirement plan for this infrastructure where a certain amount is invested at the time of construction to support maintenance ongoing.
Recognizing that involves telling a lot of people that they need to switch from driving cars to using transit, biking, etc. and there are a lot of people who don't want to hear that, especially if most of their personal net worth is equity in a building which is too far away at anything less than freeway speeds. It's much easier just to keep pretending that a one-time tax or bond issue will solve it, and so we keep doing the same cycle over and over again.
An awful lot of these bridges started as footpaths and ox-cart turnpikes.
If you go on a road diet your maintenance costs go down because you’re building fewer lanes, not having tons of bypasses and bridges which exist only to take pressure off of congestion at chokepoints, etc. Those reductions mean you can spend correspondingly more on the necessary core infrastructure.
Pittsburgh is built at the intersection of three rivers and atop the folded spine of the Alleghenies. Any way you slice it that city's gonna have either a lot of bridges or a lot of grumpy people who can't get anywhere.
They could replace the car bridges with train bridges or dedicated bus bridges (after knocking down a lot of houses, which if history repeats itself will be minority-owned houses), but this is a city with a small downtown and uptown where residents have always lived in the suburbs ever since the industrial revolution, well before ubiquitous car ownership.
Residents were using bridges to get to work in the days they walked there. There's sort of a lower bound on how many bridges a city of this geography will have.
This is true but that doesn't mean that the city should go broke catering to their whims — that could be putting tolls on the bridges, encouraging use of transit, etc. but they need some way to balance the budget.
> They could replace the car bridges with train bridges or dedicated bus bridges (after knocking down a lot of houses, which if history repeats itself will be minority-owned houses)
… or simply dedicate a lane for transit. It's not an iron law that the least efficient mode of transportation be given the highest priority.
The issue here is latency, availability, and comfort. Cars are great for these three. Can transit compete?
> and there are a lot of people who don't want to hear that, especially if most of their personal net worth is equity in a building which is too far away at anything less than freeway speeds
If you offer them a better investment, they will. But then, you will have to convince people who put most of their personal net worth into tiny cramped downtown condos that it’s ok for them to lose it due to the massive amount of housing you plan to build.
> The issue here is latency, availability, and comfort. Cars are great for these three. Can transit compete?
It's not that simple: cars are great for those when nobody else has them. When you live in a place with enough people to get traffic, they're terrible on the first two and the third is a question of how bad the outside is and how much you enjoy sitting for long periods of time without moving. Similarly, you need to factor in things like parking: car availability and latency both take a huge hit when you can't park in front of your destination, and comfort takes a hit if that means walking in uncomfortable weather, too.
That makes the underlying decisions more obvious: if you reserve lanes for transit or build separate right-of-way, taking the bus is a lot better than driving because the 50 people on the bus don't have to wait behind the 3 blocks of 50 people driving cars but if you focus on cars, the bus will be stuck in traffic as well.
> But then, you will have to convince people who put most of their personal net worth into tiny cramped downtown condos that it’s ok for them to lose it due to the massive amount of housing you plan to build
There's a lot of hyperbole in that sentence, and it's missing the key point that car travel is so inefficient that this pressure is always there even without overt public policy. Urban living is expensive because people like to live in places with fun things to do (i.e. which improves as a function of density) and they don't spend long periods of time stuck in traffic. Removing the public subsidies for suburban commuters will only make it more pronounced.
I disagree. There's nothing magic about the car. What is unsustainable is not budgeting for real costs nor planning for the future. E.g. we install pipes that are supposed to last 100 years, which just means that everyone alive figures they can ignore it and let the people three generations from today figure out how to deal with it.
All of that adds up to a lot of built-in carrying cost that people don't see directly but requires upfront payment and ongoing maintenance. Owning a car isn't just the $10-12k average annual expense but also things like paying a double-digit percentage more for housing to get off-street parking, having all of the prices at local businesses be higher to subsidize the bundled parking, etc.
> Owning a car isn't just the $10-12k average annual expense but also things like paying a double-digit percentage more for housing to get off-street parking
I'm very skeptical of these figures. $10-12K is more than I'll pay for my brand new Tesla, and it's a hell of a lot less than that when you amortize those figures over its expected lifetime. Yeah, there's also the cost of fuel and maintenance, but I'm very skeptical that these costs added onto the car payment bring the cost up to $10k on average. Moreover, the average cost isn't very useful--it's influenced by people like me and people even wealthier than me who can afford to splurge. It doesn't tell you anything about the actual cost required to own and maintain a car--chip shortage aside, a used Toyota Camry with decent miles probably costs about $10-15k total and amortized over its ~20 year lifetime including fuel and maintenance it's probably on the order of $2k/year. And of course, if we're worried about people who can't afford that, as with anything, the government can subsidize those people.
Similarly, off-street parking isn't an issue outside of large cities (virtually everyone else has a driveway, and the minimum viable cost of maintaining a driveway isn't anywhere near $1k/year).
Ultimately, this conversation illustrates one of the major problems with federalizing infrastructure. You get people from urban centers making policies based on incorrect assumptions about other areas of the country.
Here's the source:
The big things people forget is the cost of insurance in addition to consumables and depreciation.
> Ultimately, this conversation illustrates one of the major problems with federalizing infrastructure. You get people from urban centers making policies based on incorrect assumptions about other areas of the country.
Note that the vast majority of the population lives in areas where this is an issue. The number of people who are truly rural is a lot smaller than the number of people who live in cities or their suburbs and still end up paying for things like parking.
My position isn't that someone should _ban_ cars but that we stop heavily subsidizing them and start factoring in pollution, too. There a ton of problems which could be solved quickly by market pressure but we've been really resistant to that as a society because it means rethinking the dominant view of the American ideal from the 20th century. A suburban house costs more due to all of the infrastructure requirements amortized over fewer residents but a lot of policy decisions have allowed people not to see that until the maintenance bill eventually comes due.
The headline stipulates "new vehicles" and the figure it cites is $9,282 (outside of the $10-12K range). The article isn't dated, but I assume it's referencing some time period during the pandemic in which car prices are unusually inflated due to supply chain issues--the figure for a normal year is almost certainly going to be lower than this (at least when adjusting for inflation). This is even less useful than the overall average car payment since it's even more biased toward affluent Americans.
> The big things people forget is the cost of insurance in addition to consumables and depreciation.
Yeah, I forgot insurance too, but that's $1200/year for my brand new Tesla in a major metropolitan city. I'm pretty sure full coverage for our hypothetical used Camry is going to be closer to $300/year, bringing the figure up to the ~$2300/year range (still a far cry from $10-12K).
> Note that the vast majority of the population lives in areas where this is an issue. The number of people who are truly rural is a lot smaller than the number of people who live in cities or their suburbs and still end up paying for things like parking.
Agreed that the majority of Americans are either suburban or rural; I'm skeptical that suburban land costs resemble urban land costs; however, regarding your claim that off-street parking costs upwards of $1000/year, according to Bloomberg the total cost of urban land for an average parking space is only $2000k (obviously there's costs for paving and maintaining, but I doubt the total costs come close to $1k/year averaged across the country). Ultimately, my point is: "your figures seem off by an order of magnitude".
> My position isn't that someone should _ban_ cars but that we stop heavily subsidizing them and start factoring in pollution, too.
Fully agree that we should factor in pollution, but why stop at car ownership? We should factor in the cost of pollution to everything, via border-adjusted carbon pricing.
But, ~10k/year is normal in a city. Don’t forget ~100$/month in insurance, 100-200+$/month parking, ~50-100+$/month property taxes, 100-200$/month in fuel etc. Not everyone needs to pay tolls but those add up extremely quickly.
Alaska is thought of as open wilderness with 1.2 people per square mile, but 40% of the state live in inside Anchorage and 54% live in it’s metro area. That’s quite similar to New York State with 44% living inside NYC.
So, I am not sure what you’re feeding about national policy here.
I think there are good reasons to push the responsibility up to the state level though—e.g., places with low density may lack the funds for even critical infrastructure and are too sensitive to small or short-lived fluctuations in population. But all states are collectively large enough to afford their own critical infrastructure.
I'm skeptical. The most expensive housing in my city is in the urban core. Houses a few miles out are much cheaper, even if currently overpriced. Everything about living in the city is more expensive, too. Friend of mine has a 40 year old condo downtown and he pays more than a thousand bucks a month in building fees.
You might argue that this is just a sign that the suburbs are being subsidized, but I'd argue that it really just shows that the budget problem is real, we're not correctly budgeting for future expenses. If each homeowner also had to drop another 10K+ a year in maintenance, suburbia can be maintained indefinitely.
My point really isn’t that it’s innately terrible but that it’s mostly hidden so people think of it as free. Exposing the total cost makes it easier for everyone to reconsider, which is good because climate change means we’re all going to be forced to make changes.
Here's an example of the result in this local interchange conversion from an intersection that wasn't designed for all the traffic going through it: https://firstname.lastname@example.org,-83.7533688,476m/dat...
It looks sparse in traffic now, but it used to take 5-30 minutes to cross!
Another underway closer to Athens: https://email@example.com,-83.7207463,3a,75y,2...
This is part of a years-long project to turn highway 316/University Parkway between Athens and I-85 into a controlled-access highway to handle the next few decades of growth as what used to be sprawl from Atlanta turns into major population centers.
The fundamental problem is that people running governments are spending other people's money and they never have a problem doing that.
This wording makes that seem passive and that's a key gap in understanding the problem. Almost everyone has high expectations for government services — they want great schools, smooth uncongested roads, safe water, responsive police and fire departments, support for their elderly friends and neighbors, etc. The problem is that fewer people are willing to pay what it takes to actually provide those services, and an entire industry of people misdirecting attention for political reasons — e.g. you'll hear a lot about wasteful spending for stuff which is like 0.1% of the budget but trips someone's political agenda, and they won't mention that you could cut that entire program and it'd fund 2 extra prisoners in jail or a block and a half of street.
The other problem is that a lot of our taxes aren't indexed for inflation or have been actively cut. Things like the gas tax used to pay for a higher percentage of road construction, and the massive tax cuts given to rich people have removed a lot of general revenue, and that means that a lot of what was previously covered by that revenue now has to be paid for in ways which are very noticeable to the average voter: property taxes, use fees (as a Californian, the example I use is that the UC system had free tuition until the 1980s — that shifted the cost to the students which made it FAR more noticeable since it went from what you could do with a summer job to the price of a new car annually), etc.
All of that tends to mean that a politician who runs on a platform of needing to raise taxes to pay for the things we all use will likely lose to the one saying they can cut the mythical “waste & abuse”, and it has to get bad before that changes.
Then, we can talk about raising taxes and funding enough infrastructure.
What we cannot do is fund financially inefficient infrastructure.
I would go further and state that voters are spending tomorrow's taxpayers' money and they never have a problem doing that.
As a politician advocating for paying for things today, you are not going to win elections against someone who promises to push cash flow into the future and lower taxes today.
Try replacing taxpayer funded defined benefit pensions (which can be pushed onto taxpayers decades in the future) with purchasing equivalent annuities from an insurance company today (which have to be properly accounted for and paid for today, requiring higher taxes today).
This is what happens to retail politics when the population is trained to think for the short term. After all (successful) politicians merely follow trends.
Maintaining existing things instead do not.
People advocate for understood constraints of critical infrastructure. Engineers usually have knowledge about longevity and reliability of components.
There are examples of man-made systems which absolutely require 100% reliability, but those still have lifetimes and will be destroyed at some point to be replaced with something else.
A bridge can be destroyed, but it should not collapse without prior warning.
I am. People need to understand that bridges continue to exist when they're not looking at them.
I don't even know if you can achieve 100% reliability given a set of plausible situations/usage, because you'd have to imagine every single possible failure mode for the thing that you're building.
That is - the threat of "destruction" proper (which you contrasted with "collapse without prior warning") is included in the reliability metrics for a device.
The point stands. Nothing that humans build can be 100% reliable - the only thing you can do is asymptotically approach it.
Now, that said - three nines per year is way too low for me, personally. Five nines is more comfortable (and if it's cheap I'd like to go higher).
So you are ok if in a city with 100 bridges there is an average of one collapse every 10 years?
I mean, technically, one would need to look at the reliability-cost curve. opwieurposiu would almost certainly be fine with eight 9's of reliability if it only cost twice as much as three 9's. The fact that they have a really high risk tolerance in this area don't really undermine their general point.
Ill stick to our current failure rate, thank you. IT “reliability” rates isn't that impressive in other fields of engineering.
Nobody is saying that a bridge should last forever. They're saying repair it as long as you can, then replace the bridge so that a collapse never happens.
Nobody is advocating that "the perfect bridge" be built. They are advocating that already built bridges receive regular maintenance.
Expecting that a bridge doesn't collapse is an entirely achievable goal. Expecting that a bridge doesn't collapse without maintenance is very unlikely.
Link? I'm interested in reading more, but quickly searching didn't turn up anything
Weird example, since it's in Eastern PA, despite sharing a name with that suburb.
EDIT: Maybe it’s this , but lol Pittsburgh is not unique in having some abandoned homes. Literally every municipality ever in history has an area with abandoned homes.
If an area's population shrinks such that it doesn't need / can't afford all of its bridges, why not prioritize the critical bridges for maintenance and close the others as they become unsafe. Why is this always posed as a dichotomy between letting bridges fail and funding maintenance for each and every bridge?
$59 million for public works
2021 Amended Operating Budget:
I'm nearly certain Pittsburgh itself, the city, and its immediate surrounding boroughs has grown in population pretty steadily (though not significantly) since the steel boom even while the population of it's suburbs (and PA in general) have steadily lost population, though some areas around the city have grown, like near the airport, property values have skyrocketed to the point that I see a real estate bubble (cookie cutter single family houses built in the 1960's are going for $250K-$350K now, a lot to pay for a 60yo house in the burbs), which contrasts the other areas that have been completely gutted in population and deteriorated (like Ambridge, Aliquippa).
The population of Pittsburgh proper is half what it was in 1950. Here's a convenient tabulation:
You're equally wrong about the suburbs, which have grown as the city center shrank.
Nonsense. My mistake, but my math is at least good enough to know I was not equally wrong. That would be far too unlikely, but if so, some kind of bizarre coincidence.
Before that, it was bleeding population for 50 years
It was first rated poor in 2011, from Pittsburgh Post Gazette .
The collapse came in the wake of troubling inspections dating to 2011 that show the aging span has been rated in poor condition, according to the National Bridge Inventory.
Records from the inventory show that the bridge was consistently found to be in poor shape during inspections from 2011 to 2017, with estimated repairs at $1.5 million.
Mr. Gainey said the bridge was last inspected in September 2021. A statewide report from last year noted the bridge was still in poor condition.
The repair estimate was $1.5 mil in 2011. As someone posted in another comment, they spend 4 times more on public safety than on public works: $250 million vs $59 million. This seems like a failure of the city and state governments to prioritize. I know that Pittsburg has lots of bridges, but if they can't support it, then they should close some. This issue is neither unexpected, not a global or cataclysmic event. If the city needs constant maintenance help from the Federal government to maintain its infrastructure, then it simply can't afford it.
On HN, we want curious conversation in which people are thoughtful and respectful toward each other. The idea is to collaborate in figuring out the truth together. I know it often seems like other people don't care about that, but a lot of this is an artifact of the medium, because internet comments lack the out-of-band signals that we normally rely on to evaluate other people's intentions.
Also, it's easy to perceive (and/or imagine) bad faith in others, and difficult to perceive the equivalent in oneself. Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Coincidentally, bridges have a 50-75 year lifespan. It's probably on the lower end in areas with tons of cold weather, salt and ice. Texas has less deteriorating weather in general. Hence the whole "northern cars turn to rust buckets" meme.
Also, this corresponds to Pittsburg's heyday being 50 years ago.
Pennslyvania's average age of a bridge is over 50 years old, where Texas lists only half of their bridges being over 40 years old.
So Pennslyvania's clearly got a problem, but Pittsburg (and the state on the whole) gets more rain and far more snow and ice, so even if they were the same age, it doesn't really seem comparable.