Twin Cities bridge disaster

[cincygreg]

Generally speaking, things often taste better on a stick than they do stickless. [img]graemlins/hmmm.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/wonder.gif[/img]

I mean, how the heck do you eat a corndog without a stick? [img]eek.gif[/img]

[reason]

Originally posted by Lew:
My grandmother always taught me that you reap what you sow in life.

We built a massive metropolitan city 9 feet below sea level. Now this wouldn't have been a problem had that city been located in central Nevada. But this particular city happened to be surrounded on all sides by water. No biggie, we'll build floodwalls to protect the city from the water. Those floodwalls are built to withstand a category 3 hurricane. Yes hurricanes can be classifed up to category 5, but the odds are that no worse than a category 3 will ever hit those floodwalls.

Well son of a gun a cat 5 came through, smashed holes in the floodwalls, the city flooded and hundreds died. And then we wonder how could this happen?

Let's think about highways and bridges for a moment. We don't build things to last forever, everything has to have a shelf life. Why? The justify-our-existence syndrome. Do you want to be lonely like the Maytag repairman? Or do you want to be busy like the highway contstruction workers?

Oh we just had to have our Interstate highway system. But we had to build it so it constantly needed repairs. And if the numbers are correct.....70,000 bridges are "structurally deficient?" And it would take $188B to repair them all?

So one of those structurally deficient bridges has collapsed and people have died. Now, it's a tragedy in every sense of the word. But is it all that shocking? Though these things don't occur often, they have occurred in the past and common sense tells us that, unless we start repairing the deficient bridges, the odds of a recurrence will increase.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the interest of accuracy:

Katrina was *not* a cat 5 hurricane when it hit New Orleans. It was a strong cat 3.

New Orleans was not built 9 feet below sea level. The original part first settled by the French is still above sea level. That's why it and other parts of New Orleans didn't flood.

New Orleans is sinking and will continue to sink due to silt no longer being deposited and the fact that the city is built on silt. That plus development eliminating the barriers that inhibit hurricanes from reaching New Orleans.

The levees were built to withstand a cat 3 hurricane, but due to the sinking they are more apt to protect only against a cat 2 hurricane. So even if they were built to withstand a cat 5, they would probably only withstand a cat 4 today. One report concludes the levees have sunk 3 feet since they were built and that some parts of the city are sinking at a rate of 1" a year.

Not too many people wondered how this could happen. At least anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of geography. Your good President tried to convince you there was no way to know this could happen, but only an idiot would "wonder how this would happen", especially since your President was apprised of such a scenario and supposed planning was done not long before Katrina was a blip on the weather map. You could read "Popular Mechanics" and understand this widely known tidbit.

Levees have a shelf life and lost their effectiveness due to political ineptitude and massive costs, not because people need to "justify their existence". South Florida will flood with the waters of Lake Okechobee for the same reason. You heard it here first. You won't have to wonder why.

Things change. Cities grow. Cities sink. Levees grow old. Technologies change. Projects cost more than people want to spend and government puts the problem in its back pocket until it can't be ignored.

There. I think the framework has been corrected to properly address this topic.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 16, 2007 02:25 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>

[gae]

1. Welcome back, The Big Sexy.

2. Unless you have changed your citizenship, Mr. Bush is OUR president. You'll have your chance to change that next year.

3. Read some history, and some newspapers. Check out the 1928 hurricane that hit South Florida.

4. New Orleans was not the only area affected by Katrina. Ever been to the coast of Mississippi?

5. Explain to me WHY (small words, please) the idiots who run the Cincinnati Public Schools built one on a flood plain on Eastern Avenue.

[reason]

Originally posted by gae:
1. Welcome back, The Big Sexy.

2. Unless you have changed your citizenship, Mr. Bush is OUR president. You'll have your chance to change that next year.

3. Read some history, and some newspapers. Check out the 1928 hurricane that hit South Florida.

4. New Orleans was not the only area affected by Katrina. Ever been to the coast of Mississippi?

5. Explain to me WHY (small words, please) the idiots who run the Cincinnati Public Schools built one on a flood plain on Eastern Avenue.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Thanks, but I don't plan on hanging around.

2. I take no responsibility for the asshole who runs my country. I've disowned him. (My apologies to assholes worldwide.)

3. Don't assume I've not already read about the 1928 South Florida hurricane. I have. A repeat is bound to occur.

4. Is there a point? I was responding in specific reference to Lew's comments about the levees and the "justify my existence" theory. He didn't mention Mississippi so neither did I.

5.I don't know why a new school would be built right by the river. Maybe the aforementioned government incompetence? I'll place my bet there.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 16, 2007 02:42 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>

[Lew]

I love how Reason actually concurs with my underlying premise, but since it's me he has to reach the same result via different means.

I never said it was unwise for the older part to be where it was located (or any parts that were above sea level). But it was unwise to build a huge metropolitan area in an area that is going to require such extensive flood protection.

I personally think it is unwise to build any home or business in a flood-plain or flood-prone area. I realize some people buy into this "100-year flood" mentality and they choose to gamble, and I suppose that's their busines, but to me it's mind-numbing.

But if we are going to have a city in such a potentially dangerous location, then one would think we could at least take all the precautions necessary to prevent a disaster. That includes building levees to withstand CAT 5 hurricanes, and yes, maintaining them over time. Which, yes, that's quite expensive to do, but probably not as expensive as paying for a disaster (to say nothing of 1,000 people being killed).

I wasn't familiar with the situation in South Florida. But based on your commentary, if there is a danger in that area being severely flooded, then I would hope that something is being done about it. But if it's like most areas, my guess is that's probably not the case.

And getting back to highway construction and bridge maintenance.....there is a railroad bridge outside of Baltimore, the Thomas Viaduct, that was built in the 1830s and has had trains run over it every day since. It had some work done on it in the 1930s, but otherwise has required very little maintenance. I haven't been to Europe but I'm told such structures are commonplace there.

So engineers in the mid 19th century built things to last, but the highway bridges built over 100 years later only have 40-50 year shelf lives? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't we have the technology now to build a highway bridge that can withstand constant loads and yet last a very long time with minimal maintenance?

[reason]

Originally posted by Lew:
I love how Reason actually concurs with my underlying premise, but since it's me he has to reach the same result via different means.

I never said it was unwise for the older part to be where it was located (or any parts that were above sea level). But it was unwise to build a huge metropolitan area in an area that is going to require such extensive flood protection.

I personally think it is unwise to build any home or business in a flood-plain or flood-prone area. I realize some people buy into this "100-year flood" mentality and they choose to gamble, and I suppose that's their busines, but to me it's mind-numbing.

But if we are going to have a city in such a potentially dangerous location, then one would think we could at least take all the precautions necessary to prevent a disaster. That includes building levees to withstand CAT 5 hurricanes, and yes, maintaining them over time. Which, yes, that's quite expensive to do, but probably not as expensive as paying for a disaster (to say nothing of 1,000 people being killed).

I wasn't familiar with the situation in South Florida. But based on your commentary, if there is a danger in that area being severely flooded, then I would hope that something is being done about it. But if it's like most areas, my guess is that's probably not the case.

And getting back to highway construction and bridge maintenance.....there is a railroad bridge outside of Baltimore, the Thomas Viaduct, that was built in the 1830s and has had trains run over it every day since. It had some work done on it in the 1930s, but otherwise has required very little maintenance. I haven't been to Europe but I'm told such structures are commonplace there.

So engineers in the mid 19th century built things to last, but the highway bridges built over 100 years later only have 40-50 year shelf lives? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't we have the technology now to build a highway bridge that can withstand constant loads and yet last a very long time with minimal maintenance?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I responded specifically to your comments in order to 1) correct your multiple factual errors that 2) materially neglected to back up your "justify my existence" argument. I achieved that goal most effectively. Your response did not address my comments nor refute them.

I did not address your supposed "underlying premise" - nor was I trying to - but if that's how you want to feel good about yourself then by all means have at it.

Besides if you really mean what you say about building in 100 year flood plains, etc, then you have opened a whole pandora's box of issues, because by no means is New Orleans the only place sliding off into the ocean or subject to other natural disasters for that matter. But like the your "justify my existence" theory, I'm sure you've not thought your last post through, either.

I think you've just told everyone no one should live in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens or Staten Island.

Good job, Lew.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 22, 2007 03:56 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>

[reason]

I'll not let this conversation become distracted by your frustated diversions into irrelevant territory.

But if we can focus on the specific "wisdom" you impart on us, I think we need to start with this:

I personally think it is unwise to build any home or business in a flood-plain or flood-prone area. I realize some people buy into this "100-year flood" mentality and they choose to gamble, and I suppose that's their busines, but to me it's mind-numbing.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let's start by addressing your first irrelevant obsession - New Orleans being below sea level.

New York City is not below sea level, has no levees, yet it is estimated 2.2mm (much larger than New Orleans) will need to be evacauted in case of a hurricane, with storm surges upwards of 30 feet that would inundate Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island, Brooklyn, and Long Island, which is an isolated island jutting off into the ocean, making for an easy direct target. The implications for evacauation of one of the world's largest cities and the world's second largest financial center are enormous.

Unlike New Orleans, people in New York aren't yet accustomed to thinking about "The Big One".

Do we raze New York City? There are certainly many more people living in the "100 year flood plain" in NYC than in New Orleans. Eventually a hurricane *will* hit NYC - it's not a matter of if but when. I auppose New Yorkers, as you put it, "reap what they sow".

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 23, 2007 04:45 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>

[reason]

Who here lives in Covington or Newport?

[Lew]

Not having a good summer, huh? Well, unfortunate, but hang in there, fall's just around the corner, and that means corn mazes and apple butter stirrin;, it'll get better, lil' Buddy.

Heaven forbid I suggest that it wasn't wise to build a city under sea level (and yes, parts of New Orleans ARE under sea level; they're hard to spot but one way you can identify them is by the flooding that occurred after Katrina). Maybe we could start building cities on top of active volcanoes?

But the Dutch face the same danger, don't they? Well, apparently they maintain their walls better. I don't know, all I do know is that the protection for New Orleans was obviously inadequate.

But I'll defer to your wisdom on this front. After all, you're the one who has litigated martime cases in the 5th circuit while all I know about it what I see on television.

And as for freeway construction, if it's not "justify our existence," then what exactly is it? If we can build a road that doesn't need maintenance for 20 years, but instead we build one that needs the barrels on it year after year after year, then why do we do it that way? Do you think there's even the slightest thread of a possibility that the contractors and big labor might be inolved in it?

[Lew]

Reason, I over-reacted. Turns out a bunch of pigeons crapped on the supports of the bridge in Minneapolis; the crap weakened the supports, and that caused the collapse. No one saw it coming, and it's no one's fault. I stand corrected, please accept my sincerest apologies.

As for Manhattan, if your boy Al Gore is right, and if the sea level does start to rise (or if Manhattan is sinking), I think you would agree with me that something should be done. Obviously we're not going to evacuate Manhattan, so presumably that means constructing a levee system. Now, in your opinion, should that levee system be built to last? Should it be maintained properly? Or should we just go with the 50 year plan and then, afterwards, what happens, happens.

To me, the only answer would be to build the most effective levee system imaginable. Construct it properly, and maintain the hell out of it. And that includes guarding it constantly, since it would undoubtedly be a potential target of terrorism. And God knows how much all of this would cost, but I maintain that those costs would still be less than those associated with a monumental disaster.

You can argue with me all you want it won't change the fact that our infrastructure is built and maintained by politics, not science. Remember Death Hill on 75 coming into Covington? The engineers warned them when they designed it (I have a book on this somewhere but I can't recall the author) but they went ahead and built it anyway. Of course, 20+ years later, after I don't know how many accidents, they went ahead and fixed it (of course, it cost more to do the corrective measures than it did to build it in the first place).

One last quick story to demonstrate further demonstrate my greatness- back in my maritime days, Mayor Qualls spoke at one of our luncheons about proposed development on the river. She spoke about the new bridge that was going to have to be built to handle our light-rail system.

Afterwards, I went up and asked her about that. I reminded her we had the L&N Bridge, couldn't we use that for the light rail instead of building a new one?

"Well, LewMan, that bridge was built in the late 1800s."

But your honor, it's piers are made of stone; I'd be willing to bet it's sturdier than any of the more recent bridges that have been built (and I wasn't suggesting that the bridge wouldn't need some work, but obviously it would cost less to rehab it than to build a brand new one).

"Well, LewMan, it could only carry a single track. The light-rail system would be double track.

But Roxy, how many trains are you planning on running? Couldn't you just have the bridge be single track with signals on each end, and one northbound crosses and after he clears, the southbound can go?

And the bottom line was, it didn't matter what existing bridges we did have. We were going to get a new bridge, and that was that. That's how politicians think. And that's what I was complaining about.

Unreason shall one day be overcome by reason, Reason. Science shall overtake sorcery. And evil will always triumph because good is dumb.