The Interstate 35W bridge across the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed tonight, right at the end of rush hour.

So far, fatalities and injuries seem miraculously light, but that may just be a function of lack of information. It seems unlikely that there wouldn't be a substantial number of fatalities.

I don't use that bridge in my commute, although my wife drove across it twice earlier today. But we're all okay as are everybody we know.

Hope for the best.

__________________
Man up.

yikes! thats scary. glad you guys are ok, raytri.

Now, the blame game has begun. On the very first day.....at least one Democrat leader blamed President Bush.

But the blame----if there is any----seems to rest squarely on the shoulders of the Minnesota state leaders. They've been warned going all the way back to 1990 that this bridge needed work. They've spent years "patching" it----despite some of the reports that said it needed structural work.

I'll tell ya....if I was a Minnesota resident, I'd be mad. Mad that in a state with one of the highest tax rates.....they are more concerned with funding all the social programs they have instead of making sure their infrastructure is sound. It's THEIR responsibility.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Who?

Agreed, although labeling a bridge "structurally deficient" doesn't actually mean the bridge is unsafe at the time.

This is pure nonsense. There was a bipartisan ignoring of the need for infrastructure maintenance, because it's expensive and easily deferred when the critical point is 15 or 20 years in the future. But if you want to get down to it, the major obstacle to more funding for infrastructure maintenance wasn't social spending; it was an opposition to tax increases of any kind.

Gov. Pawlenty, for instance, recently vetoed an increase in the gas tax -- money that is used expressly for road maintenance -- despite bipartisan support for it, seeing as how the tax hadn't been raised in years and inflation had deeply eroded its value.

Your beloved Texas has the same problem:
http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...txbridges.html

4 percent of bridges rated "structurally deficient", while the legislature declines to increase the gas tax, which hasn't been changed in 16 years.

In Minnesota, only 3 percent of bridges are "structurally deficient."
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...1.story?page=2

The states that have the highest share of bridges rated "structurally deficient", as of 2006?
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/defbr06.htm

Oklahoma: 26.85%
Rhode Island: 25.37%
Pennsylvania: 25.00%
Iowa: 20.75%
South Dakota: 19.95%
Missouri: 19.13%
Mississippi: 18.70%
North Dakota: 17.31%

I defy you to make a connection between "bad bridges" and "high taxes" or "lots of social spending."

The national average is 12.36%.

BTW, this is a different report than the NTSB one cited above, because it shows Minnesota with 8.7% of its bridges as "structurally deficient." I haven't found the NTSB report, so I can't account for the discrepancy. Even that number puts Minnesota as the state with the 15th lowest "bad bridge" rate.

The best states, in order:

Arizona: 2.22%
Florida: 2.64%
Nevada: 3.07%
Delaware: 4.12%
Texas: 4.48%
Washington: 5.05%
Tennessee: 6.69%
Colorado: 6.92%
Georgia: 7.66%
Maryland: 8.1%
Idaho: 8.22%
Connecticut: 8.43%

Again, I defy you to find a connection between these rankings and either "high taxes" or "social spending."

__________________
Man up.

I call B.S. on that "structurally deficient bridge" thing!!

Missouri should be MUCH MUCH higher on that list!

I'm glad to hear you and everyone in your family is ok. Must be scary knowing your wife went over it twice the same day it collapsed. Thank God for good timing.

Now everyone is inspecting their bridges. Mass has 580 bridges rated the same as this one. So now they're talking huge $$ to fix them. Sounds like it was a fluke as usually bridges that get this rating have to be watched but are not in any imminent danger.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

Yeah, I think you'll see a national overreaction the other way -- at least until people see the price tag. Then it'll be back to Band-aid fixes.

Found out a friend of mine from college usually crosses the bridge at about that time during his commute. On Wednesday, though, he was stuck nursing a balky server, so he didn't leave on time. He also left his cell phone at his desk, so he didn't know what had happened and his frantic wife couldn't reach him for more than an hour.

__________________
Man up.

Just to keep things in perspective, consider this: A bridge collapses in Minneapolis, killing at least five people and (it was thought at one time) as many as 30. It gets national media coverage, including television coverage from as far away as Japan.

Meanwhile, yesterday, a train derailed in Congo, killing 100 people.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/...ap3983296.html

It merited a 10-line brief in my paper's world roundup.

For local media, it makes sense to focus on local events. For national media, it makes sense to pay more attention to homegrown events than things happening overseas. And for everyone, it's easier to get interested in stories where there is plenty of riveting video.

But at the end of the day, 10 or 20 times as many people died in Congo. Our local tragedy doesn't even begin to compare.

__________________
Man up.

Right after thinking, "Wow, that's terrible" and "I'm shocked so few people died", I thought "Let's all wait for the massive governmental overreaction, finger pointing and stupid news stories about unsafe bridges". It didn't take long!

I'm guessing the main reason my state (Georgia) is ranked so highly has nothing to do with tax rates or spending per se. It's because the Atlanta area has grown so much over the last 20 years, resulting in massive infrastructure build up. Our bridges are newer. Simple as that.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I would be interested to know the age of the bridges rated structurally deficient. The bridge that collapsed was built in the 60's, I heard. That doesn't strike me as old assuming it is maintained. How old is the Brooklyn bridge? Do we build "throw away" bridges, these days? Fewer safety redundancies than in the past?