On Aug 3, 9:24 am, "jmcquown" > wrote:
> <RJ> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:58:43 -0500, "jmcquown"
> > > wrote:
>
> >> ... so very sad, that some people are doing the very thing they've
> >> been railing against in this thread - suddenly ignoring the bridge
> >> collapse, the tragedy of the injured, the casualties and their
> >> grieving families and friends. Instead it's been turned into a
> >> *rabid* political debate. (sigh)
>
> >> Jill
>
> > When bad things happen, it's natural to speculate;
> > "What caused this, how could it have been prevented"
>
> > Unfortunately, Washington HAS been pre-occupied with
> > Iraq, and Afghanistan.
>
> > And too many serious issues in America have gone unfunded, or
> > untended.
>
> Even if the U.S. were not involved with foreign politics the bridge still
> would have collapsed. There's always going to be something with a "higher
> priority" than re-vamping every bridge in the country. They were
> resurfacing the bridge so money was at least being spent for *something* on
> it. I think it was a matter of possible design flaw and, as Sheldon
> mentioned, sub-standard materials being used during initial construction.
> He's absolutely right when he says many construction projects are not built
> to the original specs; substandard materials keep the contractor's costs
> down.

It also may depend on how old the bridge was. If it was built 40
years ago there was a lot about stressed concrete that people did not
know about especially interactions with salt!.
Also if I remember correctly the US Federal Gov't funded construction
of the Interstates but not the maintaince so if the states were cash-
strapped then mantaince might sufferer. BTW was not that bridge
linking two states? Just ideal for a nice bureaucratic war over which
state pays the bills

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada