On Aug 3, 10:50 am, D Peter Maus wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:12:21 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

Roadie wrote:

Where did you get the idea that it was badly designed. Given that the
bridge was built in the 1960's, used extensively and regularly dosed
with road salt I suspect that the local authorities failed to spend
the money to maintain the bridge. Inspections notwithstanding.

Interviews with engineers revealed that the bridge was not designed
to withstand the traffic it eventually saw. It was not supposed to see
arterial traffic, and was underdesigned for the 100,000+ cars it saw
each day.

sadly the same is true of much of the interstate system
Punnett was on WLS yesterday talking about this with Roe Conn. An ABC
correspondent confirmed that he had spoken with civil engineers who made
the same determination.

That it lasted as long as it did suggests that it was overbuilt to
its specification. Just underbuilt to its application.
story of much of the Eisenhowersystem

nobody realy understood the system was going to me used INTRAstet
rather than INTERstate

Exactly right. as designed, it was not supposed to. However, once in
place, it became clear that the mission would change. "Limited Access"
meant few interchanges, and occasional entrance ramps. Today, the
interestates are accessible at nearly every crossroad, and carry
traffic, local and intrastate distances...for which none of the roads
were designed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


We use to have One Car for the whole Family :
Now we have Four Cars one for each Adult.

We have 8-Lanes of Freeway and need
another 8-Lanes just to get across town.

~ RHF