On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:08:16 -0500, wrote:

News on Fox tv news.

That bridge was built in 1967, according to a guy on Fox tv news.
cuhulin

More disaster porn. This is where the World Service comes in real
handy. A badly designed piece of crap bridge succumbs to Murphy's
Law; get over it (there's more where that came from).

David wrote:

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:08:16 -0500, wrote:

News on Fox tv news.

That bridge was built in 1967, according to a guy on Fox tv news.
cuhulin

More disaster porn. This is where the World Service comes in real
handy.

Yes it does! Last evening I got to hear about flooding disasters in India and
Bangladesh.

A badly designed piece of crap bridge succumbs to Murphy's
Law; get over it (there's more where that came from).

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"David" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:08:16 -0500, wrote:

News on Fox tv news.

That bridge was built in 1967, according to a guy on Fox tv news.
cuhulin

More disaster porn. This is where the World Service comes in real
handy. A badly designed piece of crap bridge succumbs to Murphy's
Law; get over it (there's more where that came from).

Too bad you weren't on it.

On Aug 3, 9:31 am, David wrote:
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:08:16 -0500, wrote:
News on Fox tv news.

That bridge was built in 1967, according to a guy on Fox tv news.
cuhulin

More disaster porn. This is where the World Service comes in real
handy. A badly designed piece of crap bridge succumbs to Murphy's
Law; get over it (there's more where that came from).

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.

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.

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.

A conversation on WLS, this morning, discussed the fact that
Minnesota is running a $2.1 Billion surplus.

It's not like there wasn't the money.

I-35 runs from right about where 21st street (I think it's 21st street,
I need to find my magnafying glass) is in Duluth,Minnesota and on down
to Laredo,Texas.From Duluth, I-35 is Highway 61 and on up into
Ontario,Canada.If you have a Rand McNally Road Atlas, look it up.

I-35 is one of those U.S.Interstates that the commie fascist nazi
U.S.new world order fed govt a..holes in cahoots with the new world
order illuminati *******s wants to build all over america.
cuhulin

I am not knocking the design of that I-35 W Bridge, I believe it was
designed and built properly for it's original intent and
purpose.Yesterday, I read an article by Richard Sauder (Underground
Bases and Tunnels.Underwater Bases.I have both of his books here.Richard
Saudet talks just like an old country boy) that the bridge had a deicing
system for melting ice.I guess (only guessing) all of that salt that was
used on that bridge over the years sure didn't contribute much to the
health of that bridge.Here in Mississippi we use sand on icy (yes,
sometimes in the wintertimes, we do get iced over bridges and
overpasses) Sand Good, Salt Not Good.I probally use wayyyy too much
Mortons Iodized Salt (When it Rains, It Pours) on my grub though.
cuhulin, the Salty dude
.................................................. ..........
Well, I am going down to Florida and get some sand in my shoes,,,,,, I
am going down to Floridaaaaa,,,,, and lose these New York
bluessss,,,,,,,,,
.................................................. .........

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.

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