Page 1 of 1

maybe close to politics, but...

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:45 pm
by YerK

Re: maybe close to politics, but...

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 3:55 pm
by Mynock
Hey guys......this bridge looks kind of rusty. We should replace it.

Nah it'll be ok for a few more years lets spend the money on a sports stadium!!!!

Uhhh.....guys......now when we drive over the bridge it shakes alot.....really should put a new one up.

Nah it's still good we're gonna spend 30 million dollars on bike trails that go nowhere that's what people really need!!!

Guys there's parts falling off the bridge........this is kinda dangerous

Ok you're right this is definitely a problem. We're gonna have to raise taxes now to fund a new bridge. Wait, actually, lets raise taxes, but only build a half assed apron under the bridge to catch the falling parts and then use most of the additional tax money to give more food stamps to the illegal aliens!!!! It's brilliant!!!

:roll:

Oh well. Can't see it from my house.

Re: maybe close to politics, but...

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 7:21 pm
by Lomax
Recently, only 120 years or so after it opened, they finished painting the Forth Bridge.

Well, sort of. It used to be said that painting the bridge was such a big job that as soon as they finished they had to start again at the beginning. For ever. Whether this was literally true is open to doubt; but a few years back they came up with a new longer-lasting paint. Almost a shame.

Re: maybe close to politics, but...

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 7:40 pm
by Nessie
In the interest of injecting humor, I give you:

http://11foot8.com/

Does this depoliticize the thread?

Maybe not. Somebody isn't funding fixing this either.

Nessie

Re: maybe close to politics, but...

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:22 am
by Mynock
"I dunno Bubba, the sign says 11'-6" and our trucks 13' tall......"
"Screw it, I don't see no cops, lets go for it!!!"

Re: maybe close to politics, but...

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:04 pm
by nachtjaeger
Just ran across a situation at work that had me doing the full Captain Picard facepalm.
One local government had to spend a bunch of money all at once on one of their bridges last summer. This is a small town with a tiny budget, so even though the bill was under $150K, it still hurt. They're asking for a special, extra grant of money to offset the costs to fix the bridge, because "this was totally unexpected, as the bridge passed all its previous inspections with no major issues." I was tasked with checking the inspection records to see if this was the case.
Apparently their idea of a bridge passing an inspection is that the inspectors didn't issue a Red structural flag and order it closed immediately. :roll:
Back in 2000 (the oldest inspection record available electronically) the bridge desperately needed some concrete repairs, some minor welding, and a new coat of paint.
In '02, '04, and '06, it didn't get any better.
And based on the load rating done using the data from the '06 inspection, the posted weight capacity had to be reduced to 18 tons. (For reference, a standard highway bridge should be able to support a fully loaded tractor-trailer, 80,000#/40 tons.) That should have given the town at least a subtle hint that the bridge might need some TLC.
At this point, based on the total condition rating, we started inspecting the bridge annually rather than every two years. (Condition was < 4 on a scale of 1 to 8, 8 = brand new, 1 = laying in the bottom of the creek.)
By the May 2014 inspection, the wooden deck was rotting (lack of maintenance), the concrete abutments were literally falling apart, there were more cracked welds (1930s welding technology) and the steel beams, which were barely adequate for today's vehicles to begin with (1930s steel, and none too large) have serious "section loss" because they were allowed to rust out (remember, the bridge needed paint prior to 2000.)
Even after the $150k of repair work, the bridge rating is only getting raised to 22 tons. If it had been properly maintained, it might have lasted another 20, 30 years or more. :evil:

Re: maybe close to politics, but...

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:37 pm
by nachtjaeger
"The tunnel was marked to the twelve-foot line, but the chickens was stacked to thirteen-nine!" - "Wolf Creek Pass", by C. W. McCall, 1974.

And yes, Wolf Creek Pass as described in the song, including the tunnel, really exists- Highway 160 between South Fork, Colorado (elevation 8,200 feet.) and Pagosa Springs, Colorado (elevation 7,200 feet). The top of the pass is officially 10,857 feet. And it's just over 44 road miles between the two towns- 34 as the crow files, if said crow can reach altitudes of 12,000 feet. Just type "Wolf Creek Pass" into Google Maps, then switch on the terrain view. :shock:

I'll let you folks do the math as to the gain/loss of elevation on this stretch of highway, as well as the total degrees of curvature.

Song with video footage of the pass: http://youtu.be/KHb_0Lhegig?list=RDKHb_0Lhegig


Nessie wrote:In the interest of injecting humor, I give you:

http://11foot8.com/

Does this depoliticize the thread?

Maybe not. Somebody isn't funding fixing this either.

Nessie

Re: maybe close to politics, but...

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 12:38 pm
by Duncan Edwards
nachtjaeger wrote:"The tunnel was marked to the twelve-foot line, but the chickens was stacked to thirteen-nine!" - "Wolf Creek Pass", by C. W. McCall, 1974.


I hadn't thought about that one in probably forty years until now. Had that album. :mrgreen:

Re: maybe close to politics, but...

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:10 pm
by Nessie
Duncan Edwards wrote:I hadn't thought about that one in probably forty years until now. Had that album. :mrgreen:


We had that vinyl album in our house when I was a kid, and thanks to this thread, I found it on YouTube and enjoyed it again!

Nessie