Update: A Tale of Two Bridges
In a post yesterday, I challenged bloggers to look into whether there is even the slightest chance that the maintenance of the collapsed I-35 bridge in Minneapolis could have been postponed because of a $400 billion-plus infrastructure improvement project known as the Iraq war or the penchant these days for state and local governments to operate on the cheap.
After the usual outbreak of Republican kerfuffling in the comments section, I also asked whether the bridge collapse was Democratic, Republican, or because this was Minnesota, Libertarian or Populist.
That, of course, was a trick question. And we’ll probably never know for sure if the collapse could have been prevented by an accelerated maintenance program, but courtesy of blogger Dick Polman at American Debate, what we do now know is that:
“In 2005, the Minneapolis legislature enacted a hike in the gas tax, with the money earmarked for much-needed road and bridge repairs. But Tim Pawlenty – the Republican governor who has long been billed as a rising star in the conservative firmament, and who has sought to reign on a pledge of No New Taxes – decided that a gas tax hike would violate his principles. So he vetoed the bill. The lawmakers squawked, pointing out that the gas tax at the pump had last been raised in 1988, failed to override the veto.
“Then, earlier this year, the lawmakers tried again. Mindful of the fact that Minnesota’s annual shortfall for road and bridge repairs had soared to $1.8 billion, they enacted another hike in the gas tax. But Pawlenty, deciding that the payment of an additional five cents per gallon constituted an undue tax burden, vetoed this bill as well. And again the lawmakers lacked the votes to override.
“I’m not suggesting that this no-new-taxes governor is personally responsible for the I-35 bridge collapse; the span may well have fallen anyway, even if there had been new state money for repairs.. . . But Pawlenty’s vetoes are symptomatic of a society that thinks it can survive on the cheap.â€
Plenty of public officials have plenty to answer for on this one, but Governor Pawlenty is at the top of the list.
46 Responses to “Update: A Tale of Two Bridges”
Shaun,
Money doesn’t automatically flow to a problem area even if the budget was unlimited. You’re ignoring the fact that the MnDOT chose not to recommend repairs or a retrofit to modernize this bridge. They had recommendations from a consulting company to either a)just keep monitoring b)repair and retrofit the old bridge design to add redundancy or c) do a combination of a + b. They chose a.
Throwing money at a problem doesn’t magically fix it; you have to have competent people making appropriate decisions about what to do with the money.
You may not have liked the answers I posted yesterday (maybe because they didn’t cater to your well worn and unassailable prejudices), but they were honest answers well within the context of honest debate. In fact I brought a hell of a lot more factual content to the matter than you did.
That you find an answer you like (“Look I found a Republican to blame!”) just proves you to be the partisan hack you are.
I’ve posted comments on TMV for almost 3 years now and I’ve never felt the need to write anything like this, but I find your tone, your high-handed dismissiveness, and the obvious contempt you hold for anyone who dares to disagree with you beyond the pale.
Something needs to be done to fix the Republican Eisenhower initiated highway system. It needs $, not rhetoric like Bush 41.
While taxes on gasoline is a tax increase, when specifically tied to road maintenance, what wrong with that. The Republican method, sell the roads to a Bush donor or Halliburton and change over to a toll road. If the Bremer/CPA war and economical model had only worked…
CS says
in an attempt to say that the availability of funds has nothing to do with it. But when you don’t have the funds you can’t do things you’d like to do. You have to pick and choose. For all you know they wanted to do this but thought there were other things that needed to be done first. Throwing money? You know a way to hire construction crews and engineers without it? Please. Your post is a sign of the attitudes that lead to this kind of problem. Maybe we don’t need taxes to do repairs and rebuilding. Maybe the tooth fairy will deliver the funds or Santa Claus will put up a new bridge for Christmas for all the good little commuters.
So little time. So many excuses.
While I have your attention, The Blotter has posted a list of the most heavily trafficked bridges in urgent need of repair. Bridges in New Jersey — an incredibly affluent state with incredibly bad government — dominate the list.
Neglect of the overall infrastructure has been an open problem, discussed and debated at various times (as now, normally after the latest disaster) for over 25 years now.
Only a partisan hack like Shaun would claim it is due to the Iraq war, or try to make it strictly a symptom of the Bush administration.
But rational thought has been missing from his writing since he lost the ability to remain gainfully employed as a journalist.
Ironic Midwest:
You will be repulsed to know that if the governor of Minnesota had been a Democratic hack I would have posted the very same update.
Have a nice day.
Jim,
Nice try, but I’m sorry, I do ask that the DOT inspectors request funds for any improvements necessary to meet safety standards. From what I’ve seen so far, it seems like they underestimated the problem because nothing like this had ever happened before. While tragic, I think that is fair enough, to say that they simply didn’t realize the magnitude of the problem and presumably they (and other inspectors) won’t make that mistake again.
I don’t think it’s acceptable to say that they were ‘picking and choosing’. Their job is to monitor the needs for improvements and request funding, not to fit the needs to whatever budget they are given. If there was anyone in that department who felt that they had to put bandaids on problems because they couldn’t get the legislature and governor to sign off on a needed repair, then I’m quite sure we would have heard from that person by now.
AR:
Nowhere did I suggest a direct cause-and-effect relationship with the bridge collapse and the war.
But it is a question that needs to be addressed whether it predictably povokes hissy fits by certain commenters.
What could we have done with that $400-plus billion?
Just for sh*ts and giggles, what would you have done with $400-plus billion?
Rudi,
The bridges are state responsibility, not federal.
I agree with you to raise gas taxes to pay for safer roads and bridges (in GA our state gas tax has to be allocated for that- though the improvements are often just building more roads, which means we continue the cycle of sprawl and traffic, then more roads, more sprawl etc)
Toll roads aren’t a bad idea though because it’s another way to decrease usage. Apparently in some cases, localities almost had to do this because the spans were carrying more weight than they were designed for, and adding a toll cuts down on the usage of that artery.
Shaun,
As I’m sure you well know, we don’t have the $400 plus billion and we wouldn’t have it if we hadn’t invaded Iraq either- it’s borrowed money. Aside from the other tenuous parts of your argument, this is like a family having $20,000 in credit card debt saying, “if only we hadn’t spent that $20,000, think of all the OTHER things we could have bought on a credit card with $20K.”
And although I hate to step into the exchange here, I have to point out that even Gray (a European liberal commenter) commented in another thread that your connection of this with the Iraq War was gratuitous and agenda driven (well, those are my words, not his).
CS – Federal monies also go to build and maintain roads and bridges in all states. The Federal government mandates rules (speed limits) as a ransom for those monies. Federal revenue to sharing to states was cut to fund the Bush tax cuts. If you want massive tax cuts then massive debt and/or funding cuts will result.
IM and Shaun, love your little spats, are these real or just theater?
CS:
Well, if no less than a authority on agendas than Gray has taken me to the woodshed, then I am indeed chastened.
And by the way, thanks for loaning Uncle that $400 billion.
Shaun,
I pointed out Gray’s remark only to illustrate that the complaints came also from an antiwar European, not just Republicans as you claimed.
Rudi,
I do think that more should be allocated for infrastructure overall but I’m not aware of highway cuts in Bush’s budgets (didn’t IM show increases the other day?)
I think probably what has happened is that other cuts have forced the states to cut back on their own highway money to shift to other programs where fed money was cut. Same thing happened under Reagan- money to states is cut in an effort toward devolution, but the states fail to make up the shortages because the governors and other local officials don’t want to raise taxes either. If we’d educate people though, it makes more sense to pay more tax at local level where we can see what they are doing with it.
OK. I’ll take your word on that.
I just cant help but wonder what you happen if I went to Kiko’s House and searched for the term “Blanco” and compared what I found to the search “Michael Brown”. I’m sure the botched state respose to Katrina got a licking just like the botched federal response. Right?
I noticed that New Jersey was mentioned without mentioning that it is a deep blue state. Failure to maintain roads is a bipartisan effort.
Of course, the State of Minnesota is willing to spend millions on new sports stadiums that are virtually within sight of the collapsed bridge. If a state has enough money for new sports arenas, one should find it hard to believe that it did not have enough money to maintain the roads.
I wonder if Minnesota has a minority set aside contracting program to pay above the going rate for road repairs? If it does, it is another sign that the state has more than enough money but just chooses to spend it on other things.
Ironic Midwest:
I know that you live to keep score, so while you’re wasting your time and mine doing so, type in “Hillary Rodham Clinton” at my blog and see how many favorable references you get. Wait. I’ll save you the trouble. There are none. Next type in “General Petraeus” and see how many unfavorable references you get. Wait. I’ll save you the trouble. There are none. Next, type in “Democratic Congress” and see how many favorable references you get. Wait. I’ll save you the trouble. There are none. Finally, type in “Ed Morrissey,” “Jules Crittenden,” “Rick Moran” and other popular conservative bloggers and see how many times I’ve cited them in stand-alone quotes to counter balance other views. Dozens and dozens and dozens of times.
A really silly exercise, damning people because of your own version of arithmetic, isn’t it?
SD Stop the partisan nonsense. Our favorite”tuity-fruity” Republican Sullivan links to an Atlantic article from 1994. Never mind that most of the bridges are in the region were a majority of Eisenhowers program started 50 years ago. AS or Atlantic mention Oregon and Washington as good examples, but with a caveat. Iowa is bad, but Iwoa has more bridges than those two western states and a couples others combined. Look up the Autobahn, by law the thickness of it’s concrete is inches thicker than US roads even in the frozen North. We build our roads and bridges on the cheap, we deserve it. Both parties allowed this situation, so don’t join in the blame chorus.
This all reminds me of the people who say they can’t afford X or Y. Well, they could have had they not chosen to spend their money on building Stadium A or Office Building B. it all comes down to what people spend their money (whether borrowed or earned) on.
So what that Pawlenty vetoed a hike in the gas tax? Out of a budget of some $35 BILLION, I presume the good state of Minnesota still had tens of millions of dollars in money they could have spent fixing this particular bridge; they simply chose not to do so.
All across the country, infrastructure maintenance is put off so money can be used elsewhere. It’s not a GOP or Democratic characteristic, it’s a political one. Politicians want money to be spent on things that can be seen – and appreciated – by the public. That’s why in Virginia they’re going to spend billions (needlessly) extending the subway line out to Dulles Airport instead of putting the same amount of money towards infrastructure maintenance.
And Shaun, since you claim to be an equal opportunity criticizer, why not criticize John Murtha for this? Had he not earmarked millions of dollars to his district, there would have been money for this bridge to be replaced. or, for that matter, why not criticize the Democrats in the Minnesota delegation (a majority in 2000) for not earmarking money for repairing this bridge? Fact is, you see a disaster, you look for the closest republican and you start firing away.
It’s always obscene and offensive to be looking for political scapegoats while bodies are still being recovered.
As C Stanley and Iconic Midwest have pointed out, it’s absurd to connect this to any tax. Your one valid point is that we do indeed need to pay better for on-going maintenance of our highways and bridges. But it’s a far cry from that general point to the obnoxious political points you try to score. Why not blame spending on new highways and bridges? That’s diverted money from bridge maintenance just as much as not having a new tax. Beyond that, to make your point validly, you would have to compare the known (pre-collapse) condition of this bridge with the condition of all the other bridges in that state, to see which might have gotten priority repair EVEN IF some new tax had been enacted.
Further than that, you would have to show that all the OTHER spending done by the state was more important than repairing this particular bridge. Find one or two disputable programs amounting to $10 or $20 million, and you can just as easily blame THEM for the bridge collapse.
Even for you, Shaun, this is a new low. I hope you go to bed tonight ashamed of yourself for using the dead bodies in the Mississippi River to score cheap, tawdry political points.
Shaun approvingly quoted a guy who finished with this:
It’s true.
stevesturm:
Great point about Murtha. Crossing into his congressional district in Pennsylvania is like going from country roads to six-lane expressways, which are usually pretty empty because there are more deer than Democrats in his district.
PatHMV:
Well, here we go around a familiar mulberry bush.
At what point does it become non cheap and tawdry to note that the bridge collapse did not occur in a vaccum and there may have been extenuating circumstances at a time when that $400 billion-plus infrastructure project is an enormous drain on the federal treasury and the national psyche?
After the funerals are over? A month later? Never?
I’m confused, so perhaps I missed something. Captain’s Quarters is quoting a Star Tribune article that says that there was money to repair the bridge, but engineers were debating how to:
MnDOT feared cracking in bridge but opted against making repairs
Sounds more like an engineering failure than any systemic lack of money for repairing infrastructure.
My goodness, this post is certainly driving a lot of people off the deep end!
Is it just me or is there some talking past each other going on? Yes, the OP is right -that maybe more funds would have been spent better if the money and distarction of afganistan and iraq wasn;t going on (let’s not forget there’s more than one thing in the pot).
Iconic is right that the relation is limited. (and he’s right on the grounds of good taste. A lot of the posts over the past few months on TMV have really been getting very… strident, and even a little partisan. I find the impression of that to be a little depressing, even if it’s just that, an impression. This blog’s reputation as fair and reasonable is very important, I would think).
Shaun writes:
How is that even remotely my point?
You claim you would have just as easily accepted and offered criticism of Democrats in the face of evidence pointing that way, and I pointed to evidence from your own writing that says exactly the opposite is actually true.
There are plenty of folks out there who prefer the Democratic party yet who can still operate in an unbiased manner when discussing matters of public import. I just don’t think you are one of them.
Well, SteveK, I’ve had plenty of forceful but mostly civil debates with Shaun in the past. But his post today is deeply offensive, not on a political level but on a personal level. I live in Baton Rouge and had to watch the right scream at our governor and the New Orleans mayor while the left was screaming at the President while we didn’t even BEGIN to have an idea how many people were dying, while bodies were floating in the water, while people were being rescued off the rooftops. That was disgusting, and every single person who engaged in it should be deeply ashamed of themselves… and I said so at the time, begging both the left and the right to lay off, to no affect, alas.
When Shaun apologizes for using a tragedy like this to score cheap political points while bodies are still being recovered, I’ll apologize. Until then, you’re right, it’ll be a cold day. But that’s ok. As bellisaurius noted, this formerly moderate bog has been going down hill of late, drastically lowering its standards for its posters, so I don’t come here all that much anymore. I’ll lose no sleep if it turns into another echo chamber.
Sorry I had to bug out, gang, but some folks down the road who are callous, single-minded asses, deaf and blind to common decency, did something very bad. They packed a rental truck and moved away, leaving their two cats to fend for themselves.
Neither cat had ever been outside and are understandably very freaked out. The DF&C and I have left them food and water and hopefully can coax them into a carrier so they can be brought inside while we figure out what to do with them.
(Throat clearing.)
I do not write to offend. Ever. But that does not mean that people of certain sensibilities won’t be offended. I apologize if I have trampled on those certain sensibilities — in the past, today and in the future.
Likewise, I never seek to offend. If I bluntly but honestly describe my strong negative reaction to another speaker’s expression of opinion, it is intended to inform the speaker, so that he may understand how the thoughts he expresses make him appear to others. I presume that each speaker at some level desires to persuade others, and honest feedback allows him to evaluate his effectiveness at doing so. This apparently offends some certain sensibilities as well. I also apologize if I have trampled on those certain sensibilities. Further, I apologize to all those offended by my standing up for the dignity of the recent victims of the tragedy as a political zealot misappropriated their suffering to further his political views.
I found this post and Shaun’s behavior towards his commentators intellectually dishonest in the extreme, and I voiced my displeasure in a strong fashion that was very likely too strong for rule #7 and for that I will apologize.
But really SteveK “partisan hack”? If that is over the line we might as well just do away with the comment section all together. IMO you owe AustinRoth an apology for your over-reaction.
Plus, I am interested. Pleae point me to the threads where left leaning commentators were taken to the woodshed. I’d like to read those myself.
Being cheap about infrastructure is nothing new, and it is not the monopoly of any political party. Politicians seek to do a lot on the cheap, and it frequently provides poor, if not catastrophic results. But the public, bless their hearts, is al;ways looking for a way to get more results for their tax dollars, and it should surprise no one that politicians seek to cut costs.
Back in December,1915 the north span of the Division Street bridge in Spokane, Washington collapsed, carrying a pair of street cars operated by the local utility company into the river. Five men were killed, crushed or drowned in the wreckage of one trolley. The city promptly claimed the utility company was to blame because the trolleys were too heavy and threatened suit; the utility company promised counter suit. The investigative report was interesting. At the time it collapsed, the bridge was carrying one seventh (1/7) of the load it was designed to carry. But, there had been crystalization of the metal in bottom of the upstream girders, apparently caused when they were damaged by floating debris in a flood several years earlier. The city, rather than replacing the damaged members, had straightened them. The fatigued steel cracked on a cold December morning, with tragic results.
Recently we had the collapse of tunnel lining from the “Big Dig” in Boston, a project much newer than the Minnesota bridge. The reports suggest that there were other roof panels with the potential to fall.
It probably isn’t what the media folks want to hear, but I think we could use a lot less sensationalism, and more willingness to be patient and report on actual information when it becomes available. The information coming out about the Minnesota bridge suggests that there may have been a lot of issues and decisions that contributed to this – as was the case in other structure failures.
With all due respect Iconic Midwest…
Iconic Midwest, I’d gladly provide links but the TMV housekeeping system makes the examples you’re asking for disappear. I will gladly send you screen shots, off-line of course, if you’re really interested. Assuming, that is, this message doesn’t get deleted before you get a chance to read it.
regards, Steve
Shaun strikes again, yes it’s all Bushitlers fault. Next post, it’s again Bushitlers fault. The post after that will be about Bushitler and then we will have another post on another fault of Bushitler.
That’s fine.
Besides, your post shouldn’t be deleted. It’s an “homage” right?
So sure, please send them. I’m interested to see if they reach the lofty heights of invective like “partisan hack” “screw you” or “ass” obviously have.
SteveK -
I have to agree that if ‘partisan hack’ is beyond the pale, then there is no reason to allow any comments.
So, if I am going to have a comment edited or deleted, it might as well be for a good reason.
“Throwing money at a problem doesn’t magically fix it; you have to have competent people making appropriate decisions about what to do with the money.”
Well, C, to me it seems like you ignored that those decisons were triggered by the lack of funds. If there had been more adequate funds, it is quite reasonable to assume the officials would have chosen plan C or even B.
“I have to point out that even Gray (a European liberal commenter) commented in another thread that your connection of this with the Iraq War was gratuitous and agenda driven (well, those are my words, not his).”
Well, C, I’m to lazy now to go looking for my exact comment, but I’m 100% positive these are your words, not mine. However, I really was under the impression that Shaun somewhat exploited the tragedy to make a point about the war, which seemed a bit farfetched and inappropriate to me. Sry, Shaun, but by disagreeing from time to time, us liberals can show that we’re independent thinkers, too, after all.
“Well, if no less than a authority on agendas than Gray has taken me to the woodshed, then I am indeed chastened.”
Whuahahahhahha!
++ Shaun!
I think a lot of people have crossed the line with personal insults in this thread (including some whose views mirror mine).
What I find exasperating though is that Shaun’s posts often trigger these kinds of reactions yet he seems to take no responsibility for the fact that the way he expresses his views and opinions is gratuituously inflammatory. Often his initial comments to those who disagree with him are quite inflammatory as well, but in a veiled way. Joe often steps in then to admonish the commenters who are so angered by Shaun’s ‘innocent’ remarks that their tempers flare.
I imagine that SteveK is referring to times when the comment section of Jason’s and Marc’s posts descend into similar flamethrowing. I don’t recall any of their posts being of the same nature as Shaun’s though, but I admit that it is often harder to see such things in posts where one agrees with the general viewpoints expressed. If someone cares to dig up one of those “offensive” posts of Jason or Marc, I’d be interested in a comparison to the tone and type of discussion that Shaun initiated here.
Personally I think that part of the comment policy should ensure that there isn’t a double standard for bloggers vs. commenters. I realize it’s difficult for a blogger to receive comments that either explicitly or implicitly call them partisan hacks; but it seems there should be a standard reponse that isn’t along the lines of “I’m the rubber, you’re the glue, everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you”. In other words, if the blogger would take responsibility for responding to what they feel are ad hom attacks by just calling it out and telling the commenter that substantive debate is welcome but making it personal isn’t, then I think the flames could be extinguished. Instead it seems that once a commenter is ticked off and writes something insulting to the blogger, then all bets are off and the blogger seems to feel that only the commenter needs to abide by the comment rules.
As I’ve said before, it’s Joe’s blog and he can take these thoughts for what they are worth, but I will say that when I visit a lot of other blogs now I run into a lot of “expat” TMV commenters who feel that TMV isn’t moderate enough for their tastes anymore. Lots of people will say that the center has just shifted left, but there’s a difference between expressing different philosophical viewpoints and changing an overall tone to one where insults are more tolerated.
And I would add to the excellent comments by CS that posters know full well that the playing field is not level and commenters can be baited into intemperate remarks and be banned. It can be a game with them on seeing who they can get knocked off the site. Austin, I will look for your commentary elsewhere, I know you will not be back at this “moderate†website any longer.
I am sorry to say that I have been too busy moving over the past several days to do the moderating job until today. The difficulties of the move have been exacerbated by the cascade of traffic problems caused by the 35W bridge collapse. Also, it has been a rather personally emotional time as friends and family members from all around town tried to track each other down. A large part of my family was in the immediate vicinity of the disaster at the time and there was a period of some concern about their safety as well as some concern on the part of family and friends that were unable to reach us during our move and began to fear the worst.
My excuses aside, I would ask that commenters focus on the issues and arguments rather than on insulting each other or trying to put the comments policy to some kind of “test”. As always, everyone is free to comment about the issue of the post as well as to criticize the tone or method of the post. No one is free to use vulgarity, to personally attack the poster or to personally attack another commenter. These are not very restrictive standards, as the very large number of very critical comments that this site shows clearly demonstrates.
As for the substance of this thread, I think it is inevitable that questions of political responsibility will be raised. I’ll probably write a post of my own as soon (or if) as I reach a point where I want to talk publicly about my feelings as they relate to a disaster on a bridge that I have taken myself many hundreds of times in the cities that I have called home for almost my entire life. But the mere fact that it is personally emotional doesn’t change that it is an issue with political consequences and an inevitable political accountability.
It is impossible for any of the recent actions — e.g. gas tax veto by Gov. Pawlenty, USDOT budget cut by Pres. Bush — to have averted this tragedy. But such actions can be seen in a broader context of a government that has for decades been uninterested in the basic functions of government — building, maintaining and securing critical infrastructure. The facts that the levies fell apart at one end of the Mississippi and a bridge collapsed near the other end are indicative of a bipartisan failure of government. And as someone who feels in some way personally affected by this disaster, I’ll defend Shaun’s legitimate right to comment on those political elements even while I disagree with him by pointing out that the failure of governance is bipartisan rather than just Republicans.
“What I find exasperating though is that Shaun’s posts often trigger these kinds of reactions yet he seems to take no responsibility for the fact that the way he expresses his views and opinions is gratuituously inflammatory.”
Well, imhho Shaun is a real asset for TMV.By playing advocatus diabolus he has triggered countless fruitful threads. Even I agree that his starting point sometimes is to far out, but who wants to say he left the following discussion unimpressed? :-/
“I am sorry to say that I have been too busy moving over the past several days to do the moderating job until today”
Hey, nobody complained about your absence, Jason. Really, we went along without you exceptionally well. After all, this is The Moderate Voice, NOT The Moderated Voice, right?
The last paragraph of Jason’s post is one I agree with completely. What I blame is not so much one party but the atmosphere that has been generated that seems to say that all taxes are evil even when they are completely necessary. Claims are made over and over again that if only Government Department X would be run better (More like a corporation.) we wouldn’t need to raise taxes therefore we should not raise taxes. I also never hear specific plans for these improvements in efficiency, I just see the budget cuts or budget increases that don’t keep up with inflation. And so it goes. Thousands and thousands of bridges are substandard. How many miles of road are in such bad shape that they damage the cars that travel over them? There are also water systems, sewer systems and other infrastructure badly in need of repair. But keeping it in shape isn’t as “rewarding” as building new stuff, especially with the developers that want more sprawl and roads to their development, never caring about the long term and potential downsides to never-ending expansion of roads.
Grog -
I expected the comment to be edited (as it should have been, and as it was). It was all done quite on purpose.
I do not expect to be banned, as I have never been warned on any comment of mine in the past, and that is the first time I have ever had a comment edited (and I set his one up to be edited on purpose) but, hey, who can tell.
[...] Update: A Tale of Two BridgesThe Moderate Voice – Well, C, I m to lazy now to go looking for my exact comment, but I m 100% positive amounts of spam that hit The Moderate Voice, your comment may be wrongly marked as spam and not show up immediately. We make every attempt to retrieve “false [...]