Talk:I-35W Mississippi River bridge/Archive 5

Saint Anthony Falls

There is a major collision here vis-a-vis the article Saint Anthony Falls and the List of locks and dams of the Upper Mississippi River. The two locks and dams above Lock and Dam No. 1 are Lower Saint Anthony Falls Lock and Dam and Upper Saint Anthony Falls Lock and Dam; these are treated in Saint Anthony Falls, an article which is great about the history of the falls, but wholly inappropriate for a series of articles that describe what the Army Corps of Engineers, along with the U.S. Coast Guard has established. These two upper locks and dams came later after the numbering system was established. To state it bluntly, Wikipedia has a problem acknowledging that these two locks and dams exist. For this article, the lock and dam just upriver from the bridge is barely mentioned, even though its presence is obvious in every image. The actual Saint Anthony Falls is in fact a man made artifact, a hydroelectric dam. Saint Anthony Falls is a finished article that needs to be ripped apart.--Ace Telephone 08:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any cited material that refers to those entities by those names. Please explain yourself (or just read the explanation I just added to the Saint Anthony Falls article). Also: please take this discussion over to that article's talk page.--76.203.49.140 15:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This might be more appropriate on Talk:Saint Anthony Falls. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Collapse source material

In a hurry, but here's another link that someone may want to use for RS in the article: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/08/01/bridge/?rsssource=1 121.208.181.37 08:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MnDOT 2006 FRACTURE CRITICAL BRIDGE INSPECTIN IN-DEPTH REPORT [1] has a lot of photos and details. Also, the name SQUIRT BRIDGE is used in the title of these annual reports starting in 2002. Badsongninja 17:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The NPR reference on the page (Ref. #2 currently) contains the following information, which I think should be put on the summary: "Built in 1964 by Hurcon Inc. and Industrial Construction Company." Industrial Construction Co. and HurCon Inc. Both are out of business. [2] (Note this is probably the contract date as the bridge was not opened until 1967.) "Steel trusses and deck were constructed by Industrial Construction Company in the summer of 1965." Badsongninja 17:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Another reference lists the designer as Sverdrup & Parcel, now owned by Jacobs Engineering Group in Pasadena, Calif. [3] This article also has quotes from Kurt Fhurman, who perfomed many of the recent inspections of the bridge. Badsongninja 18:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The INVESTIGATION section states: "Possible causes of the collapse include the role of road construction activities taking place on the bridge, water erosion of the north piers (which were partially toppled in the collapse), steel substructure defects, effects of use of the bridge de-icing system, thermal cycling of the structure, and recent heavy rains and flooding on the I-35W highway" The north pier erosion statement is inaccurate, as the north piers are still standing and not "partially toppled". What is the source for erosion as a possible cause? "steel substructure defects" should be restated to "steel substructure fatigue and/or corrosion". The de-icing system use could be an indirect cause, adding to possible corrosion, but there needs to be a reference to this as a potential cause (how would it contribute versus standard de-icing?). Thermal cycling of the structure should not be a cause, unless ignored in design (surely not the case). Finally, what reference is there for heavy rains and flooding? This area was in a drought condition for the weeks prior to the date of collapse. I think this section needs to be revised entirely and indicate investigations that are really ongoing versus the conjecture now thrown in this statement. Badsongninja 18:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. While this may be educated speculation, it is speculation nevertheless. You have pointed out factual errors underlying some of it, which is all the more reason we should avoid it in the article. Kablammo 18:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

New sections

Before creating a new section for the talk page, check to see if there's already a section that covers that topic. We have over 55+ sections already, and we need to try and keep that number down. -Jason ost 13:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously...Wikipedia isn't paper. There's no need to try to keep the number of sections down. This is a talk page, that's what you are supposed to do. If people repeat something, kindly leave a response pointing them to the relevent discussion above, but we don't "limit" sections. pschemp | talk 13:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, there is no reason to limit sections (and lots of helpful reasons to let them grow and scatter as needed). The pace of editing on this article will slow down and most of these sections will be archived soon anyway but in the meantime, editors should feel free to use their own common sense, starting new talk sections if the old ones have gotten too long and threaded, or carrying on with threads in existing sections. Gwen Gale 13:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Old sections are dying out, and I even feel the need to create new ones. Sorry. -Jason ost 17:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This and that

¶It occurs to me that this interstate highway bridge crossing a navigable waterway involves what amounts to a perfect storm of jurisdictional overlap of federal, state and local governments. The Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard have jurisdiction over the river (the idea of a Coast Guard Station in Minneapolis probably surprises most people). Local and state cops/sheriff's deputies had traffic authority on the bridge. The state built and maintained the bridge, but as an interstate bridge, there is federal authority in the United States Department of Transportation. The NTSB of course is the prime investigating authority for the catastrophe. From press reports, I gather the FBI is also involved, in the event the disaster exposes any violations of Federal law. Some mention of this "perfect storm" might be worked into the article, but I'm thinking a short article on such bridges, as well as a distinct category is particularly in order.
¶Some mention needs to be made of the usual visitation by political bigwigs, e.g., the Secretary of Transportation, the MN Senators and Representatives, as well as the Laura Bush's P.R. visit. The Prez, I gather, will do a Katrina-like flyover. Also mention should be made of Brian Williams doing the NBC news broadcast live from the city. The fact that this is a major media event needs to be emphasized when the article reaches its final phase.
¶As for the final state of the article, and the new replacement bridge, I re-affirm my view that a separate article should be created for the new bridge. Yes, Tacoma Narrows Bridge covers the destruction of the first bridge and is a good precedent, but I again make the point this is a Mississippi River Bridge, and that each structure, past or present, has its own article, and this precedent should be followed. The new bridge will also doubtless have a real name which would conflict with the present title of the article. But this is an issue that can wait for a year to resolve.--Ace Telephone 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think eventually, there will be an article for

1. the old bridge
2. the disaster
3. the new bridge
   possibly combining 1) and 2) if it's not too large. I suspect it will be large though, once all the engineering forensics are complete.--Appraiser 20:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

More style issues

I have some pet peeves about our writing style. First of all, reading Wikipedia is often like communicating with an intoxicated person because we tending to repeating things because multiple writers tend to stick the same factoid in two different places, sometimes even within the same sentence. I realize that this is a side effect of the collaborative process. There are many other points of style that our chatty, gossipy subjects tend to elicit from our writers:

• Too many quotations, rather than our own brilliant prose. This includes our excess use of the word "according", as in "according to". We do not need to attribute statements to sources. We need to state facts, as best we understand them, and then provide sources. We do not need to name publishers and newspapers in the prose. That is not our job. We are here to state past times and dates and facts from reliable, verifiable sources.
• Too many parenthetical inserts: I could also tolerate this one if it was done in a greater variety of ways, such as with semicolons and —'es — in addition to parentheses.
• We should use past tense as much as possible. When needed, we should start a sentence with "As of..." and state a date. The only things we should state in present tense are those things that are very likely still true, like scientific facts such as the speed of light. Again, for those who want up-to-the-minute journalism, they should be at Wikinews.--SallyForth123 20:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Like talking to a drunk person... excellent metaphor and all good points. Natalie 03:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories

I notice that someone has reverted my addition of Category:2007 disestablishments. This is defined as "Organizations, places, companies, or other things ended or disestablished in the year 2007". Since this is a 'thing ended in 2007' the cat seems fine. TerriersFan 20:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi TerriersFan. The bridge was not an establishment so it could not be disestablished. And it did not really end, it collapsed. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Safety of different types of bridges

I'd like to see a single, basic article (perhaps there is one?) (or clear links, please) devoted to, or informing casual readers about, different types of bridge construction e.g. suspension, arch-girder, pontoon, cable-stayed (is that same as suspension?). A recent BBC programme in the UK had detailed report on number of wires (detected by sound) that snap almost by the minute within the average large cable of suspension bridge - frightening, fresh, fascinating and authoritative. TV reports (in the UK) had State governor claiming this was a unique construction - I don't want Wiki to get too far into breaking news... but 'we' should have an article clarifying, or links if it's there already, please.Tony in Devon 21:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to ask about this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges. There are probably other articles that could be written, like a basic discussion of bridge bearings, something about metal fatigue as applied to bridges, discussion of bridge repair techniques, and so on. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Include or Not?

Ok, so we need to come to an agreement on whether or not we are going to include the names of the dead. Personally, I am tired of seeing the back and forward motion of the names constantly being removed and then re-added. Any thoughts? Illinois2011 22:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• As per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site". An obiturary would name names. I say we refrain, we do not do that with other articles here, and there is no notability for the people listed here aside from their involvment in the collapse. Thats my two cents. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Name with sources. TomStar81: Most of your WP:NOT quote is irrelevant to this point. Nobody is putting up their own personal info as per a blog, webspace provider or social networking. WP:MEMORIAL could be at issue and it says: "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." A list of a dozen people killed in a collapse is not an obituary or a memorial and they are not subjects of a biographical articles. Their names are relevant facts and sourced. Canuckle 22:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Examples: I-40 bridge disaster – 14 victims named, Chappaquiddick incident – 1 victim named, List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre – 32 killed, For a discussion on whether to name living survivors…[4], List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre – 13 killed, W. R. Myers High School shooting – 1 victim who was killed is named, 1 injured victim and the shooter are not for privacy concerns...

Very well then; I have no desire to stand in the way of consensus. Just please keep tabs on the section so it stays resonable. Thats all I ask :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Allow names, ages, and places of residence. Kablammo 22:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree per Kablammo and Canuckle; its not a memorial, purely factual and sourced. Zidel333 22:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(added after edit conflict) I'm not debating so much on sourceing becuase I know that sourced info is legit; my point more than anything is that (to my knowlage) we (by which I mean wikipedia) do not list the name of the people killed in incidents and accidents. For example, I see know names on the page(s) September 11, 2001, attacks, Attack on Pearl Harbor, the Miller Park Big Blue incedent, etc. My view on such matters is that if you add to one you add to all becuase it sets a precedent. The other concern I have is that people will go overboard with the names, bringing any list to the edge of the WP:NOT twilight zone. I will grant that we can moniter the page to prevent that, but my opinion is that the names should be omited. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

TS-- I appreciate your point, but experience and human nature show that the information will be added over the next few days anyway. My hope is that by allowing it we can limit its extent. Kablammo 23:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No. The names should not be added. If people want to re-examine the question in a month, after the emotion of the situation has settled down, then see if there seems to be an encyclopedic reason to include the names of those killed at that time. At this point, it's too easy to add them out of a sense of being a news report, or being a memorial, and it's too easy for things to be reported incorrectly by the media we're citing as sources. We're not a news report, we're not a memorial, and we don't want to include incorrect information on such a sensitive issue. So, for now, leave them out. If there's a desire to do so, re-evaluate in a month. kmccoy (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No as per Kmccoy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Kmccoy is right to advise caution. For wikipedia's reputation, we must be right (normally reliable sources can be wrong in this type of situation - one lady presumed missing was actually 'found' at her desk at work the next day) and we must not unreasonably invade people's privacy, including the recently deceased as per WP:BLP. We aren't news and aren't trying to be the first to break the news. We don't want immediate family to find out from us (rightly or wrongly) that their loved one is dead. That's the job for the officials (and some might say the press). However, being sensitive to accuracy and privacy issues does not mean a self-censoring blanket ban that says we never name any people killed in an event because death is a sensitive topic. Too often it is portrayed as such. We can name people. We just need to do so when we need to do so to be encyclopedic. In this event, wait until officials and multiple reliable sources say so and include it when relevant. For instance, when the family launch lawsuits or when it is otherwise required Canuckle 02:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The tally is probably incomplete or incorrect. The total reported in the media has already decreased once. There will be reports eventually. (SEWilco 05:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

The article is about the bridge, not the collapse. A year from now, it seems unlikely that the names of the dead will be relevant to this article and at the moment they are pure news information. The number of dead is important, yes, but not the names. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

More style

Another point of style: NO bare URLs, please. I do not do full {{cite web}} calls. I just want a title and a date. Take a look at 9/11 conspiracy theories to see that I am willing to do real some of the work.--SallyForth123 23:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bridge classification

Based on my layman research, this bridge can be classified as a trussed deck arch bridge or multi-span truss arch bridge. Can someone with bridge engineering background give insight on which classification should take precedent? --Voidvector 23:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Steel truss arch bridge. Similar to the 1970 Brittania Bridge.[5] Badsongninja 00:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is a multi-span steel truss arch bridge. But remember that a true arch is supported in the center because of the thrust (push) that is generated at each end. (Imagine taking a playing card and bending it to form an arch. If soemthing wasn't resisting the thrust, the card would spring flat unde a load.) If you read the truss arch bridge article, it says that if no horizontal throust is generated, it is actually "arch-shaped". So in conclusion, I would actually say it is a multi-span, steel deck truss, arch-shaped bridge--a small difference. - SCgatorFan 03:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of using original research, perhaps we should stick to reliable source information. FHA I-35 Bridge Collapse, Minneapolis, MN fact sheet states "Type structure: Steel Arch Deck Truss" so lets use that. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image caption..

The image captions says "looking north" while the image description page says "viewed from the north". Is one correct? —Pengo 01:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The Talk page for the image agrees it is a northerly view. On the other side of this bridge one can see the next bridge downstream. (SEWilco 05:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

This could not possibly have the shadow in the photo at the angle this would have to be taken at (Northeasterly if taken from the south bank). It must be taken from the north. Caption should be corrected to: The bridge in May 2006, looking southwest. Also, the entry just below should read: Carries 8 vehicle lanes of I-35W. Badsongninja 16:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

EXIF data shows that the photo was taken at 16:51, and if you look at the image assuming you're correct, you'd more clearly see the light source, and the shadow would likely be over or near the camera. The image is consistent with a view looking north, as is the 10th Avenue Bridge being on the right side. There is no bridge east of the 35W that would appear that close.--Greyduk 00:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The view actually points northeast. Kablammo 00:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

On third look at this, I agree. Badsongninja 02:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

More style

WE NEED TO STATE FACTS. "According to...", "was reported by..." are all rather weasel-ish. STATE FACTS. If you are not BOLD enough to make statements of fact because you only have one source to support your assertion, then go and do some more research.

I have another recommendation: put footnotes at the END of paragraphs. Look at the whole paragraph all at once and see if it is cohesive. DO NOT footnote into the middle of sentences. Please. It usually betrays the fact that you only have one source for the assertion.

Actually, I do not care if you only have one sourcce, as long as most people trust it. But if an assertion belongs in the article, then there is probably more than one source available since this is all over the news.--SallyForth123 01:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, state facts, avoid using "According to...", "was reported by..." Regarding footnotes, if you put footnotes at the end of paragraphs and someone adds an unreferenced sentence within that paragraph, the article will mislead people into believing that the unreferenced sentence is referenced. If each sentence carries its own footnote after a comma or after a period, you avoid that problem. Maybe in six months or a year, we can use the footnote at the end of paragraph technique. But for right now, with so many people editing this article, the footnotes should be used at the end of each punctuation mark (except for the lead paragraph which does not need to be footnoted. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You both and others are doing great work. But please be tolerant during this period of high-volume. Refs should be at the end of sentences and paragraphs ideally but during this time of mashing-up of sentences by multiple editors there is a risk that a paragraph will be referenced with somehting that is not accurate. Canuckle 02:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I must say, though, mashing all the refs at the end of paragraph is both confusing (because one cannot see the specific fact the ref is support) and not within the way things are usually done. I perused some articles at Wikipedia: featured content and I didn't see this particular style in any article. Why were all the footnotes moved this way? Natalie 03:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I largely wrote the history section. The way I did it was to take certain facts from a source to create a sentence. I put a cite at the end of that sentence. I then wrote the next sentence from the same or a different source and put a cite at that the end of that sentence. Anyone could verify what I posted merely by going to the source at the end of the sentence. Who ever mashed all the sources at the end of the paragraph did a huge disservice. Now, anyone wanting to verify a particular sentence in the paragraph will have to go to each reference and guess at which one was used as the source of the information. In fact, critics of Wikipedia need only go to one of the paragraph references, see that some of the paragraph information is not in that source, and write their "You can't trust Wikipedia" news report. Who ever mashed the references at the end of the paragraph did this article disservice. The references need to be attached to the actual information they verify, not just located in some proximity to that information. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have soiled myself

Just kidding. There are two "soil" things going on:

1. There are some "bridge lanes" that were designed to be spares for when they are refitting the road deck. In 1989, there was discussion of opening them up permanently to traffic. I am not sure if these "lanes" are two lanes on the span or just some approaches from the north. (For this discussion, it does not really matter)
2. The south end of the bridge a is toxic waste dump due to industrial pollution. It got some clean-up done.

Anyway: The north thing is a design thing and the south thing is a "Contaminated soil" thing. Pls maintain them in their correct sections.--02:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There is importance to the toxic waste cleanup as material was excavated and replaced alongside the river and the bridge pilings and footings. Now, this was 15 or so years ago, but subsidance can take a long time to manifest itself. This will likely be reviewed as a possible contributing factor to the failure, at least to rule it out. The topic is thus relevant to this entry. Badsongninja 16:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I want more zoom

I have been trying to figure out where that security camera was. The best I have done so far is this photo at flickr. Right now, my best guess is that it is right here and looking north by northeast. Anyone got better info that this? One gets more detail with the Live Search Maps because their dataset is from Pictometry, but I want to make it more obvious. Has anyone seen a better photo of that area?--SallyForth123 03:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow you can see the cam in that flickr photo... nice. -Ravedave 03:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The camera is by the lower locks of Saint Anthony Falls, which is why it is directed at the concrete structures. (SEWilco 05:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

I do not think that the Flickr photo I designated actually shows the camera. Based on the video, it looks like it is near eye-level with the paved road and that it on the far side of the road, relative to the river. That fence looks like it slides closed to, at times, control access to the parking lot and the facility. I am fairly sure that the camera is mounted outside the perimeter defined by the chain-link fence. Another nice thing about that photo is how it shows how much the south end of the bridge shifted downstream as it fell. It could be that nearer pylon where the disaster started.--76.203.49.140 05:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

We discuss the article and its sources. You might want to see the Star Tribune web site. (SEWilco 05:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

The security camera is not really a source in the traditional sense. I just think that it would be nice to demonstrate that we know exactly where that camera is, so that the reader gets more of an understanding of why those frames exist for all mankind to see. You know, sort of like the same that this image is important for its main story because it adds compelling vividness to the phrase Left Bipod Foam Ramp, which sounds rather dull and unimportant... until it kills you or your friends. Anyway... I want more zoom. I want a photo of that security camera. I think it is reasonable to assume that a photo of it already exists somewhere. After that, I want an even NICER photo of the southeast pylon of the bridge because my best hunch of the moment is that whatever killed our six motorists is probably right there on the load-bearing pad that was on top of that concrete pylon. It just too bad that this good photo of the southwest pylon does include include much of the desired pylon, which is chopped off. --SallyForth123 09:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oooh! Here is a little more zoom. I can read the sign now. It says:

Lower St. Anthony Falls
Lock and Dam
Upper Mississippi River
9-foot Navigation Project

I am really into signs because they are only two kinds: ones where you know what they say and ones where you do not know what they say. They great B.S. filter when you are trying to figure out who has done their homework and knows what they are talking about.

--SallyForth123 16:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The school bus...

That was probably Day Camp? If so, then they are technically not students, even if they are all of grammar school age. It's a minor point.--SallyForth123 03:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The bus had community center counselors on it. "Children" seems more correct than "students". -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't say "span" unless you mean "span"

In the Collapse section, the article currently says: "the southern end of the span suddenly gave way and the middle and north parts of the span immediately collapsed into the river and onto the riverbanks below". When I started reading this, I took it to mean that the southern end of the bridge's main span collapsed first, but from the complete sentence, it appears that the writer is just using "span" as an elegant variation for "bridge". This is very confusing, since the article should be talking about the individual spans at exactly this point. I could change "span" to "bridge", but I'd rather see someone who has the relevant details at hand put them in. 207.176.159.90 10:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I take the blame. Fixed.--SallyForth123 11:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's accurate in both cases, as the bridge had a single main span and two approach spans; the first part to collapse was the main span, and the north approach span collapsed several seconds later. Rdfox 76 11:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me correct myself. Technically, it had three main spans and a number of approach spans; what I was thinking of as the main span is the central main span over the river; I was thinking of the outer main spans as being approach spans. Easy mistake to make; the central main span is the largest one. Rdfox 76 11:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we ever found out more precisely how the failure happened, we can use more precise language. Until then, let's just say "bridge" and phrases like "south end of the bridge".--SallyForth123 11:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I-35W Minnesota River bridge

The 1989 north end soil problems information in the Wikpiedia article related to the I-35W Minnesota River bridge just west of Black Dog lake in south Minneapolis, not the I-35W Mississippi River bridge just south of Saint Anthony Falls in east Minneapolis. See different bridge. I do recall reading another news article about a man jumping off the I-35W Minnesota River bridge and floating from the Minnesota river to the Mississippi river. The I-35W Minnesota River bridge and the I-35W Mississippi River bridge seem very easy to confuse with each other. It would be nice if someone created an I-35W Minnesota River bridge article to clarify things. It doesn't have to be long, just enough so that we can clarify in the I-35W Mississippi River bridge article that the I-35W Mississippi River bridge in Minneapolis is not the I-35W Minnesota River bridge in Minneapolis. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. (I took some liberties for humor sake. I am sure that my little jokes will be short-lived.--SallyForth123 16:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The I-35W Minnesota River bridge is a good location to post Minnesota River bridge information that could be confused with the I-35W Mississippi River bridge, even if the Minnesota River bridge information is yawnsville. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sturctural Rating

Article says, "Out of 104,348 heavily used bridge structures (those with more than 10,000 vehicles traveling on them per day), only 4,227, or 4%, scored below 50, according to an analysis of federal records by MSNBC." The collapsed bridge carried 141,000 vehicles per day, nowhere near the 10,000 minimum for the over all category. I would wager that an analysis of bridges carrying the same load of vehicles per day as the collapsed bridge would reveal that it was rated one of the lowest.

One quick and dirty way to break out the numbers would be to create a danger number, which would be 100 minus the 1 to 100 integrity scale. This could be the formula: danger factor = daily volume * (100 - bridge integrity rating). So a perfect bridge with 300,000 cars a day would rate a 0. A bridge with a 75 integrity rating and 10,000 cars would get a 2,500 score, and the I-35W bridge, with 141,000 vehicles per day and a 50 integrityh rating would get a danger score of 70,500. I'm sure the I-35W bridge would nearly top this list that accounts for vehicle volume and structural integrity.

What would the purpose of such a number be? Would it be a "fear factor" that one uses in planning their commute and other travels? IMO, people in this country are way too afraid of what they don't understand to their own detriment. The management of this article and others on Wikipedia serve to provide a rational picture of this and other events, rather than the typical media sensationalism we are fed. One can certainly develop a formula that puts this bridge at the top of some "danger list" if we factor in a bunch of data that is really meaningless to an infrastructure maintenance program, which only proves to serve us in hindsight. Badsongninja 17:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party

I just want to call attention to the fact that Minnesota Democrats are technically members of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party. Popkultur 00:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit wordy. DFL usually suffices, if wikilinked where appropriate. Thanatosimii 05:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

References

The use of Notes and References is fully described in WP:CITE. These should be kept under separate headings. TerriersFan 01:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like what's now called Notes is really References. That begs the question, what should we retitle the current References section? I think to explain what it is, Additional sources is a reasonable choice. —C.Fred (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Strictly the References section should contain the content of the Notes section in alphabetical order with the References section called Further reading - see WP:CITE. Actually, I don't mind what the sections are called provided they are kept separate. TerriersFan 01:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Death toll

So, are there five confirmed deaths? Or are there six deaths? I am confused. Chris! _{my talk} 03:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Officially, five. (I believe there was support at one time for six but it now stands at five, all identified.) Names of eight missing have now been released. Kablammo 03:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok Chris! _{my talk} 03:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, do we really need to do "comparisons" and whatnot?

I deleted Silver Bridge from the "See also" area, only because List of bridge disasters is a general catch-all. Also, I already deleted Washburn "A" Mill and Hennepin Island tunnel, due to cruft possibilities. It seems anything even remotely related to the I-35W disaster needs to be mentioned and it's best to nip it right now than later. I'm just waiting for someone to add Galloping_Gertie to the article just because it's one of the more famous bridge disasters out there and henceforth, it should be mentioned.--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I read an interesting fact about the Silver Bridge and this bridge, for those of you interested if nothing else. The Silver Bridge (collapsed in the same year as the I-35W MS bridge opened) was replaced with the same type of bridge that was constructed here (the cantilevered trusses are inverted, however). Also, there was information cited somewhere that these types of bridge designs were abandoned around 1970, as other more robust designs were favored. I believe the article referenced FHWA as the driver for their elimination. If either of these are worth including, I will hunt for them again. Badsongninja 01:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain I read the about the 1960 bridge design in the Sunday Star Tribune. There might be useful search phrasing in that news article. Look for 1960s metal fatigue. (SEWilco 01:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

Structurally deficient

The article asserts that being structurally deficient does not indicate a lack of safety, but the reason a bridge is classified as such is precisely BECAUSE it isn't safe because the bridge is not built properly, is it not? Titanium Dragon 08:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Something can be in need of repair (to prevent further deterioration) without yet being dangerous. I believe that is the kind of distinction that is being drawn. Dragons flight 08:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Reportedly, this is a "programmatic" or data classification label which, while ultimately related to safety, is not a direct indicator of safety. The latent evasiveness of politics and bureacracy do tend to remove meaning from these standardized terms and phrases. If someone can find an independent source which criticizes or otherwise comments on this apparent contradiction, by all means please add it to the article. Cheers to all. Gwen Gale 09:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an easier example to visualize would be if lightning destroyed one of the vertical cables on the Golden Gate Bridge (the main cables support the deck through these vertical suspender cables); the bridge would then be structurally deficient because there is some damage, but if the main cables are undamaged and the adjoining deck-supporting cables are functional then the bridge would probably be quite usable while the damaged cable was replaced. The inspectors seem to have thought that this bridge was usable but could use some improvement. For examples of bridges which inspectors have been more concerned about, look up the Stillwater lift bridge over the St. Croix River, or the since-replaced (Minneapolis) Lake Street bridge which near its end had a low speed limit for buses (and I think also that buses use the center of the bridge). You could probably find a number of bridges which presently have similar usage restrictions. Those are situations where, unlike this bridge, inspectors did find problems and bridge usage has been altered due to the condition. There were not enough problems found to suggest that usage of the bridge had to be altered. (SEWilco 19:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC))