Talk:I-35W Mississippi River bridge/Archive 2

message: Any reason why bridge is capitalised in the title? TerriersFan 04:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on whether or not "I-35W Mississippi River Bridge" is the proper title of the span or not.--Daveswagon 04:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That's certainly how the bridge is (was) referred to locally (e.g. on traffic reports), but I doubt it's any kind of official name.  --24.118.60.104 04:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation of title 

message: Referring to this sentence in the article:
"There is a 2001 Mn/DOT report indicating weakness at the joints of the steel that held the concrete deck above the river."
This doesn't seem to fairly represent the report, with the conclusion in its abstract that "Mn/DOT does not need to prematurely replace this bridge because of fatigue cracking". The PDF contains only four pages of the 91 page report, but what's there reads like more of an "all-clear" than a warning of impending disaster, whereas the reader might infer the latter from the description above. 58.111.162.27 04:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2001 Mn/DOT-commissioned report

message: The KSTP-sourced Fatigue Evaluation of the Deck Truss of Bridge 9340 is a summary only.  The full report is available from the Minnesota Local Road Reasearch Board at  Badsongninja 04:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good link, but there is a 2001 report that mentions cracks according to the TV news. Nodekeeper 05:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the FULL report mentioned by the news. KSTP only posted the summary.  In the report detailed fatigue assessment found fatigue cracking of the deck unlikely, however the report mentions that "The approach spans have exhibited several fatigue problems; primarily due to unanticipated out-of-plane distortion on the girders." The 2003 MnDOT bridge inspection schedule mentions "Monitor fatigue cracking from out of plane bending at the approach span girders and diaphragm connections" in the remarks (see ). The report also refers to the lack of redundancy and poor fatigue details on the main truss and floor truss systems.  While "the bridge could most likely tolerate the loss of a floor truss without collapse", the "failure of one of the two main trusses would be more critical." Badsongninja 06:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of plane bending of a strut could have resulted in a spontaneous buckling of the rather slender looking members..Gregorydavid 13:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: How many other bridges get similar reports?  This all looks very "scary" in retrospect, but I'm curious as to how routine it is for bridges to get these types of fatigue evaluations.  DavidRF 22:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken from the perspective of the nation as a whole, it appears that the state of this bridge was fairly common.  According to the AASHTO 2005 Official Strategic Plan for Bridges , "A quarter of our nation’s 590,000 bridges are currently classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete."  When managing this type of infrastructure, it is one step to obtain the information in the report; the often more difficult step is in deciding how to deal with the issues raised.  For instance, if there are 50 bridges in the state that are in worse condition and funding that is available for five years allows replacement and repair of ten of these bridges, the other 40 bridges will have to be programmed for funding and construction later.  The agency is left to figure out how to extend the life of the remaining bridges that are in need.  It is certain that the agencies responsible (MnDOT and FHWA) took these reports very seriously.  However, it is much less glamorous politically to repair a bridge versus construction of something new.  Repair or replacement involves inconveniences while construction is ongoing, and the end result is the same as what you had before.  Bridges DO NOT fall down every day, thus there is little political motivation to ask for revenues to repair what exists. Badsongninja 02:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Fatigue Report 

message: The school bus thing really needs confirmation. A school bus was visible in much of the news coverage on top of the bridge and I heard reports that school children were climbing out the windows helped by teachers and that the Red Cross I think confirmed about 6 school children from a bus had been injured Nil Einne 05:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Source added. I didn't see any indication of injuries, but news reports are likely confused at this early stage.--Chaser - T 05:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If this is true, and the bus barely scraped by, it seems like the large bus was part of what did the already weakened bridge in.  However, this is just my baseless speculation. --64.75.187.195 06:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Utterly baseless.  That bus, even loaded with 60 children, probably weighed less than half as much as the semi-tractor trailer rig right next to it that was on fire. T-bonham 08:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The bus did fall. See StarTribune about halfway down the page.71.210.132.171 06:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anderson Cooper also interviewed one of the children on the bus last night. 68.146.47.196 12:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  School bus 

message: A reference for the new title is available in the anti-icing report pdf hosted at . If there's a better source for the title or if this is not accurate, please post here (or simply move to the other title). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's apparently the best source for formal bridge name so far. As a local, I've never heard it called anything except "the bridge" or "the 35W bridge which crosses the mississippi" or somthing like that. No formal name. That report gives it a number #9340, but I think I-35W Bridge 9340 may be a little nondescript. Though the current name is a little verbose... Thanatosimii 09:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The U of M civil engineering report (2001) simply calls it "bridge 9340." Gwen Gale 09:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't we use its most known name, which is apparently I-35W Mississippi River Bridge without the ampersand? --wL<speak·check> 10:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the "apparently" that worries me. This bridge has been referred to as, simply, the "I-35W bridge" way more often than the full title, but that title would not be sufficiently descriptive as there are several bridges along I35W. I'd say that Mn/DOT is in the best position to name a bridge they built themselves :) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking a run through the news articles that relate to the collapse, as you said it's known as the "Interstate 35W Bridge" without any attachment (which is what I think should be the title). The way the previous title read implies two bridges, and having the ampersand seems unstylistic; it yields no seach engine results as well. --wL<speak·check> 10:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does actually yield search engine results, but that is irrelevant since search engine results don't have the power to change the name of a place! Unstylistic? Where in the WP:MOS does it state that you can edit the name of a place because it is not aesthetically appeasing? Look, I have no problem with any specific title, provided that it is referenced by a reliable source. In the future I am sure that Mn/DOT will release numerous documents that mention the official name of the bridge, but I have only found one such document thusfar. Please provide a source or I will revert the move. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (Resetting indents) So how about Interstate 35W Bridge? --wL<speak·check> 11:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:I-35W_Mississippi_River_Bridge#Better_title. There are several bridges along I35W, and not just trivial ones. An article on the I-35W Bridge collapse would be specific, but that's if the collapse section is ever spun off. In the meantime, I'll move the article back to the title with the ampersand, pending a source or consensus. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I see  changed the name to this version twice.  He claims it is the official name as per the MnDoT.  Anyone have a link to support this? --StuffOfInterest 12:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The interesting part of that document he linked to is that the footer says I-35W Mississippi River Bridge.  --Holderca1 12:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The link was , the cover page and many other mentions included the ampersand. Since a few people now want to loose it, I'll abide by consensus. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that  came in behind me and removed the capitalization on "bridge".  He is probably correct, being that this is not a proper name for the bridge, but he could have at least participated in the discussion a little bit to save some work. --StuffOfInterest 13:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, yes, I see this discussion now.  As I just said above: it was capitalized wrong when it was I-35W Bridge and it was still capitalized wrong, so I moved it.  It is "just a bridge" and has no common, proper name to it like the Brooklyn Bridge.  Though, this may change now that it's notable since it has collapsed.  Cburnett 13:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I-35W Mississippi River Bridge vs I-35W & Mississippi River Bridge 

message: There seems to be some parallel here with the silver bridge collapse in 1967. The whole bridge fell in less than a minute into the Ohio river, killing 46 people. It was caused by stress corrosion cracking over its 40 year life. Are the recent maintenance reports on the web? Have the NTSB made any comment yet? Peterlewis 13:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When poorly designed/maintained bridges go, they do so suddenly, fast and often without much dramatic warning. Engineers though were clearly having worrisome second thoughts about this one by 2005. Gwen Gale 13:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What you mean people saw a Mothman around Minneapolis and received strange phone calls leading up to this? ;-)  Do some reading on other bridge collapses and you'll see that most of them happen in a simular fashion.  The thing they have in common is that they are bridges that collapsed.  See, this is why I like Wikipedia, in a world of media where they want to make you think that disasters like this have never happened before, Wikipedia provides a resource to help you realize that it happens every couple years. -- Suso 15:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mothman was likely a big crane(s) seen in less than ideal lighting conditions. Also, a retired policeman reportedly admitted wearing a "mothman" costume to scare couples away from a disused industrial site. Oh and yeah, bridge collapses aren't all that rare and the latent ineptitude of central governments when it comes to managing local infrastructure has been widely described. Gwen Gale 15:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Silver Bridge]] collapse

message: *St. Anthony Bridge - I did read the August 2, 2007 news report that stated that the bridge was named St. Anthony Bridge at one point but I think it is wrong. The only pre-collapse information I found was "The Model Railroad Club built ... a stone arch bridge that replicates the St. Anthony Bridge in Minneapolis." (December 4, 1987) and "Minneapolis Sky Line" is a nearly all blue painting by Enid Knowles, with the arching St. Anthony Bridge the unifying element. (February 11, 2001). The I-35W does not have such arches. I think we should remove St. Anthony Bridge as being a name until there is better confirmation.
*Bridge 9340 - I could not find any pre-collapse news source calling the bridge Bridge 9340.
*I-35W Mississippi River bridge - Of the many pre-collapse news articles, only five mention a "Mississippi River bridge" and none call it "I-35W Mississippi River bridge". The bridge mostly was called the "Interstate Hwy. 35W Bridge." I do not think that the article should be titled "I-35W Mississippi River bridge" until that becomes the popular name for the bridge.
--Jreferee (Talk) 14:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Amazingly, even Google Maps doesn't have a name for the bridge.  In most cases, if you zoom in tight there will be a name listed.  For this one, it just stays "35W".  I'm surprised someone hasn't tried to have it named "Ronald Reagan Memorial Bridge" yet, like seems to happen to everything else without a name the last few years. --StuffOfInterest 15:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *I rethought it and the article name of I-35W Mississippi River bridge seems the best way to go at the moment.  The I-35W has several bridges that pass over things and there are at least twelve bridges that pass over the I-35W.  There is the "I-35W bridge over Minnehaha Parkway", the "I-35W bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis", the "I-35W bridge leading into downtown Minneapolis", the "I-35W bridge over Lake Street," and the "I-35W from the Mississippi River bridge to Stinson Blvd. bridge."  They generally call bridges passing over I-35W the "I-35W freeway bridges" or "bridges that span I-35W". The I-35W Mississippi River bridge was a non-descript bridge among many non-descript bridges that did not inspire much.  People did not feel connected to it enough to give it one distinctive name. I-35W Mississippi River bridge seems the best way for Wikipedia to identify the article name. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Let's call it the Tim Pawlenty/Carol Molnau "No New Taxes Bridge".  Maybe in the next legislative session we'll have more success raising money for transportation improvement and maintenance. --Appraiser 15:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, clearly this disaster could have been prevented with more money, which I believe is also the solution all problems in government.--Daveswagon 15:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This bridge collapse brings up obvious governmental issues and will no doubt be exploited by cynical and corrupt politicians of every stripe. A "reaction" section likely will (and should) appear. Gwen Gale 15:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of the pre August 1, 2007 news articles called the bridge Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge since the news article generally were all local and they knew what they were talking about (althought it is confusing in hindsight). Someone looking for information on the bridge might search out "Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge" and find that information. The alternative name is about what the WP:RS material calls it, not Wikipedia original reasearch as to what the bridge should be named. The name "Bridge 9340" is National Bridge Inventory number bridge number. See the infobox. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI, most of the new reports with the term "Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge" actually use "Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge over the Mississippi River", the fact that the shortened form got added here is a misnomer. --Voidvector 21:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bridge name

message: Shouldn't the alternative name be "Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge over the Mississippi River" since the current alternative "Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge" is not specific enough? --Voidvector 17:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the pre August 1, 2007 news articles called the bridge Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge since the news article generally were all local and they knew what they were talking about (althought it is confusing in hindsight). Someone looking for information on the bridge might search out "Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge" and find that information. The alternative name is about what the WP:RS material calls it, not Wikipedia original reasearch as to what the bridge should be named. The name "Bridge 9340" is National Bridge Inventory number bridge number. See the infobox. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI, most of the new reports with the term "Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge" actually use "Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge over the Mississippi River", the fact that the shortened form got added here is a misnomer. --Voidvector 21:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge