News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Infrastructure Bill 2021

Started by ITB, August 02, 2021, 05:01:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Scott5114

Quote from: Bruce on August 04, 2021, 11:55:29 PM
The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.

Speak for yourself–Oklahoma has plenty of new-terrain and upgrade mileage that's actually needed but which ODOT doesn't have the cash for.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef


sprjus4

If Texas is going to be getting funding for any of the new interstate corridors, I-69 should be the top priority followed by I-27. I-14 comes last, IMO.

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: Bruce on August 04, 2021, 11:55:29 PM
The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.
Texas A and M students will appreciate it.
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

hotdogPi

Quote from: Bruce on August 04, 2021, 11:55:29 PM
The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.

As I said in the I-14 thread, the segment east of Meridian is actually useful.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

kernals12

Quote from: Bruce on August 04, 2021, 11:55:29 PM
The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.

Contrary to popular belief, we are repairing our roads and bridges at a steady clip.

This highway will offer an alternative to I-10 and I-20 and it will bring all the benefits of Interstate Highway Access to one of the poorest parts of the United States.

froggie

^ Given that Randall O'Toole has been known to greatly skew data himself, I would take that claim with a large grain of salt.

hbelkins

Just because something gets added to the bill doesn't mean it will actually get built.

Discounting the fact that a lot of money goes for planning, scoping studies, etc., on projects that never go beyond paper, look at how many things have been legislated but never built. The I-73/I-74 "high priority corridor" for one.

Believe I-14 when it's finished and signed, or at least all construction is underway.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Bruce

Quote from: kernals12 on August 05, 2021, 07:41:55 AM
Quote from: Bruce on August 04, 2021, 11:55:29 PM
The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.

Contrary to popular belief, we are repairing our roads and bridges at a steady clip.

This highway will offer an alternative to I-10 and I-20 and it will bring all the benefits of Interstate Highway Access to one of the poorest parts of the United States.

O'Toole is not a reliable source.

One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.

Western Washington has hundreds of bridges that are in need of seismic retrofits, if not full replacements, because the full extent of earthquake risks were not known until the past 30 years. I-5 through Seattle is in need of a full rebuild, especially the Ship Canal Bridge, for example. We're definitely not doing "just fine".

hbelkins

Quote from: Bruce on August 05, 2021, 04:34:51 PM
One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.

That bridge collapse destruction of that bridge would have been prevented if the driver of the truck that tore it down had observed the signage and the height limitations.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

kalvado

Quote from: hbelkins on August 05, 2021, 04:43:23 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 05, 2021, 04:34:51 PM
One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.

That bridge collapse destruction of that bridge would have been prevented if the driver of the truck that tore it down had observed the signage and the height limitations.
Height limitations are a part of outdated design complex
And a lot of such limits end up being tested, sooner or later - and getting a softer box truck or some hard construction equipment is a matter of luck.

HighwayStar

Quote from: kalvado on August 05, 2021, 04:55:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 05, 2021, 04:43:23 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 05, 2021, 04:34:51 PM
One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.

That bridge collapse destruction of that bridge would have been prevented if the driver of the truck that tore it down had observed the signage and the height limitations.
Height limitations are a part of outdated design complex
And a lot of such limits end up being tested, sooner or later - and getting a softer box truck or some hard construction equipment is a matter of luck.

There is nothing "outdated" about height restrictions, you are going to have them, unless you eliminate all tunnels and overpasses entirely which is unrealistic.
There are those who travel, and those who travel well

kalvado

Quote from: HighwayStar on August 06, 2021, 02:12:30 AM
Quote from: kalvado on August 05, 2021, 04:55:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 05, 2021, 04:43:23 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 05, 2021, 04:34:51 PM
One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.

That bridge collapse destruction of that bridge would have been prevented if the driver of the truck that tore it down had observed the signage and the height limitations.
Height limitations are a part of outdated design complex
And a lot of such limits end up being tested, sooner or later - and getting a softer box truck or some hard construction equipment is a matter of luck.

There is nothing "outdated" about height restrictions, you are going to have them, unless you eliminate all tunnels and overpasses entirely which is unrealistic.
There are interstate standards - 16' current requirement, NY self-imposed 17'. Old standard is 14'.
It is fair to call any highway structure below 16' "outdated" and anything below 14' "obsolete"

In case of I-5 bridge, though, it is not a clear cut as there was one fatal mistake - truck was using right lane while oversized vehicles are supposed to use left lane (hello, KREP gang!). However, had Washington state DOT recognized "anything below 16' is outdated" and signed it as such, crash could easily be avoided.

HighwayStar

Quote from: kalvado on August 06, 2021, 07:32:13 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on August 06, 2021, 02:12:30 AM
Quote from: kalvado on August 05, 2021, 04:55:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 05, 2021, 04:43:23 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 05, 2021, 04:34:51 PM
One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.

That bridge collapse destruction of that bridge would have been prevented if the driver of the truck that tore it down had observed the signage and the height limitations.
Height limitations are a part of outdated design complex
And a lot of such limits end up being tested, sooner or later - and getting a softer box truck or some hard construction equipment is a matter of luck.

There is nothing "outdated" about height restrictions, you are going to have them, unless you eliminate all tunnels and overpasses entirely which is unrealistic.
There are interstate standards - 16' current requirement, NY self-imposed 17'. Old standard is 14'.
It is fair to call any highway structure below 16' "outdated" and anything below 14' "obsolete"

In case of I-5 bridge, though, it is not a clear cut as there was one fatal mistake - truck was using right lane while oversized vehicles are supposed to use left lane (hello, KREP gang!). However, had Washington state DOT recognized "anything below 16' is outdated" and signed it as such, crash could easily be avoided.

Perhaps on the interstate less than 14' might be considered outdated, but that standard by no means has to apply to every highway. And in the case of I-5 failure to follow regulations, rather than road design failure, was at fault. Is every head on crash on a 2 lane a failure of the road design because it does not force drivers apart? Or is that just driver misuse by driving in the wrong lane.
There are those who travel, and those who travel well

kphoger

Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

kphoger

Quote from: HighwayStar on August 06, 2021, 10:37:37 AM
Is every head on crash on a 2 lane a failure of the road design because it does not force drivers apart?

What about rear-end or T-bone collisions at busy intersections?  Many of those get reworked to include turning lanes, even short stretches of median.  So the agencies responsible have apparently determined that the road design is at least partially to blame for the collisions that happen.

In a similar way, if an Interstate highway has clearances lower than what are commonly found on Interstates elsewhere, then it's reasonable to say that the design could be partially to blame for a truck running into a bridge.  Of course it's the responsibility of every driver to obey signs and laws and all that jazz, but it also shouldn't happen that simply being in the wrong lane might cause catastrophic damage.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

kalvado

Quote from: kphoger on August 06, 2021, 12:02:17 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on August 06, 2021, 10:37:37 AM
Is every head on crash on a 2 lane a failure of the road design because it does not force drivers apart?

What about rear-end or T-bone collisions at busy intersections?  Many of those get reworked to include turning lanes, even short stretches of median.  So the agencies responsible have apparently determined that the road design is at least partially to blame for the collisions that happen.

In a similar way, if an Interstate highway has clearances lower than what are commonly found on Interstates elsewhere, then it's reasonable to say that the design could be partially to blame for a truck running into a bridge.  Of course it's the responsibility of every driver to obey signs and laws and all that jazz, but it also shouldn't happen that simply being in the wrong lane might cause catastrophic damage.

Just looked through  NTSB report regarding I-5 bridge collapse: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1401.pdf
Washington DOT failed miserably, but received little blame.

kernals12

Quote from: Bruce on August 05, 2021, 04:34:51 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 05, 2021, 07:41:55 AM
Quote from: Bruce on August 04, 2021, 11:55:29 PM
The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.

Contrary to popular belief, we are repairing our roads and bridges at a steady clip.

This highway will offer an alternative to I-10 and I-20 and it will bring all the benefits of Interstate Highway Access to one of the poorest parts of the United States.

O'Toole is not a reliable source.

One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.

Western Washington has hundreds of bridges that are in need of seismic retrofits, if not full replacements, because the full extent of earthquake risks were not known until the past 30 years. I-5 through Seattle is in need of a full rebuild, especially the Ship Canal Bridge, for example. We're definitely not doing "just fine".

The FHWA's statistics shows a decline in the number of structurally deficient bridges from 124,000 in 1992 to 54,000 in 2017. At that rate, America will have no more deficient bridges by the year 2035.

kernals12

Quote from: Bruce on August 05, 2021, 04:34:51 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 05, 2021, 07:41:55 AM
Quote from: Bruce on August 04, 2021, 11:55:29 PM
The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.

Contrary to popular belief, we are repairing our roads and bridges at a steady clip.

This highway will offer an alternative to I-10 and I-20 and it will bring all the benefits of Interstate Highway Access to one of the poorest parts of the United States.

O'Toole is not a reliable source.

One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.


Western Washington has hundreds of bridges that are in need of seismic retrofits, if not full replacements, because the full extent of earthquake risks were not known until the past 30 years. I-5 through Seattle is in need of a full rebuild, especially the Ship Canal Bridge, for example. We're definitely not doing "just fine".

So could have the Mianus Bridge in Greenwich, CT, which collapsed in 1983 because an error during maintenance a decade earlier caused the pin assemblies to rust.

Rothman

Quote from: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 07:09:01 AM
Quote from: Bruce on August 05, 2021, 04:34:51 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 05, 2021, 07:41:55 AM
Quote from: Bruce on August 04, 2021, 11:55:29 PM
The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.

Contrary to popular belief, we are repairing our roads and bridges at a steady clip.

This highway will offer an alternative to I-10 and I-20 and it will bring all the benefits of Interstate Highway Access to one of the poorest parts of the United States.

O'Toole is not a reliable source.

One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.

Western Washington has hundreds of bridges that are in need of seismic retrofits, if not full replacements, because the full extent of earthquake risks were not known until the past 30 years. I-5 through Seattle is in need of a full rebuild, especially the Ship Canal Bridge, for example. We're definitely not doing "just fine".

The FHWA's statistics shows a decline in the number of structurally deficient bridges from 124,000 in 1992 to 54,000 in 2017. At that rate, America will have no more deficient bridges by the year 2035.
I believe definitions changed over that time as well, so that effect has to be taken into account before just doing a simple linear extrapolation.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Scott5114

Also, structurally deficient bridges aren't fungible. This bridge is structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, and fracture critical. Last time I looked it up in NBI it had a single-digit sufficiency rating. But it's unlikely to be replaced any time soon because it's on an old alignment of OK-24, and the bridge on the current alignment does the job perfectly fine. This is also a county road bridge, and counties usually have a lot less money for bridge replacement than state DOTs do.

At a certain point you just reach a background level of structurally deficient bridges that either aren't worth replacing (spot repairs or demolition only) or the money just isn't in the right hands to be able to replace.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

hbelkins

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 07, 2021, 12:32:48 PM
Also, structurally deficient bridges aren't fungible. This bridge is structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, and fracture critical. Last time I looked it up in NBI it had a single-digit sufficiency rating. But it's unlikely to be replaced any time soon because it's on an old alignment of OK-24, and the bridge on the current alignment does the job perfectly fine. This is also a county road bridge, and counties usually have a lot less money for bridge replacement than state DOTs do.

At a certain point you just reach a background level of structurally deficient bridges that either aren't worth replacing (spot repairs or demolition only) or the money just isn't in the right hands to be able to replace.

They will probably end up blocking that bridge to vehicular traffic and leaving it open for pedestrians, possibly as part of a park or walking trail, if there is a nearby alternative.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Scott5114

Where would you even want walk to from there? The side of the creek across from town is all farmland, and the closest business is a feed and seed store 2 road miles away at the OK 24/OK 74 junction. I doubt it'd be worth spending any money on making it a trail. They might just block it off and let it rot like they did with a bridge of a similar vintage further west over the same creek. Might be a spot for the local kids to go fishing or make out or something.

The real question is which happens first: Washington growing enough to make having the second bridge open enough of a necessity to justify replacing it directly, or the bridge being unable to support vehicular traffic.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

kernals12

I wish they had included a few billion for funding the development of cooperative adaptive cruise control. It would double the capacity of our freeways, saving us enormous sums on widenings.

HighwayStar

Quote from: kernals12 on August 10, 2021, 08:31:00 AM
I wish they had included a few billion for funding the development of cooperative adaptive cruise control. It would double the capacity of our freeways, saving us enormous sums on widenings.

I am not interested in having that tech in my vehicle, nor in having people depend on that to not ram me.
There are those who travel, and those who travel well

hbelkins

Quote from: HighwayStar on August 10, 2021, 10:45:24 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 10, 2021, 08:31:00 AM
I wish they had included a few billion for funding the development of cooperative adaptive cruise control. It would double the capacity of our freeways, saving us enormous sums on widenings.

I am not interested in having that tech in my vehicle, nor in having people depend on that to not ram me.

On this, we agree. I want to be in charge of my vehicle. I love traditional cruise control, but am not interested at all in the adaptive version.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.