The Minnesota bridge tragedy

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
They didn't have the resources to respond properly to all the demands on their system, So they had to place bets on what problems were most serious and which could be put off. In the main they were excellent gamblers, but they couldn't win every bet.
This is a major problem because they can spend a lot of money and effort identifying a problem and then they can't do anything about it until it is too late.

Once they have determined that something really needs to be fixed, doing inspections instead of fixing it is a waste of resources.

Are they just going to keep inspecting a bridge until it gets bad enough that it needs to be closed, or instead of that, they keep it open anyway and risk people's lives?

Something in this whole process needs to be fixed. We could start by seeing that enough money is allocated here at home to take care of our own problems.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
They had already identified problems, and since they couldn't push the priority high enough to fix the problems they doubled the inspections. They could have tripled or quadrupled the inspections, but that wouldn't have amounted to anything if no action resulted.

Their response to finding problems during inspections was to inspect more often and to cross their fingers.

That assertion has been posted numerous times. Perhaps you could enlighten us. What SPECIFIC problems with the I-35W brige were found that were not fixed or in process of being fixed?

There was a large and expensive repair program ongoing when the bridge collapsed. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps you are aware of other serious defects that had been identified in inspections but had never been fixed and were not part of the immediate repair project.

Instead of just repeating that vague assertion, please provide some specifics.

Blessings
Bob

[usmc1]

ABC TODAY REPORTED SOME SPECIFIC PROBLEMS:

Dan Dorgan, the director of bridges for the Minnesota Department of Transportation, said reports over the last 20 years had found bearing and corrosion problems, and fatigue cracks that were repaired in the early 1990s.

Engineers found structural problems in the bridge as far back as 1990, but state officials thought patches and yearly inspections would be enough to keep it together, Dorgan said, the AP reported.

COMMENTS FROM VIEWERS:

A Minnesota citizen sez...

“Governor Tim Pawlenty, our "No new taxes" governor of Miinesota, vetoed a 5% gas tax increase for road and bridge repair last year. He has expressed some interest in national office. I guess he'll cross that bridge when he comes to it.”

An expert in the field sez...

“As a former commercial construction contractor and consultant (having conducted severe storm damage investigations and analyses on commercial structures) and as a welding technician familiar with structural steel engineering, physical metallurgy and design of weldments, I personally think that this collapse is likely related to inadequate structural steel inspections and repairs. No matter how much a budget is cut, this is the most essential and critical area of concern which requires a commitment to perfection. The surface repairs to the concrete deck were superficial (comparable to cosmetic repairs vs structural repairs) and in view of the information that has been released so far I think that the most critical aspects - structural inspection, maintenance and repair did not recieve a high enough priority while superficial repairs were being addressed.”

I sez... Bob I and others have repeatedly been very specific. Time for you to respond to Walter in a put up or shut up fashion!

Your obtuse obfuscations don't git 'er done!. Not at all, even those who do not agree with me, recognize that.

[nacktman]

Mark, Walter, MJ, usmc1, it appears obvious to me that ideology is paramount to the Apologists here and no reason or fact is going to change that.

Demanding this and demanding that of others without providing anything to others to re-enforce their absurd claims ... an oldie but a goodie in the ideologue's handbook, one we haven't seen in a while ... ah, the good ol'daze. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

Walter, you are correct I have not cited specific sources on this thread, save my cousin who is actually inspecting the bridge. I have not done so because I have used the same sources as others who have cited them, therefore I thought it redundant to re-cite them.
I have a long stated policy of no one taking my word as the end all of anything (unless they choose to do so), and "requiring" them to do their own research and not "spoon-feeding" data to them. So it is rare I cite specific sources on the open forum.
I am confident in my statements and their validity so I do not fret over them nor worry about lazy individuals.
It is a policy that has been repeated every few months due to some individual too lazy and unwilling to do their own research and demands to be spoon-fed, such as the poster above.
Also, contrary to the propaganda of some, I can be wrong and have never demanded anyone agree with me in the slightest - some have, some haven't.

[Sanslines]

exactly

Sanslines;

Also as the other poster as you put it, I want to make a point. I am learning that unless I agree with you, I have to be on the other side in your mind.

In this case, and for this topic, I have disagreed with you and Nacktman. However, I am finding the insolence and abuse from you towards me to be annoying. I am not experiencing anything more than argument from Nacktman.

Walter,

There is no insolence and abuse at all from me and you know it so please stop this nonsense immediately. In my last post I clearly indicated that I am no longer interested in replying to your posts. I never asked for you to agree or disagree with my opinions and you also know that so please stop accusing me of something that is completely false. You are free to agree or disagree with opinions as they pertain to this topic. However, I did take issue with you for ignoring the long history of Nacktman's abuses and instead you focused upon myself and your personal judgement of my issues with Nacktman. You were not discussing the forum topic and instead have decided to make this a personal issue with me. I explained my objections to this very clearly. I am not interested in carrying on a pissing contest with you and have indicated that I am not interested in continuing a discussion concerning Nacktman and myself with you. I clearly agree on one thing with you - and that is that I regret that I ever responded to your posting. I am now done discussing this nonsense. Please go and enjoy your arguements with Nacktman and kindly leave me out of it.

[Sanslines]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The people studying this collapse will need to determine if the methods they use for inspection are adequate and whether anything was done wrong during the work that was in progress. They also need to decide if the frequency of inspections is adequate.
They had already identified problems, and since they couldn't push the priority high enough to fix the problems they doubled the inspections. They could have tripled or quadrupled the inspections, but that wouldn't have amounted to anything if no action resulted.

Their response to finding problems during inspections was to inspect more often and to cross their fingers.

People who fault the inspections for not accurately predicting the manner and time of failure are being unreasonable. The inspectors KNEW there were problems, they REPORTED those problems. But the people who have to decide how to act on those reports were in an untenable position. They didn't have the resources to respond properly to all the demands on their system, So they had to place bets on what problems were most serious and which could be put off. In the main they were excellent gamblers, but they couldn't win every bet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are implying that the problems that were discovered are responsible for the collapse of this bridge. There is no proof of this one way or another and so what you present is a hypothesis. You are extraoplating upon your hypothesis by stating that those who need to decide upon inspection decisions had to gamble and put off maintenance which is another hypothesis. You are building one hypothesis on top of another hypothesis which leads to a rather interesting story that has not yet proven to be factual - not one shred of it.

What you are presenting is a series of opinions and conjecture as to what happened. Where is the specific factual and verifiable information that supports all of your opinions and conjecture?

[Naturist Mark]

There was a large and expensive repair program ongoing when the bridge collapsed.
Wrong, the road bed was undergoing routine resurfacing, along with repairs to guardrails and lights. All roads require resurfacing on a regular basis, on and off bridges. The bridge structure was not being worked on.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by usmc1:
Dan Dorgan, the director of bridges for the Minnesota Department of Transportation, said reports over the last 20 years had found bearing and corrosion problems, and fatigue cracks that were repaired in the early 1990s.

Engineers found structural problems in the bridge as far back as 1990, but state officials thought patches and yearly inspections would be enough to keep it together, Dorgan said, the AP reported.

What part of "were repaired in the early 1990s," is it so hard for you to understand?

The question remains, what SPECIFIC problems with the I-35W brige were found that were not fixed or in process of being fixed?



Blessings
Bob

[nacktman]

Attack, revile, deny, obfuscate, spurious demand ...

Yep, step by step from the Ideologue's Handbook, not even a feeble attempt at a nod to anything like originality. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

Karl Rove would be proud.

Walter, it seems you have been 'inducted into the flock' (of independent and rational minded people - though I feel that isn't what the Ideologues had in mind - if they had any mind that is - when they started calling us a 'flock of sheep' several months back), as the Ideologues call we independent souls. Granted the Troll who first used the term to be derisive has been gone and unlamented for months now, but there always seems to be steady stream of sewer dwellers slithering onto these forums to continue their sliming of any who have the termerity to have an opinion of their own and the cajones to say so.

Welcome to the club, now all you have to do is say "Baaa" and swear fealty to the individual that can think for themselves and you're set. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There was a large and expensive repair program ongoing when the bridge collapsed.
Wrong, the road bed was undergoing routine resurfacing, along with repairs to guardrails and lights. All roads require resurfacing on a regular basis, on and off bridges. The bridge structure was not being worked on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. The bridge had 3 major parts. 1. The concrete footings. 2. The steel trusses. and 3. The roadway. It was roadway deterioriation which caused the low "structurally deficient" rating, and it was the roadway that was being repaired even as the bridge fell. But don't let that confuse you.

Blessings
Bob

[Naturist Mark]

You are implying that the problems that were discovered are responsible for the collapse of this bridge.
Nope, never said that. What I've been saying is that there were plenty of indications that this bridge was substandard, starting with a 1990 study that found it structurally deficient. Despite such warnings over the years it was decided to wait before any major intervention was made. The ONLY reason the decision makers would have decided to wait was because funding was not sufficient to do all the jobs they needed to do - so some things had to be delayed. They made a guess that this bridge was less dangerous than other priorities. They had this bridge scheduled for replacement in 2020, and were betting it was in good enough shape to last until then. They guessed wrong. BUT IT WASN'T THEIR FAULT, they shouldn't have had to guess what urgent projects could be put on hold.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There was a large and expensive repair program ongoing when the bridge collapsed.
Wrong, the road bed was undergoing routine resurfacing, along with repairs to guardrails and lights. All roads require resurfacing on a regular basis, on and off bridges. The bridge structure was not being worked on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. The bridge had 3 major parts. 1. The concrete footings. 2. The steel trusses. and 3. The roadway. It was roadway deterioriation which caused the low "structurally deficient" rating, and it was the roadway that was being repaired even as the bridge fell. But don't let that confuse you.

Blessings
Bob </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, oh, so wrong! The "structurally deficient rating" was due to corrosive damage to steel re-enforcing rods and excessive bearing wear according to your own beloved source the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Seems someone isn't reading all the reports or any of the reports for that matter, just parsing sound bytes they think support their idiotic political posturing.

Oh, BTW road surface repair has nothing to do with the supporting structure of the road nor does surface repairs on a bridge's pad have anything to do with it's supporting structure.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by nacktman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bobx23456:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There was a large and expensive repair program ongoing when the bridge collapsed.
Wrong, the road bed was undergoing routine resurfacing, along with repairs to guardrails and lights. All roads require resurfacing on a regular basis, on and off bridges. The bridge structure was not being worked on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. The bridge had 3 major parts. 1. The concrete footings. 2. The steel trusses. and 3. The roadway. It was roadway deterioriation which caused the low "structurally deficient" rating, and it was the roadway that was being repaired even as the bridge fell. But don't let that confuse you.

Blessings
Bob </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, oh, so wrong! The "structurally deficient rating" was due to corrosive damage to steel re-enforcing rods and excessive bearing wear according to your own beloved source the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Seems someone isn't reading all the reports or any of the reports for that matter, just parsing sound bytes they think support their idiotic political posturing.

Oh, BTW road surface repair has nothing to do with the supporting structure of the road nor does surface repairs on a bridge's pad have anything to do with it's supporting structure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. The pivot bearing corrosion/wear was one of the fixes in the 1990s, according to the previously cited MN Dept. of transportation. Reinforcing rods are part of the roadway. Some reinforcing rods were replaced in the 1990s, some were being replaced during the current project. But don't let the details confuse you.

Oh BTW the reinforcing rods that you keep harping on are part of the roadway, yet you also claim it's not part of the structure. You really don't have a clue what you are talking about do you.

Blessings
Bob

[nacktman]

We are not the confused ones nor clueless as you are Bobx.
Being a political hack perverting this thread is nothing to crow about yet you and your fellow apologist seem to revel in the muck so much that you insist on dragging everyone down with you ... as you can see if you'd open your eyes it ain't working.

Misogyny, racial intolerance, demented calls for murder, homophobia, religious intolerance, have all been but a few of your 'hallmarks' on these forums and now abject callousness in perverting this thread from the expressions of condolences and sympathy for the victim's families for your political grandstanding ... you are aware you are a laughingstock aren't you? No, most likely not.

Re-enforcing rod corrosion was found throughout the structure of the bridge and NO re-enforcing rods are NOT part of the roadway (or pad as it is properly called) of a bridge - they are underneath the pad, supporting it. And NO repairs were ever made to ALL the deficiencies found in the re-enforcing rods and bearings on this bridge in particular, minor cosmetic ones made during the early 1990s did nothing to correct those deficiencies as those reports you are so fond of misquoting show.

Resurfacing the pad or making any repairs short of a total replacement of the pad will have no effect on the re-enforcing rods in the structure of any bridge. Heck, even my neighbor's cat knows that!

[Sanslines]

What I've been saying is that there were plenty of indications that this bridge was substandard, starting with a 1990 study that found it structurally deficient.

Where has it been proven that these indications caused the bridge collapse? Could it not have been decided at the time that the degree of structural deficiences were such that the engineers appropriately scheduled maintenance based upon the best information that they had at the time? If the decision makers were so good and blameless in all of this, then it is also possible that certain, unknown problems casued this bridge collapse.

Since none of us have the final report or factual information, all that we are doing is presenting hypothesis and speculation as to what may or may not have happened.

You continue to propose an interesting hypothesis that has yet to be proven valid or invalid. In time, your hypothesis (along with everyone else) will be considered as the process of investigations continues. As it stands now, it remains just an interesting hypothesis as to what may or may not have happened.

[usmc1]

I am not one bit confused!

Arguing with these two is somewhat like arguing with a person about whether a victim died of a .22, .45, or .30 caliber slug. The victim died of a gunshot wound...PERIOD!

Innocent men, women and children driving along on their evening commute died because the bridge they trusted to keep them suspended above the Mississippi river below collapsed drowning some and crushing others. Others were injured, maimed and traumatized.

Family and friends are bereft. The tragic event touched many, many people. We even had one of our members post concerns about a family member that drove that bridge on a daily basis.

This persistence in turning it into a classroom discussion about bearings, cement, structural steel is obfuscative and irrelevant. The bridge fell. That is prima facie evidence that there was something wrong with the bridge. Something was wrong with the bridge or it would not have fallen.

We might never know the specific thing or things that finally caused the collapse. We have ruled out seismic, weather, terrorist, vandalism or a barge strike events, haven't we?

But, we do know these well-documented things:

The bridge had a history of known problems which were "repaired" or "postponed". The bridge was slated for replacement in 2020.

Recent inspectors had "red-flagged" their inspections with notes of concern about the dangerous state the bridge was in.

The conservative Republican governor overrode, with veto, his Democratic legislature's attempts to enact a gas tax and other spending allocations which would have gone for road and bridge infrastructure repair and/or replacement.

This sort of governance is consistent with the tax the middle class and poor, give tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations, and cut non-military domestic spending on services and infrastructure while boasting of cutting taxes and reducing spending fiscal philosophy of today's conservatism.

Infrastructure decay and disrepair is a by-product of conservatism. Bridges falling out from under innocent people on their evening commute is a direct result of that decay and disrepair and failure to spend for the sort of regulations and inspections, meaningful repair or replacement which could have headed off this tragedy.

Those things are known, and have been documented several times over. Huffing and puffing obfuscation and demands for evidence of which specific bolt failed is sheer and utter nonsense. Perhaps it might head off some future tragedy. It doesn't matter in this case.

But, concerns about infrastructure decay and the potential for collapsing bridges has been out their for quite some time now. The conservatives have chosen a form of fiscal governance which ignored the problem (non-military spending as a percentage of GNP rose under Clinton and declined under Reagan-Bush-Bush)and chose the priority of giving tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations while increasing military spending and borrowing to do so.

We are beginning to see the results of that sort of fiscal governance. Levees break and a city is destroyed, a child dies because he can't get dental care, and innocent people on their evening commute drop out of this world.

Those who support that sort of governance are indeed accountable for their part in those unnecessary disasters and deaths.

Roll back the Reagan-Bush tax cuts, rebuild America as a monument to those innocent dead, and put Americans to work doing that rebuilding. And in so doing restore our middle-class while providing health care for all, affordable education for all and a safe, secure dignified retirement for older Americans by strengthening and preserving Social Security, improving Medicare and Medicaid, and enacting meaningful pension reform.

Those things would be a fitting monument for those poor people whose untimely deaths resulted from that bridge falling out from under them.

[nacktman]

Roll back the 'raygun-shrub' tax cuts, rebuild America as a monument to those innocent dead, and put America to work doing that rebuilding. And in so doing restore the middle-class while providing health care for all, affordable education for all and a safe, secure dignified retirement for older Americans by strengthening and preserving Social Security, improving Medicare and Medicaid, and enacting meaningful pension reform.

Here, here! A return to what we were at our apogee with improvements!
I do apologize for the alteration of the quotation ... I will not allow myself to give proper names to two of the worst, correct that, the two worst wastes of carbon atoms this nation has had the misfortune to have suffered from their existence.

Now leave us let the Apologists continue their obsessed fixation with their ana l cavities, maybe if they keep digging in them they'll discover sh!t stinks ... doubtful, but maybe.

The rest of us can rebuild the America that was the envy of the entire world instead of the joke it is today! That would be a fitting memorial to all those who have lost their lives due to the shear stupidity of the conservative fiscal policy, ok nimrod, the "selfishness" fiscal policy as well as the bankrupt ideology that spawned such offal.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by usmc1:
This persistence in turning it into a classroom discussion about bearings, cement, structural steel is obfuscative and irrelevant. The bridge fell. That is prima facie evidence that there was something wrong with the bridge. Something was wrong with the bridge or it would not have fallen.


That much we can agree on, but your leap from there to blaming conservatives or blaming Bush is your own leap of faith without any substantiation.

Until we know why the bridge failed, what specifically caused its failure, any political blaming is disingenuous political posturing and disresepctful of those who died.

Blessings
Bob

[Sanslines]

This persistence in turning it into a classroom discussion about bearings, cement, structural steel is obfuscative and irrelevant. The bridge fell. That is prima facie evidence that there was something wrong with the bridge. Something was wrong with the bridge or it would not have fallen.

We might never know the specific thing or things that finally caused the collapse. We have ruled out seismic, weather, terrorist, vandalism or a barge strike events, haven't we?

The technical discussions as to the specific reasons for the collapse of this bridge are obviously not important to YOU. However, since you do not have an engineering background, you can not be blamed for not understanding that the specific reasons for the collapse of this bridge ARE EXTREMELY important for responsible individuals to understand so that tragedies such as this are not allowed to happen again.

A clear analogy to your statements and train of thought would be like saying something to the effect of:

"The real reasons why the space shuttle blew up during liftoff are unimportant." "The only thing that really matters is that the space shuttle blew up because it blew up."

I was involved in the space shuttle analysis after it blew up and a clear understanding of the specific reasons as to why it blew up, what specifically failed, and what engineering corrections and design changes were needed were absolutely crucial to prevent future space shuttle engine failures and prevent any future loss of life.

I just do not think that you will understand any of this and that is fine for the majority of the public does not need to be concerned with technical details. What the public needs to know is that competent and highly trained individuals with the appropriate background are the ones who are tasked and responsible for understanding the problems and developing the proper solutions so that tragedies such as this bridge collapse never happen again.

[nacktman]

Still they attempt to obfuscate ...

Walter, as my last editorial posting was somewhat less than appropriate to my intent I have collected more and offer them for your enjoyment.

Editorial One:

[nacktman]

Editorial Two:

[nacktman]

Editorial Three:

[nacktman]

Editorial Four:

[walter05]

USMC1;

I agree that the source you sited was far more left wing and biased than I would find reliable. However, that source had a reference which enabled me to find this link http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=145. It is clear that the American Society of Civil Engineers believes that a substantial part of our infrastructure is under funded.

There is another page of the American Society of Civil Engineers' website. The link http://www.asce.org/response.html makes it clear that they believe that the under funding of our nation's infrastructure is likely to be a factor.

Upon review of the ASCE website, it is clear that they are an advocacy group. It is fair to expect what is on their website to be slanted towards their agenda. However, they appear to be an authoritative group.

The ASCE website provides a link for the Minnesota Department of Transportation. This link led to http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridge/pdfs/06fracture-c...ection_june-2006.pdf (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridge/pdfs/06fracture-critical-bridge-inspection_june-2006.pdf) which is an apparent 2006 report on the condition of the bridge. Having read parts of the fifty page document, I am horrified to think how many times I drove over that bridge. I am more amazed that the bridge did not fall sooner than it fell at all. It also repeatedly quotes findings from 1998, which indicates that the state of Minnesota had nine years warning about the state of this bridge.

In summary, since you provided an actual source, I was able to read it and analyze it for myself. I discounted it but used its sources to find the ASCE and Minnesota DOT analysis. Review of these materials has provided more significant evidence that a pattern of neglect of this bridge is likely to have led to its failure. Since the Mayor of St. Paul and others point to similar bridges in Minnesota with similar condition, it is also clear that other bridges are imperiled if action is not taken soon.

Nacktman;

If you would please provide your sources, I would like to perform a similar analysis.

I would ask you to also to not quote Bob’s prior history. I think we can learn to communicate reasonably by sticking to the current topic.

Bob;

Please forgive me. I must be dense. I did not find any sources sited in your earlier posts. Please requote them so I can do analysis on them also.

You said, “Walter, I looked up and posted links days ago. If you weren't so busy kissing nactman's rear and repeatating, repeating, repeating, nonsense about left vs. right disagreements about next year's state wide maintenance budgets you would have read them. I'm not going to look up and post all that again. Go read the previous posts.”

Maybe something is blocked by my firewall settings or for some reason I am missing the sources. However, I truly don’t see them. Please cut and paste them or site them again. By a source, I mean a periodical, an article, a news report, a website link where it is possible for me to read the original source. Up until now I have not found any of those sited by you. Until you do provide a source, I can’t find the information that may show you correct.

I also see no reason for you to accuse me of kissing anyone’s rear. I have not. I am only attempting to find the facts in all arguments. I have also not supported any of the left vs. right statements by Nacktman or anyone else. Since you have misread my posts, it makes it more important for me to review your sources to verify what they really say.

Sanslines;

I believe we should table the personal stuff. Apparently we see some of that differently.

Upon reading the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s 2006 report, there are several places in the executive summary where the phrase “If bridge replacement is significantly delayed” is used. It would appear that the engineers who prepared this report were attempting to signal to their superiors that the bridge should be replaced soon.

Also, I am still not in agreement with USMC1 and Nacktman. It is a leap of logic to believe that the neglect would be due to conservative politics. When I was an active lobbyist, I was struck by how descent and caring the overwhelming majority of elected officials are. Whether Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, or Liberals, most really wanted to help the people. If any of them thought that lives were in jeopardy, I believe they would have taken actions.

However, as human beings we are good at believing what we want to believe. I can believe that the politicians preferred building new things to voting for maintenance. I can believe this because we voters prefer that. I can believe this caused them to want to believe that maintenance could be pushed off. Once they wanted to believe this, it influenced decision makers and the maintenance was pushed off.

[nacktman]

As one can see from the editorials above, it is clear that priority has been misplaced in this nation.

It has been so as an official systemic policy only since 1981. Before that time it was a hit or miss proposition in the first place but never a total disregard for the true priorities of this nation by either "party" as it is now led by the Fascists who have co-opted the 'conservative' label thus perverting that just as they do to anything they touch.

We are only starting to have to pay the pied piper for the hideously discordant tune he has been playing for the neo-con nation. It is way passed time we reclaimed our nation from them and shipped them off as once did the nations of Europe did to their "Age of Enlightenment" era counterparts ... the 'puritans', who as we all know where nothing of the kind. I here the Marianas Trench is available to take the refuse.

[nacktman]

Walter, as I said I have used the same sources as others here but here's a listing for you anyway:

Minnesota Department of Transportation
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Associated Press
British Broadcast Corporation - the BBC
The local television and radio stations in the Twin Cities
The actual schematics of the original plans AND all repairs noted to be made AND all repairs that HAVE been made to the bridge.
My cousin Dwayne who is actually inspecting the bridge as part of his job with the NTSB - who by the way IS a true conservative and is throughly disgusted with the Fascists calling themselves 'conservatives'


You can find out the same things I did with a little effort with the the exception of talking to Dwayne, sorry but I will not give his number out.

You do not feel the selfishness mentality is responsible for this tragedy, may I ask why?

This tragedy is but another in a growing list of tragedies big and small that are resultant from the generation of rampant selfishness - the 1980s aren't known as the "<span class="ev_code_RED">ME</span>" generation for nothing.

All actions or non-actions have consequences.

Selfishness breeds denial and decay - it always has and always will - the Romans found that out, so did the Germans and Japanese.
Guess which one is non-existent and which two are among the best at providing for their nation's 'upkeep'.
As a bonus ... guess which one we are modeling our path after and which ones modeled their paths after what we used to be.

Also, unfortunately, the track record of the poster in question is relevant, whereas, the poster is not. It would be of useful to know where the mindset of the poster is to any newer forum member.

*****
Now if the political hacks will kindly shut up and let those of us with intelligence discuss this issue and return to this thread topic all would be right in the world for the moment.

[walter05]

Nacktman;

USMC1 provided a source for a quote. It was then possible to follow the source.

I am not smart enough to know which source goes with which quote.

If you can provide a source for a quote, I can look at it.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by walter05:
The ASCE website provides a link for the Minnesota Department of Transportation. This link led to http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridge/pdfs/06fracture-c...ection_june-2006.pdf (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridge/pdfs/06fracture-critical-bridge-inspection_june-2006.pdf) which is an apparent 2006 report on the condition of the bridge. Having read parts of the fifty page document, I am horrified to think how many times I drove over that bridge. I am more amazed that the bridge did not fall sooner than it fell at all. It also repeatedly quotes findings from 1998, which indicates that the state of Minnesota had nine years warning about the state of this bridge.

Whether a trained political science man is able to analyse an engineering report himself leaves a lot to be desired, but thanks for the link.


In summary, since you provided an actual source, I was able to read it and analyze it for myself. I discounted it but used its sources to find the ASCE and Minnesota DOT analysis. Review of these materials has provided more significant evidence that a pattern of neglect of this bridge is likely to have led to its failure. Since the Mayor of St. Paul and others point to similar bridges in Minnesota with similar condition, it is also clear that other bridges are imperiled if action is not taken soon.

Thanks for the link. Here is from the Engineering Study



S T RU C T U R E I N V E S T I G A T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
MN/DOT BRIDGE #9340 (SQUIRT BRIDGE)
I-35W OVER THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT MINNEAPOLIS, MN
JUNE 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
If bridge replacement is significantly delayed, the bridge should be re-decked.

During the 1998 inspection, numerous fatigue cracks were found in spans #3 - 5 and #9
- 10, the approach spans. The cracks were located in negative moment regions where the
diaphragm web stiffener was not welded to the top flange. At one location the web had
cracked through entirely. Most existing cracks were drilled out, and the fractured beam
was reinforced with bolted plates. To reduce the stress levels, the diaphragms were
lowered. Due to the widespread cracking, these areas should be inspected in-depth on an
annual basis

BRIDGE INSPECTION RECOMMENDATIONS

The long term plans for this river crossing need to be defined with replacement, redecking, etc..

If bridge replacement is significantly delayed, the bridge should be re-decked.

Depending on the projected date of bridge replacement, the bridge deck will
eventually require a partial overlay repair contract. The expansion joints should also
be replaced.

Immediate Maintenance Recommendations
Every two years…visually inspect the truss box girder member’s internal diaphragms. Any
questionable welding flaws discovered during this inspection were tested with
magnetic particle equipment.

Fatigue cracks at girder…were repaired in 1998 and 1999. These areas should be
inspected next year for any lengthening of the cracks and drilling of possible stress
relief holes.

Four-stringer connection bolts, all in the NBL, need replacement. At panel point
#8, stringer #2 has 2 loose bolts, and the bearing block has rotated. This will likely
require jacking the superstructure. Stringer bolts also need replacement.

Several strip seal joints are leaking. The glands have ripped or pulled out. Attempts
were made to replace these joints during the 1998.…. We should monitor this joint to see how well this new gland repair performs, and consider using it at other locations.

The rubber “skirts” sections above the truss end rockers, installed in 1999, tend to fill with debris. These should be flushed out annually. The horizontal drain troughs at pier #6 have inadequate slope, and are clogged.

Much of the report is critical of the original design and construction:

“Floor Beam Trusses: There are 27 floorbeam trusses connecting the main deck trusses….The floorbeam truss members have numerous poor welding details, including plug welded web reinforcement plates, and tack welds & welded connection plates located in tension zones.”

Panel Point #3 (East Truss): Floorbeam truss, near center, has an undercut weld in the flange.


Much of the report recounts a history of inspection and repair of any defects found:
In 1986, the southeast rocker bearing “froze”, resulting in damage to the crossbeam with
two cracked vertical web stiffeners. The rocker-bearing pin was replaced. This required
closing I - 35W and jacking up the span. The crossbeam was repaired and the cracks in the
web stiffeners were welded, crack ends drilled out, and stiffeners reinforced with angle
plates. Installing braces between the crossbeam and beams #2 & 3 also reinforced the
connection.

Span #4 (Steel Multi-beam): Over contract parking lot (no access) & Bluff St. Span is 110 FT long with fourteen 48" deep welded plate beams. [1978] Second & third bays from the east have full depth deck repairs.

The inspection report says that about 15% of the bridge steel is seriously in need of paint and recommends repainting when the deck is replaced. The many photos show some rust where paint has deteriorated. A good portion of the report is about clogged or poorly functioning gutters and downspouts for rain and snow runoff.

Overall the report is not one that would or ought to cause immediate alarm. It documents a history of repair and maintenance rather than walter’s nonsense about a lack thereof. Closing and jacking up the whole bridge to do repairs is not a trivial business, and it was done when needed, according to the report. It recommends replacing the road deck, which was in progress when it fell. It recommends eventual replacement which was scheduled.

Note: The only deteriorating “reinforcing bar” on the bridge were part of the concrete, roadway. No others are mentioned in the engineer’s report nor shown in any of the photos.

Walter,
You should stick to political science and stop trying to analyze an engineering study of a bridge. When reading documents such as this its good to skip the long list of sometimes microscopic detail and read the expert’s summary first. There must be 40 individual reports of broken “tack” welds, none of which have any important meaning. In this study (thanks for the link) the experts conclude that the bridge needs maintenance, mostly of the road deck, paint, and the rain gutters cleaned.

The one troubling finding is about replacing 4 bolts in one place and a few in another. If the contractor had been jacking up the bridge to replace bolts and had done it wrong, the bridge could have been dropped. Or, some dumb ironworker (edit) might have pulled out too many old bolts all at once, or done something else. We don’t know yet whether the collapse was caused by some mistake during ongoing repairs. Replacing the bolts in the structural iron gives an opportunity for that mistake.



We need to find out what happened and prevent other bridges from similar fate. But, we don’t yet if it was caused by a poor maintenance procedure by an ironworker, a clogged rain gutter, or poor original design. Instead of all the political posturing let’s wait for the NTSB report on the cause of the collapse. Then we can figure out what to do to prevent other bridges from having similar failures.

Blessings
Bob

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by walter05:
Upon reading the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s 2006 report, there are several places in the executive summary where the phrase “If bridge replacement is significantly delayed” is used. It would appear that the engineers who prepared this report were attempting to signal to their superiors that the bridge should be replaced soon.

Walter, A very common way to lie is to quote part of a sentence and pretend that the meaning of the sentence is something entirely different from what the author meant. If you quoted the whole sentences from that report "If bridge replacement is significantly delayed, the bridge should be re-decked." It is a dishonest lie, and you knew it, to leave off the "should be re-decked" and pretend that the engineers were suggesting that the whole structure might collapse. You try to pretend that you are less of a liar and more reasonable than stupid pig knockmen, but lies like that give away your credibility.

The rest of the sentence recommended replacing only the road deck, which was under construction at the time of the collapse. It did not recommend closing the bridge nor suggest imminent total collapse. It did not suggest a lack of ongoing maintenance as needed.

Blessings
Bob

[nacktman]

It appears that to point out that "Parsing" is only correct and allowable when it is done by those deliberately trying to obfuscate is not allowed.

However misrepresenting an entire post is.

Especially when the misrepresentation is about nothing but one's attempt to obfuscate what another clearly said and even used the term "phrase" to indicate that it was not a complete sentence but a partial rendition of the work cited.

[EricNY]

LISTEN!!!!

I have better things to do with my time then play nanny to a couple people that want to toast each other on this and other threads.

If I have to continue to edit and delete. I will simply REMOVE the problem, by suspending your rights on this board!

Enough is enough....I expect this from 12 year olds, not grown men....get along or I will sit between you and box both your ears!!!

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by ercNY:
LISTEN!!!!

I have better things to do with my time then play nanny to a couple people that want to toast each other on this and other threads.

If I have to continue to edit and delete. I will simply REMOVE the problem, by suspending your rights on this board!

Enough is enough....I expect this from 12 year olds, not grown men....get along or I will sit between you and box both your ears!!!

As long as the liberals are flaming the conservatives and anyone who disagrees with their left wing opinions it's "heated discussion," and we're "thin skinned" for complaining about their constant day after day personal attacks and abuse.


8-12-07 ercNY: All due respect, but I think you get a littel thin skinned when some one challenges your views. Strong opinions are commen on these types of conversation, you need to expect that someone will "raise their voice" so to speak.

But let a conservative, libertarian, or anyone who disagrees with the established forum political views try to reply in kind, and suddenly, "enough is enough." Well, it was enough weeks ago, but only for ......
Yea, we get it.

Blessings
Bob

[nimrod]

I think that I finally get it. If your not for them your against them. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/idea3.gif

[EricNY]

OK Bob...you want to start quoting PRIVATE MESSAGES in a publc forum?

Good for you!

[EricNY]

Originally posted by Bobx23456:

But let a conservative, libertarian, or anyone who disagrees with the established forum political views try to reply in kind,
Yea, we get it.

Blessings
Bob

You would NOT have a problem with them if you agreed with them....


Yea, we get it.


No I really do not think you do....In my opinion

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by ercNY:
OK Bob...you want to start quoting PRIVATE MESSAGES in a publc forum?

Good for you!

Usually I don't, but you jumped into the public discussion with an off topic post that was closer to the private discussion than the public topic. Your own words on the topic were relevant to your post in the public forum.

You also besmirched my character as a man. Let's drop the ad-hominem insults. What do you say?

Blessings
Bob

[EricNY]

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
[Usually I don't, but you jumped into the public discussion with an off topic post that was closer to the private discussion than the public topic. Your own words on the topic were relevant to your post in the public forum.

/QUOTE]

What post was that Bob?

[QUOTE]You also besmirched my character as a man

How so?


Let's drop the ad-hominem insults. What do you say?


I have never insulted you or any one else here. However I think there are a few here that may want to be a little more careful on how they word things.

[walter05]

Bob;

The Minnesota Department of Transportation is part of the executive branch of the State of Minnesota's government. Reports like the one you saw have an engineering purpose as well as a political one. All departments of state and federal governments are always attempting to advance their agendas with the elected leadership. This report provided the Minnesota Department of Transportation such an opportunity.

Legislators and governors rarely read the engineering details. As you have pointed out, we politicos are not qualified to understand them. As a result, the executive summary is where the engineers place messages for the politicos. Repeating a phrase is done so that when the politico merely scans the document, the politico is more likely to see the message that the engineers are sending.

You are correct on my only posting part of the quote. I did so because it applies to the political side of the argument. I believe that the engineers put those numerous references in for the purpose of signaling the political leadership. Your criticism as to whether it was an attempt to deceive is not correct in this case but a fair question to ask. I only quoted the part that I felt involved the political side of the question.

You said, "Whether a trained political science man is able to analyse an engineering report himself leaves a lot to be desired, but thanks for the link." I see no reason for a personal insult. I have seen no diploma from you or certificate of qualifications either. Therefore, I could say the same for you. However, in America, as citizens, we are often called on to serve on juries and vote on very complicated matters. To fulfill my duty as a citizen voter, I am attempting to learn as much as I can as I believe we all should.

"It documents a history of repair and maintenance rather than walter’s nonsense about a lack thereof." I used to own a 1975 Ford Torino that was constantly getting repaired. It was not because it was a good car but because there were so many chronic difficulties.

Your interpretation in the case of the I-35 West bridge collapse is that the record shows constant attention and this shows that the State of Minnesota took proper care. I believe the same information reveals a possible trouble bridge in constant need of repair. Both interpretations are plausible. Time will tell which of us is correct.

I will repeat, I have NEVER SAID THAT CONSERVATIVES CAUSED THE COLLAPSE. I have never concluded that lack of maintenance was the cause. I have said that the report on WCCO, the statements of the Mayor of St. Paul, and my understanding of the executive summary of this report raise the question as to whether or not enough emphasis was placed on repair and replacement of potentially dangerous bridges.

You said, "The rest of the sentence recommended replacing only the road deck, which was under construction at the time of the collapse." It is my understanding that they were doing resurfacing at the time. This is very different from work on the road deck. I agree that I am not an engineer but my understanding of the report shows that the two are different. Therefore, it appears no work was being done on the road deck at the time.

I have continued to disagree with Nacktman and USMC1. However, when I have, USMC1 has provided documentation for his position that enabled further analysis. Nacktman has provided some but I have found it inadequate for me to be able to use. Neither one has accused me of dishonesty as you have in this thread. This is true even though I continue to disagree with both of them.

P.S. The concept of a Private Message is that it will remain private. I am appalled that you would share a private message publicly without the other participant's agreement.

Walter

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by walter05:
You said, "The rest of the sentence recommended replacing only the road deck, which was under construction at the time of the collapse." It is my understanding that they were doing resurfacing at the time. This is very different from work on the road deck. I agree that I am not an engineer but my understanding of the report shows that the two are different. Therefore, it appears no work was being done on the road deck at the time.
Walter

Walter; Your commeents about the political aspect are within your expertise and probably overlooked by technical folks. You are right that state departments are always looking for more money and often frame their reports in the worst possible light to justify larger budgets. It only they had a big budget increase all the problems would be over.

There is a lack of good information about just what was involved in the bridge deck rehabilitation. Maybe its out there somewhere but I haven't found it. However my brother who curently works in nuclear plant construction sent me a link to a series of photos showing the dammage. Several show marked difference in failure mode between the existing roadway lanes and the new "repaired" roadway lanes.

http://www.conphoto.net/collapse.html

Photo 0660 for example shows that the "new" lanes disintegrated almost entirely, leaving reinforcing bar exposed and open, while the adjacent "old" lanes are pretty much intact. Picture 0660 shows from left to right, two "old" lanes on the far left, two "new" lanes missing, two "old" lanes, and two "new" lanes on the far right. It is apparent from several photos that work on the lanes was much deeper than "resurfacing." It appears that they ongoing work was replacing all the concrete of the lanes, and doing so badly. Maybe the concrete that came apart entirely (photo 0660) was just not fully cured yet, but it shows up on other photos of other places too.

I'm not trained in politicl science, but I've done exactly that kind of repair/refurbishment on similar bridges. They appear to have been removing all of the old deterioriated concrete and installing new. I've been there, done that. I could be wrong from the photos, it would be nice to have a copy of their contract. I am shocked at the difference between the failure condition of the "old" lanes and that of the "new" lanes. I have serious doubts that the bridge maintenance was being done correctly using correct materials. At this point I would be surprised if some failure by the construction crew wasn't at least partly responsible for the collapse. If they had left well enough alone it may still be standing.

Check out the photos for yourself. It doesn't take much of an expert to see the glaring difference in disintegration between the "new" lanes and the "old" lanes. Well, some of the "new" lanes have so little left that you can't really see them as lanes in a few photos and you have to figure out that a lane is supposed to be there. But check it out and tell me if doesn't look like there was something very wrong with the repaving.

Blessings

Bob

[Bobx23456]

Blessngs
Bob

[walter05]

Bob;

The photos do prove interesting. When I went to the ASCE site, there were several different articles on replacement of the deck.

Some of the articles talk about merely replacing the concrete top or placing a coating on it. Others pointed to more work including work on supports.

The report I quoted before said, "Any re-decking contract should also include a complete re-painting of the superstructure, elimination of the hinge joining in span #2 and reconfiguration of the deck drainage system."

The report also said: "Fatigue cracks at girder #1C (NBL), crack at the diaphragm bottom cutout, NE side measures 2" ("front face") and NW side measures 2-1/2" ("back face"). Fatigue cracks a girder #3 (NBL), crack at the diaphragm bottom cutout, measures 1-1/2" (both sides). The cracks are located in negative moment regions where the diaphragm web stiffener was not welded to the top flange and were previous fatigue cracks occurred and were repaired in 1998 and 1999. These areas should be inspected next year for any lengthening of the cracks and drilling of possible stress relief holes."

The report went on to say: “During the 1998 inspection, numerous fatigue cracks were found in spans #3 – 5 and +9 – 10, the approach spans. The cracks were located in negative moment regions where the diaphragm web stiffener was not welded to the top flange. At one location the web had cracked through entirely. Most existing cracks were drilled out, and fractured beam was reinforced with bolted plates. To reduce stress levels, the diaphragms were lowered. Due to the widespread cracking, these areas should be inspected in-depth on an annual basis.

I wonder if the recommendations of this 2006 report were followed. Did they do the proper inspections and repairs that may have been needed first? Did the contract specifications for the current work require that? If not, why?

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by walter05:
The report I quoted before said, "Any re-decking contract should also include a complete re-painting of the superstructure, elimination of the hinge joining in span #2 and reconfiguration of the deck drainage system."

The report also said: "Fatigue cracks at girder #1C (NBL), crack at the diaphragm bottom cutout, NE side measures 2" ("front face") and NW side measures 2-1/2" ("back face"). Fatigue cracks a girder #3 (NBL), crack at the diaphragm bottom cutout, measures 1-1/2" (both sides). The cracks are located in negative moment regions where the diaphragm web stiffener was not welded to the top flange and were previous fatigue cracks occurred and were repaired in 1998 and 1999. These areas should be inspected next year for any lengthening of the cracks and drilling of possible stress relief holes."

The report went on to say: “During the 1998 inspection, numerous fatigue cracks were found in spans #3 – 5 and +9 – 10, the approach spans. The cracks were located in negative moment regions where the diaphragm web stiffener was not welded to the top flange. At one location the web had cracked through entirely. Most existing cracks were drilled out, and fractured beam was reinforced with bolted plates. To reduce stress levels, the diaphragms were lowered. Due to the widespread cracking, these areas should be inspected in-depth on an annual basis.

Burried in that list of cracks and maintenance items is "and were repaired in 1998 and 1999." Once repaired they cease to be a current issue. The log of all repairs still remains, but it's old news.

It reminds me of a tire on my car. I found a flat tire and replaced it in 1996. I'm not woried that the same tire is still a problem. Mark keeps repeating, "...indications that this bridge was substandard, starting with a 1990 study that found it structurally deficient." It's like the tire on my car. I can keep repeating that I found defective tires starting in 1990, but after they were replaced in 1996 it makes no sense to dwell on them today. A structural bearing was identified in 1990, according to the same report you cited, and the bridge was closed, jacked up, and the bearing replaced. Like my long gone tire, it has nothing to do with the current safety of my car.

I do have concerns about the ongoing work, the bolt replacement, and other issues. We really do need to see the eventual NTSB report and other technical investigation to find out why it fell down.


I wonder if the recommendations of this 2006 report were followed. Did they do the proper inspections and repairs that may have been needed first? Did the contract specifications for the current work require that? If not, why?

Often big disasters are caused by stupid design. The space shuttle Challenger crashed because of really stupid design (betting on a gasket that won't leak) followed by really stupid operations. In the end they have a new and improved "gasket that won't leak." The 1964 Ford I once owned had a cheap piece of tin installed at the factory to deflect hot gasses away from spark plug wires when the exhaust gasket leaked. A similar preventative measure, a safe failure mode, a cheap piece of tin to deflect escaping hot gasses away from the hydrogen tank, would have saved Challenger. But Challenger, and this bridge, have many parts that will cause total destruction if they fail, and no backup redundency. Newer bridges are supposedly designed with more redundency and can tolerate more failures without total collapse. The 2006 engineering report mentioned numerous structural problems that were part of the original design and construction of the I-35W bridge. I'm pretty sure that the I-35W bridge would be called "structurally deficient" today even if it were in brand new condition.

Engineers are like everyone else. Some of them are so pig headed that they will never learn because they don't want to learn. NASA never seems to learn anything. I hope the bridge engineers where I travel back and forth are better. But my usual route takes me over an old bridge where the concrete guardrails have crumbled into dust and fallen away. I can only guess what's under the road surface. It's probably only still there because traffic is light and rarely do even 2 cars cross at the same time. I won't cross it with a grain truck any more.

Blessings
Bob

[walter05]

Bob;

The engineers said those areas should be inspected next year. That was a 2006 report and 2007 is next year from a 2006 perspective.

Your statement that once repaired, they cease to be an issue was not the opinion expressed in that report about those repairs. As a politico, I will choose to rely on the educated engineers, recognized by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for their expertise.

The question is were the recommended inspections made prior to the work being done? Was the redecking work according to the recommendations in this report?

If not, why not?

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by walter05:
Bob;
The engineers said those areas should be inspected next year. That was a 2006 report and 2007 is next year from a 2006 perspective.

Indeed they did. And the 2007 inspection was underway when the bridge fell.


Your statement that once repaired, they cease to be an issue was not the opinion expressed in that report about those repairs.

I'm going to inspect my tires periodically too, but I'm not going to keep obsessing over a tire problem that I fixed in 1996.


As a politico, I will choose to rely on the educated engineers, recognized by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for their expertise.

Well, walter, as you pointed out recently, government agencies will tend to make things look worse than they are when going to the legislature for funding. Its hard to imagine any agency telling the legislature that they have enough funding and don't need more. Has that ever happened?


The question is were the recommended inspections made prior to the work being done? Was the redecking work according to the recommendations in this report?
If not, why not?

The recommended 2007 inspections were being done while previously identified repairs were being done and were not completed when the bridge collapsed, or so I've read elsewhere.

The 2006 report was completed in June, so it might seem that the 2007 inspection should have been about done. However its possible that it was scheduled to be completed after the ongoing repairs so as to document their completion. For example the 2007 inspection report could then evaluate the completion of bolt replacement identified in the 2006 report. In any event it has been reported that a recommended annual inspection was currently being done when the bridge fell.

Blessings
Bob

[usmc1]

Yeah right. Just the fickle finger of fate. everyone was doing their job. Lack of funding, repairs, retrofitting or replacement was not an issue. No one could have known. It could not have been prevented. That is unless we determine just which specific bolt broke.

The dead people? Their time was up. They lost the lottery. Luck of the draw. That's the way the mop flop. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

Yeah right!

No, some simple truth remains. Bridges do not collapse without cause. The bridge was known to have severe flaws. It is immaterial as to which flaw ultimately caused the bridge to fall.

The money was not spent to keep this bridge in repair or to be replaced. That was the result of conservative fiscal policies. If anyone ever died as the direct of an ideology it was those poor people on that bridge.

Quite simple actually. All the parsing, linking, dithering, citing, debate will not erase those very simple truths.

Bridges don't just fall.
This bridge was identified as being dangerous.
The money to repair or replace it ws not made available.
It fell killing people.

The question is not what specific thing caused the bridge to fall. The question should be, why was it allowed to deteriorate to the point that it did collapse.

The fact that it fell is prima facie evidence that it had problems. Solid bridges do not just fall.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by usmc1:
Yeah right. Just the fickle finger of fate. everyone was doing their job. Lack of funding, repairs, retrofitting or replacement was not an issue. No one could have known. It could not have been prevented. That is unless we determine just which specific bolt broke.

The dead people? Their time was up. They lost the lottery. Luck of the draw. That's the way the mop flop. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

Yeah right!

No, some simple truth remains. Bridges do not collapse without cause. The bridge was known to have severe flaws. It is immaterial as to which flaw ultimately caused the bridge to fall.

The money was not spent to keep this bridge in repair or to be replaced. That was the result of conservative fiscal policies. If anyone ever died as the direct of an ideology it was those poor people on that bridge.

Quite simple actually. All the parsing, linking, dithering, citing, debate will not erase those very simple truths.

Bridges don't just fall.
This bridge was identified as being dangerous.
The money to repair or replace it ws not made available.
It fell killing people.

The question is not what specific thing caused the bridge to fall. The question should be, why was it allowed to deteriorate to the point that it did collapse.

The fact that it fell is prima facie evidence that it had problems. Solid bridges do not just fall.

Here, here! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif
Simple, straightforward, to the point - well stated, indeed.

[Sanslines]

Often big disasters are caused by stupid design. The space shuttle Challenger crashed because of really stupid design (betting on a gasket that won't leak) followed by really stupid operations. In the end they have a new and improved "gasket that won't leak."

The Space Shuttle Challenger experienced a catastrophic failure of one of the main solid rocket fuel booster engines. These engines are produced in pieces and then shipped to the Kennedy Space Center where the individual pieces are assembled. The specific part that failed was an o-ring which formed the seal between two cylinders of the rocket engine composite assembly. The new design was much more robust and substantially lessened the amount of pressure on the seal. Upon engine ignition and liftoff, the entire space shuttle experiences enormous vibration and structural forces and loads. Given the extreme complexity of the space shuttle, it is a miracle that another major failure has not occured.

Even with the enormous amounts of money spent on the space shuttle, engineering is still not a complete and exact science. It is impossible to design everything to perfection.

The space shuttle is just another example of why we need to keep learning and pursue understanding. To claim that the space shuttle blew up just because it blew up and then start the political blames without even understanding what the problem was and what if anything could have been done to resolve the problem other then replacing the old shuttle with another new shuttle that still has the same design defects would be ludicrous. I am glad that at least the space shuttle program is presently beyond this and the scientists and engineers can focus upon what is really important and leave the hysteria and hype to the media.

[Sanslines]

The fact that it fell is prima facie evidence that it had problems.

Yes, in hindsight, it is quite obvious now that this bridge did have problems. However, unless it is understood what caused the failure, another new replacement bridge could have exactly the same structural problems and could also collapse in time. People deserve better then bridges with inherent design problems that may collapse in the future.

Regardless of what is said or not said in this forum, the investigations will continue. Real facts based upon concrete observations and tests will be conducted. Teams of experts will review all of the factual information. Finally, conclusions will be reached as to why this bridge collapsed. Then, and only then, will anyone be able to assigne blame with any form of legitimacy or certainty. Until this point is reached, everything else will be conjecture and hypothesis.

It is also quite obvious that what pertains and is concluded about this bridge may or may not apply to other bridges. There are improperly inspected bridges out there along with shoddy and defective workmanship, lousy maintenance, etc as well as properly inspected bridges, proper maintenance, proper workmanship, etc. Each bridge has to be judged based upon it's own unique situation.

[walter05]

Bob, you said on August 13, 2007 at 06:10 PM “Well, walter, as you pointed out recently, government agencies will tend to make things look worse than they are when going to the legislature for funding. Its hard to imagine any agency telling the legislature that they have enough funding and don't need more. Has that ever happened?”.

Actually, you said that and not me. I pointed out that when people in agencies place a phrase repeatedly in an executive summary it is because they are attempting to get the elected leadership’s attention.

I did not challenge your statement that they often try to make the strongest case for needing more money. That is often true, but I did not say that.

In the case of this 2006 report, there is documentation of several problems.

You say according to a source I have not seen, (a link would be nice), that the inspections were ongoing at the time of the maintenance work. I may not be an engineer, but I would have thought they would have completed the inspections first. This would influence exactly what work was done on the repair. If they did not complete the inspections, then previously the repairs may have aggravated identified potential problems and the heavy equipment used for the repairs.

You also said, “I'm going to inspect my tires periodically too, but I'm not going to keep obsessing over a tire problem that I fixed in 1996.” However, I don’t believe you are an engineer. The engineers with the Minnesota Department of Transportation came to a different conclusion. Your analogy is clever but rejected since the acknowledged experts disagree.

There is another difference between your tire analogy and this bridge. 100,000 vehicles don’t rely on your tires every day. When so many people trust their lives in the safety of a bridge, and the experts have identified potential problems requiring follow up, it should be a priority.

If the process used on that bridge in 2007 was not in conformity with the Minnesota Department of Transportation 2006 report, the question is why?

If failure to do so contributed to the failure, the question is why?

If lack of funding and too many competing priorities for too few resources led to the failure to follow the recommendations of that 2006 report, then lack of funding could be a major cause in the failure of the bridge.

The difference between your view, USMC1’s view, Nacktman’s view, and mine is that y’all have conclusions about the cause of the failure. I have not made any conclusions yet. I am attempting to learn and find out the facts first. Once I have reviewed the evidence, I will then form a conclusion.

[nimrod]

Friday there was a report on ABC World News, according to Bush the funding for highway maintanace is there, but what is allocated is being diverted by congress to other projects. In the case of this bridge, if I remember correctly, there was $25 million in funding for maintanace which was diverted to build new bike paths.

[nacktman]

Walter, you are in error on one point - a minor one though.
I have not concluded the bridge fell due to the lack of funding or the misappropriation of funds to lesser but "newer" projects, I know it did ... which bolt gave way is immaterial at this point.

I do know that the official systemic denial and inappropriate allocation of resources that has been in place since 1981 has led to neglect, abuse, decay and abandonment of our infrastructure.
Mark has stated the same thing, but as it was I that posted it as well the apologists immediately began howling and political posturing and attacking myself and others, including you ...perverting this thread into a litany of shrill rants and denigrations of all who disagreed with them while they accused the rest of us of doing exactly what they are doing.

The systemic neglect (or deliberate underfunding, if it please you), of our nation's infrastructure the last 26 years has led and will lead directly to more such events as the bridge collapse - one does not need to know which bolt finally broke and let the whole shebang fall to know that neglected repairs (or replacements), and/or cosmetic white-wash jobs will eventually cause a failure of the thing that was not repaired or replaced.

This is not a 'new' thing for WE Americans - something I stated in my original post on this thread and it was 'conveniently' ignored by the apologists then and when I re-posted it verbatim two days ago - we are ever allowing neglect and abuse of our infrastructure until something happens to wake us up and we do something about it.
There were times tremendous effort was put into our infrastructure and other times not so tremendous efforts in the course of our nation's history. I posted a rough outline earlier - and no it does not fall in direct line with either 'party' being in 'power' as to what the level of effort was. Until now that is, nor was it official and systemic as it is today.

All the dithering, posturing, obfuscating, lying, parsing, distorting and perverting the apologists do isn't going to change nor is it going to change the realities the rest of us live under or change the fact that the systemic neglect was the leading cause (if not the only cause), of the bridge being left in a structurally deficient state quite literally on a bet as Mark put it. Minnesota DOT officials gambled on a longshot and lost, plain and simple. As another put it people died directly because of that bet. Minnesota officials were forced to make that bet due to the systemic underfunding of our nation's infrastructure.

[walter05]

Nacktman;

While I don't yet totally agree with you that it is the cause of this bridge's collapse, I do think it is likely to have contributed.

The reports in the twin cities media I sited, the statements of the Mayor of St. Paul, the 2006 report of the Minnesota Department of Minnesota support your conclusions.

The ASCE Report Card For America's Infrastructure states on its front page at http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/index.cfm states "ASCE estimates that $1.6 trillion is needed over a five-year period to bring the nation's infrastructure to a good condition."

If it is not the main factor, it is likely that it contributed to the tragedy in Minnesota. USMC1 is correct that we can't wait to find out he exact cause because if we do, more innocent people will die.

I find your current post to be clear and well thought out. It is possible to discuss the points of it without getting personal.

Thank you!

[nacktman]

Originally posted by walter05:
Nacktman;

While I don't yet totally agree with you that it is the cause of this bridge's collapse, I do think it is likely to have contributed.

The reports in the twin cities media I sited, the statements of the Mayor of St. Paul, the 2006 report of the Minnesota Department of Minnesota support your conclusions.

The ASCE Report Card For America's Infrastructure states on its front page at http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/index.cfm states "ASCE estimates that $1.6 trillion is needed over a five-year period to bring the nation's infrastructure to a good condition."

If it is not the main factor, it is likely that it contributed to the tragedy in Minnesota. USMC1 is correct that we can't wait to find out he exact cause because if we do, more innocent people will die.

Perhaps a finer defining of my position might clear up a bit of the differing views.

I know the "<span class="ev_code_RED">cause</span>" of the collapse was due to the lack of resources. The Minnesota DOT has had to disperse ever shrinking resources - just has have all states - and base decisions on the unavailability of resources rather than the availability of them. Each decision a risk assessment, a 'bet' ... this is true of any decision in any capacity, but here it is literally playing with peoples lives and in this particular case they lost.

What may be confusing some is the definition of the word "cause", myself and others would have been better served if we had used the word "causation" (to wit: agency by which an effect is produced), and we would have been better understood, (by those with a grasp of the proper definition of the two words, that is). "Cause" is a term for 'direct action' and we were lazy in it's usage here.

Another proper term for "cause" is 'mechanical means' which I did use in reference to what bolt snapped or what cable may have frayed or whatever the actual defect that precipitated the collapse was. Something which also was 'conveniently' ignored by the apologists. This is not fully known at this time but there is strong sentiment among those actually inspecting the bridge as to what the "mechanical means" were, but I will not discuss those, 'out of school' as it were until they are voiced publicly and not just in conversations with me.

[missouriboy]

This intriguing Commentary (http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/13/commentary/lashinsky_atlas.fortune/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote) was published yesterday.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by missouriboy:
This intriguing Commentary (http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/13/commentary/lashinsky_atlas.fortune/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote) was published yesterday.

Hummmm, could be?!

Interesting reverse parallel(s) there.
Atlas Stumbled might be better terminology today, though.

[Baron Lake]

Yup. The shrub was spot on bemoaning maintenance projects taking a back seat to new "projects". Like Wars and stuff.

b.l.

[Rabid_Clam]

We are the most technologically advanced nation on earth but still we are full of faults. This proves we basically only human after all, always. At least we learn from our mistakes.

Usually....

[Bob S.]

So, how did everyone's local bridges do in the ratings after being inspected?

In Chesapeake, three bridges (one an overpass), received a 2, 3, and 4 out of 100. One is scheduled to be replaced soon. One they are currently seeking funding, and the other well, they are definitely going to try to get funding for that one now, I hope!

Bob S.

[usmc1]

1 out of 5 deficient around here. But, spokesman hastens to say deficient doesn't mean dangerous, just deficient.

A local conservatoid wrote in to the local rag today to suggest ending "foreign aid" so we can fix our infrastructure.

LOL, but at least they're acknowledging a problem. That's progress of sorts.

[Naturist Mark]

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Internal MnDOT documents reviewed by the Star Tribune reveal that last year bridge officials talked openly about the possibility of the bridge collapsing -- and worried that it might have to be condemned. [/list]

http://www.startribune.com/10204/story/1370130.html

[usmc1]

And one more body recovered on Sunday, I believe it was.

[walter05]

“It appeared that the most studied bridge in Minnesota, the focus of worrisome inspection reports for a decade, was finally going to have its most glaring weaknesses fixed.”
“Video of the Aug. 1 collapse being examined by the National Transportation Safety Board shows the bridge first falling on the south end over its shoreline pier -- a section of the superstructure where eight suspect beams were specifically tagged for reinforcing.”

It is now becoming clear that in order to save money, perhaps as little as 1.5 to 2 million dollars, repairs were pushed off.

I am now wondering whether or not some people should be charged with 11 counts of manslaughter.

[usmc1]

OK, Walt here you go my man. The link which names names and which tells the story of the conservative bent of those culpable for the bridge collapse. But, by extension, I do include all conservatives! Accountability can be snarling snapping sort of dog!

http://www.citypages.com/databank/28/1393/article15756.asp

Too bad old <STRIKE>Voldemo</STRIKE>.., uh <STRIKE>Bo</STRIKE>...., well, "you know who" isn't around to read it and weep.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by walter05:
“It appeared that the most studied bridge in Minnesota, the focus of worrisome inspection reports for a decade, was finally going to have its most glaring weaknesses fixed.”
“Video of the Aug. 1 collapse being examined by the National Transportation Safety Board shows the bridge first falling on the south end over its shoreline pier -- a section of the superstructure where eight suspect beams were specifically tagged for reinforcing.”

It is now becoming clear that in order to save money, perhaps as little as 1.5 to 2 million dollars, repairs were pushed off.

I am now wondering whether or not some people should be charged with 11 counts of manslaughter.

Walter that is what my cousin Dwayne and his companions have been looking at from the beginning and an official announcement is not far off as to the determination of the NTSB.

Like usmc1 said too bad what's his face ain't here to read'em and weep.

[walter05]

On August 13, 2007 at 11:01 AM, I posted a response to Sanslines.

In it, I said, "Also, I am still not in agreement with USMC1 and Nacktman. It is a leap of logic to believe that the neglect would be due to conservative politics. When I was an active lobbyist, I was struck by how descent and caring the overwhelming majority of elected officials are. Whether Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, or Liberals, most really wanted to help the people. If any of them thought that lives were in jeopardy, I believe they would have taken actions.

However, as human beings we are good at believing what we want to believe. I can believe that the politicians preferred building new things to voting for maintenance. I can believe this because we voters prefer that. I can believe this caused them to want to believe that maintenance could be pushed off. Once they wanted to believe this, it influenced decision makers and the maintenance was pushed off."

The story in the link provided in USMC1's post of August 21, 2007 01:29 PM provides strong evidence that neglect combined with the need to be even more conservative provided the environment which lead to the bridge collapsing.

I believe that years of neglect lead to this problem. However, conservative politics on top of the years of neglect did indeed play a major role in contributing to the fall of the bridge.

It is clear that lack of funds required shaving the budget too closely. As a result, the State of Minnesota did not have the funds to provide for erection of necessary structural supports.

I will reiterate what I said in my last post. I think there should be indictments for manslaughter. I think Governor Pawlenty and Lt. Governor Carol Molnau should head the list of those indicted.

P.S. USMC1;

There is a joke in the post for you.

P.S. Nacktman;

I understand that you cousin said that. However, USMC1 provided better, public sources to validate his arguments.

Walter

[nacktman]

Walter, I was not trying to validate any arguments.
As I have stated I will not provide specific sources for nonspecific citations, especially when all sources I use can be easily verified with minimal effort via any internet search engine.

Manslaughter indictments should be forthcoming and are most warranted, however the likelihood they will be is somewhere between a snowball's chance in hades and zero, given the timidity thus far shown in taking the Fascists to task.

[Sanslines]

The reasons for the MN Bridge Collapse have been identified:

Official: Flaw ID'd in bridge that collapsed

NTSB briefing to discuss investigation into Minneapolis disaster

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/Art/APTRANS.gif updated 1 hour, 23 minutes ago<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,((''.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true ));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('633360083924470000');</SCRIPT>

WASHINGTON - Federal investigators have identified a design flaw as the cause of last year's Interstate 35W Minneapolis bridge collapse that killed 13 people, a congressional official said Tuesday.
The official, who was briefed by the National Transportation Safety Board, said that investigators found a design flaw in the bridge's gusset plates, which are the steel plates that tie steel beams together. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt an update being provided later Tuesday by the NTSB chairman, Mark V. Rosenker.
The findings are consistent with what the NTSB said about a week after the Aug. 1 collapse, in which the bridge plunged into the Mississippi River. At the time, the NTSB said it had found issues with the collapsed bridge's gusset plates, but expected a full investigation to take more than a year.

At the time, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters advised states to consider the additional stress placed on bridges during construction projects. An 18-person crew was working on the bridge when it collapsed.
Nearly three months later, she told a gathering in Washington of a "working theory" of a poorly designed gusset plate and a heavy load of construction materials.
Meanwhile, state lawmakers announced plans last month to spend up to $500,000 to hire legal counsel to aid in a legislative inquiry into the collapse.
The bridge was deemed "structurally deficient" by the federal government as far back as 1990.
Late last year, President Bush signed a massive spending bill which included $195 million to help replace the bridge. That came on top of the $178.5 million the federal government has already given Minnesota for the project.

[usmc1]

The "design flaw" is a part of the what and raises as many questions as it seems to answer. The why remains conservative policies which prevented the monies being spent in properly inspecting and repairing or retrofitting any such "flaws".

The "what", if substantiated, is interesting. The why was very well-documented earlier in this thread.

[Sanslines]

U.S. Dept of Transportation Budgets:


U.S. Department of Transportation
2005 Budget in Brief
Budgetary Resources (http://www.dot.gov/bib2005/tables.html#br)
Budget Authority (http://www.dot.gov/bib2005/tables.html#ba)
Discretionary Budget Resources, Mandatory Outlays and Credit Activity (http://www.dot.gov/bib2005/tables.html#db)
Outlays (http://www.dot.gov/bib2005/tables.html#out)
Full Time Equivalent Employment (FTE) (http://www.dot.gov/bib2005/tables.html#fte)


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 align=center border=2><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top bgColor=#cc0033 colSpan=4 height=19>
Budgetary Resources(Dollars in Millions)
</TD></TR><TR vAlign=bottom><TH scope=col width="52%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>Administration
</TH><TH scope=col align=right width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>
2003
Actual
</TH><TH scope=col align=right width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>
2004
Enacted
</TH><TH scope=col align=right width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>
2005
Request
</TH></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=19>Federal Aviation Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
13,510
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
13,873
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
13,966
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=15>Federal Highway Administration 1/
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=15>
31,805
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=15>
34,764
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=15>
34,478
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=19>National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
434
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
299
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
689
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
305
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
364
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
455
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=19>Federal Transit Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
8,241
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
7,266
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
7,266
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>Federal Railroad Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
1,261
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
1,443
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
1,088
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=19>Research & Special Programs Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
118
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
126
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
137
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
14
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
14
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
16
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=19>Surface Transportation Board
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
19
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
19
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
21
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>Maritime Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
233
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
224
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
234
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=19>Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2/
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
[30]
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
[31]
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
[32]
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>Office of the Inspector General
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
55
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
55
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
59
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=19>Office of the Secretary
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
176
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
163
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
336
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#3333cc><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=right width="52%" height=19>Total DOT Appropriations
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
56,172
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
58,610
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
58,746
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=4 height=39>NOTE: Columns may not add due to rounding. Includes Appropriations, Obligation Limitations,
User Fees, Asset Sales and Mandatory Highway Obligations in annual Appropriations Acts.

1/ Includes $150 million for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
and $64 million for Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in FY 2004. 2/ BTS funding from the Highway Trust Fund of $30 million in FY 2003,
$31 million in FY 2004 and $32 million in FY 2005 is included in the FHWA totals.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Back to Top (http://www.dot.gov/bib2005/tables.html#top)

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 align=center border=2><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top bgColor=#cc0033 colSpan=4 height=19>
Budget Authority(Dollars in Millions)
</TD></TR><TR vAlign=bottom><TH scope=col width="52%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>Administration
</TH><TH scope=col align=right width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>
2003
Actual
</TH><TH scope=col align=right width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>
2004
Enacted
</TH><TH scope=col align=right width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>
2005
Request
</TH></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=19>Federal Aviation Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
13,510
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
13,843
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
13,972 1/
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>Federal Highway Administration 2/
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
30,154
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
34,653
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
34,382
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=19>National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
434
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
297
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
689
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
313
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
364
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
455
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=19>Federal Transit Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
8,241
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
7,266
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
7,266
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>Federal Railroad Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
1,266
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
1,449
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
1,088
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=19>Research & Special Programs Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
118
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
126
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
137
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
14
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
14
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
16
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=19>Surface Transportation Board
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
18
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
18
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
19
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>Maritime Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
478
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
762
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
423
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=19>Bureau of Transportation Statistics
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
0
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
0
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
0
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>Office of the Inspector General
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
55
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
55
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
59
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=19>Office of the Secretary
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
86
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
163
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
336
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=right width="52%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>SUBTOTAL
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
54,682
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
59,012
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
58,845
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=right width="52%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>Offsetting Collections
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
-225
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
-483
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
-469
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=right width="52%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>Total Budget Authority
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>
54,457
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>
58,529
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>
58,376
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=4 height=19>NOTE: Columns may not add due to rounding
1/ Includes $6 million in Aviation User Fees
2/ Includes $150 million for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
and $64 million for Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in FY 2004.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Back to Top (http://www.dot.gov/bib2005/tables.html#top)

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 align=center border=2><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=bottom bgColor=#cc0033 colSpan=4 height=18>
DISCRETIONARY BUDGETARY RESOURCES,
MANDATORY OUTLAYS AND CREDIT ACTIVITY 1/
(Dollars in millions)
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=bottom width="52%" height=12>
</TD><TH vAlign=center scope=col width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=12>
Actual
</TH><TH vAlign=bottom scope=col width="28%" bgColor=#3333cc colSpan=2 height=12>
Estimate
</TH></TR><TR><TD vAlign=bottom width="52%" height=12>
</TD><TH vAlign=center scope=col width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=12>
2003
</TH><TH vAlign=bottom scope=col width="16%" height=12>
2004
</TH><TH vAlign=bottom scope=col width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=12>
2005
</TH></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=col bgColor=#cc0033 colSpan=4 height=12>SPENDING
</TH></TR><TR align=left><TH scope=col bgColor=#3333cc colSpan=4 height=12>
Discretionary Budgetary Resources :
</TH></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=12> Federal Aviation Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
13,490
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=12>
13,871
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
13,972
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=14> Federal Highway Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=14>
31,678
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=14>
33,614 3/
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=14>
33,343
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=12> Federal-Aid Highway Obligation
Limitation [non-add]
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
31,593
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=12>
33,643
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
33,643
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=12> Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
306
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=12>
364
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
455
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=12> National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
434
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=12>
298
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
689
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=12> Federal Transit Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
7,176
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=12>
7,266
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
7,266
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=12> Federal Railroad Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
1,267
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=12>
1,450
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
1,088
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=12> Maritime Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
208
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=12>
220
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
235
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=12> Research and Special Programs
Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
103
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=12>
112
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
123
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=12> All other programs
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
114
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=12>
196
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
277
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=bottom scope=row align=right width="52%" bgColor=#3333cc height=16>Total, Discretionary budgetary resources 4/
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=16>
54,776
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=16>
57,391
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=16>
57,448
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=right width="52%" bgColor=#3333cc height=12>Total, Discretionary outlays
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
49,121
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=12>
56,686
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
57,892
</TD></TR><TR align=left><TH scope=col bgColor=#3333cc colSpan=4 height=12>
Mandatory Outlays:
</TH></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=12> Federal Highway Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
1,781
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" height=12>
1,430
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
1,281
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=12> Office of the Secretary
</TH><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
0
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" height=12>
0
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
0
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=12> All other (including offsetting receipts)
</TH><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
-93
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" height=12>
-119
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
-214
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=right width="52%" bgColor=#3333cc height=12>Total, Mandatory outlays
</TH><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
1,688
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" height=12>
1,311
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
1,067
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=right width="52%" bgColor=#3333cc height=12>Total, Outlays
</TH><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
50,809
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" height=12>
57,997
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
58,959
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=col bgColor=#cc0033 colSpan=4 height=12>CREDIT ACTIVITY
</TH></TR><TR align=left><TH scope=col bgColor=#3333cc colSpan=4 height=12>
Direct Loan Disbursements:
</TH></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=13> Transportation Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Program
</TH><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=13>
52
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" height=13>
726
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=13>
1,070
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=12> Railroad Rehabilitation and
Improvement Program
</TH><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
0
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" height=12>
198
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
185
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=12> All other programs
</TH><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
0
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" height=12>
0
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
0
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=right width="52%" bgColor=#3333cc height=12>Total, Direct loan disbursements
</TH><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
52
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" height=12>
924
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
1,255
</TD></TR><TR align=left><TH scope=col bgColor=#3333cc colSpan=4 height=12>
Guaranteed Loan Commitments:
</TH></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=14> Transportation Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Program
</TH><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=14>
0
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" height=14>
0
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=14>
200
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=13> Maritime Guaranteed Loans (Title XI)
</TH><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=13>
305
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" height=13>
529
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=13>
410
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=12> Minority Business Resource Center
</TH><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
9
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" height=12>
18
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=12>
18
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=right width="52%" bgColor=#3333cc height=13>Total, Guaranteed loan commitments
</TH><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=13>
314
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" height=13>
547
</TD><TD vAlign=center width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=13>
628
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=bottom colSpan=4 height=12>
1/ This presentation is identical to the Department of Transportation chapter
of the Fiscal Year 2005 Budget of the United States Government.
2/ Includes $6 million from Aviation User Fees.
3/ Includes $151 million for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
and $65 million for Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 4/ Includes both discretionary budget authority and obligation limitations.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Back to Top (http://www.dot.gov/bib2005/tables.html#top)
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 align=center border=2><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top bgColor=#cc0033 colSpan=4 height=19>
Outlays(Dollars in Millions)
</TD></TR><TR vAlign=bottom><TH scope=col width="48%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>Administration
</TH><TH scope=col align=right width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>
2003
Actual
</TH><TH scope=col align=right width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>
2004
Enacted
</TH><TH scope=col align=right width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>
2005
Request
</TH></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="48%" height=19>Federal Aviation Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
12,561
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
14,016
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
14,369
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="48%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>Federal Highway Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
30,769
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
32,048
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
33,969
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="48%" height=19>National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
400
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
417
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
541
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="48%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
265
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
502
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
423
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="48%" height=19>Federal Transit Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
4,926
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
8,567
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
8,013
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="48%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>Federal Railroad Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
1,207
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
1,604
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
1,147
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="48%" height=19>Research & Special Programs Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
170
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
139
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
134
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="48%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
14
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
14
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
16
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="48%" height=19>Surface Transportation Board
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
21
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
21
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
19
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="48%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>Maritime Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
405
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
634
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
367
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="48%" height=19>Bureau of Transportation Statistics 1/
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
0
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
0
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
0
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="48%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>Office of the Inspector General
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
54
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
60
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=19>
59
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="48%" height=19>Office of the Secretary
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
238
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
470
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
369
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=right width="48%" bgColor=#3333cc height=22>Subtotal
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=22>
51,032
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=22>
58,493
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=22>
59,428
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=right width="48%" bgColor=#3333cc height=19>Offsetting Collections
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
-225
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
-483
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
-469
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#3333cc><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=right width="48%" height=19>Total Outlays
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
50,807
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
58,010
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=19>
58,959
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=4 height=39>
NOTE: Columns may not add due to rounding. 1/ In all years, BTS outlays from the Highway Trust Fund
are included in the FHWA totals.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Back to Top (http://www.dot.gov/bib2005/tables.html#top)
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 align=center border=2><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top bgColor=#cc0033 colSpan=4 height=20>
FULL TIME EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT (FTE)
</TD></TR><TR vAlign=bottom><TH scope=col width="52%" bgColor=#3333cc height=20>
Administration
</TH><TH scope=col align=right width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=20>
2003
Actual
</TH><TH scope=col align=right width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=20>
2004
Enacted
</TH><TH scope=col align=right width="16%" bgColor=#3333cc height=20>
2005
Request
</TH></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=20>Federal Aviation Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
49,762
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
48,885
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
48,826
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>Federal Highway Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
2,874
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
2,931
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
2,959
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=20>National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
669
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
671
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
671
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
1,007
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
1,078
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
1,118
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=20>Federal Transit Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
519
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
527
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
537
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>Federal Railroad Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
768
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
805
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
832
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=20>Research & Special Programs Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
921
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
989
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
1,026
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
153
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
157
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
157
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=20>Surface Transportation Board
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
137
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
145
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
145
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>Maritime Administration
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
855
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
890
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
903
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=20>Bureau of Transportation Statistics
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
133
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
136
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
144
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>Office of the Inspector General
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
433
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
430
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
435
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" height=20>Working Capital Fund
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
268
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
239
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
239
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left width="52%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>Office of the Secretary
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
547
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
618
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" bgColor=#99ccff height=20>
618
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#3333cc><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=right width="52%" height=20>Total Full Time Equivalent Employment
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
59,046
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
58,501
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right width="16%" height=20>
58,610
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Sanslines]

MN DOT Budget:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#336699></TD><TD align=left bgColor=#336699>State agencies face additional budget cuts in FY 2004-2005</TD><TD bgColor=#336699>http://www.newsline.dot.state.mn.us/rsc/images/general/transp.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#000000 colSpan=3>http://www.newsline.dot.state.mn.us/rsc/images/general/transp.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=3>
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=0 width=266 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle>http://www.newsline.dot.state.mn.us/images/02/aug/7-budgetblue-scissors.jpg</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#999999>The Minnesota Department of Finance has directed all state agencies to make 10 percent budget reductions to make up for a budget deficit of $1.6 to $2.7 billion for FY 2004-2005. Illustration by Mark Fischer and Marsha Storck

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The Minnesota Department of Finance has directed all state agencies to make 10 percent budget reductions to make up for a budget deficit of $1.6 to $2.7 billion for FY 2004-2005. These reductions not only will include the Trunk Highway, Airports and General funds, but also State Aid funding for counties and cities, which was previously exempted.
Cuts to Mn/DOT’s annualbudget will have the most effect on the level of, and our ability to, deliver future construction programs and would mean more projects added to the recently announced project deferral list, according to Kevin Gray, chief financial officer.
"Other key programs to be impacted include critically needed funding for greater Minnesota transit and less investment in the state airports construction program, as well as State Aid," Gray said.
"Given current staffing levels and the potential loss of 65 percent of its engineering and technical workforce to retirement and attrition by 2007, Mn/DOT will not focus on personnel reductions," said Deputy Commissioner Doug Weiszhaar. "Mn/DOT’s goal is still to retain a skilled workforce."
"Shaping Our Future efforts have helped Mn/DOT operate more efficiently and effectively in response to the fiscal years 2002-2003 budget deficit," Weiszhaar added. "However, state budget projections for FY 2004-2005 have once again taken a dip, which will require that we fine-tune our budget further to meet the state’s budgeting needs."
Assistant group directors are charged with developing plans to address these latest reductions, and identifying the impact of reductions to department performance targets.
"Because we have already met the challenge and found ways to deliver our program with limited additional funding, we are ahead of the game," Weiszhaar said. "The hard work of Mn/DOT employees will help us continue to meet customer needs and at the same time emphasize our direction of safeguarding what exists."
By Donna Lindberg
</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left colSpan=3>
back (javascript:window.history.back(1);)
http://www.newsline.dot.state.mn.us/rsc/images/general/blackdot.gif
</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#996600>http://www.newsline.dot.state.mn.us/rsc/images/general/transp.gif</TD><TD align=left bgColor=#996600>Mn/DOT responds to Star Tribune data requests </TD><TD bgColor=#996600>http://www.newsline.dot.state.mn.us/rsc/images/general/transp.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#000000 colSpan=3>http://www.newsline.dot.state.mn.us/rsc/images/general/transp.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=3>
The Minneapolis Star Tribune has made requests to Mn/DOT under the Minnesota Data Practices Act to examine hundreds of contracts, documents and records containing thousands of pages of data.
Reporters Patrick Doyle and Dan Browning have received copies of more than 6,000 pages of documents and they have spent much of the past four months examining thousands of pages of records at Mn/DOT offices. The requests range from information on large contracts to information about expenditures of as little as $200.
The data requests have required time expenditures by dozens of department employees. For example, one request to see all correspondence, reports, memos, letters and other data in paper or electronic form between 28 Mn/DOT employees and 81 legislators since 1999 required the staff time of 13 support staff and 28 managers. The labor cost to fulfill that single request totaled about $8,500.
In April, Mn/DOT filed a complaint with the Minnesota News Council related to a Star Tribune story alleging Mn/DOT contracts are illegal. A subsequent audit by the Legislative Auditor determined the contract noted in the story was both legal and reasonable.
As do most agencies, Mn/DOT has a designated contact for requests under the Minnesota Data Practices Act. Should you receive such an inquiry, please forward it to Linda Bjornberg, director, Management Operations Group.
By Patricia Lund
</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left colSpan=3>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Sanslines]

Federal Highway Administration

Overview: The mission of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is to enhance the quality and performance of our Nation's highway system and its intermodal connectors through innovation, leadership and public service. Highways are the critical link in our Nation's transportation system, as virtually every trip we take and every good consumed passes over a road at some point. Our challenge is to preserve and improve the 160,000 mile National Highway System, which includes the Interstate System and other roads of importance for national defense and mobility, while also improving highway safety, minimizing traffic congestion, and protecting the environment on these and other key facilities. Through surface transportation programs, innovative financing mechanisms, and increased use of innovative pavement and highway operational technology, FHWA will increase the efficiency by which people and goods move throughout the Nation, and improve the efficiency of highway and road connections to other transportation modes. The FY 2007 budget request of $39.1 billion in obligation limitation will allow the FHWA to address these challenges.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width=760 align=center border=2><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top bgColor=#01b258 colSpan=4>FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION BUDGET
(Dollars In Millions)

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top> </TD><TH vAlign=top scope=col bgColor=#0096d2>
2005
Actual
</TH><TH vAlign=top scope=col bgColor=#0096d2>
2006
Enacted
</TH><TH vAlign=top scope=col bgColor=#0096d2>
2007
Request
</TH></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left>Federal-Aid Highways Obligation Limitation
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right>
30,306 <SUP>1/</SUP>
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right>
33,551 <SUP>2/</SUP>
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right>
38,244
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left bgColor=#99ccff>Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA)</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right bgColor=#99ccff>0</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right bgColor=#99ccff>0</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right bgColor=#99ccff>842</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left>RABA Transfer to FMCSA</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right>0</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right>0</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right>-4</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left bgColor=#99ccff>Subtotal: Federal-Aid Highways Obligation Limitation</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right bgColor=#99ccff>33,306</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right bgColor=#99ccff>335,551</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right bgColor=#99ccff>39,083</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left>Exempt Mandatory Federal-Aid Highways
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right>
739
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right>
739
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right>
739
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left bgColor=#99ccff>Emergency Relief Program <SUP>3/</SUP></TH><TD vAlign=center align=right bgColor=#99ccff>1,937</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right bgColor=#99ccff>2,750</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right bgColor=#99ccff>0</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left>Limitation on Admin Expenses [non-add]
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right>
[341]
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right>
[361]
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right>
[373]
</TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left bgColor=#99ccff>Other <SUP>4/</SUP>
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right bgColor=#99ccff>
113
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right bgColor=#99ccff>
20
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right bgColor=#99ccff>
0
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#0096d2><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=right>TOTAL
</TH><TD vAlign=center align=right>
36,095
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right>
39,060
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=right>
39,822
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#0096d2><TH vAlign=top scope=row align=left colSpan=4><SUP>1/</SUP> Reflects $959 million flex funding transfer to FTA and $155 million transfer to NHTSA per P.L. 108-447. FY 2005 actual transfer to NHTSA was $130 million; the remaining $25 million was transferred to FY 2006
<SUP>2/</SUP> Reflects $121 million transfer to NHTSA per P.L. 109-115
<SUP>3/</SUP> FY 2005 was funded through the Highway Trust Fund; FY 2006 is a General Fund appropriation.
<SUP>4/</SUP> Includes Misc. Appropriations, Misc. Highway Trust Funds, and Appalachian Development Highway System.</TH></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width=760 align=center border=2><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle width=758 bgColor=#01b258 colSpan=4>Summary Of Federal -Aid Highways FY 2007 Increases and Decreases
(Dollars in Millions)

</TD></TR><TR><TD width=372> </TD><TD vAlign=bottom align=right width=129 bgColor=#0096d2>Federal-aid Highways Obligation Limitation</TD><TD vAlign=bottom align=right width=130 bgColor=#0096d2>Exempt Mandatory Federal-aid Highways</TD><TD vAlign=bottom align=right width=130 bgColor=#0096d2>Total</TD></TR><TR><TD width=372>FY 2006 Base</TD><TD align=right width=129>35,551</TD><TD align=right width=130>739</TD><TD align=right width=130>26,290</TD></TR><TR><TD width=372 bgColor=#99ccff>Pay Inflation Adjustments
</TD><TD align=right width=129 bgColor=#99ccff>4</TD><TD align=right width=130 bgColor=#99ccff>0</TD><TD align=right width=130 bgColor=#99ccff>4</TD></TR><TR><TD width=372>Non-Pay Inflation Adjustments
</TD><TD align=right width=129>1</TD><TD align=right width=130>0</TD><TD align=right width=130>1</TD></TR><TR><TD width=372 bgColor=#99ccff>Annualization of FY 2006 Initiatives
</TD><TD align=right width=129 bgColor=#99ccff>1</TD><TD align=right width=130 bgColor=#99ccff>0</TD><TD align=right width=130 bgColor=#99ccff>1</TD></TR><TR><TD width=372>Non-recurring Costs or Savings
</TD><TD align=right width=129>0</TD><TD align=right width=130>0</TD><TD align=right width=130>0</TD></TR><TR><TD width=372 bgColor=#99ccff>Base Re-engineering, Reductions or Adjustments
</TD><TD align=right width=129 bgColor=#99ccff>776</TD><TD align=right width=130 bgColor=#99ccff>0</TD><TD align=right width=130 bgColor=#99ccff>776</TD></TR><TR><TD width=372>FY 2007 Current Services Levels</TD><TD align=right width=129>36,333</TD><TD align=right width=130>739</TD><TD align=right width=130>37,072</TD></TR><TR><TD width=372 bgColor=#99ccff>Program Initiatives</TD><TD align=right width=129 bgColor=#99ccff>1,908</TD><TD align=right width=130 bgColor=#99ccff>0</TD><TD align=right width=130 bgColor=#99ccff>1,908</TD></TR><TR><TD width=372>Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA)</TD><TD align=right width=129>842</TD><TD align=right width=130>0</TD><TD align=right width=130>842</TD></TR><TR><TD width=372 bgColor=#99ccff>FY 2007Request</TD><TD align=right width=129 bgColor=#99ccff>39,083</TD><TD align=right width=130 bgColor=#99ccff>739</TD><TD align=right width=130 bgColor=#99ccff>39,822</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
FY 2007 Budget

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), enacted August 10, 2005, provides for increased transportation infrastructure investment, strengthens transportation safety programs and environmental programs, and continues core research activities. SAFETEA-LU, along with Title 23, U.S.C. ("Highways") and other supporting legislation, provides authority for the various programs of the Federal Highway Administration designed to improve highways throughout the Nation. The President's Budget for FY 2007 continues transportation infrastructure investment to increase the mobility and productivity of the Nation, strengthens transportation safety programs, and provides a focus on program efficiencies, oversight, and accountability.
In FY 2007, the Federal Highway Administration continues major programs, including the Surface Transportation Program, the National Highway System, Interstate Maintenance, the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, and the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program. http://www.dot.gov/bib2007/images/buildroad.jpg
SAFETEA-LU authorizes a new Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), and an Equity Bonus program that replaces the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century's (TEA-21) Minimum Guarantee program. Other new programs include the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program, Highways for Life pilot program, National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program, projects of national and regional significance, and Safe Routes to School.
The FY 2007 program level budget request of $39.8 billion supports the Administration's blueprint for the future, as described in SAFETEA-LU. This funding level will support the Secretary's goals and continue efforts to improve highway safety dramatically, slow the growth of traffic congestion, and promote good stewardship of the environment. FHWA will also strengthen its stewardship of Federal surface transportation funds by improving oversight and increasing accountability to ensure every dollar spent achieves maximum benefits for Americans.
Federal-aid Highway Program: The Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP) provides Federal financial assistance to the States to construct and improve the National Highway System, urban and rural roads, and bridges. The FY 2007 budget request includes an obligation limitation of $31.9 billion for the FAHP. This funding reflects the level authorized in SAFETEA-LU and includes an upward adjustment of $842 million for the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) provisions contained in SAFETEA-LU.
By including additional resources from State and local governments that utilize the funds for highway investment, this amount is more than doubled. In total, investments in highway improvements support the achievement of safety, mobility, environmental stewardship, and security goals. FHWA will continue its efforts to increase oversight and accountability, including large-project management and oversight, to ensure the protection of the large Federal investment, while maintaining the prerogatives of the States in the delivery of highway transportation projects to the public. Estimated obligations for the Federal-aid Highway Program in FY 2007 include the following:

http://www.dot.gov/bib2007/images/22684_FK_img_71.jpg

National Highway System (NHS) - $7.8 billion for the National Highway System, which consists of roads that are of primary Federal interest, including the current Interstate system, other rural principal arterials, urban freeways and connecting urban principal arterials, and facilities on the Defense Department's designated Strategic Highway Network, and roads connecting the NHS to intermodal facilities.
Surface Transportation Program (STP) - $7.5 billion for the STP program which supports projects on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities.
Interstate Maintenance (IM) - $5.1 billion for the IM program which is designed to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and reconstruct the interstate system.
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation - $4.2 billion for the bridge program which enables States to improve the condition of their bridges through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic preventive maintenance.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) - $2.0 billion for the CMAQ program which supports transportation projects that assist in meeting and maintaining national ambient air quality standards.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) - For FY 2007, $1.5 billion is estimated to be obligated for the new highway infrastructure safety program (previously funded by set-aside from STP), that was established as a core program beginning in FY 2006. The program, which features strategic safety planning and performance, devotes additional resources and supports innovative approaches to reducing highway fatalities and injuries on all public roads.
Research and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) - The FHWA conducts a comprehensive research, development, and technology program to support the Federal-aid Highways and Federal Lands Highway Programs. The FY 2007 Budget requests a program level of $467.6 million for research and development (R&D), including an obligation limitation of $429.8 million. The Budget proposes dedicating an additional $37.8 million from the FY 2007 Federal-aid obligation limitation for research. This level of funding will provide FHWA resources to pursue work critical to the Department and its stakeholders.
Federal Lands Highway Program - The Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP) improves access to and within national forests, national parks, Indian reservations, and other public lands. The $346 million estimated to be obligated for the FLHP in FY 2007 will support the President's initiatives to enhance the protection of America's national parks and protect these national treasures for present and future generations. This will include enhancement of ecosystems, improvement of outdoor opportunities, improved infrastructure, and greater accountability.
TIFIA Program - The Transportation Infrastructure and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program leverages limited Federal resources and stimulates private investment by providing credit assistance for major transportation projects. FHWA offers assistance through secured direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit. For FY 2007, $131 million is estimated to be obligated for TIFIA projects. TIFIA assistance is available for highway, transit, rail and port projects costing at least $50 million, and Intelligent Transportation System projects costing at least $15 million.
Limitation on Administrative Expenses - A Limitation on Administrative Expenses (LAE) of $372.5 million is requested for FY 2007 for the necessary salaries and on-going administrative expenses in support of the above Federal programs.
Emergency Relief Program -The Emergency Relief (ER) program provides funding for the repair or reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and roads on Federal lands that have suffered serious damage as a result of natural disasters or catastrophic failures from an external cause. Section 125 of title 23, of the United States Code, authorizes $100 million annually.
Open Roads Financing Pilot Program: $100 million is requested for a pilot program that would involve up to five States in evaluating innovative ways to finance and manage major parts of their highway systems. Fuel tax revenues may become insufficient to finance highway improvements needed to reduce congestion, maintain mobility, and assure that our highway systems serve the needs of our growing economy. Furthermore, current financing mechanisms provide very few incentives to improve the operational performance of the existing highway system, particularly during peak periods. This pilot program would provide funding for States to demonstrate the benefits of more efficient methods of charging for the use of major portions of their highway system. Innovative mechanisms will be sought that can augment existing sources of State highway funding as well as improve highway performance and reduce congestion.

[Sanslines]

PRESIDENT CLINTON’S BUDGET REQUEST
FOR TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
SEEKS RECORD-HIGH $43.3 BILLION
Recognizing that transportation spurs the economy, President Clinton’s budget for fiscal 1999, the first balanced federal budget in 30 years, continues investment in America by proposing a record $43.3 billion for Department of Transportation programs, Transportation Secretary Rodney E. Slater said today.
"Transportation is about more than concrete, asphalt and steel -- it’s about providing opportunity for all Americans," Secretary Slater said. "This budget will advance our highest priority -- safety. At the same time it will continue the course set out by President Clinton six years ago to ‘rebuild America’ and reiterated in his State of the Union address. Transportation is vital to our strong economy and our quality of life, and it can create opportunities for people to lead better, more fulfilling lives."
President Clinton has worked with Congress to increase transportation investment even as the deficit decreased. The $43.3 billion transportation budget proposal is $431 million more than the $42.8 million fiscal 1998 budget enacted by Congress; it continues the President’s commitment to building a transportation system that is intermodal in form, international in reach, intelligent in character and inclusive in service
The proposed fiscal 1999 budget for transportation supports five strategic goals, which are safety, mobility, economic growth and trade, environmental protection, and national security.
A record $30 billion is proposed for infrastructure investment, 42 percent more than the annual average under the previous Administration. These investments help meet America’s mobility needs and contribute to economic growth. They include:

$23 billion for highway maintenance and new roads and bridges;
$250 million for state infrastructure banks and a new transportation infrastructure credit program to leverage state and private funding for new highways and intermodal projects;
$1.7 billion to continue improving the nation’s airports;
$4.6 billion for transit grants so states and communities will have an alternative to gridlock; this includes $100 million for flexible alternatives to get people to where jobs are so that they can move from welfare rolls to payrolls; and
$621 million for Amtrak to ensure that America has a balanced intercity passenger transportation system.The department’s top priority continues to be protecting public health and safety. The budget proposes a record $3.1 billion for direct transportation safety funding, 11 percent above fiscal 1998 funding. This includes:

$406 million for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an increase of 22 percent, to improve highway safety education and enforcement; and
$975 million for aviation safety, an increase of 18 percent, so that the Federal Aviation Administration can hire additional inspectors and make safety improvements.The department’s national security programs are intended to protect Americans from deliberate harm. Funding proposed to address national security goals include:

$284 million for aviation security, double last year’s level and including $100 million to buy security-related equipment;
$98 million for the Maritime Administration to keep 47 U.S.-flag ships available to provide the sealift capacity needed for emergencies such as the Persian Gulf War, and
$20 million to provide loan guarantees to help maintain U.S. shipbuilding capacity; and
$437 million for the U.S. Coast Guard’s drug interdiction program.The budget proposes a record $1.9 billion for initiatives to ensure that transportation programs protect and enhance communities and the environment. These include:

$1.2 billion for cleaner air through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program; and
$309 million for the U.S. Coast Guard’s marine environmental protection programs.Secretary Slater noted that the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) had not yet been reauthorized, and that only 87 days remained of a temporary reauthorization, which expires April 30, 1998. In March 1997, President Clinton proposed a reauthorization bill -- a six-year, $175 billion National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act (NEXTEA) -- to continue building and operating America’s surface transportation system into the next century.
Secretary Slater emphasized four principles -- improving safety, investing in America, protecting the environment and providing transportation services for welfare recipients to get to jobs -- as most important for guiding reauthorization of ISTEA, and he urged Congress to make ISTEA reauthorization a high priority as it took up the fiscal 1999 budget.

[Sanslines]

From the above charts:

In 1999, $43.3 Billion was proposed for DOT appropriation.

In 2003, $56.2 Billion was the actual DOT appropriation.

In 2004, $58.6 Billion was the actual DOT appropriation.

In 2005, $58.7 Billion was the requested DOT appropriation.

[usmc1]

Here's the link to an outstanding investigative report naming the names and the chronology of the the "conservative" "tax-cutting" politicians and policies responsible and culpable for the condition of the bridge which led to its collapse.

Those who vote for and support such polititicans and policies are equally culpable.

http://www.citypages.com/databank/28/1393/article15756.asp

[Sanslines]

It appears that money is availible for proper infrastructure inspections, maintenance, and repairs. The problem of insane waste of monies is widespread and due to incompetence and numerous pork barrel projects:

From MSN article on Energy Independance:

......."Get our priorities straight. Right now, Congress is geared toward high-carbon pork-barrel projects like the notorious 2005 "bridge to nowhere," which would have spent $400 million to link two sparsely populated islands in Southeast Alaska. Meanwhile, the nation faces a huge backlog of necessary maintenance on neglected roads, rails, bridges, levees and dams." .........

[wantago9]

In engineering schools, the engineers to be were taught to design things in a certain numbers of years to design for. (20 to 50 years) Design Flaw doesn't mean it is the blame to the engineers. We all learn the errors all the time. We shall thank God for a lesser people being on that bridge. Wishing that bridge were closed for a major repair, long before anything happen. New Yorker does closes their bridge for major repairs. Since, New Yorkers have many other routes to detours. The major concerns today is the numbers of heavy truckers being on United States highways at very rapidly rate deregoting all of the roads all over the country. There needs to be a stronger authorities to stress the truckers to go on approved routes that is designed for heavier trucks. That's mine thought today.

[usmc1]

It appears that money is availible for proper infrastructure inspections, maintenance, and repairs. The problem of insane waste of monies is widespread and due to incompetence and numerous pork barrel projects:

From MSN article on Energy Independance:

......."Get our priorities straight. Right now, Congress is geared toward high-carbon pork-barrel projects like the notorious 2005 "bridge to nowhere," which would have spent $400 million to link two sparsely populated islands in Southeast Alaska. Meanwhile, the nation faces a huge backlog of necessary maintenance on neglected roads, rails, bridges, levees and dams." .........

Waste might be a problem, but Steven's bridge to nowhere had naught to do with the collapse of the Minnesota bridge. It fell because of the pandering conservative policies and politics which prevented it from being properly repaired or replaced.

That is why it fell, not due to pork barrel projects elsewhere! It was documented months ago.

http://www.citypages.com/databank/28...ticle15756.asp (http://www.citypages.com/databank/28/1393/article15756.asp)