schizo319
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,030
Jun 28, 2014 0:26:58 GMT
|
Post by schizo319 on Mar 16, 2018 15:55:06 GMT
I don't think that ABC is inherently bad. All the work is done off site -- that doesn't mean it's done badly. Paying more money is not necessarily going to make the construction better. The same safety checks are built into this method as in others. Technically, ABC should be just as strong and safe as other construction methods. Nobody but nobody wants to cut corners on something like this. This method would never have made it this far if it didn't meet the specs for delivering a safe bridge. If they did cut corners due to corruption of some sort, they belong in jail. Clearly something catastrophic happened, but we don't yet know the cause. Was it the design, the construction method, the materials, the site? I'm giving the NTSB time to figure out what went wrong. I would have agreed with everything you wrote before yesterday. A bridge that was supposed to last 100 years collapsed in 5 days. I don't think it's unreasonable to think we might ought to examine this "ABC" method before we decide it's the standard for bridge building/repair.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Mar 16, 2018 15:56:31 GMT
A bridge that was supposed to last 100 years collapsed in 5 days. yes, but the bridge wasn't FINISHED. It was still in the process of being constructed, and wasn't supposed to even been open until next year. So I don't think your '5 days vs. 100 years' is a very accurate comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Mar 16, 2018 17:08:20 GMT
Not being finished and not having the proper support structure in place, there should have been temporary support in place under it to make sure it was solid
|
|
|
Post by FLA SummerBaby on Mar 16, 2018 18:34:09 GMT
My heart just sank when I saw this happening yesterday. I live 6 hours north of Miami so am nowhere near this. Just tragic. I do have a friend who works at FIU but due to spring break this week, she was not in a meeting there and was at the other campus -- very thankful when she wrote and told me that. My heart breaks for everyone impacted by this.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 16, 2018 18:46:34 GMT
In the before pictures I see RED temporary supports, which appear to be collapsible, I could be wrong. I am thinking that they were not able to hold the weight of the 2 levels of concrete.
|
|
|
Post by anniefb on Mar 16, 2018 18:51:22 GMT
Just terrible.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Mar 17, 2018 10:02:49 GMT
An engineer spotted cracks and reported them in a voicemail to colleagues who didn't listen to them until after the collapse. He apparently said the cracks weren't a safety concern! BBC
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Mar 17, 2018 20:04:05 GMT
I don't think that ABC is inherently bad. All the work is done off site -- that doesn't mean it's done badly. Paying more money is not necessarily going to make the construction better. The same safety checks are built into this method as in others. Technically, ABC should be just as strong and safe as other construction methods. Nobody but nobody wants to cut corners on something like this. This method would never have made it this far if it didn't meet the specs for delivering a safe bridge. If they did cut corners due to corruption of some sort, they belong in jail. Clearly something catastrophic happened, but we don't yet know the cause. Was it the design, the construction method, the materials, the site? I'm giving the NTSB time to figure out what went wrong. I would have agreed with everything you wrote before yesterday. A bridge that was supposed to last 100 years collapsed in 5 days. I don't think it's unreasonable to think we might ought to examine this "ABC" method before we decide it's the standard for bridge building/repair. I think you first need to investigate whether this particular bridge's construction & installation was done following the method and designs as specified. You can have a fine design and a safe method, but either human error or a willful lack of care in following the specific instructions can lead to disaster.
|
|
|
Post by originalvanillabean on Mar 17, 2018 21:57:59 GMT
My question is if the bridge wasn’t finished why were cars on it? Surely there are multiple ways to do a stress test without endangering innocent lives.
And I can’t explain why because I don’t know any of the victims but I’m pissed! People lost their lives and it was avoidable.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Mar 17, 2018 21:59:30 GMT
My question is if the bridge wasn’t finished why were cars on it? Surely there are multiple ways to do a stress test without endangering innocent lives. And I can’t explain why because I don’t know any of the victims but I’m pissed! People lost their lives and it was avoidable. There weren't cars on it. There wouldn't have been cars on it even if it was completed. It was a pedestrian bridge. The cars were below it when it fell.
|
|
|
Post by originalvanillabean on Mar 17, 2018 23:33:45 GMT
My question is if the bridge wasn’t finished why were cars on it? Surely there are multiple ways to do a stress test without endangering innocent lives. And I can’t explain why because I don’t know any of the victims but I’m pissed! People lost their lives and it was avoidable. There weren't cars on it. There wouldn't have been cars on it even if it was completed. It was a pedestrian bridge. The cars were below it when it fell. Yes of course. Meant under it but clearly my fingers and brain weren’t connected when typing.
|
|