'Structurally deficient bridges'

[ProdigalHorn]

So now Obama is claiming that there are 153 bridges in North Carolina that are basically ready to fall down if we don't pass his jobs bill. He asks "Why would we wait to act until another bridge falls?"What??????? Has there been an issue with bridges collapsing and killing drivers in this country?I was checking this out, and here's what ABC said a while back in 2007:The Link

In reply to:

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

 

[Horn6721]

?? " Does Obama have a list of bridges that are literally dangerous to drive on, and he's just letting people drive over them and risk their lives?? "?

Why doesn't he or someone in his admin identify them so people can use others routes.
In his speech in NC he said there were 4 near where he was but he didn't name them.

if they are as bad as he is making out why would he not name them?

 

[JohnnyM]

Prod - You're setting up a strawman, and you're intentionally overstating what the President has said.

The President has not claimed that all structurally deficient bridges are "ticking timebombs". You are overstating that to setup the strawman that the only logical choices for "how safe is this bridge?" are:

possibly "structurally deficient", but completely safe and in no need of repair

or

so terribly dangerous that the only logical course of action is to shut them down

You want to paint Obama in the corner of choosing between one choice that is so incredibly wasteful in spending or the only other choice being so irresponsible with the safety of the public.

It's a false choice and it's intentionally misleading - although it's not surprising at all. This is the MO of many on here.

 

[majorwhiteapples]

Johnny:

My question is weren't these bridges supposed to be fixed with the first $800B in Stimulus money? So President Obama failed to do what he said the first time and fix our roads and bridges with shovel ready projects? Fool me once.......how are we to believe that these bridges will get fixed this time? How many times are you going to call me a fool?

 

[general35]

the states have money in their budgets to pay for these infrastructure issues. they choose not to or to send the money somewhere else.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Horn6721]

Actually right after saying there were 153 structually deficient bridges in NC he said 4 of them were right around here and then he said why would we wait to act until another bridge falls.
Understandably the crowd gave a nervous laugh

 

[Bevo Incognito]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[ProdigalHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

In Louisville there is an interesting problem. There have been discussions about building a 3rd bridge between Louisville and Indiana. There has been lots of discontent by the public and the bridge keeps on being delayed despite politician pressure to get it done. Then, a crack was found in one of the 2 existing bridges. The damaged bridge was closed and it now takes a couple of hours for people to cross the river during rush hour and it will take months to fix. Now politicians are saying "See, we should have built the new bridge". My feeling (and one that hasn't been raised yet) is we can't even maintain the 2 bridges we have now. How are we going to maintain 3 of them? BTW, a friend told me that her son is a structural engineer who builds bridges and he states that a lot of bridges around the country are aged, dangerous and in need of repair.

 

[Bevo Incognito]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Leftwith]

Strawman, my ***. Obama was CLEARLY using the fear tactic that any minute now, a North Carolina bridge could collapse. (unless we pass his garbage union payoff bill)

 

[ProdigalHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[A. BETTIK]

Isn't it kind of McCarthyesque to go around accusing bridges of structural deficiencism without offering up evidence to drivers?

This reflects very poorly on Obama's handlers and Obama himself for not catching such an obvious blunder.

And besides, where in his spaghetti bill does it specifically state these accused bridges will be rehabilitated?

 

[Bevo Incognito]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bevo Incognito]

NC DOT says 38 percent of bridges in the state are 'deficient'

By: NBC News

Published: September 15, 2011

RALEIGH, N.C. --

Approximately 38 percent of the bridges in North Carolina are “structurally deficient,” according to a study by the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

There are approximately 17,000 bridges, many of which are more than 50 years old, the state said. The DOT will replace or repair more than 250 bridges this fiscal year, it said in a news release Thursday.

If a bridge is called “structurally deficient,” it means that there are elements of the bridge that needed to be monitored to maintain its structural integrity. It does not mean the bridge is unsafe.

If a bridge is called “functionally obsolete,” it means its layout no longer meets current design standards for width, shoulders or rail.

All North Carolina bridges are inspected at least every other year and all open bridges in the state are safe, the DOT said.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[JohnnyM]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[majorwhiteapples]

Are they toll bridges? I think you should charge them Yankee intruders to your great state of Kentucky!!!!!! Then charge them to get back home too!!!!!

Secede I say, Secede!!!!!

 

[Michtex]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bevo Incognito]

It's kind of like saying "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" in order to frighten people into supporting a war that ends up costing trillions of dollars and thousands of their sons and daughters lives.

 

[Leftwith]

So the ONLY way to take care of these structurally deficient bridges is to pass Obama's union payoff bill.

Got it.

 

[Bevo Incognito]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Leftwith]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bevo Incognito]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[JohnnyM]

I think he's just questioning the mud being slung by Leftwith that the jobs bill is packed with union giveaways. Isn't it fair to ask for proof of that?

 

[Uninformed]

If Obama was going to present a Jobs Bill to Congress, it would most assuredly contain giveaways to his base. Precedence tells us so much.

 

[JohnnyM]

So there is no proof? Exactly. It's fine to be upset about something that is a known. It's quite another thing to pre-emptively be upset about a made up truth. Just another example of people being against Obama's plans, policies, and bills simply because he's for them. You're usually better than that Uninformed.

 

[Leftwith]

Spare me the feigned ignorance, guys. We all know it'll be loaded with union favors, as has everything else he's ever brought forth.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to find something we all know is there.