C. This has nothing to do with conservative tax policies, light rail took a good portion of money that could have been used for these types of repairs and money was available regardless of the Governor's veto but repairs were not completed.

Light rail has virtually nothing to do with this. If anything it lowers road usage and takes strain off of the bridges. The governor's veto meant that about 1/4 of the proposed money went to roads and bridges. Do you really think that had no effect on how many repairs were made?

The piece in the Oregonian is not exactly as you originally characterized it. A hasty judgment was made that was later scaled back. The hasty judgment was fueled by the federal government rather than OSU engineers.

In his response to the audit, ODOT Director Matt Garrett said the agency believes its quick action at the time was "prudent and necessary to protect Oregon's motorists and the state's economy."
Garrett said the Federal Highway Administration was ready to cut funding to the state if Oregon didn't immediately impose load limits on the distressed bridges -- stopping more than 30 percent of freight flowing through the state.

When using experts for public policy decisions we must keep ourselves grounded and realize that they are not infallible. Self interest and scientific limitations mean we can't trust any of them 100%. Self interest can also mean covering your rear end to an extreme.

Of course no one is infallible and nothing is 100% that is not what is at issue. The engineers working for the government inspecting bridges have jobs if 5, 10, 25, or 50% of bridges don't measure up to the stated criteria. This is also true of the OSU civil engineering department. There will always be some level of CYA in any endeavor public or private. The bridge safety report gives a 120 point scale, so this can be accounted for (at least to some degree) and the bridges can be prioritized according to condition and usage.
If we can't trust the engineers we are pretty much SOL on the bridge front.

Claiming so many bridges and deficient when nearly all are in fact adequate makes us discount their warnings.

How do you know that they are nearly all in fact adequate?
The likelyhood of their still standing x years in the future is largely due to the repairs recommended by these engineers.
The only to test the validity of your assertion is to forgo all recommended repairs and see what happens. I very much doubt you would advocate this.

The points are A. We need to slow down and not overreact to this isolated incident. B. Engineers can be self serving as well as overreaching with their expertise. C. This has nothing to do with conservative tax policies, light rail took a good portion of money that could have been used for these types of repairs and money was available regardless of the Governor's veto but repairs were not completed.

I tried to provide a link to the story in the Oregonian concerning our experience with politicians and the engineers who enable them. We should avoid making this a reason for highway pork projects.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/1171068953207920.xml&coll=7
ODOT bridge plan too hasty, audit says - OregonLive.com

When using experts for public policy decisions we must keep ourselves grounded and realize that they are not infallible. Self interest and scientific limitations mean we can't trust any of them 100%. Self interest can also mean covering your rear end to an extreme. Claiming so many bridges and deficient when nearly all are in fact adequate makes us discount their warnings.

Can we expect those other thousands of bridges to fall this week? No. Can we afford to replace all of them? No. Have the engineers given us any information of value? I would say no.

According to the ASCE "It is estimated that it will cost $9.4 billion per year for 20 years to eliminate all bridge deficiencies. The annual investment required to prevent the bridge investment backlog from increasing is estimated at $7.3 billion." Also according to the ASCE in 2003 $8.8 billion was spent on bridge repair and maintenance, due to additional local and state funding. There appears to be some progress the number of bridges rated deficient or obsolete has been decreasing since the early 90s. Can the federal government not afford the additional $600-700 million per year to eliminate this problem? How do you think this cost would compare with the stepped up inspection program you envision?

We need better information and we need to wait for more information specific to this failure before we start passing judgement or making public policy changes.

Earlier you said

Engineers lose credibility when they say so many have deficiencies but they can't see something like this complete collapse coming.
It's also too early to start saying this bridge was failing like many others or that we have been doing a crappy job maintaining our infrastructure. Usually it's engineers and bridge builders (those with a vested financial interest) who make those complaints.
A couple of years ago engineers at Oregon State University claimed a great number of Oregon bridges were on the verge of failure. The legislature passed a bond funding measure in response but six months later the engineers admitted they overstated the problem, too late to redo the bond and project list. Credibility shot.

You don't think we have enough information to proceed and you don't trust engineers and bridge builders to give us that information. How do you suggest we proceed?
Could you provide a link to the OSU engineers' admission? I took a quick look and did not see anything.

The logic may be simple but it is there. If you say tens of thousands of bridges are deficient yet only have a failure every 5 to 10 years how are we supposed to know what is really a danger? Crying wolf will yield that type of scepticism.

Another example of this phenomenon and I think an apt comparison. Every year tsunamis are generated that can potentially kill thousands of people or can end up being barely detectable events when they make landfall. On a few notable occasions in Hawaii people were warned that a tsunami was on the way but had been warned several times previously about tsunamis that had proved to be innocuous so ignored the warnings. On these occasions the tsunamis were over 20' in height and hundreds were killed. The geologists watching for tsunami generating events can only let you know about the potential dangers, they cannot give you an ironclad prediction just as the bridge engineers can let you know about the potential dangers but making exact predictions is a different thing. This problem is compounded for the engineers by a 60 month period between inspections that can be extended to 72 months.

So before we blame fiscal conservatives and their policies...

It appears that a bill was passed by the Minnesota legislature to deal with this and other transportation issues but was vetoed by the Republican governor who did not want to pay for the improvements with increased taxes. The end result was that investment in highways, roads, and bridges was much less. In the aftermath of this tragedy it is likely that the MN legislature could pass the additional spending and taxes to pay for it and muster the extra 7 votes to override another veto by Pawlenty.

The logic may be simple but it is there. If you say tens of thousands of bridges are deficient yet only have a failure every 5 to 10 years how are we supposed to know what is really a danger? Crying wolf will yield that type of scepticism.

Can we expect those other thousands of bridges to fall this week? No. Can we afford to replace all of them? No. Have the engineers given us any information of value? I would say no. We need better information and we need to wait for more information specific to this failure before we start passing judgement or making public policy changes.

That's good logic.

Now there is some wonderful logic for you...

Gee Steve, how do you think it is that engineers express a sense that a collapse might be coming?
Perhaps by pointing out that the bridges have deficiencies?

It's also too early to start saying this bridge was failing like many others or that we have been doing a crappy job maintaining our infrastructure. Usually it's engineers and bridge builders (those with a vested financial interest) who make those complaints.

A couple of years ago engineers at Oregon State University claimed a great number of Oregon bridges were on the verge of failure. The legislature passed a bond funding measure in response but six months later the engineers admitted they overstated the problem, too late to redo the bond and project list. Credibility shot.

So before we blame fiscal conservatives and their policies we should wait and see what the problem in this case was and temper our conclusions by recognizing the behind the scenes game of money and power in public infrastructure construction.

If it’s true that “many other bridges nationwide” are so poorly rated, my guess is that this will become a priority in a big hurry.

I doubt it. As I noted in my post in this vein this morning, we've grown accustomed to dealing with the problem after the catastrophe happens. That's as true of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as it is for infrastructure.

Note also that this particular problem is a state issue and Minnesotans, more favorably disposed to government spending than many Americans, have the same problem as the rest of us.

If it’s true that “many other bridges nationwide” are so poorly rated, my guess is that this will become a priority in a big hurry.

Highly doubtful. Bush has been adamantly against transportation improvements during his presidency. His veto threats of the SAFETEA legislation during the last Congress handcuffed states as they were trying to plan road maintenance schedules and improvements.

The bill was held up in conference for like two years due to the Republican Congressional leadership's unwillingness to take Bush on. The compromise that he finally signed was not nearly sufficient to deal with the crumbling transportation infrastructure in the country.

I wouldn't expect anything substantive to come from either Bush or Congress as a result of this. Hell, an entire American city was destroyed as result of crumbling infrastructure and very little has been done in that case--why would we expect anything different now?