Jump to content

Talk:I-35W Mississippi River bridge: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Gwen Gale (talk | contribs)
47,788 edits
MplsNarco (talk | contribs)
73 edits
Line 177: Line 177:


Also...discussion about how the collapse affected the scheduling of a '''''baseball game''''' is of dubious value and perhaps even trivializes the tragedy, the deaths and injuries, etc. I know that this just happened and that these additions were added on the fly, so I'm not actually calling anybody out on this, but I hope the whole Minnesota Twins bit will be removed as soon as there is enough reliable info on hand to flesh out the story with ''meaningful'' details. I know that sports are ridiculously important to a lot of people, but that doesn't mean we have to play into it. [[User:PurpleChez|PurpleChez]] 02:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Also...discussion about how the collapse affected the scheduling of a '''''baseball game''''' is of dubious value and perhaps even trivializes the tragedy, the deaths and injuries, etc. I know that this just happened and that these additions were added on the fly, so I'm not actually calling anybody out on this, but I hope the whole Minnesota Twins bit will be removed as soon as there is enough reliable info on hand to flesh out the story with ''meaningful'' details. I know that sports are ridiculously important to a lot of people, but that doesn't mean we have to play into it. [[User:PurpleChez|PurpleChez]] 02:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think that information should only be put on the [[Minnesota Twins 2007 season]] page, since it was an event that happened in their season, but should be removed from the news articles themselves.[[User:MplsNarco|MplsNarco]] 12:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


== Content removal ==
== Content removal ==

Revision as of 12:49, 2 August 2007

History problem

Why does the history of this page show all of the edits happening on August 2, 2007? Isn't today August 1, 2007?

Your history is set to the UTC time zone, the default setting for Wikipedia. Grandmasterka 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


UPDATE NOW 9 ARE FOUND TO BE DEAD.

Story breaks

Interesting information about the bridge at http://www.visi.com/~jweeks/bridges/pages/ms16.html. You should probably insert a link to this page.

I have heard up to 25 cars in the water - does anyone know more?

The whole bridge is GONE. John celona 00:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KSTP is reporting a MNDOT inspection from May 2006 citing cracks in trusses and diapragms in the superstructure. AgentKuma 00:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's going to be in big trouble now. --Jon Ace 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone find the MNDOT inspection I'm referring to? I can't find it on the MNDOT page... not all that user friendly. AgentKuma 00:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Governor Tim Pawlenty says there were no structural deficencies found in the 2006 inspection (source: KSTP). -Jason ost 02:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The study in question was undertaken by the University of Minnesota civil engineering department, and commissioned by MNDOT. It was determined that the fatigue cracks in the deck did not warrant imminent replacement. No inspection gave any indication of such a disaster.

Breaking crisis

Remember everyone: facts welcome, but please remember to cite things. If you're not sure how to cite, just put the url in brackets like this: [http://www.example.com] and experienced Wikipedians will help clean things up. --Bobak 00:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information related to MNDOT and widening over Minnehaha parkway is irrelevant. That work is at least 20 miles away from this site. Ericy 01:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mayor just gave a brief address about the disaster. (Saw it on CNN.) Should that be in the article? -Inklein 02:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have too many sections in the talk about splitting the article. Could someone try to combine them? -Jason ost 03:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spin-off article or not?

Is there a consensus as to whether or not the disaster/collapse itself should get its own article?--Daveswagon 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say yes it should, with the articles semi-protected. CrazyC83 00:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say no (see below).Remember, Wikiepdia is not a newspaper. Tomj 00:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say yes it should (per User:CrazyC83)172.191.100.66 05:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is right here on wiki (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Highway_bridge_in_Minneapolis%2C_Minnesota_collapses) ;) -- Ownage2214 01:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needing its own article

This event is separate from the actual history of the I-35W Bridge. Should stand as it's own article like other disasters that have occurred. --Hourick 00:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to keep the coverage of the collapse on I-35W Bridge until (and if) long-term notability is proven. Remember, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Tomj 00:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.--Daveswagon 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article is yet big enough to break out - I suggest not forking yet. As the article develops more will come to light about history ... --Golden Wattle talk 00:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. most disasters are notable with a serious loss of life, especially when it is possible that the bridge might have collapsed by due to an engineering disaster with the amount of coverage. There is precedent. --Hourick 00:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it turns out to be a notable disaster, we can expand it to its own page, but we don't know much yet. I say to keep information here for awhile, and see how things develop. It'll be easy enough to split things out later if needed. --Elonka 00:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Serious loss of life":let's wait, wait... Tomj 00:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think given the media coverage, even internationally now (it's on the front page of the BBC), it warrants its own article. matt91486 01:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, amount of casualties aside, this collapse will have a long-term impact on the entirity of the Minneapolis/St Paul freeway infrastructure. This will be felt for at least 2 to 3 years, and will be remembered thereafter, and that's even assuming MNDoT puts 100% of their work force into rebuilding this. Then again, the Tacoma collapse doesn't have its own article either. - EmiOfBrie 01:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First let's gather information, then we can sort out if we want a new article. --Bobak 00:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who killed off the split article before I must comment. - it's unwise IMO to have the information in two different places during this sort of "feeding frenzy" - we should all be editing one article so that there's one article history. --Random832 01:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wait before spliitng.We need to gather more information. It may not be worth its own article. Tomj 01:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs its OWN article! BigCoop 01:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SplitHow "notable" should a bridge collapse be? It's a major east-west bridge across a famous river, in the middle of a major city with a least *3* confirmed deaths? The NTSB is already involved and they're also talking a major investigation. --Hourick 01:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's too early, let's wait and not create a separate page. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too late! It split earlier today! 71.39.78.68 02:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, let us wait until the news frenzy calms down and everything comes together. - Enzo Aquarius 01:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, wait to split if there will even be a split Inklein 02:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we need a new article. The disaster is limited to the I-35W bridge, and there are no related structures impacted as a result of the collapse. (Unlike, for example, an earthquake or a tornado that demolishes a lot of structures.) Writing a separate article might add needless complexity to the situation. After a few days, we'll know the extent of the disaster. Also, any discussion of an eventual replacement or discussion of traffic impacts probably belongs in this article as well. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 01:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not split the article until enough information is available to create a separate article. We don't need to fragment into a stub when the content will fit into the main article just fine. --StuffOfInterest 01:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This obviously needs its own article. It had one earlier. Weird stuff happens on this website sometimes. Anyway... 65.92.177.195 02:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being I suggest we keep the info in this article exclusively, for two reasons. First, if this was an independent article eralier, then merged into this article, creating a spin off for the disaster alone may qualify for sppedy deletion (recreation of deleted material) if there are no signifigant updates or new information to add to the article. Secindly, and more importantly, the media will likely being looking into this disaster for some weeks, as they report information we can better cite and expand the disaster section. If the media can produce anything interesting (like shoddy construction, failure to properly maintain the bridge, substandard steel, etc) then we may have better grounds for placing the collapse in its own article. If nothing signifigant turns up we can leave the info here as is. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better title

I am proposing moving the article to Mississippi River bridge collapse as being the commonly used name in news reports and a better search term. TerriersFan 00:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should create a separate article yet. Just redirects.--Daveswagon 00:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to a point, but it must be specified as to which bridge. --Hourick 00:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to specify which bridge in the title - only 1 bridge has collapsed. TerriersFan 00:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect created as per suggestion to help searching--Golden Wattle talk 00:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say don't do anything yet until all information is known--Voot42

KSTP[1] estimates up to 50 cars in the crash. -Jason ost 00:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to another collapsed structure, I would oppose to it unless it overbears the article --wL<speak·check> 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. Noted. Tomj 01:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KARE 11 news stated approximately 100 cars were involved due to rush hour traffic.

Did they say where they got that estimate from? Everywhere else still says around 50. -Jason ost 02:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mayor R.T. Rybak stated that rescue workers searched 50 cars for victims. The 100 cars from KARE was likely an estimate in in which they took into account rush hour too much. -Jason ost 02:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way I-35W Bridge (as it is currently) is not the right title since there are hundreds of bridges on I-35. Something more specific to this bridge needs to be used. - Taxman Talk 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... but how many are on I-35W? If there are articles on any other bridges on I-35W, then I can understand adding something to the title for clarity... kmccoy (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Taxman. Title is way too vague. I-35W has a bridge over the Minnesota River, and Minnehaha Creek/Parkway, and over various streets such as Lake Street, 66th St, etc. 69.180.158.247 03:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed it to I-35W Mississippi River Bridge. That should make it unambiguous, since this is the only 35W bridge over the Mississippi. I never gave the title that much thought when I originally created the article. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

With the amount of vandalism this page has been getting, I recommend semi-protection. Agreed? CrazyC83 00:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP wL<speak·check> 00:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We don't want people to be misinformed, especially in a crisis like this. -Jason ost 00:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed. I put in a actual request for semi-protection on the request page. Kimmy78 01:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed as well. Also, there are some citation links that lead to goatse sites that have been overlooked and need to be replaced. - Enzo Aquarius 01:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Deaths and Injuries

This is a section for updates for the Deaths and Injuries count in check..

CNN confirms 3 deaths [2] -Wxweenie91 (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is wrong. A press conference at HCMC trauma center has confirmed a single death, with COD most likely as drowning. MSNBC confirms one death. -- Ownage2214 01:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MSNBC - 20-30 injuries [3] - Enzo Aquarius 01:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HCMC doctor reporting only one drowning thus far at the press conference. 129.176.151.6
MSNBC reporting six deaths now. This is reflected in the recent press conference broadcast on KARE NBC. [4] 129.176.151.7 02:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KSTP, Fox 9, and WCCO can confirm the six deaths. An HCMC official told MSNBC there are over 60 people with injuries, and KSTP says there are 41 people wounded. -Jason ost 02:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for above. [5], [6], [7]. All cite six deaths, as noted above. 129.176.151.7 02:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Officials in a news conference said that 7 are dead and over 60 are wounded. Kristi Rollwagen told MSNBC about the 7 fatalities. -Jason ost 03:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HCMC now tells Fox 9[8] there are 7 confirmed fatalities and 67 people injured. -Jason ost 03:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After announcing the 7 fatalities, Fire Chief Jim Clack said "We expect that number to go up." Pray to God it doesn't. Signing off, -Jason ost 04:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSNBC is giving a count so far of 9 deaths, 60 injuries, and 20 missing. 75.198.206.55 06:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of 6:45 a.m. August 2, a Minneapolis Police spokesperson has stated that only four are confirmed dead, but that number is expected to rise. I have made the necessary adjustments to reflect this within the article. MplsNarco 12:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

splitsection

I say we split it some time tomorrow but not just yet... - ∅ (∅), 01:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a news source

We should not be telling people about Alternate Route A or what Trivial Witness X said or Update Q made from News Source Y at Time D. This is not an event that should go without mention but we should be leaving those minute-by-minute updates for CNN. -- tariqabjotu 01:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or the wikinews article. --wL<speak·check> 01:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was the driving force behind the forum templates here on the talkpage. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah... or WikiNews, which is starving for attention I'm sure. -- tariqabjotu 01:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also...discussion about how the collapse affected the scheduling of a baseball game is of dubious value and perhaps even trivializes the tragedy, the deaths and injuries, etc. I know that this just happened and that these additions were added on the fly, so I'm not actually calling anybody out on this, but I hope the whole Minnesota Twins bit will be removed as soon as there is enough reliable info on hand to flesh out the story with meaningful details. I know that sports are ridiculously important to a lot of people, but that doesn't mean we have to play into it. PurpleChez 02:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think that information should only be put on the Minnesota Twins 2007 season page, since it was an event that happened in their season, but should be removed from the news articles themselves.MplsNarco 12:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal

A large amount of sourced content was removed. This is not the time to decide what is important or encyclopaedic and what is not. After things have settled down the article can be cleaned up and prosed but at the moment sourced content should remain. TerriersFan 01:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now the article includes (a) a link to radar of the region, (b) the specific hospital where victims were being taken, (c) the specific time at which CNN received a report, (d) information about an approaching thunderstorm, (e) information about alternate routes (no longer in the article), (f) Homeland Security declaring that this is not a terrorist attack (which, you know, they do for everything; saying the cause is unknown is sufficient for explaining this), (g) radio reports of I-beams being sheared (duh -- the bridge fell). -- tariqabjotu 01:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in time (minutes, hours, perhaps days) the snipets will be consolidated down to a nice new section for the article. When an event is ongoing, trying to remove new material will just cause an edit war. Let it live for now and clean it up to a more concise summary when recentitis has passed. --StuffOfInterest 01:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some links which are clearly irrelevant and misleading. Ericy 01:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with StuffOfInterest, let's keep the links and everything relevant that's occuring for a proper summery later. It will make sifting through the information much easier and we can discard and keep items as needed. --Hourick 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine, but the stuff I removed had to do with roadwork that was miles from the bridge. Anyone who lives (or lived) in the area would look at it and say "WTF!?!?" Ericy 02:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I do agree minute by minute info is sketchy at best. Fox News had its 'credible experts' state both that the bridge "may have collapsed due to scouring" from the water against pylons, when clearly this is a span bridge not in the water. Also the same report had an expert suggesting that "a nearby city" would be helping out with the rescue as this appared to be a "rural area." - Cliffy B

Feeding frenzy

I oppose splitting the article for the simple reason that there will be a NEW article for the NEW bridge that replaces this now destroyed bridge. Mississippi River bridges are in a category of their own, and includes historic bridges (e.g., Eagle Point Bridge), which was removed. What should be done now is to gather as much information as possible on this now-historic bridge to upgrade the article, and collect as much information on the collapse while the getting is good. At a point when the frenzy has abated, the article can be whipped into final form. I suspect the Minnesota Department of Transportion is already in overdrive, a la what California did for the MacArthur Maze, and the new bridge will be erected far faster than than would be otherwise. --Ace Telephone 01:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic of bridge

I have a number of different sources for the traffic.

  • 200,000 cars used the bridge per day [1]
  • 140,000 (2002) [2]
  • 100,000 [3]
  • 141,000 [4]
  1. ^ "Minneapolis bridge collapses during rush hour". MSNBC. 2007-8-1. Retrieved 2007-08-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "I-35W Mississippi River Crossing". 2007-8-1. Retrieved 2007-08-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "35W Bridge Collapses". KARE11. 2007-8-1. Retrieved 2007-08-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ "Traffic Volume Maps (Annual Average Daily Traffic): 2005" (PDF). 2005. Retrieved 2007-08-01.

Which one(s) should be used? P.Haney 02:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the low numbers are from MnDot and local news, I'm inclined to trust them a bit more.--Daveswagon 02:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actual traffic count per MNDOT. News reports may not be accurate. New York Times says bridge links Minneapolis and St. Paul (!). Wikinews says bridge was 64 feet above the river, when that in fact is the clearance between the water at normal pool level and the lowest part of the span in the channel, not the distance from water to pavement. Kablammo 02:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that we're talking about vehicles/people falling from the roadway to the water, I think the roadway height is probably the more important figure.--Daveswagon 03:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think the 'getting' will be good until the point where the NTSB releases its study. This will take a long time. - Cliffy B

Red cross info header

We're not a news source. We should not be giving affected people any information, including contact information or directions to head to a hotel for more information. There are plenty of well-known ways for people to find information, and we don't need to be one of them. I've removed the header with this inappropriate information. Keep it like an encyclopedia article, not like a newspaper article. kmccoy (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was tempted to do it, but I had a feeling someone was going to claim I have been revert-warring removing news-like information. The phone number for giving blood was especially unnecessary. This is not a widespread earthquake or terrorist attack; this is an event where the main story is the structural collapse not an extensive loss of life. -- tariqabjotu 02:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Wikipedian, but I don't see why links to related wikinews articles can't be placed at the top of breaking-news-related wikipedia entries. I agree that an encyclopedia is not a news source, so point the news-seekers and news-posters towards the sister-site news source. Sure there are plenty of well-known ways to find info, but wikipedia is fast becoming one of those. Many people look to wikipedia for answers who aren't sophisticated enough to get the difference between an encyclopedia and a news source. If you are going to update entries like this in real time, you need to embrace and recognize those unsophisticated users. Help sophisticate them, don't ignore them with quiet (to them) edit outs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.99.24.57 (talk • contribs).

I can see the merits of the Wikinews pointer box being temporarily at the top of the article. Anybody agree? —C.Fred (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with linking to Wikinews near the top, if someone would like to move that template up. My problem is with us (Wikipedia) giving information aimed at affected people. kmccoy (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with moving the Wikinews thing to the top. I don't agree with posting public service announcements. Just because some people don't understand the scope of Wikipedia doesn't mean all the rules go out the window.--Daveswagon 03:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Cross ad has returned as of 23:25 EDT. I don't have editing rights to the article, but someone should remove it and contact the user(s) responsible. It's not clear to me how a couple of dozen people in the hospital necessitate advertising for a blood drive via Wikipedia, and of course this isn't the first time the American Red Cross has calls for unneeded blood to raise its own profile. Spamming Wikipedia may even be part of some standing post-crisis media plan within the central Red Cross organization; that's definitely something that the right people ought to contact them about. 23:30, 1 August 2007.

It's not clear to you how a couple dozen people in the hosptial necessitate a blood drive? How much blood do you go through when you operate on trauma victims? CMacMillan 03:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any big-city hospital worth its salt can handle a dozen trauma victims with supplies on hand. --Carnildo 04:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that if several big city hospitals in the same city have to each handle a few dozen trauma victims then supplies are going to be low afterwards and a blood drive is likely to be ideal, even though they can likely handle the immediate aftermath. In any case, while any blood drive call in the article was clearly unwarranty, claiming it is some sort of Red Cross conspiracy/spam without any evidence seems a bit silly to me particularly given the fact that well meaning people keep adding other unencylopaedic junk Nil Einne 05:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Misinformation

Incorrect ("a large portion of the I-35W Bridge near University Avenue collapsed.") It should be stated that the bridge is the section of I-35W between East-West University and Washington Avenues (which are on the north and south sides of the river respectively). All the people around me and TV, I live next to the bridge, are saying that it collapsed on the South, Washington Avenue, side first. After that two additional sections collapsed. Thanks for posting this, I'm not registered.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.220.244 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Problem is, with no source to support this, it can't go into the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old fashioned editing complaints

The article now says that "vehicles and pedestrians" were thrown into the river. This bridge is interstate traffic only with no pedestrian paths, and I don't think that it is correct to say anyone on the bridge is a pedestrian. I'm not sure how to edit it, maybe someone else can. RobertDahlstrom 03:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were construction workers on it. Pfalstad 03:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bikers and joggers also (though very dangerous). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weren't the bikers and joggers on the path under it, not on the bridge itself? Kablammo 04:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. West River Road runs under the west side of the bridge, and that's a popular spot for bikers, skaters, and pedestrians. On the east side, there aren't any trails, but the Minnesota Commercial Railway has a couple railroad tracks under it. There were no bike or pedestrian paths on the bridge itself, as far as I know. The Tenth Avenue Bridge nearby has had the bike and pedestrian connections. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No bike lanes or walks, eight vehicle lanes (4 travel lanes in each direction).Badsongninja 05:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no way to bike, walk, or jog on this bridge, especially when it's under construction and traffic is squeezed down into two lanes each way. --24.118.60.104 05:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facts

Just a thought, is the water depth written anywhere? It influences rescue efforts/survivability. Andrew647 04:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard from someone in the area that the river is 9 ft in depth where the bridge collapsed. But I can't find exactly where to prove it. Temiree 04:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of title

Any reason why bridge is capitalised in the title? TerriersFan 04:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whether or not "I-35W Mississippi River Bridge" is the proper title of the span or not.--Daveswagon 04:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly how the bridge is (was) referred to locally (e.g. on traffic reports), but I doubt it's any kind of official name. --24.118.60.104 04:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Mn/DOT-commissioned report

Referring to this sentence in the article:

"There is a 2001 Mn/DOT report indicating weakness at the joints of the steel that held the concrete deck above the river."

This doesn't seem to fairly represent the report, with the conclusion in its abstract that "Mn/DOT does not need to prematurely replace this bridge because of fatigue cracking". The PDF contains only four pages of the 91 page report, but what's there reads like more of an "all-clear" than a warning of impending disaster, whereas the reader might infer the latter from the description above. 58.111.162.27 04:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous comment is correct. The excerpt shows that a finite element model (an analytical tool) of the bridge was constructed to predict where it might be most stressed from the transient loading and unloading of truck traffic. Measurements of actual stresses generated by traffic were compared to the model's outputs to check the model's accuracy. The results identified those bridege members that were most susceptible to fatigue cracking so that they could be inspected more frequently. The excerpt linked here did not suggest any design deficiency or incipient weakness as of the date of this evaluation. If technical data like this is going to be linked, then link the entire article. 70.176.17.249 05:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a page from the University of Minnesota where the full 89-page 2001 report can be downloaded: http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=617 Shouldn't this page be linked to in the article rather than the abridged report at the news site? Ntmoe 04:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Engineering Failures

Since the cause of the collapse is not known, is it premature to include this category on the page? Simon12 04:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "yes", too early to tell.--Daveswagon 04:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur so I removed it Nil Einne 05:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear that this is an engineering failure. There have been no reports of a collision with a airplane or boat, and no evidence that a bomb was used.

It may not have been the original engineer who is at fault. Later engineering mistakes, particularly related to the current construction project, may be to blame. Or, perhaps, an engineering miscalculation at some point of modification at some point in the bridge's long history. -Anon

To say in this article that this is an "engineering failure" requires a source, and is way premature. First there has to be an investigation, which will last weeks, months, maybe even years. The bridge is 40 years old and was under repair, many factors are likely to have caused the failure, not engineering or not just engineering.24.158.102.77 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bridge is 40 years old, but has a 70-75 year expected lifetime. So it lasted only half as long as it should have. Also, just saying "under repair" exaggerates this in most peoples' minds -- they were basically just resurfacing it -- removing the top layer of concrete, fixing potholes and eventually pouring a new top layer of concrete. T-bonham 08:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full Fatigue Report

The KSTP-sourced Fatigue Evaluation of the Deck Truss of Bridge 9340 is a summary only. The full report is available from the Minnesota Local Road Reasearch Board at [9] Badsongninja 04:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good link, but there is a 2001 report that mentions cracks according to the TV news. Nodekeeper 05:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the FULL report mentioned by the news. KSTP only posted the summary. In the report detailed fatigue assessment found fatigue cracking of the deck unlikely, however the report mentions that "The approach spans have exhibited several fatigue problems; primarily due to unanticipated out-of-plane distortion on the girders." The 2006 MnDOT bridge inspection schedule mentions "Monitor fatigue cracking from out of plane bending at the approach span girders and diaphragm connections" in the remarks (see [10]). The report also refers to the lack of redundancy and poor fatigue details on the main truss and floor truss systems. While "the bridge could most likely tolerate the loss of a floor truss without collapse", the "failure of one of the two main trusses would be more critical." Badsongninja 06:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School bus

The school bus thing really needs confirmation. A school bus was visible in much of the news coverage on top of the bridge and I heard reports that school children were climbing out the windows helped by teachers and that the Red Cross I think confirmed about 6 school children from a bus had been injured Nil Einne 05:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source added. I didn't see any indication of injuries, but news reports are likely confused at this early stage.--Chaser - T 05:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true, and the bus barely scraped by, it seems like the large bus was part of what did the already weakened bridge in. However, this is just my baseless speculation. --64.75.187.195 06:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly baseless. That bus, even loaded with 60 children, probably weighed less than half as much as the semi-tractor trailer rig right next to it that was on fire. T-bonham 08:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bus did fall. See StarTribune about halfway down the page.71.210.132.171 06:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anderson Cooper also interviewed one of the children on the bus last night. 68.146.47.196 12:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering failure???

At this point and time, how is this considered an engineering failure? The NTSB has not even arrived. ANY cause at this point has to be pure speculation, it's only been 6 hours. No mention is made in the article about an engineering failure, yet there is a link on the bottom in the categories. At this point and time it is more than likely age and politics that is the cause, NOT engineering failure.24.158.102.77 05:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See a few sections above. That's been removed.--Chaser - T 05:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think collapse due to age could be considered an engineering failure of some sort. Nodekeeper 05:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not see that section, but had been reading for a while and did not refresh. I don't believe age to be a consideration in engineering failure in this instance, the bridge was under repair and 40 years old (I think, 1967?).24.158.102.77 05:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still all speculation, but the bridge was NOT "under repair". The roadway was having maintenance done: blacktop, potholes, etc. CMacMillan 05:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You call it maintenance, I call it repair, whatever, it was being worked on; anyway, you are right, it is still all speculation. 24.158.102.77 06:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There's one source [11] that indicates that it was a "non-redundant structure" — a single point of failure could bring down the bridge. Obviously, we won't know until the investigation is completed, but I think it's more probable than not that it will turn out to be an engineering failure at the root of the collapse.
As I understand it, there was work being done, but it was not structural, rather to guardrail and the like. --Mr Wednesday 06:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a "non-redundant structure", but to say it was an 'engineering failure' is way premature and speculation. 24.158.102.77 06:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The bridge maintenance and upkeep has nothing to do with the original engineering. Here's an example, if you buy a new car and don't give it routine maintenance and upkeep, oil changes, etc., and long term maintenance, new tires etc., it is not an 'engineering failure' if your car has a failure, it is neglect. Just an anology I thought everybody could relate to.24.158.102.77 06:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactally... if there is one this incident ISN'T its engineering failure... the bridge was standing for 30 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.108.249.136 (talk) 07:48:49, August 2, 2007 (UTC)
40 years of winters is hard for any structure. My condolences for those involved... 91.153.53.189 09:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is completely OT but if a bridge was analysed by engineers and considered structally sound, isn't that an engineering failure? There's a difference between an engineering failure and a design failure isn't there? Nil Einne 11:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New information added

I added some new information without deleting any information in the article. I spent the past few hours putting it together for a quick posting, so it probably needs some tweeking. Please feel free to revise. Great job on the article so far! -- Jreferee (Talk) 08:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to I-35W & Mississippi River Bridge

A reference for the new title is available in the anti-icing report pdf hosted at [12]. If there's a better source for the title or if this is not accurate, please post here (or simply move to the other title). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's apparently the best source for formal bridge name so far. As a local, I've never heard it called anything except "the bridge" or "the 35W bridge which crosses the mississippi" or somthing like that. No formal name. That report gives it a number #9340, but I think I-35W Bridge 9340 may be a little nondescript. Though the current name is a little verbose... Thanatosimii 09:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The U of M civil engineering report (2001)[13] simply calls it "bridge 9340." Gwen Gale 09:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we use its most known name, which is apparently I-35W Mississippi River Bridge without the ampersand? --wL<speak·check> 10:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the "apparently" that worries me. This bridge has been referred to as, simply, the "I-35W bridge" way more often than the full title, but that title would not be sufficiently descriptive as there are several bridges along I35W. I'd say that Mn/DOT is in the best position to name a bridge they built themselves :) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a run through the news articles that relate to the collapse, as you said it's known as the "Interstate 35W Bridge" without any attachment (which is what I think should be the title). The way the previous title read implies two bridges, and having the ampersand seems unstylistic; it yields no seach engine results as well. --wL<speak·check> 10:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does actually yield search engine results, but that is irrelevant since search engine results don't have the power to change the name of a place! Unstylistic? Where in the WP:MOS does it state that you can edit the name of a place because it is not aesthetically appeasing? Look, I have no problem with any specific title, provided that it is referenced by a reliable source. In the future I am sure that Mn/DOT will release numerous documents that mention the official name of the bridge, but I have only found one such document thusfar. Please provide a source or I will revert the move. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC) (side note: the ampersand implies an intersection of the two, I can't see how it implies two bridges, nor can I understand why anyone would get that impression since the article ends in "bridge" not "bridges" ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
(Resetting indents) So how about Interstate 35W Bridge? --wL<speak·check> 11:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:I-35W_Mississippi_River_Bridge#Better_title. There are several bridges along I35W, and not just trivial ones. An article on the I-35W Bridge collapse would be specific, but that's if the collapse section is ever spun off. In the meantime, I'll move the article back to the title with the ampersand, pending a source or consensus. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the title lets not keep moving the article please. violet/riga (t) 11:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I-35W Mississippi River Bridge vs I-35W & Mississippi River Bridge

I see there have been some back and forth moves between I-35W Mississippi River Bridge and I-35W & Mississippi River Bridge. Note that one has and one does not have an ampersand. Rather than going back and forth, how about discussing this first? Otherwise, we will very soon see move protection on the article.

Personally, I would go without the ampersand. With it sounds like the bridge goes over both I-35W and the Mississippi River. Based on that, I would propose the name for the article be "I-35W Mississippi River Bridge". Discussion? --StuffOfInterest 11:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone point to someone who supports the ampersand? I know it hasn't been long since I asked the question, but it looks like the concensus trends towards dumping the ampersand out. --StuffOfInterest 12:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see Anetode (talk · contribs · logs) changed the name to this version twice. He claims it is the official name as per the MnDoT. Anyone have a link to support this? --StuffOfInterest 12:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNN footage of the collapse

I know it's already in the external links, but the fact CNN was provided with footage of the actual collapse is pretty significant and worth including in the main text, so I have done so. If more footage of the collapse emerges (for example if any of MDOT's many traffic webcams caught it, too) perhaps this can be spun off into its own section, or moved if a separate article on the collapse is created later on. 23skidoo 12:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if any footage emerges on YouTube? Are we allowed to put that in? Davnel03 12:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is it's generally deprectaed because of worries about dodgy copyright status but if the content was clearly uploaded by the copyright holder (say, as with amatuer stuff), I think editor consensus would have sway. Gwen Gale 12:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge&oldid=148709276"