Talk:I-35W Mississippi River bridge

• To see who is doing most of the editing of the article, enter I-35W Mississippi River bridge in the space provide at Aka's Page History Stats Tool.

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)

UPDATE NOW 9 ARE FOUND TO BE DEAD.

Lt. Amelia Huffman told MSNBC[1] that the number of confirmed deaths has been lowered to 4, but that number is expected to change throughout the day. -Jason ost 13:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agreed.--Daveswagon 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"Serious loss of life":let's wait, wait... Tomj 00:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

I say yes it should, with the articles semi-protected. CrazyC83 00:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I say no (see below).Remember, Wikiepdia is not a newspaper. Tomj 00:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I say yes it should (per User:CrazyC83)172.191.100.66 05:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

It's too early, let's wait and not create a separate page. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Too late! It split earlier today! 71.39.78.68 02:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, let us wait until the news frenzy calms down and everything comes together. - Enzo Aquarius 01:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Another factor as far as its deserving it's own article is that EVERY Governor in the United States has ordered a re-evaluation of EVERY bridge in their respective states. This will be a precedent setting disaster in the terms of infrastructure maintenance. --Hourick 22:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, wait to split if there will even be a split Inklein 02:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Agreed - Prime example: Tacoma Narrows Bridge JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• I don't think that the article should be split until many months from now, when a new bridge is built in place of the collapsed bridge. Ntmoe 02:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Split if and when article length justifies it; this is where people will look for it. Peter Grey 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

I think it should be split right now, since there are fatalities, and it was a very important bridge. 69.244.234.39 23:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

I don't think we should create a separate article yet. Just redirects.--Daveswagon 00:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree to a point, but it must be specified as to which bridge. --Hourick 00:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

redirect created as per suggestion to help searching--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I say don't do anything yet until all information is known--Voot42

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

In relation to another collapsed structure, I would oppose to it unless it overbears the article --w^{L<speak·check>} 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. Noted. Tomj 01:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

... 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)

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)

Careful, the river is the Mississippi River and not the Minnesota River (the Minnesota River runs through St. Paul). The history section of the article incorrectly states Minnesota River as well.

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)

Swschrad 17:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC) end at alternate routes: propose adding "I-35E, however, is presently severely disrupted due to a long-term reconstruction project to reduce hazards over several miles where the road joins and runs concurrent with I-694. The section is called "the weave," and the project is called "Unweave the Weave." Traffic on I-35E is currently rerouted in gyrations. Northbound traffic headed West onto I-694 was scheduled to resume on a new bridge August 1st. Northbound traffic through on I-35E continues to need to shift from the rightmost two lanes of the three-lane section to the leftmost two lanes within a mile to continue on I-35E. Southbound traffic on I-35E to the East on I-694 must pass I-694, exit on county throughway 36, travel East to US-61, and then travel North of I-694. TH36 is itself closed two miles further East for major reconstruction, so it is not possible to follow the map and drive TH36 directly to I-694. Southbound through traffic on I-35E similarly to other through traffic must cross from the rightmost single lane to the leftmost two lanes on the common section to continue on I-35E. The project is a substantial local headache with frequent changes in direction and detours as major sections of the project come online." -- user swschrad, reference http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/unweave/ and direct personal experience, former resident at the intersection. 8/2/2007 11:51 cdt

Swschrad 17:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC) I should add that I-35E was an addition in the 1970s. Interstate I-35 was split into east and west sections, thus I-35E and I-35W, to handle the flow of traffic through the Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, and reduce load on the side roads connecting them. The northern end of the split is at Forest Lake, MN, and the southern end of the split is in Burnsville. -- user swschrad, reference http://www.dot.state.mn.us/statemap/pdf/cities/Metro_area.pdf 8/2/2007 12:02 cdt

Semi-protection

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

WP:RFPP w^{L<speak·check>} 00:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't want people to be misinformed, especially in a crisis like this. -Jason ost 00:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I put in a actual request for semi-protection on the request page. Kimmy78 01:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Semi-protected --Golden Wattle ^talk 01:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Deaths and Injuries

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

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

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)

MSNBC - 20-30 injuries [4] - Enzo Aquarius 01:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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. [5] 129.176.151.7 02:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sources for above. [6], [7], [8]. All cite six deaths, as noted above. 129.176.151.7 02:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Should we put something in the article about 10 of the 60 children in the school bus being injured? (Source: MSNBC[10]) -Jason ost 13:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

CNN[11] now reports 4 dead, at least 79 injured, and 20 to 30 missing. -Jason ost 14:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

They only count bodies they recover and they know of many more deaths, says KSTP. MSNBC[12] reports Police Chief Tim Dolan said up to 30 victims are still in the water. -Jason ost 16:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The names of the people who died have been released (just saw it on Fox 9). THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 22:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems someone removed the deaths and injuries count from the article. I intend to put it back in once we get a definite fatality total. -Jason ost 03:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Or the wikinews article. --w^{L<speak·check>} 01:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That was the driving force behind the forum templates here on the talkpage. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah... or WikiNews, which is starving for attention I'm sure. -- tariqabjotu 01:25, 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. PurpleChez 02:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I respectfully disagree. Given the circumstances, notable numbers of people attended that sporting event and the decision not to cancel it was directly related to concerns about access to the bridge site by emergency services. That said, any further details about the game (even the moment of silence) would be, IMHO, more helpfully left out of this article. Gwen Gale 12:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The non-postponement is unusual because the bridge is spitting distance from the Dome and the collapse happened minutes before the game started, but the postponement of the game today and the groundbreaking ceremony is best left in the article about the Twins and the article about the new stadium, respectively. Natalie 16:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I like Gwen's idea. I stand corrected; the fact that the game went on 'is' relevant to the article, however, the section should be shortened and contain only the necessary information. MplsNarco 08:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

Traffic of bridge

I have a number of different sources for the traffic.

• 200,000 cars used the bridge per day
• 140,000 (2002)
• 100,000
• 141,000

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

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)

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)

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)

The 140,000 number is from 2005. The current number Mn/DOT is giving out is 200,000.(MSNBC)(Reuters) -- Tsunado 21:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet a local news source quotes MNDOT has saying 100,000 vehicles per day use it.[13]. As the 141,000 figure appears to be based on actual traffic counts, it may be the most reliable. Kablammo 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 issued 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)

Any big-city hospital worth its salt can handle a dozen trauma victims with supplies on hand. --Carnildo 04:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Blood supplies have been low all summer. Even if this bridge hadn't collapsed, there'd still be a strong need for blood.--Daveswagon 14:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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).

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

Part of the problem is that the local news is being used as a source and they are not credible authorities. WCCO reported that a train "traveling" under the bridge was crushed. This article includes the info and references WCCO. The railway under the bridge is a spur so the train was not "traveling." In the early pictures one can also see that there are no engines attached to the rail cars. The rail cars were most likely being stored on the spur. If they had been "traveling" and the bridge abruptly stopped them, I expect that some would have jumped the tracks. Its a small point, but it illuminates the problems with wiki. An anonymous web user may be more in the know than the news media, but we are forced to accept the news media as true. The news media in their sensationalist haste to provide body counts even gets that incorrect.24.131.135.119 05:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

There were construction workers on it. Pfalstad 03:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Bikers and joggers also (though very dangerous). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Weren't the bikers and joggers on the path under it, not on the bridge itself? Kablammo 04:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

No bike lanes or walks, eight vehicle lanes (4 travel lanes in each direction).Badsongninja 05:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Facts

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

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)

Did anyone think to check online fishing charts? They always have depths.--Mike Theodore 13:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We've had a drought in Minnesota this year, so the river is probably lower then normal (thankfully). How deep is the river where the bridge crosses it? were any vehicles tossed into the water from the violent force of the collapse? (personally, i hope not, or they landed in 1-2 feet of water at the worst) RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe KSTP said that the water level was 7 to 8 feet, and I also believe that some cars were tossed off the bridge, because they had to bring in divers and someone drowned. I'm looking for an online reference. -Jason ost 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

US Army Corps of Engineers website[14] says that a nine-foot channel is mantained on the Upper Mississippi, but I can't find any measurements from the time around the collapse. -Jason ost 15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

From an article on the Upper Mississippi from Gander Mountain[15], there is a shallow area extending from the edge of the channel to the shore. It also says that the average water depth was 12 feet. -Jason ost 15:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For current water levels go to this site http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=mpx&gage=mspm5&view=1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1&toggles=70.104.126.222 23:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This article [16] includes some history of the south bank. Former site of the Minneapolis Gas Works (behind and across the river from the four smokestacks in this photo [17] and fire insurance map [18]), later a Superfund site turned into a parkway. Badsongninja 15:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

National Bridge Inventory information on the bridge located here [19] Badsongninja 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Army Corps of Engineers told KSTP[20] that the depth of the water was between 4 to 14 feet. -Jason ost 23:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Army Corps of Engineers map [21] and drawing of bridge profile [22]. Badsongninja 03:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation of title

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

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)

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)

Back when it was I-35W Bridge, it was capitalized and so I assume it remained so because of this. I renamed it because it is not the Brooklyn Bridge but a bridge that goes over the Mississippi River and carries I-35W. IOW, it has no common name and so it's "just a bridge". Cburnett 13:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I would say "yes", too early to tell.--Daveswagon 04:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur so I removed it Nil Einne 05:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

See a few sections above. That's been removed.--Chaser - T 05:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think collapse due to age could be considered an engineering failure of some sort. Nodekeeper 05:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

There's one source [23] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You can't call it an engineering failure when you don't know the cause. Period. Cburnett 13:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

True. The causes section now has footnoted references to gathering concerns about the bridge's design and while the cause may appear to be dodgy engineering (and/or inspection and maintenance appropriate to that bridge's design), the cause has yet to be dtermined. Gwen Gale 13:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying that, I was the one who removed it from the engineering failures cat. I was simply responding to the point 58 made about how it can't be an engineering failure because it survived for 40 years which sounds dubious to me. As said, I know it's OT to discuss the cause here, but I didn't see any harm since it was a fairly short point Nil Einne 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I'd say it's wholly on topic to discuss verifiable sources relating to the cause and the bridge's engineering. Idle chatter or blatant OR along those lines wouldn't be too helpful though. Second, I want to let you know I didn't think you were denying anything :) Gwen Gale 15:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear but I was responding to Cburnett who I believe was responding to me. My point was that I'm not denying you can't call it an engineering failure when you don't know the cause. I agree we can't call it an engineering failure in the article. I was simply responding to a point 58 made saying that IMHO it could easily be engineering failure even if it occured 40 years after being built. The whole discussion was OT since we were both just speculating what the cause could be. I.E. We were discussing the subject of the article, not ways to improve the article. Nil Einne 16:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's ok to discuss this kind of context stuff, so long as it doesn't stray into OR. By the bye, I do tend to agree with your take, that an "engineering failure" in a structure could become evident 40 years after construction, if the designers hadn't built that structure to suddenly collapse in 40 years. Gwen Gale 16:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reasonable explanation for the collapse of the brige that would not be considered an engineering failure? Sure, we don't know what the main point of failure is yet, but certainly all non-engineering causes have already been eliminated? -Anon

From looking at the video, it seems that the southwest bearing was unseated. Is it possible that a vehicle or other object hit the southwest pier? Any reports of this possibility? Badsongninja 03:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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 [24] Badsongninja 04:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good link, but there is a 2001 report that mentions cracks according to the TV news. Nodekeeper 05:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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 2003 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 [25]). 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)

Out of plane bending of a strut could have resulted in a spontaneous buckling of the rather slender looking members..Gregorydavid 13:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

How many other bridges get similar reports? This all looks very "scary" in retrospect, but I'm curious as to how routine it is for bridges to get these types of fatigue evaluations. DavidRF 22:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Taken from the perspective of the nation as a whole, it appears that the state of this bridge was fairly common. According to the AASHTO 2005 Official Strategic Plan for Bridges [26], "A quarter of our nation’s 590,000 bridges are currently classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete." When managing this type of infrastructure, it is one step to obtain the information in the report; the often more difficult step is in deciding how to deal with the issues raised. For instance, if there are 50 bridges in the state that are in worse condition and funding that is available for five years allows replacement and repair of ten of these bridges, the other 40 bridges will have to be programmed for funding and construction later. The agency is left to figure out how to extend the life of the remaining bridges that are in need. It is certain that the agencies responsible (MnDOT and FHWA) took these reports very seriously. However, it is much less glamorous politically to repair a bridge versus construction of something new. Repair or replacement involves inconveniences while construction is ongoing, and the end result is the same as what you had before. Bridges DO NOT fall down every day, thus there is little political motivation to ask for revenues to repair what exists. Badsongninja 02:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The bus did fall. See StarTribune about halfway down the page.71.210.132.171 06:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper also interviewed one of the children on the bus last night. 68.146.47.196 12:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

MSNBC reports that about 10 of the 60 children on the bus were injured. They also tell that the bus was coming back from a field trip to Bunker Hills in Blaine. -Jason ost 13:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Fox News? or one of the media outlets said the semi had a load of chemicals, but those never came into play although the cab burned. There are some pictures where they zoomed in that verified the cab was all that burned. But does anyone know what the semi was carrying as its load besides the fact that it was chemicals? Has bearing in this section of the talk page due to the proximity to the school bus and maybe even the injuries but no news organization has made any mention of the chemicals as being the cause of the injuries. CNN reports 'balloons' going up. Those were deployed airbags that went out of cars as the drivers were leaving them. The impact of the bridge on the water/ground below was enough to trigger deployment of airbags. The bus did not have any.

Additional information on the school bus. My name is Don Chase and my son Peter drives school bus for the company that owns the school seen on the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge that collapsed. The name of the company that owns and operates the bus is First Student. They contract out their services to a large portion of the school districts in Minnesota as well as the USA. My son has confirmed through his employer that there were 61 students on board. I don't have the name of the driver, but I do know that she has a very good record with First Student and my son feels that she should recieve a commendation for the way she handled the crisis. Donald Chase 07:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Friday 8-3-2007 2:21am CDT

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

A reference for the new title is available in the anti-icing report pdf hosted at [27]. 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). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

The U of M civil engineering report (2001)[28] simply calls it "bridge 9340." Gwen Gale 09:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we use its most known name, which is apparently I-35W Mississippi River Bridge without the ampersand? --w^{L<speak·check>} 10:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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 :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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. --w^{L<speak·check>} 10:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 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" ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

(Resetting indents) So how about Interstate 35W Bridge? --w^{L<speak·check>} 11:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

• I-35W Mississippi River Bridge. I've already made my point above --w^{L<speak·check>} 11:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• I-35W Mississippi River Bridge. The & is really redundant. Davnel03 12:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• As above. Gwen Gale 12:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• A title with an "&" would be acceptable only if the bridge would cross both I-35W and Mississippi river. This isn't clearly the case, and so I'm supporting move to title without ampersand. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 12:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Lose the "&". You are not likely to find an official name, just a number; the "&" wouldn't be commonly used, and adds nothing. Kablammo 12:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• I've never seen an official name for the bridge. "Bridge 9340" is MNDOT's reference, which they use in bridge inventories and reports. It obviously wasn't a name meant for the public. Using an ampersand in the title implies that the bridge crosses both I-35W and the Mississippi River, which isn't correct. There aren't any ampersands appearing in the news coverage, either. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 12:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

The interesting part of that document he linked to is that the footer says I-35W Mississippi River Bridge. --Holderca1 12:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The link was [29], the cover page and many other mentions included the ampersand. Since a few people now want to loose it, I'll abide by consensus. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to change it. Please be patient while I hunt down and fix redirects afterward. --StuffOfInterest 13:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that Cburnett (talk · contribs · logs) came in behind me and removed the capitalization on "bridge". He is probably correct, being that this is not a proper name for the bridge, but he could have at least participated in the discussion a little bit to save some work. --StuffOfInterest 13:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I see this discussion now. As I just said above: it was capitalized wrong when it was I-35W Bridge and it was still capitalized wrong, so I moved it. It is "just a bridge" and has no common, proper name to it like the Brooklyn Bridge. Though, this may change now that it's notable since it has collapsed. Cburnett 13:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

What if any footage emerges on YouTube? Are we allowed to put that in? Davnel03 12:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is it's generally deprecated because of worries about dodgy copyright status but if the content was clearly uploaded by the copyright holder (say, as with amateur stuff), I think editor consensus would have sway. Gwen Gale 12:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the best youtube link I've found so far: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKLjB_nq76c The CNN version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKK7rWfEpe4 Another, from a different TV station: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq9ZLVlIRSQ (at 0:12). 71.41.210.146 13:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Youtube is not deprecated. Linking to copyvios has always been unacceptable although we didn't used to properly enforce the policy. Since Youtube is a user contrib site without very rigirious enforcement of copyright, if there's no indication that the content was uploaded with the permission of the holder then we presume it's a copyvio. Sadly, this applies to most of the useful Youtube content. In this case, I don't particularly get why we would want youtube content since CNN has it on their website Nil Einne 15:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image of the bridge collapsing taken from CNN. There are several issues with it: 1) We really should not be taking stuff from a news source for a current event. People are still watching CNN and other news outlets for this very imagery, and our "fair use" claim is weaker if it is possible that we are harming their commercial use of it. 2) It's really not that illustrative of an image -- the aftermath images are much clearer. 3) We don't actually know who owns the copyright to the image, since it seems to have been taken by a security camera somewhere near the bridge.

After the news value of the imagery has faded away, we should re-examine the videos that are available, focussed especially on who owns what copyrights. It's possible that Mn/DOT traffic cameras caught the collapse, and those might be public domain, or at least we would have a very strong claim to our use of them being fair. For now, just link to the CNN site hosting the video if you must, but please don't litter the article with unfree imagery. kmccoy (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that footage is from a stationary CCTV camera somewhere nearby and the quality of any stills is going to be low. So far, no other video footage has surfaced but it hasn't even been 24 hours, so who knows what will happen. Natalie 16:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The security video is cited by many local news broadcasts as being from th US Army Corps of Engineers' cameras. Being a government entity does this not override any originating claim CNN may hold?Aokami 04:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Silver Bridge collapse

There seems to be some parallel here with the silver bridge collapse in 1967. The whole bridge fell in less than a minute into the Ohio river, killing 46 people. It was caused by stress corrosion cracking over its 40 year life. Are the recent maintenance reports on the web? Have the NTSB made any comment yet? Peterlewis 13:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

When poorly designed/maintained bridges go, they do so suddenly, fast and often without much dramatic warning. Engineers though were clearly having worrisome second thoughts about this one by 2005. Gwen Gale 13:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What you mean people saw a Mothman around Minneapolis and received strange phone calls leading up to this? ;-) Do some reading on other bridge collapses and you'll see that most of them happen in a simular fashion. The thing they have in common is that they are bridges that collapsed. See, this is why I like Wikipedia, in a world of media where they want to make you think that disasters like this have never happened before, Wikipedia provides a resource to help you realize that it happens every couple years. -- Suso 15:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Mothman was likely a big crane(s) seen in less than ideal lighting conditions. Also, a retired policeman reportedly admitted wearing a "mothman" costume to scare couples away from a disused industrial site. Oh and yeah, bridge collapses aren't all that rare and the latent ineptitude of central governments when it comes to managing local infrastructure has been widely described. Gwen Gale 15:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Bridge name

• St. Anthony Bridge - I did read the August 2, 2007 news report that stated that the bridge was named St. Anthony Bridge at one point but I think it is wrong. The only pre-collapse information I found was "The Model Railroad Club built ... a stone arch bridge that replicates the St. Anthony Bridge in Minneapolis." (December 4, 1987) and "Minneapolis Sky Line" is a nearly all blue painting by Enid Knowles, with the arching St. Anthony Bridge the unifying element. (February 11, 2001). The I-35W does not have such arches. I think we should remove St. Anthony Bridge as being a name until there is better confirmation.
• Bridge 9340 - I could not find any pre-collapse news source calling the bridge Bridge 9340.
• I-35W Mississippi River bridge - Of the many pre-collapse news articles, only five mention a "Mississippi River bridge" and none call it "I-35W Mississippi River bridge". The bridge mostly was called the "Interstate Hwy. 35W Bridge." I do not think that the article should be titled "I-35W Mississippi River bridge" until that becomes the popular name for the bridge.

--Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Amazingly, even Google Maps doesn't have a name for the bridge. In most cases, if you zoom in tight there will be a name listed. For this one, it just stays "35W"[30]. I'm surprised someone hasn't tried to have it named "Ronald Reagan Memorial Bridge" yet, like seems to happen to everything else without a name the last few years. --StuffOfInterest 15:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• I rethought it and the article name of I-35W Mississippi River bridge seems the best way to go at the moment. The I-35W has several bridges that pass over things and there are at least twelve bridges that pass over the I-35W. There is the "I-35W bridge over Minnehaha Parkway", the "I-35W bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis", the "I-35W bridge leading into downtown Minneapolis", the "I-35W bridge over Lake Street," and the "I-35W from the Mississippi River bridge to Stinson Blvd. bridge." They generally call bridges passing over I-35W the "I-35W freeway bridges" or "bridges that span I-35W". The I-35W Mississippi River bridge was a non-descript bridge among many non-descript bridges that did not inspire much. People did not feel connected to it enough to give it one distinctive name. I-35W Mississippi River bridge seems the best way for Wikipedia to identify the article name. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Let's call it the Tim Pawlenty/Carol Molnau "No New Taxes Bridge". Maybe in the next legislative session we'll have more success raising money for transportation improvement and maintenance. --Appraiser 15:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, clearly this disaster could have been prevented with more money, which I believe is also the solution all problems in government.--Daveswagon 15:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This bridge collapse brings up obvious governmental issues and will no doubt be exploited by cynical and corrupt politicians of every stripe. A "reaction" section likely will (and should) appear. Gwen Gale 15:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I live here, and the bridge is called the I35W Mississippi River Bridge. It is not called the St Anthony Bridge, nor did it look like the Stone Arch Bridge. It goes over the Mississippi River, it is Interstate 35W, and it is a bridge. Thus the name I35W Mississippi River Bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.21.113 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Bridge 9340 was not often a topic of discussion and was indivisible from I-35W, therefore no frequently used name. It was not a pedestrian or bicycle friendly bridge, as many others in Minneapolis are. It was a very utilitarian structure exclusively designed to move traffic, unlike the Stone Arch Bridge or the Hennepin Avenue Bridge.Badsongninja 15:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge

Shouldn't the alternative name be "Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge over the Mississippi River" since the current alternative "Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge" is not specific enough? --Voidvector 17:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the pre August 1, 2007 news articles called the bridge Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge since the news article generally were all local and they knew what they were talking about (althought it is confusing in hindsight). Someone looking for information on the bridge might search out "Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge" and find that information. The alternative name is about what the WP:RS material calls it, not Wikipedia original reasearch as to what the bridge should be named. The name "Bridge 9340" is National Bridge Inventory number bridge number. See the infobox. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, most of the new reports with the term "Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge"[31] actually use "Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge over the Mississippi River", the fact that the shortened form got added here is a misnomer. --Voidvector 21:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Search and Rescue now Search and Recovery

WDIV-TV is reporting that the search for survivors is over... RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 16:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I heard some were already doing that last night Nil Einne 16:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I hear from the news reports that the rescue divers can see people's bodies in the submerged automobiles but have not removed any from the scene yet. Why have they not pulled those cars out of the water with tow trucks or cranes? failing that, why not just built two temporary walls and drain the river where this happened? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 16:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)-

Wide image

The wide image introduced in this edit has nothing to do with the bridge.

I think the image is relevant and helpful in the history section. Gwen Gale 16:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The image would be fine for a history of Minneapolis. In this article it looks like a promotional for Minneapolis.

That image actually is in the history of Minneapolis article. I agree that it is irrelevant because it doesn't depict the bridge in question, seeing as it was taken some fifty years before the bridge was built. Natalie 16:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The image is distracting and should come out. The image and the first paragraph of "History" have little, if anything, to do with the history of the bridge. --Justanother 16:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, great. The article is protected. Both Natalie and Justanother are recent contributors. I concur about the toxic waste section of the history, unless it can be link, it sounds like original research (the linking of the site to the bridge's history).

I was already thinking along those lines, so I took the image about a while ago. The panoramic view from 1915 didn't seem all that relevant to an article about a bridge built in 1967, especially since so much had changed in that area between 1915 and 1967 (not to mention between 1967 and today). --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The panoramic picture showed how the river banks were being used prior to the installation of the I-35W bridge against those very river banks. In particular, the south span of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge rests on the former Minneapolis Gas Works manufactured-gas plant site shown in that photo. The Minneapolis Gas Works manufactured-gas plant was removed in the 1960s and the bridge was attached to that very plant site in the 1960s. That is why I thought the picture was relevant to the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor Edit Requests by Non-Account Holders

Can someone link the "at-grade" in the "Alternate routes" section to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-grade? I had no idea what this term was :-)

I'll try. -Jason ost 16:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone already did. -Jason ost 16:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Location incorrect

The north support is north-WEST of the U, and the south support is north-EAST of The Dome. This information should be corrected in the article.

Yes, that did not make sense when I saw it and I am just looking at a map now. The north bank of the bridge was west and a bit to the south of the university campus. Please make the changes if you are familiar with the area. --Justanother 17:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I had the wrong campus. NW is fine. --Justanother 17:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect

Now that the immediacy of the event is behind us, I'd like to try to unprotect the article. I'll unprotect it in a few minutes, barring any serious reason not to, and I'll keep an eye on it for a while to see if things are good. kmccoy (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can keep an eye on it, give it a try. I'm coming off lunch break, so I can't keep an eye on it, but go for it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I sure wish we had the license to use this image

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hiway71/127240285/ especially the highest resolution version. It shows rusting and structure realities of the bridge. It shows the underlying structure of the bridge- Bevo 17:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The surface oxidation near the pier is not indicative of structural issues. The substructure received a "satisfactory" rating in 2003 although other parts of the bridge were in poorer condition. See [32] and [33]. Don't want to get into a discussion of the cause of failure (not determined yet anyway) just that we would be wise to not infer by word or image that surface oxidation is important or means much of anything other than time for some new paint. --Justanother 17:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good points! I modified my comments (see above). - Bevo 18:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh. This just in: Minn. bridge problems uncovered in 1990

In 1990, the federal government gave the I-35W bridge a rating of "structurally deficient," citing significant corrosion in its bearings. The bridge is one of 77,000 bridges in that category nationwide, 1,160 in Minnesota alone. The designation means some portions of the bridge needed to be scheduled for repair or replacement, and it was on a schedule for inspection every two years. Dorgan said the bearings could not have been repaired without jacking up the entire deck of the bridge. Because the bearings were not sliding, inspectors concluded the corrosion was not a major issue.

Destruction date

Should the destruction date be listed when the bridge is gonna be rebuilt? I heard Bush is pushing for the reconstruction of the bridge. --Voidvector 17:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We could do what they have on Tacoma Narrows Bridge and use one infobox for the rebuilt bridge (when it is rebuilt, it will take at least a couple years) and another box in the section about the collapse for the collapsed bridge. 66.115.196.2 17:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me the bridge has already been "destroyed" (albeit by act of nature), so I would guess the article should state the destruction date as when the collapse occurred. To me, it's just like the assassination date of a state leader — if he/she dies later, the assassination date is still the date when the attack occurred. [[Briguy52748 17:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)]]

Footnote snafu

It is somewhat disconcerting to have the first footnote of this article show up as ^[2]. This is caused by a footnote in the "AADT" entry of the bridge infobox, which shows up further down the page than the opening paragraph. I guess this can't be helped? - dcljr (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Footnotes are numbered based on their order in the code, so we'd have to remove the footnote from the infobox, I guess. Alternatively, if footnote 2 could be used to footnote the same thing in the infobox, that would solve the problem handily. Natalie 18:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This sort of thing has happened before; if you check out the FA class article Iowa class battleship, you will see the same thing. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The footnotes used in the Infobox_Bridge are number first. To start the article with footnote 1, we would have to move the Infobox_Bridge footnotes to the article (which would not be a bad idea). -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

bridge type

Steel under-deck double-arch truss

- deficient because of corrosion in the bearings

according to news conference 3:15EDT by Minnesota DOT.

132.205.44.5 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

EL

I have noticed a bit of what looks like self-serving external linking, i.e. serving more to direct traffic to a personal site than to serve the project. The most notable being Common-Nation.com "It is the most trusted name is [sic] news."[34]. I have removed them. I may take a sterner stand on such than others so if an established editor wants any of them back just go ahead. --Justanother 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Coast guard & river closing

http://coastguardnews.com/coast-guard-responds-to-minnesota-interstate-bridge-collapse/2007/08/01/ I don't have time to add it myself, but this link includes mile marker that the river underneath is closed. -Ravedave 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please use PAST TENSE verbs

Please ensure that your verbs are past tense. See WP:MOS#Precise language. If you look at the spirit of WP:NOT, you will be reminded that Wikipedia is not Journalism. There are many standards of Journalism that we should adhere to, but we should not be using present tense verbs in the prose outside of quotations and other special cases. If you want to add information about an event that happened an hour ago (and remains true), then start the sentence with "As of..." and use past tense so that we do not have to go and change it again. Also: once we know that the "9 deaths" information is not reliable and that only 4 deaths have been confirmed, then take out the "9 deaths" information altogether. Don't waste the reader's time with discredited information. Sure, the death toll could easily still end up being more than ten, but we should maintain the page with the best verifiable information and patiently wait for new information. In my opinion: if the current numbers are changing frequently, then use round numbers and change them less often. We have many months of backlog at Wikipedia. If you need that rush of reporting up-to-the-minute (or, for that matter, up-to-the-week) information, then work on Wikinews more.--SallyForth123 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I should acknowledge a few exceptions to that rule: We often say in a BLP that a person "is" something in the first sentence and we switch that to past tense when they die. Also, long-lasting municipal and geologic structures like roads and mountains use a present-tense to avoid confusion. Scientific facts like the speed of light simple "are". So it is OK to say that I-35 "runs" near the stadium since trying to hard to use past tense would imply to the reader that it does not anymore. But for current events, we use past tense, even for the "Alternate routes" section (which is a bit of a "howto" section if you think about it, but at least it is in its own section and not lengthy.--SallyForth123 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Cause" section

The cause section is quite premature. The only thing in that section worth keeping is the report of possible structural problems in previous inspections, and it certainly should not be listed in a section called "cause" until it is known what the cause is, or until the authorities have declared that they can't determine a cause. Until then, the whole thing is just speculation and really has no place in this article. I'd like to remove it, or at least seriously trim it and change its name to something other than "cause". What do other people feel? kmccoy (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No one has responded, so I did a big edit. Djg2006 reverted "we need to know what happened", but then reverted him/herself. I hope there's an understanding that yes, we need to know what happened, but Wikipedia is not the forum for determining what happened. When the authorities determine the cause, or determine that they can't figure it out, we should include that in the article. And, if it warrants it, criticism of that determination. But we cannot speculate as to the things that may have caused it. I feel like it's going far enough to include the information on the recent inspections in the history section. But please, discuss this here if you disagree. kmccoy (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you use the word forum, when all we did was post pertinent official documents? I disagree that there is no place for this section - you are doing a disservice to the readership and the reputation of the site. Djg2006 21:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would add that it is presumptuous of you to remove the section a second time, before even discussing it. Djg2006 22:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, keep your tone non-hostile. There's no need for hostility here. :) I use the word "forum" in the meaning of "place for discussion". Wikipedia is not the place for discussion of what might have caused it, or anything like that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I removed the section after discussing it, and each time I removed it, I continued to discuss it here, despite your lack of response, initially.

Please consult the policy regarding What Wikipedia is not for an indication as to why it's inappropriate to include speculation on the cause of this disaster.

Djg2006 and I have made our points -- does anyone else want to add their input? kmccoy (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, what Djg added is not speculation, but it is based on sources. Speculation is something you think happened, which is sheer pov. What you did without discussion is not good. Also based on Wikipedia:Verifiability, you can't contested content based on a source. Chris! _{my talk} 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between the facts, like the de-icing system existing and a train moving under the bridge, and the speculation that it may have been part of the cause of the collapse. That speculation comes from putting those cited facts into a section called "cause". You might be interested in [[35]] and Wikipedia:No original research. As your own cited Wikipedia:Verifiability states, it's important to include the other policies of Wikipedia together with verifiability. Gathering a set of information about the bridge, even if they're well-cited, and then presenting them as possible causes for the collapse is original research. The proper way to go about it is to find someone with some legitimacy, like a structural engineer, who is quoted as saying that some of these things may have been the cause of the collapse. And then include it in the article as such.

Also, I'm not really sure what you're saying I did "without discussion", since it took a bit of prodding to get anyone to respond to my comments here in the first place. kmccoy (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you make the change before you say anything, that constitute "editing without discussion". And his edits are not original research, either as he cited everything according to a source. An original research is something you introduce in the article based on your own assessments or assumption. If they are based on a source, they aren't original research. So the wikipedia policy on original research doesn't apply here. As for the WP:Not, you could definitely summarized or rewrite to make the section better suit the guideline. But removing the whole thing without determining the content is not improving it. Just to be clear, I am not saying that you are entirely wrong here, but better judgment than to delete the whole thing is the main point here. Chris! _{my talk} 22:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please check your timeline -- I removed that section (I also didn't just delete it, by the way, but incorporated many of its points into other areas, and then removed some parts of it) quite some time after I initially started this section on the talk page.

I'm not sure you're understanding my problem with the section. I'm probably not being clear. It's not that I doubt any of the facts. They're all pretty basic. My problem is with presenting them as though they contributed to the collapse. The problem isn't with any individual part of the section, it's adding them all up to reach a conclusion (or to suggest a conclusion) which is what I'm concerned about. The original research is the linking of these items and the collapse. I'm sure that within a few days, the NTSB will start to release preliminary findings. Let's add them then. kmccoy (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

dlg added the information to the section with structural concerns. This is a much better place and really helps to alleviate my concerns about it being original research -- thanks! It would be nice if you also had some sources saying that these factors were concerns, though. Who was concerned about the train vibrations? Who was concerned that the deicing system might cause the bridge to collapse? Or, who has suggested that the deicing system may have caused it to collapse? Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you overreact on the issue of original research. The whole thing is not original research. One part of it is based upon official government record and governor's word. Now are you implying that they are illegitimate. Since they are not original research, you can't delete them. Maybe it doesn't belong to the cause section, but it should definitely be include in the article. Chris! _{my talk} 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The alternate routes section is problematic

because this is an encylcopedia, not a news agency or DOT. However, I think some of the information is very relevant, such as the fact that this bridge carried a significant amount of traffic into downtown and to a big part of the U of M campus. This is already seriously affecting traffic in the Twin Cities, which already has a severe congestion problem, and will continue to affect driving patterns and traffic for possibly years. What do people think of renaming the section "Effect on traffic patterns" or something similar and rewriting it in terms of long-term effect, with a lesser emphasis on where people should be driving instead? Natalie 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think we have any right or obligation to give people sources for alternate routes. They can find this information anywhere else on the internet. However, renaming the section and writing about how current traffic patterns are being affected would be nice. Perhaps once the bridge is rebuilt, then we can cite certain things, such as "The collapse forced many motorists to use Highway 280 for the duration of the cleanup and reconstruction..." Something to that effect later on down the road. MplsNarco 08:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Crossings

The bridge also crosses Grand Rounds Scenic Byway, Bluff St, SE 2nd St and some railroad tracks. I am not sure if those should be listed as well. In addition to Mississippi River --Voidvector 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jargon

When we use jargon like pile, pylon, abutment, span, arch, etc., please be sure to wikify the term. I noticed that "riverbank" currently points to the California city, but I will probably fix that and, if needed, add a disambiguation page. That is one of the good things about hyperlinking: you can talk up to the reader and not spend so much time explaining this jargon.--SallyForth123 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no mention of the term "Section Loss" in this article but I'm coming across it in many different reports, including this 2006 inspection report. Would be great to get a definition of what this means. Mitc0185 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

These are not jargon terms, but many are technical in nature and not used in daily discussions other than in construction-related industries. "Section Loss" is a reference to a reduction in (cross-sectional) area of a structural component, usually considered in context of corrosion, wear due to cyclic loading, etc. This is significant as the ability of a structural component to carry load is related to the area of the component that load can be transferred through (along with many other factors). Routine design practice is to provide structural components oversized from what they are required to carry, to allow for section loss amongst other distresses and for excessive loads. Protection from, design for, and concern over corrosion is certainly a regular consideration for design of roadway structures in Minnesota. Badsongninja 01:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Some common civil engineering terms can be found here[36]. Badsongninja 01:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

NY Times article for your consideration

Some points from the NY Times for your consideration to be added:

• recovery efforts hampered by currents
• death at hospital
• Governor's statement about inspecting all other bridges and that this bridge not due to be replaced to 2020

* Twins groundbreaking delayed[37] Canuckle 22:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

St. Anthony Bridge

The I-35W bridge was never called St. Anthony Bridge. The only pre-collapse information about St. Anthony Bridge states "The Model Railroad Club built ... a stone arch bridge that replicates the St. Anthony Bridge in Minneapolis." (December 4, 1987) and "Minneapolis Sky Line" is a nearly all blue painting by Enid Knowles, with the arching St. Anthony Bridge the unifying element. (February 11, 2001). Google images show no such bridge. The I-35W does not have such arches or stones. The I-35W is a few bridges away from St. Anthony Falls. Until there is consensus to add St. Anthony Bridge" to the article, please work to keep this incorrect information out of the article. Thank You. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, St Anthony Bridge either refers to either the Third Avenue Bridge or Stone Arch Bridge. BeeArkKey 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Organization

When the flurry of edits finally tapers off, the article should be reorganized on a more rational basis. Now Construction and maintenance jumps from the intitial construction in 1967 to maintenance in 1991-98. Then History takes us back to the 1800s and jumps forward to contemplated lane openings in 1989 and the de-icing system in 1996-2000. Then in Structural concerns we have the inspection reports c. 2001-06, followed by the repairs underway at the time of collapse, which makes it appear as if those repairs had something to do with structural concerns. It would be difficult to rationalize this sequence of events while the article is being changed so rapidly. A more chronologic approach may be appropriate. Kablammo 22:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Are seemingly routine maintenance and lane closures even notable? The black ice concern could be due to scope of problem but aren't the lighting and other repairs able to be removed in their entirety, along with the whitewater rafting proposal? The soil issue seems notable but takes up a lot of space. Canuckle 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• I made some changes. I removed some seemingly routine repair info too. If it's actually important, here it is: In September 1991, the right two lanes of northbound Interstate 35W bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis were closed for repair. In September 1994, the right northbound lane on I-35W over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis was closed to permit inspection of the bridge. In October 1998, the lighting system was repaired.

Canuckle 22:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source information for article

Please use this thread to add potential rReliable source material that may be used in the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• FHA I-35 Bridge Collapse, Minneapolis, MN fact sheet.
• Some place on FHA website are or will be detailed reports about the bridge. Please keep an eye out for them as they may provide a significant amount of material for the article.

Video of bridge collapse

Apparently, the video of the bridge collapsing was taken by a security camera at the lock and dam control house. Could anyone confirm whether or not the camera belonged to the Army Corps of Engineers? If it did, then the video is in the public domain and we can include it freely on the web page -- once we can find a source for it that isn't watermarked with CNN or AP. kmccoy (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This AP article: CNN Gets Beat on Video of Collapse clearly attributes the video to the Corps, with details. See also this link. And this. I saw an uncropped version on YouTube and the image had "LWR4" on it. Maybe that is the camera ID.--SallyForth123 23:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this the Youtube video you are looking for? Chris! _{my talk} 23:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That might be one of them. There is also this, which has the ID alphanumerics.--SallyForth123 23:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The one you found might be the actual footage from the Corps. Chris! _{my talk} 23:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

While, the one I point to already had marks from http://news.sky.com/ and http://www.liveleak.com/ added to it, but at least it did not yet have the CNN cropping.--SallyForth123 03:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead section, time phrasing, and mirrors

Please be careful when editing the article of this and all other current events, to keep it always reading as an encyclopedia article. This means that it should be kept in a style which makes sense regardless of when it's being read. Things like "people are still missing", or "the cause is under investigation" serve to lock the article into a specific time frame or reference. This is especially important because we never know when a mirror or search engine will take a snapshot of the article for their use. kmccoy (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And when text is added, do not add it in between previous text and the footnote reference, unless the footnote actually supports your addition. Kablammo 23:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

With this article being constantly updated, your concern here is irrelevant. Chris! _{my talk} 23:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I love being dismissed as irrelevant! You may want to re-read my original statement, especially the part about never knowing when a mirror or search engine will take a snapshot. You may also want to read the manual of style. Seriously, it's so much more fun here on Wikipedia when people are *pleasant*, rather than condescending. kmccoy (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Victim Names are filtering in...

http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_213191448.html

"Those confirmed killed in the collapse are Julia Blackhawk, 32, of Savage, Minn.; Patrick Holmes, 36, of Mounds View, Minn.; Artemio Trinidad-Mena, 29, of Minneapolis; and Sherry Engebretsen, 60, of Shoreview, Minn."

I dynamic linked the names to see how long it takes for someone to create Wikipedia articles on them. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the appropriate way to handle the victims is not by separate articles, but in this one, unless they otherwise meet the criteria for notability. Kablammo 00:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E. Cover the event first. For monitoring purposes, you may want to redirect victims' names here in the meantime. Canuckle 00:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I put the 4 victims names on the page and it was removed. I believe it is appropriate to identify the confirmed fatalities. Is there an argument about this? Dw31415. Nope it was just moved. They are still there. Dw31415 01:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I redirected the victims' names, I'd like a few more responsible editors to watchlist them, please. Thanks. Grandmasterka 02:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think including the names is appropriate at this point. Even our 9/11 article doesn't include the names of all the victims. I think links to this are fine but they shouldn't be listed as part of the article. None of these people are notable, and the tragedy is quite fresh. It's too easy for names to turn into a memorial too. pschemp | talk 03:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Pschemp, I reverted your edit as there are only 4 confirmed deaths at the moment, I don't think the article is at risk. Users simply need to be vigilant for such additions. Zidel333 03:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the names should be in teh article, or at least linked to a sepeate list that details the confirmed dead ala Virginia Tech Massacre. Zidel333 03:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine to include them when the smoke clears...but right now it is too early. pschemp | talk 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Too early? How so? If there are sources, it should be added. Zidel333 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Waiting 24 hours out of respect and to make sure the sources have it right should be done. Encyclopedias are written in hindsight, they are not news articles. pschemp | talk 03:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The attitude of "if there's a source, it should be in the article" is covered in WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't really think that the names should be in the article, either, though I won't edit them out myself. kmccoy (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

number of lanes in use at the time of collapse

The article does not make clear the number of lanes in use (in each direction) at the time of the bridge collapse. Different sources give different information, some that there were two lanes in use in each direction for a total of four, and some that only one lane in each direction was actually (already) in use that evening. Could this be ascertained and put into the text? --Mareklug ^talk 00:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Commuting on it that day around noon, I can assert at that time driving southbound there were two lanes only (the right-most exit lane became a commuting lane). Southbound, three lanes were used to move traffic until it crossed the river. The fourth, right lane was an entrance / exit lane marked with the smaller markings. The University exit going southbound entered right at the north-end of the bridge, creating the fourth lane. It then became the I-94W, Washington Ave., and Hiawatha (one of two) exit lane. A picture of the road would should the different lane markings. If you defined that a commuting lane was foo and an exit lane was bar, you could get your one or two count as you wanted (geez, should proof-read my own replies before posting...).

Casualty numbers not making sense

There are some numbers here and in the news which don't quite make sense. There are confirmed 4 casualties and 8 (down from 30) people missing. Yet the Star Tribune and AP report that "Dozens of cars plummeted more than 60 feet into the Mississippi River". The article currently states "The bridge's collapse sent more than 50 vehicles, their occupants and several construction workers into the river or to its banks." Is the assumption here that most of the people in the "dozens" of cars survived, or do we expect the casualty numbers to grow way beyond the 12 known dead and missing people. Some clarification might be useful. The article might need to say "The bridge's collapse sent more than 50 vehicles, their occupants and several construction workers into the river or to its banks, although the vast majority of these people survived". I understand there's no source for this right now, but this article, and the news reports, are inconsistent at this point. Simon12 02:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all news sources seem to be giving different information. I know for a fact that one of the lead officials (I forgot her name) has repeatedly said that although four are confirmed dead, she will not be issuing any conclusive figures until the recovery efforts are complete. In my opinion, that was a very wise comment on her part...she chose to remain silent. The last I heard was that four are confirmed dead, eight are missing, and 79 are injured; however, the report was unofficial. MplsNarco 08:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

economic impact

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/08/02/commercecosts/ - facts that should probably go in. Rail not affected much, can be diverted. Estimated additonal trucking costs = $120,000 a day. And about 1.5 million to two million tons of goods are sent by barge through the lock in the vicinity of the collapse. Worth adding to the article? -Ravedave 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant and worth mention. Kablammo 03:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm feelin lazy, wanna add it? Also the govnr also has ordered the inspection of all similar bridges [38] -Ravedave 03:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

not tonight, maybe tomorrow. Kablammo 03:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Height

We still need a good reliable figure for height from the pavement to the river. Media around the world have used figures of 60-some feet or 19.5 meters. According to sources cited in the article, 64 feet is the clearance.[39] This figure is also clearly visible (for those with good eyes) on the orginal contract plans, Figure 1.1 at [40]. This means that that air draft, or distance from the water level to the lowest chord of that part of the truss arch located over the channel, is 64 feet above the pool level; it is higher at midspan. And above that is the truss and deck. The plans appear to show an elevation of 808' at about ground level for the piers at stations 60+75 and 60+85 near the south abutment at span 3, with an additional 29' of clearance above to the bottom of the deck, which would give us 837' to the bottom of the deck at this approach span, or 112' above the water level at ~725'. That 112'+ fall to the river is considerably different from what is being reported. Kablammo 04:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the deck height is clearly higher than 64 feet (19 metres) and that this more likely refers to the apex of the underlying arch but I too have had no luck in finding a source which clarifies this. Gwen Gale 03:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We also know that the depth of truss (which means the vertical distance) above the concrete piers is 60'. Scaling the elevation drawing also indicates a total height of well over 100'. Kablammo 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it must be. Meanwhile I can't even find the deck height mentioned in the 2001 engineering report. This mis-reporting is utterly typical early in a news cycle (and has "always" been this way through history), where the broadest swath of the story is more or less distributed (the bridge collapsed) but many details are gotten wrong in the rush to produce copy. Gwen Gale 04:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The engineering reports do not seem to show deck height, which is why I went to the plans. (These are contract plans, not as-built dimensions, which could differ slightly.) Kablammo 04:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way you can cite the plans without doing so much interpretation that it could be taken as OR? I think it would be so helpful to readers if we could get the (much) higher deck height into the text somehow. Gwen Gale 04:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've downloaded that pdf and looked at figure 1.1 (zooming in quite a bit). In my opinion, anyway, the elevation heights (given in terms of sea level) are clear enough that I think it could support a statement in the article text along the lines of "the deck was over 100 feet above the river." Gwen Gale 04:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

I'm combining all of the image related sections in this talk page to one section. It's just too cluttered right now. -71.210.170.121 03:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The wide image introduced in this edit has nothing to do with the bridge.

I think the image is relevant and helpful in the history section. Gwen Gale 16:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The image would be fine for a history of Minneapolis. In this article it looks like a promotional for Minneapolis.

That image actually is in the history of Minneapolis article. I agree that it is irrelevant because it doesn't depict the bridge in question, seeing as it was taken some fifty years before the bridge was built. Natalie 16:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The image is distracting and should come out. The image and the first paragraph of "History" have little, if anything, to do with the history of the bridge. --Justanother 16:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, great. The article is protected. Both Natalie and Justanother are recent contributors. I concur about the toxic waste section of the history, unless it can be link, it sounds like original research (the linking of the site to the bridge's history).

I was already thinking along those lines, so I took the image about a while ago. The panoramic view from 1915 didn't seem all that relevant to an article about a bridge built in 1967, especially since so much had changed in that area between 1915 and 1967 (not to mention between 1967 and today). --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The panoramic picture showed how the river banks were being used prior to the installation of the I-35W bridge against those very river banks. In particular, the south span of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge rests on the former Minneapolis Gas Works manufactured-gas plant site shown in that photo. The Minneapolis Gas Works manufactured-gas plant was removed in the 1960s and the bridge was attached to that very plant site in the 1960s. That is why I thought the picture was relevant to the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hiway71/127240285/ especially the highest resolution version. It shows rusting and structure realities of the bridge. It shows the underlying structure of the bridge- Bevo 17:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The surface oxidation near the pier is not indicative of structural issues. The substructure received a "satisfactory" rating in 2003 although other parts of the bridge were in poorer condition. See [41] and [42]. Don't want to get into a discussion of the cause of failure (not determined yet anyway) just that we would be wise to not infer by word or image that surface oxidation is important or means much of anything other than time for some new paint. --Justanother 17:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good points! I modified my comments (see above). - Bevo 18:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh. This just in: Minn. bridge problems uncovered in 1990

In 1990, the federal government gave the I-35W bridge a rating of "structurally deficient," citing significant corrosion in its bearings. The bridge is one of 77,000 bridges in that category nationwide, 1,160 in Minnesota alone. The designation means some portions of the bridge needed to be scheduled for repair or replacement, and it was on a schedule for inspection every two years. Dorgan said the bearings could not have been repaired without jacking up the entire deck of the bridge. Because the bearings were not sliding, inspectors concluded the corrosion was not a major issue.

Image of bridge being built. http://www.startribune.com/10204/story/1339588-a1338421-t3.html

Not sure, but if you think it's fair use...

There should be a free alternative somewhere, seeing how the government constructed it. Pepsidrinka 21:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Any reason why Image:I-35W bridge collapse TLR1.jpg has been relegated to the gallery while a less dramatic photo remains in the article? I think this image should have a prominent position. TerriersFan 22:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing the top image to an inappropriate image, considering the death and injury caused by this catastrophe.

The location map shows the bridge as spanning only the river itself. That is less than a quarter of its actual length, and the failure extended far beyond the main span. A new image is needed. Kablammo 23:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image was SVG, easy to fix. Might still need some work. -Ravedave 02:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

RD-- nice job (as always). Do you think it should be extended over SE 2d St.? Kablammo 02:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, nice catch (as always). Fixed now. -Ravedave 03:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You're fast. Kablammo 03:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The map shows the street connected to the 10th Ave Bridge as being Cedar Avenue. It should be 19th Avenue South, I believe, as shown here:Image:Map excerpt bridges.jpg.--Appraiser 03:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

changed label to "Cedar Ave. Bridge" (per google) and moved to correct spot -Ravedave 04:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

more trivia removed

• In June 1996, whitewater enthusiasts proposed a paddle-sports park on the river's east bank between Stone Arch Bridge and the I-35W bridge.

Train Wreck Seen...

When this happened, a train was hit. Sources are FOX News AND CNN Headline News. The train was pinned by the collapsing bridge. 205.240.144.180 05:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In the pix here, a tank car and a hopper car is seen, the hopper car is crushed by the derbis of the bridge. 205.240.144.180 05:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Other disasters

This bridge shared the same mile (1.6 km) of the Mississippi riverbed as two of Minneapolis' other spectacular catastrophes: the collapse of the Hennepin Island tunnel in 1869 and the explosion of the Washburn "A" Mill in 1878.

"Same mile". How interesting. 100 years earlier than this bridge collapse. (If you do not get my drift: that means that they really do not have very much to do with each other. It is just a coincidence. Fascinating.)

If I could make that "same mile" sentence even shorter, I would. Their relationship with this one is tenuous at best. They have their own articles and need no explanation here. I already moved the supporting references over to those articles, where they belong. Keep this article focus on the BRIDGE. Not on the falls. If you can argue that something else is related to this bridge, great. But if you have interesting details about something that we have an article on, put it over THERE, not here.--SallyForth123 06:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think these references are extremely brief and provide helpful historical context to both the site and the bridge collapse. Gwen Gale 06:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

They might be brief in page space, but they are CONFUSING. This story already confusing enough. You got three different dam/locks involved (Upper and Lower St. Ant and Dam #1), you got views of the bridge from all directions that all look the same because the cityscape is monotonous. The collapse is an ongoing story of national importance. You do the reader a favor to stay focused. Or else the reader stops and asks: "Why are they telling me THIS now?" Stay focused. If you want to mention "same mile", OK, fine. But leave it at that because it is just a barely-notable coincidence. You want to go work on those other articles, please do. I just did. And NO FOOTNOTES for trivial coincidences!--SallyForth123 06:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it confusing at all. Cheers. Gwen Gale 06:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about one sentence under the "Location" heading. This is a brief mention of prior historic events around the area, not an unrelated attention-grabbing article hijacking. Since we are working on an article that concerns a widely-noticed current event, we have a responsibility to reference every unique assertion in order to maintain a high quality work. It's far better to have too many references than too few. Many references will become consolidated in the future, once the rapid editing of this article subsides. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The footnotes are a cue: they tell the read that something is important and needs to be supported. When you footnote something like the "same mile" assertion, you end up throwing some percentage of your readers off track by trying to suggest that the "same mile" assertion is of any importance. The "same mile" assertion should be made as briefly as possible. It should not result in two more footnotes because it is not very important. It certainly is not germane to the story of the bridge or its demise. Or the rest of the disaster. It is just a tiny bit of color. The "same mile" assertion could certainly never lead to an accusation of libel. The "same mile" assertion is self-evident, and so it does not need supporting material.--SallyForth123 07:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Every assertion of fact requires supporting material. WP:A, after all... Thanatosimii 07:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to the unstable nature of the wiki collaborative platform, Wikipedia has a stricter policy on footnotes than most print sources. While neither footnote is really of any importance, the statements they reference are unique assertions and must be verified. I don't think that these notes are a noticeable inconvenience to the reader. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)