The collapse of the 40 year old bridge spanning the narrow Mississippi at Minneapolis is a tragedy. Can lessons be learned from that untimely collapse? I think so. Just north of the wreckage is a concrete bridge of probably twice the age of the collapsed one. Further up river is a stone railroad bridge which is over 100 years old, and is still trouble and maintenance free. The Rockville Bridge near Harrisburg, Pa, made of stone, has carried trains across the Susquehanna for over a hundred years, as has the high, beautiful Starucca Viaduct not too far from there, which was built in 1848. Both still carry 10,000 ton trains with ease. The Thomas viaduct, near Baltimore, was built in 1839 to carry B&O trains, and still carries 10,000 ton trains with ease. There are literally thousands of medieval stone bridges still in use in Europe after hundreds of years, and little or no maintenance. No painting, no testing by bureaucrats, and built with thousand year old technology.
Stone arch bridges are beautiful, and last virtually forever. Concrete bridges, reinforced with steel rebar, can outlast steel bridges by multiple lifespans. Modern anything, be it homes with plastic siding, steel bridges, or anything requiring regular inspection, just is not the way to go. My brick home, built in 1887 still has its original roof! Why can’t municipalities build stone or at least reinforced concrete bridges? Why is it ’economical’ to build something which must be inspected, repaired, and painted regularly? In America and the world, there are thousands if not millions of stone arch bridges, viaducts, and other man made accomplishments. Roman viaducts over a thousand years old, still stand as well as tombs, pillars, and remains, made of stone, which are several thousand years old. Why not build something beautiful and lasting to replace the collapsed bridge in Minneapolis? Will it cost more? Of course, but will it still be there a hundred years from now, with no maintenance? Yes. Which is the most economical? Brick homes don’t need painting, and the world is full of brick and stone edifices, which will last through the ages with little or no maintenance. My daughter lives in an 1815 stone home in New York State, an hour north of New York City. (She also has a Masters Degree in Historic Restoration. Need advice on a historic structure? Maybe she can fit you in). Paper money, vs. real money in the form of gold and silver? Which lasts through the ages and holds value? Why not depend on money and structures which last? Come on guys, Congress has just authorized $250 million to replace that collapsed bridge. Why not an extra $200 million to build a stone arch bridge which will be there for a virtually unlimited period of time? That’s only an hour or two of the Iraq waste. A stone arch bridge which will glorify its builders and please the eves of its beholders.