Your Tax Dollars At Work

[Burning Petard]

Particularly if you live in Atlanta GA.

Recent fire did big damage to major highway in Atlanta. The feds have promised $$$ to get the road open quickly. Story in today's Washington Post, based on reportage in the Atlanta Journal says storage of construction material under overpasses is not uncommon.
I95 in Wilmington DE was closed not too long ago when construction material stored under an overpass became heavy enough to actually move supports holding up the bridge.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 873829d787

In the instance in Atlanta, it was PVC pipe that seemed to be the main fuel in this fire that burned hot enough to destroy concrete and soften the steel. The story linked above says that this material had been there under the overpass for more than a decade.

What kind of scam buys construction material and then 'stores' it unsecured for decades?

snailgate

[Scooter]

Storing pipes under highways is neither dangerous nor uncommon, Stafford said.

The doofus from the fire dept. who made this statement might want to rethink it in light of recent events.

Five year olds are being handcuffed in airports as suspected terrorists when all it takes to paralyze the traffic of a major metropolitan area for months is a boneheaded move by a state DOT. Bravo.

[rubato]

The problem is storing flammable materials.


Yrs,
Rubato

[Scooter]

Indeed. Had it been any private business storing such materials, they would have been subject to all manner of regulation regarding fire prevention, control and inspection measures required. But it's government, so...

[Guinevere]

I think this article is poorly written, no surprise there. It initially says the PVC piping is used as conduit for wires that have to run under the bridge. That's a correct and common use for PVC piping. Nothing unusual, standard design.

Later when the author talks about "storing" the pipes under the bridge, I think he's making a mistake. Also note, the "quote" from the fire personnel does not use quotation marks. It is the authors (I believe incorrect) summation of the comments.

While a very expensive and incredibly inconvenient problem, I do not believe the fault lies with "the government." "Malicious destruction" sounds about right to me. Not contemplated, and far from a typical occurrence. Also, incredibly stupid.

[Guinevere]

Indeed. Had it been any private business storing such materials, they would have been subject to all manner of regulation regarding fire prevention, control and inspection measures required. But it's government, so...

Wrong. Public projects are subject to the same safety rules and regulations as private projects. The most significant difference is in the bidding for the contractors to do the actual work (because large construction projects are generally not actually performed by local, state, or federal agencies). Many public projects are subject to competitive bidding, and public entities are required to choose the lowest cost "qualified" bidder.

[Scooter]

I'm guessing, then, that after this debacle there will be new rules about storing flammable materials under highway overpasses.

Later when the author talks about "storing" the pipes under the bridge, I think he's making a mistake.

I doubt it's that far off, because it's hardly plausible that a length or a few lengths of PVC pipe carrying cable under a bridge could have caused this conflagration. However, a few spools of it that caught fire would have.

[Lord Jim]

Alright...

Scooter actually criticizing a government agency...

That makes my Sunday

[rubato]

The issue is the quantity and heat of combustion of the material. Pvc produces relatively lower amounts of energy when burned so it would take a very large quantity of it.

It takes a high temperature over a long period to degrade reinforced concrete to failure. In the past gas trucks burning under an overpass have caused enough damage to require replacement of the span, for comparison.


They need to evolve standards for what quantities of which materials can be stored there.

On the whole, government safety standards are higher than private business as the recent west Texas disaster proves.



Yrs,
Rubato

[Scooter]

Alright...

Scooter actually criticizing a government agency...

That makes my Sunday

Oh yeah, because I have such a history of being an ass kisser of anything to do with government.

The praise that I have been heaping in the past few weeks on the actions of CBP and ICE in rolling out Lord Dampnut's New Order should have been a clue.

[Lord Jim]

Oh yeah, because I have such a history of being an ass kisser of anything to do with government.

I'm not saying that, but you do have a history of defending government actions in a wide range of areas, from prohibiting welcome mats to shutting down kiddie's lemonade stands...

[Long Run]

Why do the three criminals who started the fire not get the blame for this first and foremost? Yes, the workers should have known the materials were flammable, even though that does not seem obvious, and it is not clear whether the materials were securely stored (seems they could have easily been stolen as well).

[Scooter]

Um, the fact that they are being charged with first degree arson would suggest that they are getting the blame.

[Long Run]

Yes, but I was referring to this thread where there had not been a mention of them. You are right that policy manuals will be written to address this potential, but I don't know that it was obvious (at least to a lay person) that crack heads could light the pvc pipes on fire and burn down the bridge structure. Like I said, I would have thought the greater risk was of theft.

[Guinevere]

The article is shoddy and crappy "journalism." It is inconsistent and inconclusive about whether piping was stored under the bridge, or was used under the bridge. And nowhere does the article discuss the amount of pipe under the bridge, which apparently was of enough quantity to start the fire (we also don't know what else was used in the construction that burned or contributed to the heat/intensity of the fire, but hey, asphalt burns, too, right?).

In any event, I'm pretty sure the "malicious mischief" makers are the most at fault (which I indicated in my first post).