It was amazing, the brillian idea was to make it next to the road, then move it across the road. Within a week, it falls down, so my amateur guess is something was not structurally calculated correctly. Just a guess, but (I believe) about 10 million down the drain, unless they can prove it was the builders fault?

Actually, here is a guy who explains it in pretty clear detail, what they were doing, and why it failed. In fact, they should have closed the road when doing it, due to the possibility of collapse, but everyone appears to have assumed it would work, which, of course, it didin't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioC61...

Government is pretty much at a loss to adequately insure safety. They just want to stick themselves into the process to gain wages and retirement, but anything else that might happen is just icing on the cake

So, the remaining Roman aqueducts will never fail...!

Jan

Sorry CG, but if that is the real way construction shakes out, then you have to have a period of months before any new construction is used, in order to prevent just such a event. It should be built and designed such that it cannot fall down. With the huge burden of government permits, inspections rules and regulations, there either should be almost 0 probability, or dump at least half the regs and rules and inspections as non value added.

Irshultis: I would parallel my analogy of "analysts" and "programmers" with your "engineers" and "constructors." The thinking and creativity of each is quite different.

There were several things they could have done, but they set it up when they installed it, and then it was pretty much doomed. See the link above, there are 2 videos done b a really good, common sense guy who seems to have it nailed.

It may not have been the process, but a lack of knowledge and common sense, they moved one support at install they needed on the end that collapsed, not according to plan, then they went to adjust the tensioner and boom, there was no stopping it. See the video and it all is crystal clear.

To augment Allosaur's mention of lowest bidder (above) and peterchunt's mention of design engineers (below):

First a little history. About 1980, businesses nationwide began cutting payroll costs by combining certain roles in business organizations (I call this a "movement"); Several years later it was recognized as the cause underlying unforeseen/undesirable consequences. Specifically developers and adopters of the theory (movement) did not take into consideration the need for separate micro or macro thinking each of the roles required -- because typically each of these thinking roles mutually exclude the other. Very few people could operate in both realms because their "brains were not wired that way." As part of a small vocal minority which published a few books and articles why this would not work in the long run, immediate profits won out. We "die hards" are still around, doing other things for enjoyment in pseudo-retirement.

As a computer systems and software consultant in the last century, the lowest bidder typically caused numerous head aches for us because we needed to supervise the vendors (but we could not because the vendor contracts specifically excluded us). Our clients assumed the vendors had quality supervision, but later discovered they did not, because most vendors lacked the analytical ability to design an appropriate human software interface in a new and growing industry.

I moved my firm in a different direction. The firm became very profitable because we had both analysts and programmers; we had to charge the highest billable rates in NYC at the time to cover anticipated but undefined issues which typically arose in highly innovative and technical engagements. This policy eliminated potential customers who could not afford quality. We eventually specialized rescuing clients from competitors who failed to deliver on their contracts. There is an old adage: "Pay for it now, or pay for it later."

The bottom line is "one usually receives that for which he pays."

In retrospect, it was the right move, as I retired in six years and became a SCUBA diving instructor and then an airplane pilot, flying volunteer missions which provide needy people with transportation to/from medical treatment not readily available in their locale -- the latter I continue to do right to this day. Alas, I do not have the stamina to teach others SCUBA diving.

Morgan & Morgan was one of the first to announce filing.

Now they say they WERE adjusting the tensioner when it collapsed:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-stu...

Nope, it was the install, a change in plan that was not approved or designed for, and trying to make up for it, by changing the tension of the tensioner on the end, which was when it fell down.

LibertyBelle:
In Orlando, the massive Interstate 4 construction project conducts its road closures during the night hours as much of the disruptive work takes place at that time.

While difficult for drivers at night with the frequent detours or lane closures, the workers perform their duties in simulated daylight.

When they were doing what they were doing, the road should have been closed, just in case, but they did not, and that was what happened. Not smart, especially when they knew something was wrong.