Talk:I-35W Mississippi River bridge/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

They have pulled a fifth body from the river. -71.210.170.121 13:08, 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 looked around more and I think you are right -- the 141,000 number is the most reliable. The Washington Post originally used the 200,000 figure (the Boston Globe has a copy of the original text) and the washingtonpost.com search engine, as of August 3, 2007, still shows a match for "200,000 vehicles a day". However, the text of the article on their web site now reads: "About 140,000 vehicles a day pass over the bridge, which connects two sides of Minneapolis, according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation."[14] -- Tsunado 15:30, 3 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[15] 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[16], 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 [17] 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 [18] and fire insurance map [19]), later a Superfund site turned into a parkway. Badsongninja 15:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

National Bridge Inventory information on the bridge located here [20] Badsongninja 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Army Corps of Engineers told KSTP[21] 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 [22] and drawing of bridge profile [23]. Badsongninja 03:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A profile of the locks here with depth [24], another reference puts the bridge at mile 853.2. The depth is difficult to pinpoint due to scale. Gage information here says a stage of 22+ feet at the upstream and downstream structures. [25] Badsongninja 23:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional bridge photos here [26] about midway down the page. A riverfront map showing the bridge locations here [27]. Badsongninja 23:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)