Talk:I-35W Mississippi River bridge/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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 [1] 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 [2] 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 [3]). 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 [4], "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 [5]. 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). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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)[6] 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? --wL<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 :) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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. --wL<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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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" ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC))
(Resetting indents) So how about Interstate 35W Bridge? --wL<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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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 --wL<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 [7], the cover page and many other mentions included the ampersand. Since a few people now want to loose it, I'll abide by consensus. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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)
Well, one of the reports said that the disclosure of the video to CNN was unauthorized, so it might not fall into the public domain if the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says it's classified, even if CNN did have a copy of it which they are now using for arguably commercial purposes.71.61.64.113 19:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I saw a source that said that after CNN got it, then the footage was given to other media. Canuckle 20:04, 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"[8]. 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

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"[9] 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)