Goose River Bridge

I wouldn't be so sure about GPS systems getting updated to show this road as closed.

I've been studying North Dakota bridges this weekend, and I'm finding a bunch of bridges that were removed and not replaced years ago. These continue to be shown as open by Google as well as the Census Bureau's TIGER dataset (the TIGER data is what powers the "What's Here" tool when editing bridges).

Rural areas just don't get a lot of attention for these things.

In north Iowa, minimum maintenance roads don't have houses or farms along them, so they don't get plowed in winter or graded in the spring, or at least not as a priority.

Even with insurance money, I don't see major money being spent to replace this bridge, they'll probably just close the road.

Same way Gilliece bridge was lost. A shame.

The GPS software will be updated now - for a closed road.

I don't know to what extent GPS has replaced oral or written directions for crews but I suppose it is the main source for routing these days.

I know too little about where GPS and mapping apps get their information. Any GIS pros able to comment on the possibility of incorporating limited load roads into navigation programs?

What's frustrating is that this driver somehow managed to find the only historic bridge on Goose River for a long distance in either direction.

What's also frustrating is that the next bridge upstream is a 1996 UCEB with no posted weight limit on a much better road.

What's also frustrating is that this bridge is located on a road clearly signed as a Minimum Maintenance Road (see Street View on the west end).

What's also frustrating is that this road is only 0.15 miles shorter than the upstream road, but that was apparently just enough to make a GPS device stupidly route the driver this way despite being a Minimum Maintenance Road.

What's also frustrating is that this road doesn't serve any houses or buildings, and carries very little traffic. But that probably won't stop local officials from spending megabucks on a replacement.

I wish it were so simple. It's a loss for the MOB company. You have to factor in either their satisfaction or opposition. If their workers are in a union there is another source of opposition. First part of the solution is listing stakeholders, necessary criteria, and constraints. It varies depending on the particular bridge but there are some that generally apply. The solution needs to be a win for everyone or it will have opposition.

I know from weighing at the elevator, my truck was always overweight. It was important to get the maximum amount carried on each trip to town. It's a business where once the harvest is ready you can't waste time. The stuff up north will be ready in another day or two and if you're not ready the rain may come. It's not a salary job--you only get paid if you cut an acre. The equipment is expensive, the notes come due regardless. I'm not justifying recklessness but there is a lot of pressure to move without delay. The truck drivers may be the youngest and least experienced workers.

A small improvement can be had by putting warning signs far enough out that there is a way to avoid getting into a situation that involves backing a truck. Permanent "truck route" signage would help.

This particular incident was pretty careless. The cutters and the farmer both lost and no doubt regret this as much as anyone.

The solution is easy. Take every situation where a Continental Bridge Company MOB bridge was originally planned to be used on a trail. Use a historic bridge instead. Build new bridge for trucks on highway. Done. Everyone is happy.

The win-win scenario is so obvious yet it is a constant fight to try to get it to happen.

As for the actual situation here, even if they are in a hurry to deliver goods, what sane person drives a truck of that size and thinks they can safely drive on a bridge like this? You shouldn't need to be an engineer to figure this out even if you don't know how to read (the weight limit sign).

This event highlights the problem faced by people hoping to preserve century old parts of our transportation infrastructure.

I drove a truck during wheat harvest many years ago. I understand the pressure to move from the field to the elevator with minimum delay. Add to this travel in unfamiliar territory, in my day guided by verbal directions and sketched maps, these days inadequate GPS routing.

Rural roads are there to serve the needs of local growers. Their property taxes pay for the upkeep of the roads and bridges. We can't insist that they pay for infrastructure that does not meet their needs.

This would make an interesting problem for a senior design class. Save the bridges in a way that meets with the approval of the local people paying the taxes for the roads.

it's about the beans.

Maybe there are a lot of vegans who read GQ.

Cowboys love 'em too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0Rm-Hl72tg

I can't decide if it's quippy or condescending...

I have a headache after reading the article.

The bridge has, to the befuddlement of many, made it to GQ

https://www.gq.com/story/powerful-beans-crush-bridge

Could be repaired if they are willing to take the insurance money and send the trusses to the right person like Nels up in Michigan.

The post states that the truck weighed 86,750 (I'd expect overweight without a permit anywhere, not just on this bridge, but I don't know the ND standards) on a bridge rated for 14 tons/28,000.

The citation was $11,400. That seems awfully low for causing close to $1M damage (based on replacement cost) by being over 3 times the allowed weight.

Unfortunately, this historic pony truss was destroyed by a trucker that tried to cross it with over 3 times the posted weight. The bridge is listed on the National Register.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/1432236683732819?view=permalin...