Talk:I-40 bridge disaster

Hindsight

Please don't take this as a challenge of the facts, I just think this section needs clarification. First of all, all the pictures of the bridge I've seen sure look like a single bridge to me. More information is needed to explain how this apparent single bridge is actually two bridges side-by-side. Second, is the statement that the bridges should have been farther apart a reflection of common practice (meaning the engineer in charge was negligent) or is it Tabletop's non-professional opinion (no offense, just want the facts)? Rsduhamel 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The photos on this page will give some insight on the bridge's construction: I-40 Arkansas River Bridge You can clearly see, from the photos, the manner in which the bridge is built. As originally constructed, the bridge was built as a pair of deck-girder spans sharing common piers, since it is not nessisary to have the lanes widely spaced, and for economy in not having to build extra piers. In reconstructing the collapsed portions, the side span of the continuous cantilever was rebuilt, while the three approach spans were rebuilt using the modern concrete stringer span techniques. If a repeat of the accident were to occur, the rebuilt portions would be just as likely to colapse as the original.-WK-139.78.96.76 (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

oklahoma bridge collapes on the 26 may 2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.227.183 (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Contributing factors

Should a section on Contributing factors be established.

I saw an article that this was a bridge without protective pilings on an operating waterway. if the bridge had those, the barge would likely have done little damage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.199.89 (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Memorials

The second paragraph of the "Memorials" section is confusing, because it says that the town marked the 15th anniversary without giving the date, in the park "with the memorial statue". This is apparently meant to say that "the park with the memorial statue" was where the anniversary was commemorated, but can also be seen as meaning they used the statue to mark the anniversary. The statue was dedicated a year after the accident, in 2003, if I understand correctly, but the anniversary would have been in 2017. I suggest including the reference to 2017 and/or modifying "with..." to "at the memorial statue".SvensKenR (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)