🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CARASSO.94Jan24152839@Quaestor.Inference.COM> carasso@Inference.COM (dr. carasso) writes:
>
>baez@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez) writes:
>>
>>In fact, all but one of the collapsed overpasses was
>>scheduled to be fixed pretty soon.  Of course, it'd be nicer if they'd
>>ALREADY been fixed, but Caltrans had limited funds so they couldn't go
>>as fast as one might like.  
>
>I think this is bullshit.  I would *love* to see a map of the freeways
>that are reinforced and those that are "scheduled" to be.  I bet you
>could never get that information and make it public.  I believe that
>the city's freeways are pathetically covered against quakes.  In the

I don't think this is fair.  We just had a M6.6 earthquake in the
heart of an area that is densely populated & criss-crossed with
major freeways.  Think about how much _didn't_ collapse.  The 
engineering community has learned a phenomenal amount about overpasses
(in particular) from prior earthquakes, such as '71 San Fernando.
In general, they are a problematic design--lots of weight, resting
on intermittent supports, crossing regions of sometimes lousy site
conditions--and I think they have done remarkably well in recent
earthquakes.  During the 1992 Landers earthquake, the I-10/I-215
interchange recorded something like 0.1g at the base & over 1g on
accelerometers at the top of the structure, with no damage.  

Back to work...

Sue