light rail in saudi arabia? don't forget to tell them there will be sand there, since they couldn't seem to figure out that there would be 5 mph winds in Minneapolis!

One thing this article makes clear is that obviously Minneapolis is not getting access to their best people. They send the "C" team because apparently we're not smart enough to know the difference. That's a reason NOT to hire them.

""The failure to calculate the impact of five to 10 mile per hour winds -- that's a significant failure. ... I do think their track record is one that should be taken into account moving forward," he said." ----- Non-engineers just need to stop making comments regarding this. People keep suggesting there was somehow a failure to account for wind loading. This couldn't be further from the truth. Based on what I've read in the preliminary report it appears there was an issue with cable harmonic vibration occurring at certain wind angles at certain speeds that caused a high number of fatigue cycles in the cable mounting plates. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with wind loading. We also don't yet even know what URS did to analyze cable vibration potential - that wasn't even discussed in the preliminary report and is still being investigated. I'm as interested as anyone, but it doesn't help when people publicly make conclusions based on no engineering knowledge and no ability to understand of exactly what the preliminary report said.

"Schiff said it is a "big concern" that Minneapolis received just two bids for the streetcar project. "The question is, how deep is the field for cities when seeking these types of services?" he said." The two companies that bid on the SW LRT project are rated as #1 (AECOM) and #2 (URS) design firms in the world according to Engineering News-Record. I don't think there was a lack of qulaified firms bidding. Why was URS chosen over AECOM? I'm sure somebody has a good reason.

Does no one remember the Tacoma Narrows bridge failure? I spoke with a mechanical engineer friend and asked about vibration damping, he assured me it was quite feasible. Why did they not plan for even 10 MPH winds?

What's not mentioned in the article and should have been is that the local URS office used to be a locally-owned firm, BRW, which URS bought a number of years ago. Many people in this area still think of them as BRW with a new name, and that helps them get a certain amount of work due to the provincialism around here. Other national and regional firms have had and continue to have a tough time getting local work because of that provincialism.

osprey65 - I agree that those not in the industry probably shouldn't go spouting off as if they are experts and drawing incorrect conclusions about the technical aspects of the bridge design. That said, minutia aside, the bridge failed within a few years of being built. At the end of the day, URS is holding the bag on this one.

"That said, minutia aside, the bridge failed within a few years of being built. At the end of the day, URS is holding the bag on this one." ------ Likely, but things are rarely that simple when it comes to large infrastructure. These projects involve many players. Did city/county inspectors fail to observe the vibrating cables? Did officials fail to act on reports of vibrating cables from citizens? The problem with this bridge type is it is difficult to predict how cables will react to wind. It's still not a perfectly accurate science. Often wind tunnel tests are used (but they are very expensive). I doubt this bridge was wind tunnel tested because it is an inexpensive bridge. It's likely the plan was to observe the bridge to determine if any vibration problems occurred and if so they would be remedied. A fix to prevent the cables vibrating would have been simple and fairly inexpensive to implement. It all comes down to how the contract was written. Everyone will just have to wait and see what the investigation concludes. Reporters love to jump to conclusions though based on the few sentences in the report they can understand that sound sensational to them - the entire context on the other hand tells a different story.

I would say that the URS that is here is not the same as BRW. Engineering firms have gone through so many changes in personnel in the last 10 years it's hard to keep the players straight. Key designers that worked for BRW may now work for Westwood, Barr, SEH, or Bonestroo. The lack of competition is however a result of both the economic times and the tendency of clients to not spread their business around. Preparing proposals is costly and time consuming, only very tiny firms or very large firms can support he overhead needed to prepare them and why bother if 70% of the communities dollars go to the came firm. It takes a very smart client to pick out the best proposal, having been on both sides of the table as a proposer and a client I can tell you the best match is often not made. Style often trumps substance even when the firm has failed to provide good service or accomplish the goals laid out in the past. There is a lot of poor project management that goes on resulting in costlier products that don't meet needs or are engineeringly deficient. That should be caught early by the clients review team, and every design signed off by a professional who knows what their reading. That also doesn't happen. I've often thought of providing independent management services for small communities to help them be more successful the larger communities have no excuse they should have someone on staff.

osprey65, the difference is that most structural engineers will design with a safety factor in mind, particularly something as important as a connector plate. Typically, such pieces are overdesigned because of unknown loadings, installation issues (such as over-torquing bolts) and hidden corrosion when you bolt 2 pieces of metal together. Seems like URS in this case design for ideal conditions, not real-world abuse.