Don wrote: "I don’t think the people are going to care one way or the other who maintains the bridges when it fails in an earthquake and they are isolated. All of the bridges on the State highway system can stay up, but that isn’t going to mean a thing to the people who are cut off by the collapse of their bridge."

Don, I think it will make a great deal of difference. Due to their being major arteries into and out of entire regions, the state and interstate freeways are absolutely vital. A few local bridges can fail, and numerous alternate routes can be found to carry the limited local traffic necessary. The same cannot be said generally for freeway overpasses and bridges. Think back over Northridge and Loma Prieta. I recall a great deal of coverage of the failure of one or two freeway overpasses, but absolutely none of any failures to local bridges. By way of example, during Loma Prieta, a bridge (not an overpass, IIRC) on Hwy 1, just north of the main turnoff to Watsonville was damaged sufficiently that it was briefly closed. Much was made at the time of the fact that, had the damage been just slightly greater (had the bridge shifted just a few inches further, so that it slipped off its supports), Santa Cruz would have had nearly all access from the south cut off. Only two major highways would have remained (Hwy 17 E/B and Hwy 1 N/B). Oh - and one of those, Hwy 17, was severely constricted due to a major landslide.

I certainly don't argue that the multitude of local bridges you mentioned aren't important, but, unfortunately, with great competition for limited financial resources, choices have to be made. At least in the case of the freeway systems, the right choices seem to have been made.

Mike Williams in Arroyo Grande