The Tacoma Bridge was built in 1940 and stretched a mile long making it the third largest bridge at the time. The engineers at the time considered the bridge to be safe even though it exceeded the standard ratios for length, depth and width. The bridge experienced heavy winds and began oscillating. These oscillations became so intense that the bridge began breaking and falling apart. After testing of what happened it was determined that the engineers hadn’t properly considered the aerodynamic forces during periods of heavy winds.
The most important moral consideration is the weather condition, since heavy winds are very common in the area. Second important moral consideration would be that the engineers considered the bridge safe even though the bridge exceeded the standard ratio of length, width and depth of other bridges at the time. The third important moral consideration would be that the engineers decided to make the bridge about a mile long. After speaking with my colleagues it was determined that a bridge of that size should not have been opened to the public before every precaution was taken. The first alternative course of action would be to take into consideration weather patterns in and around the area. Another would be to add additional supports to the bridge as a form of insurance that it wouldn’t collapse. A final course of action would have been to look for a more narrow section of the channel to build the bridge, therefore the bridge itself would be shorter and more stable. The best of these alternative courses of action would be to take into consideration weather patterns when constructing the bridge. This way the engineers would have known that with heavy winds, which are common in that area, the bridge would collapse.
Personally I would have been against building the bridge in the first place. Even though the bridge cuts down on travel time the government only agreed to give a fraction of the amount of money needed. This meant there needed to be a much cheaper way to make the bridge, which resulted in making the bridge out of lighter and thinner material. I would have been against this idea because when considering safety, cheaper isn’t better.