A great deal has been made (especially in the Twin Cities media, evidently) about how this bridge scored only 50 out of 100 points in the federal system for assessing the structural integrity of bridges. The implication is that a 50 score means that the bridge is structurally deficient and should not have been in use. This isn't really true -- thousand of bridges in the U.S. score in this range. The real issue apparently is the inspection process. Clearly, the inspectors missed a critical structural flaw in this bridge. It probably should have been rated far lower.