Hacker News Reader

You read a different article than me:

> He warned the company that manages the bridge, Autostrade per l’Italia, or Highways for Italy, but he said that it never followed up on his recommendation to perform a fuller computer study and to outfit the bridge with permanent sensors.

> For reasons it has not fully explained, Autostrade, which took over management of the bridge in 1999, did not carry out the same operation on the supports of the other two towers — including the tower that collapsed.

> Autostrade won the concession to run nearly half of Italy’s highways from a cash-strapped Italian government, starting in 1999. After that, there were no major renovations of the Morandi bridge.

... etc ...

Why are they using the wrong name of the company? I think I missed it because I was looking for the Atlantia name. Looks like I did miss quite a few references that way!

Looks like Atlantia is a conglomerate that has a large controlling interest in Autostrade per l'Italia and similar businesses. Autostrade per l'Italia is still a business entity, so it seems appropriate to me for the article to refer to it.

http://www.atlantia.it/en/operations/italian-motorway-operat...

edit softened snarky language.

But why then treat Autostrade like a pr management entity?

"Autostrade, which handles media queries on behalf of the subcontractor, Spea Engineering, declined to comment."

I guess that's what bothers me a bit - is that there is a somewhat in depth investigation regarding the technical explanation, but a big shrug at hitting the wall on explanation of management failures, which IMHO should go all the way up thru the ownership conglomerate.

I don't read that sentence as saying that Autostrade are solely a PR company (and certainly the rest of the article makes clear that this is not the case), just that they are managing talking to the media for that subcontractor.

I feel like you formed a conclusion based on your incorrect knowledge of the name of the company. Now that's been corrected, and your error highlighted, you're doubling down rather than admitting you made a mistake.

That sentence stuck out when I read it, too, but the article makes it clear that Autostrade was not just a PR co.

That's not strictly the wrong name. Autostrade per l'Italia SpA manages the highways and is owned by Atlantia, which was formerly named Autostrade SpA.

I'm honestly and sincerely wondering if you read the same article.

"Autostrade won the concession to run nearly half of Italy’s highways from a cash-strapped Italian government, starting in 1999. After that, there were no major renovations of the Morandi bridge."

> of the road infrastructure here, bridge included, had been privatized

That's not correct. They're not privately owned: they're a sort of lease (I can't quite translate "concessione") because the government is still technically the one who onws it.

And for those other HN readers, there's also a public-owned company that handles roads, Anas, which is not doing well with regards to maintenance (this just to put into perspective that's not just a public vs private thing).

> (I can't quite translate "concessione")

I think in English it's "concession" :-) "The right to use land or other property for a specified purpose, granted by a government, company, or other controlling body"