http://www.king5.com/news/local/Report-I-5-bridge-collapses-over-Skagit-River-cars-in-water-208758631.html
Quote
Washington State Patrol confirms an I-5 bridge over the Skagit River has collapsed and at least two cars with people inside are in the water.
picture at the link
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/i-5-skagit-river-bridge-collapses-people-vehicles-/nX2d5/
http://goo.gl/maps/Wt5u0
I just saw the same story over at KIRO-TV (CBS) channel 7. Wow! :(
I hate to be the guy whose immediate response to misfortune is to think about how it might advance a political agenda...
I hope nobody was killed...
...but come on, there's no good reason for us not to invest more in our infrastructure.
Just saw this on my local news as well. Crazy. At least not as many cars as the I-35W collapse, but still, this shouldn't be happening. Does anybody know if the bridge was under-construction like the I-35W one?
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on May 23, 2013, 11:04:13 PM
Just saw this on my local news as well. Crazy. At least not as many cars as the I-35W collapse, but still, this shouldn't be happening.
I traveled across it and thought it was under-designed for an interstate bridge, so I suspect it was a repurposed US 99 bridge
Quote from: Big John on May 23, 2013, 11:07:13 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on May 23, 2013, 11:04:13 PM
Just saw this on my local news as well. Crazy. At least not as many cars as the I-35W collapse, but still, this shouldn't be happening.
I traveled across it and thought it was under-designed for an interstate bridge, so I suspect it was a repurposed US 99 bridge
I believe the bridge was built in the 50s, slightly predating the interstate designation. And no, not under construction.
And not structurally deficient either.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 23, 2013, 11:16:03 PM
Quote from: Big John on May 23, 2013, 11:07:13 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on May 23, 2013, 11:04:13 PM
Just saw this on my local news as well. Crazy. At least not as many cars as the I-35W collapse, but still, this shouldn't be happening.
I traveled across it and thought it was under-designed for an interstate bridge, so I suspect it was a repurposed US 99 bridge
I believe the bridge was built in the 50s, slightly predating the interstate designation. And no, not under construction.
I heard on this live feed (http://www.kirotv.com/s/news/live-event/) about the bridge collapse that it was built in 1955.
Just saw this on MSNBC. Hope there are no deaths.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on May 23, 2013, 11:16:38 PM
And not structurally deficient either.
Some Tweets I'm getting are saying "functionally obsolete"...meanwhile KOMO 4 finally has a helicopter with live shots NOW.
I saw that term "functionally obsolete" being thrown around, and I'm curious, does that actually mean the same thing as "structurally deficient"?
Because a bridge can have four lanes of substandard width in a location that probably calls for six, be functionally obsolete, and still have the strength to stand for several decades.
Quote from: sp_redelectric on May 23, 2013, 11:22:47 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on May 23, 2013, 11:16:38 PM
And not structurally deficient either.
Some Tweets I'm getting are saying "functionally obsolete"...meanwhile KOMO 4 finally has a helicopter with live shots NOW.
Functionally obsolete doesn't mean it should be in imminent danger of collapse. It may merely mean a lack of shoulders (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=48.443309,-122.340446&spn=0.010946,0.01929&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=48.444948,-122.341055&panoid=EubYQJGsrxVE7AD6BtKK6Q&cbp=12,343.3,,0,9.91).
Looks like it was a steel truss. Anyone know if the structure was non-redundant, like the I-35W Bridge?
There does seem to be a detour route, looking at Google Maps along College Way, Riverside Dr/Burlington Blvd, and George Hopper Road. Was Riverside Dr/Burlington Blvd there former US-99?
Yes, 1955 per the non-functioning Nationalbridges.com:
(https://www.aaroads.com/west/washington005/i-005_nb_exit_229_01.jpg)
QuoteA 1955 steel through truss bridge carries Interstate 5 across the Skagit River. The four-lane freeway leaves Mount Vernon and enters Burlington.
More photos at Interstate 5 North: Skagit County (https://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=i0005nhwa) and Interstate 5 South: Skagit County (https://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=i0005sbwa)
Quote from: sp_redelectric on May 23, 2013, 11:22:47 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on May 23, 2013, 11:16:38 PM
And not structurally deficient either.
Some Tweets I'm getting are saying "functionally obsolete"...meanwhile KOMO 4 finally has a helicopter with live shots NOW.
Functionally obsolete means it can't smoothly handle current traffic loads or has geometric deficiencies such as narrow lanes or narrow/non-existent shoulders. I agree that the bridge had geometric shortcomings. And note that "structurally deficient" is more serious than "functionally obsolete" so if a bridge is both it is considered "structurally deficient", so that bridge had an acceptable structural rating.
Quote from: Brandon on May 23, 2013, 11:28:25 PM
Looks like it was a steel truss. Anyone know if the structure was non-redundant, like the I-35W Bridge?
Like almost all truss bridges, this was also non-redundant
Screen cap from KOMO-TV:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Fseattlecollapsei5KOMO_zps3a85ec80.jpg&hash=6dad51cbcdcd8fc7157966517d43abb2c511dbc5)
Yes, it had inadequate shoulders, and if space and money were available it would be nice if it were six lanes, but that's not supposed to mean it's in imminent danger of collapse.
We already didn't have enough money for the new Evergreen Point Bridge, the new Alaskan Way Viaduct, and the new I-5 bridge over the Columbia, so we can add this to the list of needed projects we can't afford.
Quote from: kkt on May 23, 2013, 11:41:07 PM
Yes, it had inadequate shoulders, and if space and money were available it would be nice if it were six lanes, but that's not supposed to mean it's in imminent danger of collapse.
The Functionally Obsolete label does not mean there is anything structurally wrong with the bridge, but makes it eligible to receive federal funds to modify or replace the bridge to bring it up to modern geometrical standards and to handle the design traffic counts. Note that eligibility doesn't necessarily mean they will receive the funds if requested.
Capped from KIRO-TV:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Fseattlecollapsei5KIRO_zps9f9afc34.jpg&hash=15176b1c9d39c459a7415790c618d8b6d4057e19)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Fseattlecollapsei5KIRO2_zps22be23be.jpg&hash=b814c9739e13819d40f41cbe5afacdeb671a65de)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Fseattlecollapsei5KIRO5_zps04a9edeb.jpg&hash=e1d0e6d6a0cb5995d29d05e8ccd4f9992525f857)
The bridge was originally built in 1953, as part of the PSH 1/US 99 Bypass of downtown Mt. Vernon and Burlington. The bridge is a non-redundant steel truss bridge. The bridge just passed an inspection, but was functionally obsolete, mainly because it was often jammed during holiday weekends, and was only 4 lanes without interior or exterior shoulders. From what I recall, it was to be replaced in the mid-2000s, but that plan was shelved when funding was lost due to I-695, and most road funding was moved into fixing dangerous roads, like SR 20, instead of updating infrastructure.
It is only a matter of time before something like this happens on other bridges in Washington, like the entire section of I-5 through Seattle, which is basically a continuous bridge for 10+ miles.
Is it fair to compare this collapse to the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, on August 1, 2007? As soon as I heard this story, that's the first thing which came to mind. :(
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 24, 2013, 12:08:16 AM
Is it fair to compare this collapse to the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, on August 1, 2007? As soon as I heard this story, that's the first thing which came to mind. :(
Unlike at I-35W, there was no increased loading from construction activities. Otherwise it was similar as in it was a fracture-critical bridge collapsing with as little as one element failing due to no redundancy.
KIRO-7 just said that a wide-load semi might have hit a girder that made it collapse per a witness who was on the bridge when it happened.
EDIT: Now a DOT representative is saying it's very possible that a over-height semi hit a girder causing the bridge to collapse.
Some folks on Amtrak Cascades are upset, BNSF has held traffic from crossing their nearby bridge for an inspection before they are clearing trains...there's a Vancouver, BC bound train stopped south of Mount Vernon right now.
And I did not mean to imply "functionally obsolete" to mean dangerous or unsafe...about 56,000 vehicles per day cross the bridge but definitely a major route between Seattle and Vancouver, the two largest metropolitan areas of the Pacific Northwest.
On the KILO-7 (http://www.kirotv.com/s/news/live-event/) feed, they are showing the truck that MIGHT have brought the bridge down.
EDIT: Here are pictures of said truck that might have taken down the bridge segment.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv645%2Frickmastfan67%2FInterstates%2FWA%2FBridgeCollapse_Truck1.png&hash=b2cb7a70c2aaeebc19db70f0ac2b844a8951c4a4)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv645%2Frickmastfan67%2FInterstates%2FWA%2FBridgeCollapse_Truck2.png&hash=6fa43b0d3db6d1edfed403ac78310aff76d77819)
According to KING-TV, local authorities are saying there are no known fatalities at the moment. No word on any injuries or severity, however.
From http://www.wsdot.com/traffic/trafficalerts/default.aspx?refnum=133585&action=2:
I-5 Both Directions - On I-5 northbound & southbound at Skagit River Bridge (MP 228) there is an incident blocking all lanes. The State Patrol has arrived on the scene.
Last Updated: 5/23/2013 7:20 PM
At milepost 228
:-D
If the remaining spans of the bridge are structurally stable, they'll probably install a pre-fab replacement span to keep the bridge usable, like the replacement of the Eggner's Ferry bridge span in Kentucky that collapsed after getting hit by a barge last year.
Back in August 2006 in Yakima, Wash area. A truck hauling a crane. Struck the first portal overhead beam. On northbound I-82 bridge over Naches River. WSDOT was able to do temporary fix. In the meantime a perment fix was not done until 2008.
In November 2005 another bridge strike with a crane occurred. At Lieser Road overcross on SR-14 in Vancouver, Wash. The fist two beams over the eastbound lanes were impacted. The rest of the overpass was not affected.
As well another overpass taken out along I-90 near Easton, Wash.
In both cases the crane was not properly secured. The cost of repairs was pickup by the trucking firm insurance company.
EDIT: It appears that Google Maps has -airbrushed out- the I-5 crossing at Skagit River for now.
Memorial Day Traffic between Seattle and Bellingham/Vancouver will be fun.
Quote from: bigpine320 on May 24, 2013, 02:54:58 AM
EDIT: It appears that Google Maps has -airbrushed out- the I-5 crossing at Skagit River for now.
It was changed to "planned", thus making it not render on the higher zooms.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpigHHgx.png&hash=cfa20f65b5fabb5b9d8f6d250c543e9db0a76a43)
When you zoom in, the planned road is all perforated in the new Google Maps interface.
Quote from: bigpine320 on May 24, 2013, 02:54:58 AM
Back in August 2006 in Yakima, Wash area. A truck hauling a crane. Struck the first portal overhead beam. On northbound I-82 bridge over Naches River. WSDOT was able to do temporary fix. In the meantime a perment fix was not done until 2008.
In November 2005 another bridge strike with a crane occurred. At Lieser Road overcross on SR-14 in Vancouver, Wash. The fist two beams over the eastbound lanes were impacted. The rest of the overpass was not affected.
As well another overpass taken out along I-90 near Easton, Wash.
In both cases the crane was not properly secured. The cost of repairs was pickup by the trucking firm insurance company.
EDIT: It appears that Google Maps has -airbrushed out- the I-5 crossing at Skagit River for now.
The Slater Road bridge near Ferndale, Wash., has been seriously damaged three times in separate incidents by trucks carrying oversize loads: 2002, a truck carrying an excavator. 2006, a truck carrying an unspecified large vessel. 2012, truck carrying an excavator.
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/12/03/2789273/county-slater-bridge-repair-to.html (http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/12/03/2789273/county-slater-bridge-repair-to.html)
Also on the Goog, it lets you route over it but says "This road will be temporarily closed starting on 24 May". Looks like a decent way of presenting the information (using the existing closure system), though it would be more useful to be able to calculate a detour.
Quote from: NE2 on May 24, 2013, 04:44:24 AM
Also on the Goog, it lets you route over it but says "This road will be temporarily closed starting on 24 May". Looks like a decent way of presenting the information (using the existing closure system), though it would be more useful to be able to calculate a detour.
For an interstate closure wouldn't it be reasonable to assume the detour will be clearly marked? The detours for Mount Vernon to Burlington aren't all that far out of the way.
Well, yes, but who knows. In a more general sense, it would be a nice feature.
I'll be up there in July and will have to drive that segment... I wonder what will be the least amount of traffic: 536-20, or even 534-9-Cook Road.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on May 24, 2013, 03:02:20 AM
Memorial Day Traffic between Seattle and Bellingham/Vancouver will be fun.
A saving grace is that at least a detour route can be very short using the parallel surface street bridge over the river. It may be far worse for local traffic than for I-5 traffic if there are few other viable alternatives for crossing the river nearby.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 24, 2013, 09:12:02 AM
I'll be up there in July and will have to drive that segment... I wonder what will be the least amount of traffic: 536-20, or even 534-9-Cook Road.
530-20 :bigass:
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 24, 2013, 09:12:02 AM
I'll be up there in July and will have to drive that segment... I wonder what will be the least amount of traffic: 536-20, or even 534-9-Cook Road.
Hard to say, esp. it's pretty early and they may decide to change the marked detour as they see how it affects traffic patterns. I'd also consider: exit I-5 at exit 221 - west on Fir Island Road - north on Brown Slough Road - turns into north on Best Road - turns into north on Farm To Market Road - turn east on Bow Hill Road - reenter I-5 at exit 236. This wouldn't be the fastest way, probably, but it should be a pleasant way going over pretty farm country and be outside the jammed marked detour routes.
I'll probably be through there this weekend.
Quote from: NE2 on May 24, 2013, 11:34:16 AM
530-20 :bigass:
might end up being the case! 530-20-9-542, even. we're not averse to some scenery. :evenbiggerass:
In urban and high-travelled, congested areas, nearly every bridge and overpass is functionally obsolete. Unfortunately, too many people confuse the term with "Well, duh, of course it was going to collapse...just look at it...I drive over it every day knowing that I could be the next victim".
As for detour routes, the nearby bridges may be the shortest but not the best route, especially if capacity is already an issue on that nearby bridge. Warnings need to be broadcasted well in advance to spread the traffic out to several routes.
Looks like it was an Alberta-based trucker hauling a large steel casing for an oil drilling rig.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Washington+State+Patrol+chief+says+bridge+collapse+caused+truck/8430406/story.html
One story I read mentioned this: "The bridge was 1,112 feet long and 180 feet wide, with two lanes in each direction, Brady said. There are four spans, or sections, over the water supported by piers. The span on the north side is the one that collapsed..."
Now, I know reporters tend to get their facts screwed up, and probably aren't the smartest tools in the shed, but at 180 feet wide, two lanes in each direction would amount to 45 foot wide lanes.
Reading one of the articles, this struck me as interesting:
QuoteThe semi-truck ahead on the far right seemed too wide for the bridge span, and Sligh told his wife so.
"We started slowing down, and about that same time another semi-truck came up on the left side," he told KIRO 7. "It almost looked like he pinned that truck over to where he couldn't swerve."
Did another truck try to pass the oversized load on the bridge?
Quote from: dmuzika on May 24, 2013, 12:58:34 PM
Looks like it was an Alberta-based trucker hauling a large steel casing for an oil drilling rig.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Washington+State+Patrol+chief+says+bridge+collapse+caused+truck/8430406/story.html
Hughie Rowland perhaps?
Detour route map from Washington State DOT web site:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Construction/PugetSound/detourmap.htm
Just another example of a stupid careless truck driver not measuring his load and/or not paying attention to clearances. How hard of a concept is it to measure your load?
Just think about how much damage and how much motorist inconvenience is caused yearly by clearance accidents.
To avoid clearance accidents, I think the law should be changed to require truckers hauling a load on a flat bed trailer to measure the load before transporting it, and write down the height on a doccumet that would be legally required to carry. Police officers would then check these doccuments at weight stations, checkpoints and during traffic stops (for other violations) if they suspect the number isn't accurate or to just do spot checks.
Truck drivers are required to check a multitude of things before they drive each morning. It's silly that they have to check their oil but not their clearance.
I think this simple change would dramatically reduce clearance accidents by making load measurement mandatory. Log books are mandatory, checked by law enforcement, and guess what, truckers fill them out whether they want to or not because of the fear of penalty.
I do also think the DOT was foolish to constructed a bridge that could be brought down by such a simple and forseeable accident.
I don't think trucks were that big in 1955. "Forseeable" might be a stretch.
Quote from: vtk on May 24, 2013, 08:09:19 PM
I don't think trucks were that big in 1955. "Forseeable" might be a stretch.
Correct - trucks of the era were much smaller and shorter than today. Also, in the 1950s, a load that size would have been handled by rail, not truck. I'm also pretty sure that, when the bridge was designed and initially constructed, the DOT didn't envision it being used for an Interstate freeway.
Lastly, until the NTSB report is released, we cannot rule out a sudden vertical load shift (say due to expansion joint or uneven pavement) that caused the top of the load to hit the truss.
Quote from: roadman on May 24, 2013, 08:18:13 PM
Lastly, until the NTSB report is released, we cannot rule out a sudden vertical load shift (say due to expansion joint or uneven pavement) that caused the top of the load to hit the truss.
Given that the truss clearance is presumably uniform throughout the structure, the fact that no collision occurred until the end of the bridge implies that something must have shifted somehow.
Still, there are possibilities other than the load itself jumping due to a bump. If the last span was more deteriorated than the others it may have sagged more under the weight of the load, which also could have caused the collision. Or another truck could have passed in the opposite direction at the same time on that span, which would also increase the deformation.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BLDYukoCYAAS_lp.jpg)
Quote from: Duke87 on May 24, 2013, 08:31:44 PMGiven that the truss clearance is presumably uniform throughout the structure, the fact that no collision occurred until the end of the bridge implies that something must have shifted somehow.
The truck was headed southbound, so the collision happened at the beginning of the bridge.
Quote from: roadman on May 24, 2013, 08:18:13 PM
I'm also pretty sure that, when the bridge was designed and initially constructed, the DOT didn't envision it being used for an Interstate freeway.
I would assume that it was in fact planned to be part of I-5 from the beginning. I can't imagine them building a bridge in the 50s (when the interstate was definitely being envisioned) and then planning to build a another one as part of the freeway less then a decade later.
Quote from: Brian556 on May 24, 2013, 06:55:51 PM
Just another example of a stupid careless truck driver not measuring his load and/or not paying attention to clearances. How hard of a concept is it to measure your load?
Just think about how much damage and how much motorist inconvenience is caused yearly by clearance accidents.
To avoid clearance accidents, I think the law should be changed to require truckers hauling a load on a flat bed trailer to measure the load before transporting it, and write down the height on a doccumet that would be legally required to carry. Police officers would then check these doccuments at weight stations, checkpoints and during traffic stops (for other violations) if they suspect the number isn't accurate or to just do spot checks.
Truck drivers are required to check a multitude of things before they drive each morning. It's silly that they have to check their oil but not their clearance.
I think this simple change would dramatically reduce clearance accidents by making load measurement mandatory. Log books are mandatory, checked by law enforcement, and guess what, truckers fill them out whether they want to or not because of the fear of penalty.
.
Of course, we all know that truckers' log books are paragons of honesty, right? :happy: (There's a reason why the log books are nicknamed "lie sheets" or "comic books.") :nod:
With any luck at all the trucking company will pay for the bridge replacement but I have a feeling at least some of the money will come out of taxpayers' pockets. :angry:
They should make Canada pay for it- the load being transported was primarily going to benefit the Canadian economy anyway
My sense from reading the various articles is that the problem wasn't so much an overheight load as an overwide load. The company had the proper permits and scouted the location ahead of time, but when the time came, the driver should have taken both lanes and didn't. (I believe the damage to the trailer was only at the top corner, not across the entire top.)
Again, I don't know for sure if this is true, but it's what an eyewitness account seemed to imply. And if so, it seems the driver knew the size of his load. He just still managed to make a horrendous error.
Quote from: corco on May 24, 2013, 09:17:13 PM
They should make Canada pay for it- the load being transported was primarily going to benefit the Canadian economy anyway
Are you certain of that? The load was headed to Vancouver, Washington. No idea why they needed a Canadian company to bring a Canadian drill to whatever they're working on down there, but I'm sure whatever it is would benefit the US economy as well.
Quote from: corco on May 24, 2013, 09:17:13 PM
They should make Canada pay for it- the load being transported was primarily going to benefit the Canadian economy anyway
It was going to Vancouver, Washington from a Canadian origin. Anyway, if it benefits the Canadian economy, it also benefits the US economy and vice versa.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 24, 2013, 09:19:54 PM
My sense from reading the various articles is that the problem wasn't so much an overheight load as an overwide load. The company had the proper permits and scouted the location ahead of time, but when the time came, the driver should have taken both lanes and didn't. (I believe the damage to the trailer was only at the top corner, not across the entire top.)
Again, I don't know for sure if this is true, but it's what an eyewitness account seemed to imply. And if so, it seems the driver knew the size of his load. He just still managed to make a horrendous error.
One of the witnesses seems to have said that another truck was trying to pass the overwide load on the bridge:
QuoteIt was shortly after 7 p.m. when Dan Sligh and his wife Sally were near the Interstate 5 bridge over the Skagit River. The semi-truck ahead on the far right seemed too wide for the bridge span, and Sligh told his wife so.
"We started slowing down, and about that same time another semi-truck came up on the left side," he told KIRO 7. "It almost looked like he pinned that truck over to where he couldn't swerve."
If another truck attempted a passing maneuver on the bridge, that might explain why all the precautions they took failed.
Indeed, that's the eyewitness account I was referring to. Thanks for finding and posting it. (I'm pretty sure the driver that struck the bridge is still entirely at fault here, as he should have moved to the left and taken both lanes -- blocking the other truck from passing him -- before it became an issue. But the other semi driver, if he was at all familiar with the road, should have known better. I barely feel comfortable passing anyone, especially trucks, on that bridge, and any car I've driven has been fairly small.)
Quote from: roadman on May 24, 2013, 08:18:13 PM
I'm also pretty sure that, when the bridge was designed and initially constructed, the DOT didn't envision it being used for an Interstate freeway.
Why do you say that? I-5 was original interstate. Seems to me any bridge built in the mid-50s for US-99 would be expected to be part of I-5.
Quote from: Brandon on May 25, 2013, 12:28:32 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 24, 2013, 09:19:54 PM
My sense from reading the various articles is that the problem wasn't so much an overheight load as an overwide load. The company had the proper permits and scouted the location ahead of time, but when the time came, the driver should have taken both lanes and didn't. (I believe the damage to the trailer was only at the top corner, not across the entire top.)
Again, I don't know for sure if this is true, but it's what an eyewitness account seemed to imply. And if so, it seems the driver knew the size of his load. He just still managed to make a horrendous error.
One of the witnesses seems to have said that another truck was trying to pass the overwide load on the bridge:
QuoteIt was shortly after 7 p.m. when Dan Sligh and his wife Sally were near the Interstate 5 bridge over the Skagit River. The semi-truck ahead on the far right seemed too wide for the bridge span, and Sligh told his wife so.
"We started slowing down, and about that same time another semi-truck came up on the left side, he told KIRO 7. "It almost looked like he pinned that truck over to where he couldn't swerve.
If another truck attempted a passing maneuver on the bridge, that might explain why all the precautions they took failed.
Well, except for the absolute basic precaution - slow down until the other truck passed.
But like in every movie I see, rather than slow down, speed up. It makes for a much better crash/jump/fireball scene.
Quote from: kkt on May 25, 2013, 12:51:09 AMWhy do you say that? I-5 was original interstate. Seems to me any bridge built in the mid-50s for US-99 would be expected to be part of I-5.
My interpretation: we have had Interstate standards since the mid-1940's, but in the early to mid-1950's they were significantly less detailed and demanding than they became by 1965, and in the absence of a specific funding program category for Interstates, there was no way to enforce them.
My expectation is that this accident will force WSDOT to reconsider its laissez-faire approach toward routing overdimensional vehicles. There are other through-truss river crossings on Washington I-5 where this particular accident would have been even more disruptive, such as the Toutle River crossing. In the long term it makes sense to replace most of these bridges with, say, post-tensioned segmental concrete bridges--but these have their own issues (including the possibility of collapse due to tendon corrosion; grouting those tendon ducts is a black art), and in any case it makes no economic sense to scrap through-truss bridges solely because they cannot accommodate overdimensional loads.
Let's declare war on the Canucks and steal all their Cold Air.
We have enough cold air already. Don't see where the Canada hate is coming from though. Just make the oversize truck and the one passing him both pay, out of pocket, personally (if their funds are insufficient, which they almost certainly are, simply deduct it from their paychecks until the bridge is payed off).
Point of order: It's established that this could have been prevented had the truck driver been in the left lane, etc etc.
However, according to the ABC News article (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/bridge-collapses-nw-wash-people-water-19246261#.UaE0WqKbMxB),
Quote from: ABC NewsState officials approved the trucking company to carry a load as high as 15 feet, 9 inches, according to the permit released by the state. However, the southbound vertical clearance on the Skagit River bridge is as little as 14 feet, 9 inches, state records show. The bridge's curved overhead girders are higher in the center of the bridge but sweep lower toward a driver's right side.
The bridge has a maximum clearance of about 17 feet, but there is no signage to indicate how to safely navigate the bridge with a tall load.
The permit specifically describes the route the truck would take, though it includes a qualification that the state "Does Not Guarantee Height Clearance.
...
Officials performed a special inspection six months ago of the bridge that collapsed because there were indications it had been struck by a different vehicle.
A report released Friday says the checkup was done due to "impact damage," and inspectors identified tears, deformations and gouges on the northbound side of the bridge. The report also summarizes a variety of parts on the bridge that have been subjected to "high-load" hits.
...
There are no signs leading up to the Skagit River bridge to warn about its clearance height. State Transportation Secretary Lynn Peterson said that under federal and state standards, the clearance is tall enough to not require signage.
In other words, the bridge has been hit before, there are no clearance warning signs for the bridge (because it's technically high enough), and WSDOT approved the route but does not guarantee clearance, there are no guidance signs for tall loads (overheight vehicle use left lane, perhaps).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2013, 08:13:02 AM
Well, except for the absolute basic precaution - slow down until the other truck passed.
But like in every movie I see, rather than slow down, speed up. It makes for a much better crash/jump/fireball scene.
trucks don't slow down.
per standard truck driver doctrine, the overwide load should have merged left, colliding with the other truck.
given "move over" or "slow down", trucks will take "move over" every time.
So, a perfect storm of various people saying "good enough", "not my concern", etcetera...
Quote from: vdeane on May 25, 2013, 01:48:22 PMDon't see where the Canada hate is coming from though.
Mercantilism is deeply ingrained in the American psyche.
QuoteJust make the oversize truck and the one passing him both pay, out of pocket, personally (if their funds are insufficient, which they almost certainly are, simply deduct it from their paychecks until the bridge is paid off).
The actual cost of the damage will be covered by an insurance company that has contracted to cover the risk--probably the insurer of the company that handles overdimensional loads. What the insurance company will not have to pay, because WSDOT is not legally entitled to bill for it, is the time lost and inconvenience experienced by other drivers who have to deal with the detour routes, which in combination do not have enough capacity to handle the traffic diverted off I-5 at anything approximating a reasonable level of service. Compensation for this (if it happens at all) will likely be handled through an award for punitive damages.
I don't agree that making the liability personal to the driver would have any perceptible effect on clearance-related accidents, for two reasons. First, there is no
mens rea (intent to do ill) involved. Second, a major bridge collapse such as this is a lightning-strike eventuality and individual humans in general are very poor at planning against such even when the consequences are all but fatal (if not to life, then to future career development and financial health). Instead, I believe society gets a much better return from measures which prevent inappropriate overdimensional loads from being routed over through-truss bridges such as this. In this incident, the truck was on a routing which had already been agreed with WSDOT and the agreement should have included a stipulation as to the lane to be used when crossing this bridge.
Quote from: vtk on May 25, 2013, 06:12:53 PMSo, a perfect storm of various people saying "good enough", "not my concern", etcetera...
This is how you get the holes in the Swiss cheese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model) to line up.
Quote from: vdeane on May 25, 2013, 01:48:22 PM
We have enough cold air already. Don't see where the Canada hate is coming from though. Just make the oversize truck and the one passing him both pay, out of pocket, personally (if their funds are insufficient, which they almost certainly are, simply deduct it from their paychecks until the bridge is payed off).
So a passing truck, that had nothing to do with the accident, and in a legal lane, is supposed to be a responsible party? How'd you feel if you were driving along, and suddenly a week later a cop shows up and says "Yeah, a truck was in the right lane. You passed him in the left lane. Oh, his oversized load hit a bridge. Here's your $7,500,000 bill."
Quote from: ShawnP on May 25, 2013, 11:38:59 AM
Let's declare war on the Canucks...
The Canucks have already been dealt with. The Sharks took care of that! :spin:
Quote from: vtk on May 23, 2013, 10:58:08 PM
...but come on, there's no good reason for us not to invest more in our infrastructure.
This is the only way we get the rank-and-file citizenry to care about stuff like this. When a DOT wants to replace a standing bridge that people use every day without incident, people say it's being done to unjustly enrich construction companies with taxpayer money. When the bridge falls down and the detour is a pain in the rear to deal with, THEN people demand that the contract be let five minutes after the crumpled steel hits the water.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 24, 2013, 09:12:02 AMI'll be up there in July and will have to drive that segment... I wonder what will be the least amount of traffic: 536-20, or even 534-9-Cook Road.
If you're coming all the way from San Diego, and have no reason to be in the immediate area of Mount Vernon, I'd consider a wider detour, something like U.S. 101 at Olympia to SR 20, using the Port Townsend - Coupeville Ferry, and then to I-5 at Burlington; or SR 16 at Tacoma over the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, then SR 3, SR 104 over Hood Canal, SR 19, SR 20 to Burlington... Or, U.S. 97 from Weed, through Central Oregon and Central Washington. Either gives you some scenic alternatives, and also allows you to bypass Seattle (and if U.S. 97, bypass Portland as well).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2013, 10:56:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 25, 2013, 01:48:22 PM
We have enough cold air already. Don't see where the Canada hate is coming from though. Just make the oversize truck and the one passing him both pay, out of pocket, personally (if their funds are insufficient, which they almost certainly are, simply deduct it from their paychecks until the bridge is payed off).
So a passing truck, that had nothing to do with the accident, and in a legal lane, is supposed to be a responsible party? How'd you feel if you were driving along, and suddenly a week later a cop shows up and says "Yeah, a truck was in the right lane. You passed him in the left lane. Oh, his oversized load hit a bridge. Here's your $7,500,000 bill."
There's also courtesy, which seems to be lacking on the road, even from truck drivers. Courtesy would've demanded that the one truck driver wait for the oversized load to finish getting through a narrow area before passing him. I would've waited and shadowed the oversized load in the left lane (even in my small car) to ensure he got through safely.
Was the truck oversized in width or only height?
When the oversize load permit is issued, does the permitting agency review the size the load will be and whether it will fit in all (or any) lanes on every structure on the proposed route? Does how thorough the permit review is vary by state?
Is it typical for one bridge hit to knock down a whole span? I've seen bridges after they were hit and of course the youtube videos of bridge hits, and typically they leave the truck or trailer a wreck and may leave wreckage on the road for the next vehicles to run into, but don't collapse the whole bridge. If we added "low bridge" warnings with a beam at the height of the bridge in front over every bridge that would be collapsed by a bridge hit, how many bridges would that be? A few? Half?
"Fracture critical" is the term for a one-shot-one-kill bridge. I'm not sure if there's a way to search for them (other than downloading the database), but http://saveourbridges.com/basics.html says there are 18000.
Quote from: kkt on May 26, 2013, 10:08:28 AMWhen the oversize load permit is issued, does the permitting agency review the size the load will be and whether it will fit in all (or any) lanes on every structure on the proposed route? Does how thorough the permit review is vary by state?
I don't know the answer to these questions, but I imagine these issues will be gone into very thoroughly in the NTSB investigation.
QuoteIs it typical for one bridge hit to knock down a whole span?
No. The typical scenario is that overheight loads strike at the soffit, forcing replacement of one or more girders (if steel beams or precast concrete girders are used) or repair of closed concrete box sections. Here in Wichita we have had bridge strike incidents at the 25th Street and Seneca bridges over I-235, both of which are concrete box girder bridges (repairs were subsequently done by contract, at least at 25th Street), and also at the US 54/Kellogg Avenue bridge over Seneca, which ruptured one or two of the precast concrete girders (repairs had to be done on an emergency basis, with closure of the lane immediately above the affected girders lasting for about a month). Wichita has multiple bridges over waterways, but none of them is open to navigation by craft heavy enough to generate the impact loads that would threaten the piers or superstructure of a typical river crossing. This is the usual failure-in-service scenario for a river crossing (cf. I-40 Webbers Falls bridge in Oklahoma).
QuoteIf we added "low bridge" warnings with a beam at the height of the bridge in front over every bridge that would be collapsed by a bridge hit, how many bridges would that be? A few? Half?
I think it would be "a few" and not anything approaching "half" since some fairly restrictive conditions would have to be met: the bridge would have to be both statically determinate (meaning that removal of one structural element, such as a pier or deck segment, deprives the bridge of the ability to carry its own deadweight) and fracture-critical.
Quote from: NE2 on May 26, 2013, 11:03:46 AM"Fracture critical" is the term for a one-shot-one-kill bridge. I'm not sure if there's a way to search for them (other than downloading the database), but http://saveourbridges.com/basics.html says there are 18000.
The proportion for which special preventative measures could be justified is quite small--probably less than 1% of the total. That count will include deck truss bridges (like the old I-35W bridge in Minneapolis), which are not vulnerable to strikes from road vehicles unless they happen to cross roads with low clearances. Also, any rational scheme for prioritization of such measures has to take into account the potential consequences to traffic of a bridge failure, which are likely to be fairly limited in metro areas where there are redundant crossings, each with the spare capacity to absorb the traffic carried by a failed bridge.
There are some states with no bridges for which special treatment would be necessary. Kansas, for example, does not have any through-truss bridges on its freeway network. Nebraska has the I-680 bridge over the Missouri, but it is backed up by the I-80 and I-480 bridges, neither of which is a through-truss design.
On the other hand, there are states with multiple through-truss bridges for which an incident similar to the Skagit collapse would be a major concern. Missouri has the I-70 through-truss bridge across the Missouri River near Boonville (no convenient freeway-standard detour), and Washington state has at least two that I know about--the Skagit crossing itself and the Toutle River crossing south of Olympia.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2013, 10:56:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 25, 2013, 01:48:22 PM
We have enough cold air already. Don't see where the Canada hate is coming from though. Just make the oversize truck and the one passing him both pay, out of pocket, personally (if their funds are insufficient, which they almost certainly are, simply deduct it from their paychecks until the bridge is payed off).
So a passing truck, that had nothing to do with the accident, and in a legal lane, is supposed to be a responsible party? How'd you feel if you were driving along, and suddenly a week later a cop shows up and says "Yeah, a truck was in the right lane. You passed him in the left lane. Oh, his oversized load hit a bridge. Here's your $7,500,000 bill."
1. Trucks probably travel the road often enough to know that a low bridge is coming
2. From my observation, it takes a LOT longer for a truck to pass a truck than for a car to pass a truck. A car can pass a truck in 1/4 mile. I've seen trucks that will spend FIVE miles in their passing maneuvers.
Quote from: broadhurst04 on May 25, 2013, 11:50:56 PM
This is the only way we get the rank-and-file citizenry to care about stuff like this. When a DOT wants to replace a standing bridge that people use every day without incident, people say it's being done to unjustly enrich construction companies with taxpayer money.
Actually the citizens of this state want projects like this completed, but the party in power for over a quarter of a century rather spend transportation dollars on silly HOV/transit projects in the Seattle area and on things like public art.
The problem isn't a lack of funds or a lack of will, it is a lack of leadership properly allocating resources.
Whoa. It took four pages for someone to blame transit.
Quote from: NE2 on May 26, 2013, 02:07:40 PM
Whoa. It took four pages for someone to blame transit.
Where? I blamed the one party that has been in power in this state for over a quarter of a century who has been massively misallocating transportation dollars. The HOV/transit left lane ingress/egress has been a massive waste of money and is a stupid design. Those slow buses should be in the right lanes. Requiring projects to spend money on public art is another massive misallocation of transportation resources.
yawn
Quote from: NE2 on May 26, 2013, 02:43:02 PM
yawn
^ Why bother posting in this thread? The above post was most unnecessary. No need to be a troll. You don't live here, you probably do not know what is going on here.
"Yawn" is shorthand for "My opinion is totally contrary to the reality of the situation, therefore I'd rather not look like the ignorant pinhead that I am by defending it."
By volume of water flowing under the bridge, I believe the Skagit River crossing is the 4th or 5th largest crossing by I-5. The Vancouver-Portland Columbia crossing is by far the largest followed by the Willamette in Portland, Willamette in Wilsonville, and possibly the Sacramento R. near the airport in Sacramento.
Quote from: vdeane on May 26, 2013, 12:16:26 PM
2. From my observation, it takes a LOT longer for a truck to pass a truck than for a car to pass a truck. A car can pass a truck in 1/4 mile. I've seen trucks that will spend FIVE miles in their passing maneuvers.
my record is at least 48 miles. I-5 southbound starting at Firebaugh or so; and the pass was already started when I got on the freeway. one truck going 56, the other 56 + epsilon. pure Hell.
What I'm getting really tired of are all of the Portland news outlets calling on this bridge failure (caused by an impact) to somehow have an impact on the Interstate Bridge (a.k.a. the "Columbia River Crossing project") situation. Oregon has approved funding; but the Washington Legislature is not too happy about the project including light rail from Portland into Vancouver, and many Vancouver/Clark County residents also oppose a light rail extension into their town. Yet, others are demanding it and insist that without light rail, they will refuse to support any type of replacement bridge.
In reality they are two very different situations...the Skagit River bridge is "functionally obsolete" and was earmarked for replacement but funding was never found - the bridge was otherwise perfectly safe and not subject to congestion or other concerns. Of course now, it needs replaced - urgently. The Interstate Bridge is "structurally deficient" as it sits on wood pilings that are failing; the lift towers would likely fail in an earthquake; the bridge is also "functionally obsolete" as it is periennally jammed at rush hour (and often not at rush hour), has no shoulders of any kind, and is the only traffic signal on mainline Interstate 5 between Canada and Mexico owing to the lift span that lifts several times a day. About the only things common: They're both bridges, and they're both on I-5. (And both of them are located in Washington state.) That's it.
Quote from: Landshark on May 26, 2013, 03:59:17 PM
You don't live here, you probably do not know what is going on here.
I live here, and you're wrong. Seattle area freeways are packed to the gills during rush hours. There is no space to widen existing freeways or build new ones, so transit and encouraging carpooling has to be the answer. Left-side HOV entrances and exits have their flaws, but they also have their benefits. Putting an HOV lane on the right side has little to no benefit, as then HOV traffic has to compete with exiting/entering GP traffic. By putting ramps on the left side, you make the freeway safer, as now HOV traffic doesn't have to cross four lanes to exit.
And transit is critically underfunded as well. It's not like the bridge fell down because they decided to build the light rail out of gold instead.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 26, 2013, 10:30:30 PMLeft-side HOV entrances and exits have their flaws, but they also have their benefits.
there has to be a solution for not having the bus piddle along in the carpool lane doing 49 in a 65.
I really don't think this thread is the right place for a borderline-political discussion about HOV, transit, the pros and cons thereof, and related funding allocation tradeoffs.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 26, 2013, 10:30:30 PM
Quote from: Landshark on May 26, 2013, 03:59:17 PM
You don't live here, you probably do not know what is going on here.
I live here, and you're wrong. Seattle area freeways are packed to the gills during rush hours. There is no space to widen existing freeways or build new ones, so transit and encouraging carpooling has to be the answer. Left-side HOV entrances and exits have their flaws, but they also have their benefits. Putting an HOV lane on the right side has little to no benefit, as then HOV traffic has to compete with exiting/entering GP traffic.
- There is room to add lanes. The valley freeway for example. Prioritizing its widening & extension could remove trucks from the Southcenter Hill. That would have been a better investment than the HOV flyovers at the bottom of the hill.
- Left lane HOV/transit lanes slow the flow, and force slow buses to cross over multiple lanes to exit, further congesting the freeway. A solution would be to only have HOV lanes during peak travel times and making them general purpose other times to cut down on congestion.
Quote- By putting ramps on the left side, you make the freeway safer, as now HOV traffic doesn't have to cross four lanes to exit.
But they do have to exit to the right most often.
QuoteAnd transit is critically underfunded as well.
Not in Washington. We do not have underfunded transit. You would be angry if you found out how subsidy per passenger it costs to ride Sounder. It's an insane misallocation of resources.
QuoteIt's not like the bridge fell down because they decided to build the light rail out of gold instead.
The bridge wasn't replaced because the people in charge of this state think it is more important to spend large sums of money on public art and to over pay construction workers outside of the Puget Sound area in a payoff to the unions folks that help line their election coffers. Some people in charge are hostile to the whole entire concept of automobiles. WSDOT needs change, and it can only happen if people in this state finally dump the 29+ year one party rule.
Quote from: vtk on May 26, 2013, 10:44:24 PM
I really don't think this thread is the right place for a borderline-political discussion about HOV, transit, the pros and cons thereof, and related funding allocation tradeoffs.
Then blame the people throwing out the "not enough funding" canard. There is enough revenues, it is just not spent wisely. We can either have safe bridges and an effective road system or public art, prevailing wages, and expensive HOV/transit projects with negligible benefits.
Quote from: Landshark on May 26, 2013, 10:56:41 PMNot in Washington. We do not have underfunded transit. You would be angry if you found out how subsidy per passenger it costs to ride Sounder. It's an insane misallocation of resources.
Bullshit. Pretty sure every transit agency in the region has had massive service cuts in the past couple of years due to lack of funding. Sound Transit may be an exception, I'm not sure, but King County has multiple times -- and I just saw a poster last time I was down there that they may have to again -- Community Transit no longer has service on Sundays, Whatcom was in the same boat until Bellingham voted for a sales tax hike after the same measure failed county-wide the year before.
I could argue your other attempts to refute me, but I can tell pretty quickly when I'm not going to get through to someone. Plus, like vtk said, this isn't the place. It's just that one point that made me swear.
Quote from: Landshark on May 26, 2013, 10:59:38 PMThen blame the people throwing out the "not enough funding" canard. There is enough revenues, it is just not spent wisely. We can either have safe bridges and an effective road system or public art, prevailing wages, and expensive HOV/transit projects with negligible benefits.
Are you an APU veteran, by any chance?
While I do think that WSDOT doesn't spend its money the greatest (The expensive-ass 2-lane Alaskan Way tunnel replacement, the expensive-ass Columbia River Crossing proposal, etc.), I think it's silly to blame party politics. I agree with why WSDOT wants to do, but not what they're proposing to replace the existing structures.
And there's the union blaming...
Ok, let's cool it with the political sidetracking and get back to our bridge at hand, please.
Ummm...all this politicking is essentially a moot point, anyways...because if the Feds act anything like they acted with the I-35W and I-10 Twin Spans disasters, the Skagit River Bridge will be rebuilt at warp speed with 100% Federal funding. The people of Washington and Oregon will insure that after the first week of gridlock and delays.
Quote from: vdeane on May 26, 2013, 12:16:26 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2013, 10:56:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 25, 2013, 01:48:22 PM
We have enough cold air already. Don't see where the Canada hate is coming from though. Just make the oversize truck and the one passing him both pay, out of pocket, personally (if their funds are insufficient, which they almost certainly are, simply deduct it from their paychecks until the bridge is payed off).
So a passing truck, that had nothing to do with the accident, and in a legal lane, is supposed to be a responsible party? How'd you feel if you were driving along, and suddenly a week later a cop shows up and says "Yeah, a truck was in the right lane. You passed him in the left lane. Oh, his oversized load hit a bridge. Here's your $7,500,000 bill."
1. Trucks probably travel the road often enough to know that a low bridge is coming
2. From my observation, it takes a LOT longer for a truck to pass a truck than for a car to pass a truck. A car can pass a truck in 1/4 mile. I've seen trucks that will spend FIVE miles in their passing maneuvers.
Well, that kinda depends on how fast the vehicles are moving. Most people can pass a truck in just a few seconds. Then some people enjoy the shade the truck provides when the sun is at a low angle, and will stay next to that truck for a bit of time. And some truckers could care less what speed they're going, so they'll pass going 80 mph.
I've also seen trucks pass cars too. Maybe others have as well.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 27, 2013, 05:23:33 AM
Ummm...all this politicking is essentially a moot point, anyways...because if the Feds act anything like they acted with the I-35W and I-10 Twin Spans disasters, the Skagit River Bridge will be rebuilt at warp speed with 100% Federal funding. The people of Washington and Oregon will insure that after the first week of gridlock and delays.
Temporary replacement to open mid-June with 100% federal funding (so Jake, detouring may be a moot point for your trip). Permanent replacement to open September or October with 90% federal funding.
With regards to low clearance signs -- which I think had been mentioned here, and also in the other thread in the Bridges section -- there aren't any. Buuuut... the truck in question was 15'9". The clearance at the center line is 18'0". The clearance at the fog line is 15'6". That's why the damage to the truck was only at the corner of the trailer, why it struck the bridge at such a critical point instead of just damaging one of the overhead beams (which had been struck many times before), and why people are blaming the width of the load moreso than the height.
(I know we had a thread about low clearence signs a while back with some more extreme examples, but if they were to post a sign for the 15'6" clearance, it would definitely the highest low clearance sign I'd seen in person.)
The more I read about the incident, the more sure I become that the fault rests solely on the truck and/or pilot car drivers. If there was another truck passing him, then yes, that driver was being a dick, but isn't in anyway at fault.
Source for everything in the first and second paragraphs (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021066028_mondaybridgexml.html)
If the other truck was passing, I don't think he was being a "dick". He was passing! Fast vehicles pass slow vehicles all the time. If the pilot car was doing its job, he would have told
The truck driver to stop until the other lane was clear.
Sure trucks don't like to slow down, but given a choice of slowing vs hitting a bridge, I would slow every time.
Quote from: Landshark on May 26, 2013, 10:56:41 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 26, 2013, 10:30:30 PM
Quote from: Landshark on May 26, 2013, 03:59:17 PM
You don't live here, you probably do not know what is going on here.
I live here, and you're wrong. Seattle area freeways are packed to the gills during rush hours. There is no space to widen existing freeways or build new ones, so transit and encouraging carpooling has to be the answer. Left-side HOV entrances and exits have their flaws, but they also have their benefits. Putting an HOV lane on the right side has little to no benefit, as then HOV traffic has to compete with exiting/entering GP traffic.
- There is room to add lanes. The valley freeway for example. Prioritizing its widening & extension could remove trucks from the Southcenter Hill. That would have been a better investment than the HOV flyovers at the bottom of the hill.
You mean you think the HOV lanes that were added a few years ago should have been general-purpose lanes? Because it's not at all clear that there's room to add a fourth lane each direction now, and the interchange with 405 still leaves much to be desired. And I don't think many trucks would be persuaded to divert to the Valley Freeway when I-5 is more direct.
Quote
- Left lane HOV/transit lanes slow the flow, and force slow buses to cross over multiple lanes to exit, further congesting the freeway.
Right lane HOV lanes are useless, they are full of entering and exiting traffic rather than the HOV vehicles they are supposed to serve. The purpose of HOV vehicles is to allow buses to maintain their schedules even when it's congested.
Quote
A solution would be to only have HOV lanes during peak travel times and making them general purpose other times to cut down on congestion.
Dude, do you live here? There's congestion about 14 hours a day. There's no possibility of serving the entire population with single-occupancy vehicles. Serving them through buses and carpools is about the only thing that's got a chance of improving the situation. The express buses generally run full, and there are significant numbers of them. In most of the Seattle area, there are more people in the HOV lanes than there are in the general-purpose lanes.
Quote
Quote- By putting ramps on the left side, you make the freeway safer, as now HOV traffic doesn't have to cross four lanes to exit.
But they do have to exit to the right most often.
QuoteAnd transit is critically underfunded as well.
Not in Washington. We do not have underfunded transit. You would be angry if you found out how subsidy per passenger it costs to ride Sounder. It's an insane misallocation of resources.
On a per-rider subsidy bases, the Sounder looks pretty bad. But it's also small in absolute terms. Maybe it should be cancelled, but don't be under any illusions that cancelling Sounder would free up enough money to do anything else meaningful instead.
Other transit in Washington State is seriously underfunded. I'm a regular rider of King County Metro. There have been runs cut from schedules, runs that were standing room only even before the cuts and are now turning would-be riders away almost every day. Outside Seattle, things are even worse.
Quote
QuoteIt's not like the bridge fell down because they decided to build the light rail out of gold instead.
The bridge wasn't replaced because the people in charge of this state think it is more important to spend large sums of money on public art and to over pay construction workers outside of the Puget Sound area in a payoff to the unions folks that help line their election coffers. Some people in charge are hostile to the whole entire concept of automobiles. WSDOT needs change, and it can only happen if people in this state finally dump the 29+ year one party rule.
Oh, bullshit. Democrats are hardly unified, they're just better at building a big tent. Lots of times there's enough Republicans in the state legislature to block things the Dems want to do. This session, the Republicans have a working majority in the state Senate. Tim Eyman's initiatives have done more to damage road funding than anything the Legislature has done.
Art? Half of one percent for art? You think that's what made the bridge fall down?
Sorry for the politics, I responded before reading to the end of the thread.
About the Skagit River Bridge, I had a nice drive to and from Bellingham this weekend. I took a longer detour than the posted one, leaving I-5 at exit 221, Fir Island Road, going west to Best Road/Farm to Market Road, and going east again at WA-20. Nice drive in pretty country, at the speed limit for those roads (40-50 mph). It may be more congested once the work week starts again though.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 26, 2013, 11:37:18 PM
Bullshit. Pretty sure every transit agency in the region has had massive service cuts in the past couple of years due to lack of funding.
Bull--it. They have had some cuts due to mismanagement. By service area, the Central Puget Sound area is one of the most linked in the country. The bus system is fantastic.
- WSDOT can't even get their ferry fares straight
- Sound Transit spends massive $ left and right on non-transit items
- Sounder commuter rail is a super expensive continually mega waste of $ that very few people use
This area is not underfunding transit. You could make the case it is overfunded based on all the mismanagement of funds by those in charge.
QuoteI could argue your other attempts to refute me, but I can tell pretty quickly when I'm not going to get through to someone. Plus, like vtk said, this isn't the place. It's just that one point that made me swear.
So one side can spout their opinion, but the other can't? Saying transit is getting enough $, but isn't spending it wisely or not charging enough at the fare box is political, but saying it is underfunded is not? Give me a break.
Post Merge: June 03, 2013, 02:24:21 AM
Quote from: NE2 on May 27, 2013, 03:16:14 AM
And there's the union blaming...
As expected, because a huge amount of the waste belongs on them. Eliminating the prevailing wage would save millions. Labor cartels are on their way out. They are a corrupt relic of the past.
Post Merge: June 03, 2013, 02:24:17 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 28, 2013, 12:50:24 AM
You mean you think the HOV lanes that were added a few years ago should have been general-purpose lanes?
Hybrid lanes. HOV during peak commute times, general purpose other times, and I would not have built the left lane i/e and transit stations.
QuoteAnd I don't think many trucks would be persuaded to divert to the Valley Freeway when I-5 is more direct.
The eventual extension will end at the Port of Tacoma. It will not be much longer in distance and completely eliminates hills. Trucks slowly climbing the South Center Hill is a major cause of congestion there. It is why the state has wanted to extend 167.
QuoteDude, do you live here? There's congestion about 14 hours a day.
For over 30 years. Opening up the HOV lanes during non peak commute time would ease congestion.
QuoteThere's no possibility of serving the entire population with single-occupancy vehicles. Serving them through buses and carpools is about the only thing that's got a chance of improving the situation.
Chauffeured limousine lanes are a waste during non peak times. Instead they create congestion by putting slower traffic on the far left.
Quote
Oh, bullshit. Democrats are hardly unified, they're just better at building a big tent.
Other than power and lining their allies pockets, it is not that unified. Many are anti-car altogether. The Democrats are also the ones that want to further gut road funding by reclassifying school buses. They have been in power for almost 30 years now, they are to blame for mismanagement, misallocation of funds, and stupid design. From the public art requirement to the prevailing wage to ignoring fare station corruption with the ferries, the Democrats have greatly hurt transportation funding in this state.
QuoteLots of times there's enough Republicans in the state legislature to block things the Dems want to do. This session, the Republicans have a working majority in the state Senate.
We need Republican governor before there is any real change with WSDOT. Also giving them control of all branches will make reform cleaner and easier.
QuoteTim Eyman's initiatives have done more to damage road funding than anything the Legislature has done.
Nonsense. WA's gas tax is one of the nation's highest.
QuoteArt? Half of one percent for art? You think that's what made the bridge fall down?
1%, and it is 1% too much waste.
Quote from: Landshark on May 28, 2013, 02:17:12 PMQuoteDude, do you live here? There's congestion about 14 hours a day.
For over 30 years. Opening up the HOV lanes during non peak commute time would ease congestion.
If congestion is as bad as KKT says it is, then I would support 24/7 HOV lanes. That concept does work... look at the HOV-lane setups in southern California where traffic is *always* bad.
Quote from: Landshark on May 28, 2013, 02:17:12 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 28, 2013, 12:50:24 AM
You mean you think the HOV lanes that were added a few years ago should have been general-purpose lanes?
Hybrid lanes. HOV during peak commute times, general purpose other times, and I would not have built the left lane i/e and transit stations.
Left lane entrances and exits for HOV traffic is a hell of a lot better than forcing HOV-lane users to cross 3-4 lanes of stop-and-go traffic to exit the freeway. I'm kind of indifferent on the transit stations.
As for the rest of your post, the political discussion is not really appropriate for this forum as all it will lead to is a massive flame war and no one, and I mean NO ONE wants one of those... :eyebrow:
Edit: Removed comment asking how the HOV lane slows down traffic in the left lane.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 28, 2013, 03:04:53 PM
How do HOV lanes put slower traffic in the left lane? Care to explain?
there are lots of times when the #2 lane (general access) is moving at 80mph, and the HOV is clogged up by some turd who thinks that the posted speed limit of 55 is to be obeyed to the letter.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 28, 2013, 03:14:59 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 28, 2013, 03:04:53 PM
How do HOV lanes put slower traffic in the left lane? Care to explain?
there are lots of times when the #2 lane (general access) is moving at 80mph, and the HOV is clogged up by some turd who thinks that the posted speed limit of 55 is to be obeyed to the letter.
Yeah, I thought about that after I made my post. We have the same problem up here in northern California and it's worse when that "turd" is in an Express Lane trapping everyone behind him because it's illegal to cross the double-white lines (although that doesn't stop some drivers).
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 28, 2013, 03:14:59 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 28, 2013, 03:04:53 PM
How do HOV lanes put slower traffic in the left lane? Care to explain?
there are lots of times when the #2 lane (general access) is moving at 80mph, and the HOV is clogged up by some turd who thinks that the posted speed limit of 55 is to be obeyed to the letter.
But does that actually affect the overall throughput of the highway?
Quote from: Landshark on May 28, 2013, 02:17:12 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 28, 2013, 12:50:24 AM
You mean you think the HOV lanes that were added a few years ago should have been general-purpose lanes?
Hybrid lanes. HOV during peak commute times, general purpose other times, and I would not have built the left lane i/e and transit stations.
When is peak commute times, then? Most times of day I see the HOV lanes moving at 35-40, and occasional stop and go in the general purpose lanes. Assuming drivers of HOVs are using sense, that means the HOV lanes are carrying more people.
On the Valley Freeway, the HOV lane is also HOT, so if you're rich and in a hurry you can pay for speed. Also, many weekends there's no toll and the lane is general purpose. Do you know if that depends on current traffic volume or is scheduled in advance?
Quote
QuoteAnd I don't think many trucks would be persuaded to divert to the Valley Freeway when I-5 is more direct.
The eventual extension will end at the Port of Tacoma. It will not be much longer in distance and completely eliminates hills. Trucks slowly climbing the South Center Hill is a major cause of congestion there. It is why the state has wanted to extend 167.
And that project has reached the ROW acquisition stage. Under a Democratic legislature and governor, amazing.
Quote
QuoteDude, do you live here? There's congestion about 14 hours a day.
For over 30 years. Opening up the HOV lanes during non peak commute time would ease congestion.
No, it would make it worse. If there was no incentive to use HOVs anymore, people would desert the buses and use SOVs, generating much more traffic.
Quote
QuoteThere's no possibility of serving the entire population with single-occupancy vehicles. Serving them through buses and carpools is about the only thing that's got a chance of improving the situation.
Chauffeured limousine lanes are a waste during non peak times. Instead they create congestion by putting slower traffic on the far left.
If traffic in the HOV lane were really going slower than the general purpose lane adjacent, HOV traffic would leave the HOV lane and drive in the general purpose lane, wouldn't they? Isn't that what you'd do if the lane next to you were moving faster and you had the option to get into it? It's not like there's any lane discipline shown on urbanized freeways in Washington...
Quote
Quote
Oh, bullshit. Democrats are hardly unified, they're just better at building a big tent.
Other than power and lining their allies pockets, it is not that unified. Many are anti-car altogether.
Please cite a specific Washington State elected Democrat who has spoken out for the elimination of cars.
Pure politics deleted...Quote
Nonsense. WA's gas tax is one of the nation's highest.
Yeah, that's what happens when there's no construction or maintenance money coming from vehicle registration fees and no personal income tax and a business tax as full of holes as swiss cheese.
Quote
QuoteArt? Half of one percent for art? You think that's what made the bridge fall down?
1%, and it is 1% too much waste.
Quote
http://www.nasaa-arts.org/Research/Key-Topics/Public-Art/State-Percent-for-Art-Programs.php#WA (http://www.nasaa-arts.org/Research/Key-Topics/Public-Art/State-Percent-for-Art-Programs.php#WA)
Funding Source
Half of 1% of capital appropriations for new construction...
Quote from: kkt on May 28, 2013, 03:57:43 PM
If traffic in the HOV lane were really going slower than the general purpose lane adjacent, HOV traffic would leave the HOV lane and drive in the general purpose lane, wouldn't they? Isn't that what you'd do if the lane next to you were moving faster and you had the option to get into it? It's not like there's any lane discipline shown on urbanized freeways in Washington...
must be a SoCal thing only to have restricted access to the carpool lane. you can only enter/exit about once every 1-3 miles.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 28, 2013, 04:46:08 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 28, 2013, 03:57:43 PM
If traffic in the HOV lane were really going slower than the general purpose lane adjacent, HOV traffic would leave the HOV lane and drive in the general purpose lane, wouldn't they? Isn't that what you'd do if the lane next to you were moving faster and you had the option to get into it? It's not like there's any lane discipline shown on urbanized freeways in Washington...
must be a SoCal thing only to have restricted access to the carpool lane. you can only enter/exit about once every 1-3 miles.
Now I think of it, the Valley Freeway's HOV lanes are like that. But I-5 and 405 and 90 are enter/exit anywhere.
Quote from: kkt on May 28, 2013, 04:58:38 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 28, 2013, 04:46:08 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 28, 2013, 03:57:43 PM
If traffic in the HOV lane were really going slower than the general purpose lane adjacent, HOV traffic would leave the HOV lane and drive in the general purpose lane, wouldn't they? Isn't that what you'd do if the lane next to you were moving faster and you had the option to get into it? It's not like there's any lane discipline shown on urbanized freeways in Washington...
must be a SoCal thing only to have restricted access to the carpool lane. you can only enter/exit about once every 1-3 miles.
Now I think of it, the Valley Freeway's HOV lanes are like that. But I-5 and 405 and 90 are enter/exit anywhere.
Other places have access limited HOV lanes. Lanes in Connecticut (84 and 91), New York (LIE), Georgia (85), and Ontario (QEW and 403 are the ones I know of, there might be more).
Dallas—Fort Worth, also.
I'm waiting for Landshark to blame atheists. If that bridge had been properly blessed...
Historical information: the Skagit River Bridge was built initially as part of Primary State Highway No. 1 with a plans approval date of July 29, 1954.
From the Seattle Times today, http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021075677_bridgecollapselowxml.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021075677_bridgecollapselowxml.html)
Quote
7 low highway bridges hold similar risks to Skagit span
Washington state has seven other highway bridges with clearances as low as the I-5 Skagit River bridge, where an overheight load destroyed one of four spans last week. That fact suggests that without tougher oversight of cross-state hauling, the same kind of accident could happen again.
By Mike Lindblom and Cheryl Phillips
Seattle Times staff
Washington state has seven other highway bridges with clearances as low as the Interstate 5 Skagit River bridge, where an overheight load destroyed one of four spans last week.
That fact suggests that without tougher oversight of cross-state hauling, the same kind of accident could happen again.
These seven bridges measure 14 feet 6 inches or less at their lowest overhead clearance. They are "fracture-critical," meaning a single broken beam could cause collapse.
They were built from 1927 to 1949 except for a short bridge at the Tacoma ferry terminal, built in 1994. Yet another old and low-clearance bridge, over Ebey Slough on Highway 529 near Marysville, is being replaced with a new crossing this spring.
These are by no means the only bridges that can get hit.
The state Department of Transportation said last weekend there were 21 known hits involving trucks on state bridges last year – including at least once on the Skagit River bridge – as well as 24 in 2011 and 14 in 2010.
A Whatcom County bridge near Ferndale was closed and repaired last year when an oversize excavator on a trailer hit five beams.
Washington state allows haulers to obtain oversize-load permits online, unless the load is 16 feet or taller.
The load that struck the Skagit bridge was estimated at 15 feet 9 inches in its state permit to Mullen Trucking of Alberta, which was taking an empty case for a giant drill south to Vancouver, Wash.
The Skagit bridge also was hit northbound last year, prompting a special inspection.
Besides the eight very low-clearance bridges, 52 more bridges are between 14 feet 6 inches and 15 feet 6 inches at their lowest point – so conceivably they could have been hit by that drill case.
When the load struck the Skagit River bridge, it sent one of the spans plummeting to the water, along with two vehicles. The three people inside the vehicles weren't seriously injured, but the bridge will be closed for weeks while a temporary fix is installed.
To clear the bridge, driver William Scott would have needed to move into the left lane, with a clearance of 17½ feet to 18 feet. The right lane measures only 15 feet 6 inches at the white fog line.
"There are hundreds of oversize permits sold per day," said Jim Tutton, vice president of the Washington Trucking Association, so overheight trucks shifting lanes would not be unusual.
But Scott told investigators he was passed by another truck on the bridge, which would have prevented him from moving over. He also said he heard no warning from the pilot car in front of him, according to Deborah Hersman, chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board. The NTSB expects to interview the pilot-car driver Wednesday.
By state law, the pilot car must have a pole 3 to 6 inches taller than the load, to detect possible dangers.
The federal investigation is pointing up some potential gaps in state regulations:
- There is no state requirement to post bridge clearances unless they are 14 feet 4 inches or less, and this bridge wasn't posted, said Hersman. Truckers can find clearance information for all bridges on a state website.
- Washington has no requirement for the truck to use a pilot car in the rear, which might have deterred passing what was both a high and a wide load.
Devices are available to reduce risks of an overhead hit; light beams can trigger an alarm if a tall load breaks the beam.
The Mullen Trucking load did trip such an overheight warning at or near a weigh station, but that "was no cause for alarm" since the truck was labeled overheight, said State Patrol spokesman Bob Calkins. "The company has a decent safety record; they come through that port of entry regularly," he said.
Jerry Ely, a Skagit Valley trucker who has been urging NTSB personnel to focus on the pilot car, said, "They [DOT] need to start making new laws and cleaning up their act in this state."
Harvey Coffman, state bridge-preservation engineer, said that as of Monday he hadn't yet looked into any possible reforms because he is working full time on designing the replacement span so traffic can resume.
Truckers can self-apply for a permit online, for $10 in the case of last week's drill load.
"Last year we issued 135,000 permits. Right there, that gives you the value of truck freight that comes through the state," said Lars Erickson, DOT spokesman in Olympia.
The State Patrol's commercial-vehicle enforcement unit last year issued 251 citations or warnings statewide for loads that either lacked or violated an overheight permit, said Lt. Dennis Bosman.
Tutton, from the truckers group, said: "Everybody involved in the permit process, from the truckers, the pilot-car drivers, the companies and the people that issue permits for the DOT, need to really take explicit care in identifying the size of the load, so they know exactly what happens."
Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631 or mlindblom@seattletimes.com
Cheryl Phillips: 206-464-2411 or cphillips@seattletimes.com
^^ Seems like a potential systemic failure here.
1. A lack of posting for bridges less than 16 feet in clearance. IIRC, interstate highway bridges need 16 feet of clearance.
2. A lack of a requirement for a trailing pilot car to prevent dangerous passing maneuvers such as the truck passing the oversized load on the bridge.
I can already see some of the NTSB's recommendations based on the systemic failures here. I'll bet they include:
1. Posting of all clearances less than 16 feet in height.
2. The use of trailing pilot vehicles for oversized loads.
3. The replacement of similar fracture-critical bridges.
I found this particularly interesting...
Quote
- There is no state requirement to post bridge clearances unless they are 14 feet 4 inches or less, and this bridge wasn't posted, said Hersman. Truckers can find clearance information for all bridges on a state website.
... because I've seen low clearance signs (W12-2) with heights of more than 15 feet posted on freeways around the San Francisco Bay Area. I was surprised that Washington only requires these signs for clearances of a little more than 14 feet or less particularly when Interstate standards require 16 foot clearances.
Digging around the California MUTCD, I found that California requires low clearance signs (W12-2) for all clearances of 15 feet 6 inches or less. The vanilla MUTCD states that the low clearance signs are required when the clearance is "less than 12 inches above the statutory vehicle height." Does the statutory vehicle height vary state-to-state?
Quote from: Brandon on May 29, 2013, 01:37:13 PM^^ Seems like a potential systemic failure here.
Yup--that is what I have thought from the very beginning.
QuoteI can already see some of the NTSB's recommendations based on the systemic failures here. I'll bet they include:
1. Posting of all clearances less than 16 feet in height.
I don't think that will happen, because (1) it is likely to increase greatly the number of bridges for which clearance signing has to be provided
and maintained (including updates to reflect changes in clearance as a result of resurfacing projects), and (2) it is unclear from the information presently available whether clearance signing at the Skagit River Bridge would have prevented the accident.
Quote2. The use of trailing pilot vehicles for oversized loads.
I don't see this one happening, largely because a trailing pilot vehicle moving to straddle a lane line to choke off overtaking maneuvers can itself cause serious accidents.
Quote3. The replacement of similar fracture-critical bridges.
Agreed, but the NTSB will never mark this "Immediate Action" (as they do with some of their recommendations) owing to the costs involved.
After studying the permit which was issued to the trucking company (which includes "Route OK - WSDOT Does Not Guarantee Height Clearances" disclaimers rather than actual clearances) and the vertical clearance card for the Skagit River bridge, here is another recommendation I would expect to see from the NTSB:
* When an overdimensional permit is issued that requires the load to follow an agreed routing,
all of the clearances associated with each bridge on the route shall be explicitly specified in the permit. (These clearances will include not just the posted clearance, if any, but also the measured clearance at other points open to motor vehicle travel; there were eleven of these on the Skagit River Bridge.)
Where one or more of these clearances is less than the height of the load, they shall be printed in double-size type, the clearance listing for the bridge as a whole shall be enclosed in a box with a thick black border and "!" in a diamond next to it, and the bridge clearance card shall be included as an annex to the permit.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 29, 2013, 02:25:53 PM
I don't think that will happen, because (1) it is likely to increase greatly the number of bridges for which clearance signing has to be provided and maintained (including updates to reflect changes in clearance as a result of resurfacing projects),
If California can sign all clearances less than 15 1/2 feet given how extensive California's road network is, then I can't see why Washington couldn't do the same for it's 59 bridges.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 29, 2013, 02:25:53 PM
(2) it is unclear from the information presently available whether clearance signing at the Skagit River Bridge would have prevented the accident.
I believe this could have been prevented. If Washington had followed California's standards, there would have been a W12-2 sign warning of a 15' 6" clearance ahead (the height posted is at the lowest point). Assuming the trucker knew his load was 15' 9", he would have realized that his load was too tall and would have to find an alternate route.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 29, 2013, 02:43:34 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on May 29, 2013, 02:25:53 PMI don't think that will happen, because (1) it is likely to increase greatly the number of bridges for which clearance signing has to be provided and maintained (including updates to reflect changes in clearance as a result of resurfacing projects) . . .
If California can sign all clearances less than 15 1/2 feet given how extensive California's road network is, then I can't see why Washington couldn't do the same for its 59 bridges.
I wrote the part you quoted in response to a suggestion that the threshold for clearance posting should be sixteen feet, not fifteen and a half. If WSDOT copied Caltrans' clearance posting standard, then the cost would indeed be limited. My concern is that we might be dealing with just 59 bridges under 15' 6" but over 1000 between 15' 6" and 16'.
It was a pretty major undertaking for Caltrans to post clearance signs--if memory serves, the current standard was adopted around 2003, and as a result at least two (I think three) major signing contracts had to be let just for clearance signing on bridges in District 7 (Los Angeles). I would expect the NTSB to look closely at whether this clearance signing did in fact reduce the frequency of bridge strikes in California. Did it?
QuoteQuote from: J N Winkler on May 29, 2013, 02:25:53 PM
. . . (2) it is unclear from the information presently available whether clearance signing at the Skagit River Bridge would have prevented the accident.
I believe this could have been prevented. If Washington had followed California's standards, there would have been a W12-2 sign warning of a 15' 6" clearance ahead (the height posted is at the lowest point). Assuming the trucker knew his load was 15' 9", he would have realized that his load was too tall and would have to find an alternate route.
Actually, no, the sign would not have said 15' 6"--it would have said 14' 6" (clearance at the northbound curbline, which is the point of lowest vertical clearance).
The trucker did know his load was 15' 9". I presume the pilot car driver also knew it was 15' 9". That height is clearly stated on the permit and the information would have had to be supplied by the trucker (assuming "self-issue" means "self-report"). The NTSB investigation will have to sort out how thoroughly the trucker and pilot car company investigated the clearances on the route, and what information was made conveniently available for them to do that. (WSDOT apparently has an online clearance database which truckers could consult, but I don't know if it has clearances to the same detail as the bridge clearance cards.)
My concern here is really confirmation bias, which would make itself evident in a chain of reasoning like this: "This bridge is signed for 14' 6". My load is 15' 9". However, I am following this route by agreement with the pilot car company, after we both studied the clearances along the route, and we would not have routed under this bridge if there was not a way to haul a 15' 9" load through it. So I will keep on going."
Quote from: Brandon on May 29, 2013, 01:37:13 PM
1. A lack of posting for bridges less than 16 feet in clearance. IIRC, interstate highway bridges need 16 feet of clearance.
This site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_verticalclearance.htm (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_verticalclearance.htm) says the minimum clearance can range from 14 to 16 feet. So IMHO, first on your list of systematic failures should be a minimum clearance that isn't the same from state to state. Truckers learn to drive trucks in a state where everything under 16 feet is posted, then drive through some other state, and bam. Literally. The purpose of interstate standards is... well, I expect I'm preaching to the converted here.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 29, 2013, 02:25:53 PM
Quote2. The use of trailing pilot vehicles for oversized loads.
I don't see this one happening, largely because a trailing pilot vehicle moving to straddle a lane line to choke off overtaking maneuvers can itself cause serious accidents.
Side question:
Are rear pilot vehicles actually legally allowed to straddle the line in order to prevent others from passing? I was once on I-235 southbound behind a slow-moving truck hauling a wind turbine blade, and the truck and pilot car basically straddled the lane line the entire length of the highway. I eventually just passed the two of them by straddling the inside shoulder lane. Obviously, my maneuver was illegal because I drove on the shoulder. But I've wondered ever since then what the legal status of pilot cars' maneuvers is. And, if they have legal protection, are there any limits on it?
I once had a truck that was not marked as oversize/over height on the Outerbridge Crossing do that, presumably because he didn't want to be bothered staying within his lane. That can be considered reckless driving/obstructing the highway, and is definitely illegal, not to mention, not to mention, overly aggressive driving. If you aren't over width, you can fit within the lane.
Now a genuinely over width vehicle should not have to do this on most stretches, they can just straddle the right lane, right shoulder. But in construction zones or on narrow bridges, the pilot car in back will come out and temporarily prevent passing while on the narrow structure. This is more reasonable because there is a need and it is over a short distance. I can't see why a truck would need to take up multiple lanes if there is a shoulder available.
In the case of the I-5 bridge, preventing passing would have been prudent because of lack of shoulders. Riding the left lane would have been prudent to avoid hitting the bridge, and a polite driver would have increased his speed to avoid others trying to pass on the right. But in the absence of a pilot car holding back those tying to pass, I doubt cars would voluntarily not pass. The truck has the oversized load, the onus is on him to keep other vehicles out of the way if he needs more space than the lanes provide.
Quote from: kkt on May 29, 2013, 04:02:41 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 29, 2013, 01:37:13 PM
1. A lack of posting for bridges less than 16 feet in clearance. IIRC, interstate highway bridges need 16 feet of clearance.
This site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_verticalclearance.htm (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_verticalclearance.htm) says the minimum clearance can range from 14 to 16 feet. So IMHO, first on your list of systematic failures should be a minimum clearance that isn't the same from state to state. Truckers learn to drive trucks in a state where everything under 16 feet is posted, then drive through some other state, and bam. Literally. The purpose of interstate standards is... well, I expect I'm preaching to the converted here.
The maximum height for a regular truck is 13'6" (although a few western states may permit something a little bit higher). But, the 13'6" is pretty much standard, and is what truckers learn to drive with.
An over height/over width truck is an exception. The truckers are supposed to know to track their entire route to make sure the truck and their contents will fit under the bridges. And except for construction zones or recent events, bridge heights do not change.
I've seen an oversize load without pilot cars once. The load and pilot cars were heading down I-81, but got separated traversing the cloverleaf with I-481, and made no attempt to re-connect on I-481.
I also saw one on NY 37 that was wide enough to require a police escort with flashing lights on. The person behind me just blew on through despite the presence of the state troopers. Hope he got stopped for failure to yield to an emergency vehicle with flashing lights.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 30, 2013, 08:58:41 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 29, 2013, 04:02:41 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 29, 2013, 01:37:13 PM
1. A lack of posting for bridges less than 16 feet in clearance. IIRC, interstate highway bridges need 16 feet of clearance.
This site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_verticalclearance.htm (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_verticalclearance.htm) says the minimum clearance can range from 14 to 16 feet. So IMHO, first on your list of systematic failures should be a minimum clearance that isn't the same from state to state. Truckers learn to drive trucks in a state where everything under 16 feet is posted, then drive through some other state, and bam. Literally. The purpose of interstate standards is... well, I expect I'm preaching to the converted here.
The maximum height for a regular truck is 13'6" (although a few western states may permit something a little bit higher). But, the 13'6" is pretty much standard, and is what truckers learn to drive with.
An over height/over width truck is an exception. The truckers are supposed to know to track their entire route to make sure the truck and their contents will fit under the bridges. And except for construction zones or recent events, bridge heights do not change.
Except that bridge strikes are not all that unusual. This one is only unusual because it caused the bridge to collapse, and it's an interstate.
A traffic camera at I-5 and College Way. Has been reposition near the north end. Of the Skagit River bridge. While reconstruction takes place.
Extra Amtrak Cascades train service between Seattle and Bellingham has begun.
WSDOT, Amtrak, Sound Transit and BNSF Railway team up to quickly help people travel through the I-5 corridor where the Skagit River Bridge collapsed.
Thanks for the update, Captain Kirk.
Quote from: vtk on May 31, 2013, 11:23:02 AM
Thanks for the update, Captain Kirk.
Who knew William Shatner was a roadgeek?
Quote from: Brandon on May 31, 2013, 11:50:04 AM
Quote from: vtk on May 31, 2013, 11:23:02 AM
Thanks for the update, Captain Kirk.
Who knew William Shatner was a roadgeek?
Well, he certainly can't sing :spin:
The driver of the pilot car says her pole didn't touch the bridge. The NTSB investigation continues.
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Pilot-car-driver-horrified-by-bridge-collapse-4581575.php (http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Pilot-car-driver-horrified-by-bridge-collapse-4581575.php)
Quote from: kkt on June 06, 2013, 01:03:57 PM
The driver of the pilot car says her pole didn't touch the bridge. The NTSB investigation continues.
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Pilot-car-driver-horrified-by-bridge-collapse-4581575.php (http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Pilot-car-driver-horrified-by-bridge-collapse-4581575.php)
- What lane(s) were you in?
- If you were in the right lane (as the truck was), did you have a pole that would have measured the height at the curb line (where the truck struck)?
- Why do eyewitnesses state that they did see your pole strike the bridge?
A Washington State Patrol officer, Sean O'Connell, was killed directing traffic around the detour for the downed bridge.
Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2013, 12:22:19 PM
A Washington State Patrol officer, Sean O'Connell, was killed directing traffic around the detour for the downed bridge.
this many days later, and actual humans are needed for the detour? how did they not set up a system of orange signs, VMSes, etc, within about 72 hours?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 07, 2013, 12:45:15 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2013, 12:22:19 PM
A Washington State Patrol officer, Sean O'Connell, was killed directing traffic around the detour for the downed bridge.
this many days later, and actual humans are needed for the detour? how did they not set up a system of orange signs, VMSes, etc, within about 72 hours?
He was killed May 31, I just posted now because the memorial service was yesterday. I'm speculating a bit, but the officer was at an intersection with no traffic light. Maybe traffic direction was needed so that vehicles turning would eventually get a chance to go even with high traffic volumes due the the detour.
Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2013, 01:25:02 PM
He was killed May 31, I just posted now because the memorial service was yesterday. I'm speculating a bit, but the officer was at an intersection with no traffic light. Maybe traffic direction was needed so that vehicles turning would eventually get a chance to go even with high traffic volumes due the the detour.
8 days. how long does it take to ship in a portable traffic light hooked up to either the city grid or a portable generator? I know the lights which control one-lane sections of road (usually for bridge repair) are pretty self-contained; I can't imagine them needing too much time to set it up.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 07, 2013, 01:26:40 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2013, 01:25:02 PM
He was killed May 31, I just posted now because the memorial service was yesterday. I'm speculating a bit, but the officer was at an intersection with no traffic light. Maybe traffic direction was needed so that vehicles turning would eventually get a chance to go even with high traffic volumes due the the detour.
8 days. how long does it take to ship in a portable traffic light hooked up to either the city grid or a portable generator? I know the lights which control one-lane sections of road (usually for bridge repair) are pretty self-contained; I can't imagine them needing too much time to set it up.
I dunno. It is a long detour, so maybe they didn't have enough portable traffic lights? They said the driver that hit the officer is cooperating, and investigation into the accident continues, so eventually we should find out more.
Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2013, 01:34:46 PM
I dunno. It is a long detour, so maybe they didn't have enough portable traffic lights? They said the driver that hit the officer is cooperating, and investigation into the accident continues, so eventually we should find out more.
I wonder what is so unusual about the detour that they needed *that many* portable traffic lights. isn't it just down old US-99, which already is pretty heavily signalized?
Anyway, there is construction going on at the site now:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7348%2F8944150351_7e5d14dc25_c.jpg&hash=a3a53f76686aa46c515803377599f756ca260130)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7360%2F8944151683_f9fdf75256_c.jpg&hash=878b5ca920c9a47d28363f03ec14f0e8376cd47f)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3680%2F8944151263_4c7e9bdfe5_c.jpg&hash=322981b38086bed79eab03246ef5e7381bd0a317)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 07, 2013, 01:44:35 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2013, 01:34:46 PM
I dunno. It is a long detour, so maybe they didn't have enough portable traffic lights? They said the driver that hit the officer is cooperating, and investigation into the accident continues, so eventually we should find out more.
I wonder what is so unusual about the detour that they needed *that many* portable traffic lights. isn't it just down old US-99, which already is pretty heavily signalized?
When I went through, there were even officers at the lights on 99.
Probably making sure an overheight truck doesn't hit the light.
Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2013, 01:34:46 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 07, 2013, 01:26:40 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2013, 01:25:02 PM
He was killed May 31, I just posted now because the memorial service was yesterday. I'm speculating a bit, but the officer was at an intersection with no traffic light. Maybe traffic direction was needed so that vehicles turning would eventually get a chance to go even with high traffic volumes due the the detour.
8 days. how long does it take to ship in a portable traffic light hooked up to either the city grid or a portable generator? I know the lights which control one-lane sections of road (usually for bridge repair) are pretty self-contained; I can't imagine them needing too much time to set it up.
I dunno. It is a long detour, so maybe they didn't have enough portable traffic lights? They said the driver that hit the officer is cooperating, and investigation into the accident continues, so eventually we should find out more.
Where was the officer killed?
I've recently moved from Bellingham to Seattle, and was back in Bellingham for the second time since the bridge collapsed. The intersection of Pioneer Highway and Fir Island Road (http://goo.gl/maps/u5g1a) had portable traffic signals today, and did not on Wednesday the 29th.
ETA: Yup. Seems to be at that very intersection. Note that WSDOT/the media/etc. listed Fir Island Road as a detour in the days immediately following the collapse, but I think they pretty quickly (before my trip south on the 29th) changed their minds and decided Old 99 and 20/536 were sufficient. Other than the temporary signals (only at that one intersection), I saw nothing marking it as a detour on my trip today (technically yesterday now).
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 07, 2013, 01:26:40 PM
8 days. how long does it take to ship in a portable traffic light hooked up to either the city grid or a portable generator? I know the lights which control one-lane sections of road (usually for bridge repair) are pretty self-contained; I can't imagine them needing too much time to set it up.
If Washington is like Oregon, portable traffic signals are not approved for use. I don't know why, I just know they aren't approved. The first time I ever saw a portable signal was in Montana.
In Oregon, when temporary traffic control is needed, usually for a bridge replacement project when a road is reduced to one lane, they actually install utility poles and span wire signal installations. I'm sure WSDOT requires the same.
So I'm wondering if the delay had something to do with bureaucracy trying to get a solution in place...and when someone is killed, things move a little quicker.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 08, 2013, 12:29:05 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2013, 01:34:46 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 07, 2013, 01:26:40 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2013, 01:25:02 PM
He was killed May 31, I just posted now because the memorial service was yesterday. I'm speculating a bit, but the officer was at an intersection with no traffic light. Maybe traffic direction was needed so that vehicles turning would eventually get a chance to go even with high traffic volumes due the the detour.
8 days. how long does it take to ship in a portable traffic light hooked up to either the city grid or a portable generator? I know the lights which control one-lane sections of road (usually for bridge repair) are pretty self-contained; I can't imagine them needing too much time to set it up.
I dunno. It is a long detour, so maybe they didn't have enough portable traffic lights? They said the driver that hit the officer is cooperating, and investigation into the accident continues, so eventually we should find out more.
Where was the officer killed?
Main and Fir Island Road, just about 100 feet west of the intersection you link to below.
Quote
I've recently moved from Bellingham to Seattle, and was back in Bellingham for the second time since the bridge collapsed. The intersection of Pioneer Highway and Fir Island Road (http://goo.gl/maps/u5g1a) had portable traffic signals today, and did not on Wednesday the 29th.
ETA: Yup. Seems to be at that very intersection. Note that WSDOT/the media/etc. listed Fir Island Road as a detour in the days immediately following the collapse, but I think they pretty quickly (before my trip south on the 29th) changed their minds and decided Old 99 and 20/536 were sufficient. Other than the temporary signals (only at that one intersection), I saw nothing marking it as a detour on my trip today (technically yesterday now).
Some comments on media stories have been that the Best Road bridge over the Skagit isn't rated for heavy trucks and that's why the detour was changed. Or maybe the detour via old 99 is not backing up traffic too badly so they don't need the longer detour via Fir Island Road and Best Road.
According to http://www.komonews.com/news/local/DOT-Temporary-I-5-Skagit-bridge-on-track-to-open-this-week-211842581.html (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/DOT-Temporary-I-5-Skagit-bridge-on-track-to-open-this-week-211842581.html) (KOMO TV), the temporary bridge should open in the next few days.
It is my hope, that in order to decrease the interruption to the traffic when they are ready to make either a permanent replacement of that span, or the entire bridge, that they build it adjacent to the existing roadway, then slide it in.
What the hell, why is the temporary span only 2 lanes wide? If that's the best they could do, how about two side by side? I get that the idea is lowest-cost and quickest return to flow, but this bastardization could be in place for months with still-awful traffic conditions.
Each of the spans is 24ft wide. So, according to WSDOT, there will be two 11ft lanes in each direction.
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 18, 2013, 03:07:48 PM
Each of the spans is 24ft wide. So, according to WSDOT, there will be two 11ft lanes in each direction.
whew! that seems like an adequate temporary solution. do you know what day they will be open for traffic?
(I'll be going up there July 26-28; flying into Seattle and driving to Bellingham.)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 18, 2013, 03:18:24 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 18, 2013, 03:07:48 PM
Each of the spans is 24ft wide. So, according to WSDOT, there will be two 11ft lanes in each direction.
whew! that seems like an adequate temporary solution. do you know what day they will be open for traffic?
(I'll be going up there July 26-28; flying into Seattle and driving to Bellingham.)
WSDOT is still just saying sometime this week. Look at the cameras:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/traffic/cameras/MtVernon.aspx?cam=9384 (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/traffic/cameras/MtVernon.aspx?cam=9384)
Gov. Inslee just announced that the span is opening to traffic, with a 40MPH speed limit tomorrow, June 19.
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 18, 2013, 05:15:33 PM
Gov. Inslee just announced that the span is opening to traffic, with a 40MPH speed limit tomorrow, June 19.
this is inviting disaster.
half the drivers will obey the speed limit. the other half will treat it similarly to a construction zone with nary a soul around and keep doing 73 or whatever the usual speed of traffic is.
hello, unsafe speed differentials.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 18, 2013, 06:33:36 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 18, 2013, 05:15:33 PM
Gov. Inslee just announced that the span is opening to traffic, with a 40MPH speed limit tomorrow, June 19.
this is inviting disaster.
half the drivers will obey the speed limit. the other half will treat it similarly to a construction zone with nary a soul around and keep doing 73 or whatever the usual speed of traffic is.
hello, unsafe speed differentials.
Hello, two trucks attempting to pass each other, or will large vehicles still be diverted to the side streets? I predict mass chaos until traffic rebalances in 7-10 business days.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 18, 2013, 06:33:36 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 18, 2013, 05:15:33 PM
Gov. Inslee just announced that the span is opening to traffic, with a 40MPH speed limit tomorrow, June 19.
this is inviting disaster.
half the drivers will obey the speed limit. the other half will treat it similarly to a construction zone with nary a soul around and keep doing 73 or whatever the usual speed of traffic is.
hello, unsafe speed differentials.
Not that much. The posted speed limit was 60 mph, and few people exceeded it by much. It had narrow shoulders already and usually there was enough traffic that you couldn't go bombing along at 75 without rearending someone.
Quote from: Steve on June 18, 2013, 09:22:27 PM
will large vehicles still be diverted to the side streets?
Oversize trucks will still have a detour. Then again, drivers of oversize trucks are supposed to know the clearance of the bridges they're going under, and we know how well that worked.
The temporary bridge is open now in both directions. No oversize or overweight trucks.
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2013, 10:38:33 PM
Not that much. The posted speed limit was 60 mph, and few people exceeded it by much. It had narrow shoulders already and usually there was enough traffic that you couldn't go bombing along at 75 without rearending someone.
got it. I feel like the lowest speed of traffic was about 64 once I got out of Seattle... was it in that segment? I know lots of I-5 in Washington has people doing 73 in a 60 (which I wouldn't recommend) and 75 in a 70 (fine by me).
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 18, 2013, 06:33:36 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 18, 2013, 05:15:33 PM
Gov. Inslee just announced that the span is opening to traffic, with a 40MPH speed limit tomorrow, June 19.
this is inviting disaster.
half the drivers will obey the speed limit. the other half will treat it similarly to a construction zone with nary a soul around and keep doing 73 or whatever the usual speed of traffic is.
hello, unsafe speed differentials.
Nah...won't be that bad. At first traffic will slow down, and then probably speed up a bit as they get used to the new traffic patterns. This is hardly the first time something like this has popped up, and the slower speed limit doesn't become an issue.
What the real issue I think would be is, how do they build a permament replacement? Do they reconstruct on a different alignment, or do they somehow work around the temporary span?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 19, 2013, 12:48:01 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2013, 10:38:33 PM
Not that much. The posted speed limit was 60 mph, and few people exceeded it by much. It had narrow shoulders already and usually there was enough traffic that you couldn't go bombing along at 75 without rearending someone.
got it. I feel like the lowest speed of traffic was about 64 once I got out of Seattle... was it in that segment? I know lots of I-5 in Washington has people doing 73 in a 60 (which I wouldn't recommend) and 75 in a 70 (fine by me).
Working from memory: As you head north from Seattle, the speed limit is 60 until just north of Marysville, around MP 212, then 70 mph to Mt. Vernon Rd. around MP 224, then 60 mph to around Burlington about MP 231, then 70 mph again.
The 60 mph through Mount Vernon and Burlington is due to congestion from the town, additional seasonal congestion when the tulips are in bloom, dropping down to 4 lanes, and narrow shoulders through the town.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 19, 2013, 01:30:48 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 18, 2013, 06:33:36 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 18, 2013, 05:15:33 PM
Gov. Inslee just announced that the span is opening to traffic, with a 40MPH speed limit tomorrow, June 19.
this is inviting disaster.
half the drivers will obey the speed limit. the other half will treat it similarly to a construction zone with nary a soul around and keep doing 73 or whatever the usual speed of traffic is.
hello, unsafe speed differentials.
Nah...won't be that bad. At first traffic will slow down, and then probably speed up a bit as they get used to the new traffic patterns. This is hardly the first time something like this has popped up, and the slower speed limit doesn't become an issue.
What the real issue I think would be is, how do they build a permament replacement? Do they reconstruct on a different alignment, or do they somehow work around the temporary span?
The permanent replacement is going to be rebuilding the broken span of the existing bridge, not a whole new bridge, so they'll have to work around the temporary span somehow. Yes, the rebuilt span will leave the bridge with substandard narrow shoulders and vulnerable to being knocked down by oversize loads again.
This is presumably with the gamble that knowing what has happened, oversized/weight vehicles will still be banned from the bridge until moneys can be found to completely replace the structure with a modern design... which won't be happening any time soon because moneys are being thrown into the black hole of the Interstate Bridge replacement between Portland and Vancouver.
Apparently, they didn't learn from the Minneapolis disaster of 2007... :banghead:
But at least there is a bridge in place again for the short term.
Quote from: Henry on June 21, 2013, 10:45:16 AM
Apparently, they didn't learn from the Minneapolis disaster of 2007... :banghead:
what were they supposed to have learned? immediate permanent replacement, not a temporary structure?
I'm not sure what they're supposed to have learned from Minneapolis either.
Should WSDOT leave the current temporary bridge in place until a current standard bridge can be built, with no overhead structure and shoulders that meet current standard? That might be decades; there are a lot of bridges in Washington that are no worse than this bridge prior to being hit with the oversized load, and even a lot of bridges on Interstates that are no worse. There are also a lot of more urgent problems competing for limited road dollars: the I-5 bridge over the Columbia, as noted by Bickendan; the SR-520 Evergreen Point Bridge and its western approaches; the SR-99 Alaskan Way viaduct demolition and tunnel construction; making I-90 over Snoqualmie Pass six lanes from the summit down the east side; and those are just projects already in process.
On the one hand, yes, it's kinda foolish to spend lots of money putting a permanent bridge back to its structurally deficient condition. On the other hand, that may be the best choice given limited funding. This isn't Fictional Highways where nothing has to be paid for.
Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2013, 12:21:21 PM
yes, it's kinda foolish to spend lots of money putting a permanent bridge back to its structurally deficient condition.
do you mean "functionally obsolete" (narrow lanes, no shoulders, etc), or do you mean that they'd rebuild it in such a way that a single eliminated truss would bring the whole thing down again?
the first, I'm okay with - the latter, that seems like not the way to spend "lots of money" - in lieu of that, I'd rather keep the 40mph temporary structure!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 21, 2013, 12:51:59 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2013, 12:21:21 PM
yes, it's kinda foolish to spend lots of money putting a permanent bridge back to its structurally deficient condition.
do you mean "functionally obsolete" (narrow lanes, no shoulders, etc), or do you mean that they'd rebuild it in such a way that a single eliminated truss would bring the whole thing down again?
the first, I'm okay with - the latter, that seems like not the way to spend "lots of money" - in lieu of that, I'd rather keep the 40mph temporary structure!
I should have said "functionally obsolete", but yes, since it's a multispan bridge and they only plan to replace the span that was knocked down, the bridge will be vulnerable to the same accident.
I wonder how much those alarms that sound/flash if a too-tall vehicle approaches a low clearance area cost.
also, how much of this is being paid by taxpayers, and how much by one very, very pissed off insurance company?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 21, 2013, 03:54:35 PM
also, how much of this is being paid by taxpayers, and how much by one very, very pissed off insurance company?
Taxpayers get the bridge fixed ASAP and then see how much they can get from the insurance company as it drags through the courts for god knows how long.
Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2013, 03:42:11 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 21, 2013, 12:51:59 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2013, 12:21:21 PM
yes, it's kinda foolish to spend lots of money putting a permanent bridge back to its structurally deficient condition.
do you mean "functionally obsolete" (narrow lanes, no shoulders, etc), or do you mean that they'd rebuild it in such a way that a single eliminated truss would bring the whole thing down again?
the first, I'm okay with - the latter, that seems like not the way to spend "lots of money" - in lieu of that, I'd rather keep the 40mph temporary structure!
I should have said "functionally obsolete", but yes, since it's a multispan bridge and they only plan to replace the span that was knocked down, the bridge will be vulnerable to the same accident.
I wonder how much those alarms that sound/flash if a too-tall vehicle approaches a low clearance area cost.
As I think I suggested someplace on AAROADS, NCDOT has a slew of overheight detectors along I-95 between Lumberton and I-40 (Benson).
Initial sign (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.650698,-79.012058&hl=en&ll=34.647261,-79.013157&spn=0.041166,0.050726&sll=34.651197,-79.011886&sspn=0.002573,0.00317&t=h&gl=us&z=14&layer=c&cbll=34.647078,-79.0132&panoid=HD_cfF1xZzv_tXC44b3s5g&cbp=12,42.18,,2,-1.18) warning of the overheight detector ahead (in spite of what the sign says, I have seen it activated by trucks in the left lane). This is the northbound lanes of I-95 approaching the first low bridge near Lumberton.
Here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.650698,-79.012058&hl=en&ll=34.651356,-79.011869&spn=0.041164,0.050726&sll=34.651197,-79.011886&sspn=0.002573,0.00317&t=h&gl=us&z=14&layer=c&cbll=34.651277,-79.011859&panoid=3gyKEbcDSVaSYy0CKbKXlA&cbp=12,128.86,,0,4.42) is the actual detector.
Here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.650698,-79.012058&hl=en&ll=34.653545,-79.011097&spn=0.041163,0.050726&sll=34.651197,-79.011886&sspn=0.002573,0.00317&t=h&gl=us&z=14&layer=c&cbll=34.653828,-79.011044&panoid=1L43dNv6mhRLRB0NMdVSmg&cbp=12,48.46,,0,6.55) is the warning beacon (on top of a BYS) that is activated by overheight vehicles.
Last sign before the low bridge is here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.650698,-79.012058&hl=en&ll=34.665229,-79.007396&spn=0.00518,0.006341&sll=34.651197,-79.011886&sspn=0.002573,0.00317&t=h&gl=us&z=17&layer=c&cbll=34.665145,-79.007428&panoid=Zy0U5srWH0k0qTaHraYk-A&cbp=12,54.67,,2,-4.9).
And the offending low bridge itself (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.650698,-79.012058&hl=en&ll=34.669809,-79.005936&spn=0.00518,0.006341&sll=34.651197,-79.011886&sspn=0.002573,0.00317&t=h&gl=us&z=17&layer=c&cbll=34.669712,-79.005968&panoid=aOQ-cFEcUICp0Eyp_ve91Q&cbp=12,18.01,,0,7.16).
Here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=wade,+nc&hl=en&ll=35.159394,-78.716124&spn=0.002557,0.00317&sll=35.15933,-78.716193&sspn=0.001278,0.001585&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Wade,+Cumberland,+North+Carolina&z=18&layer=c&cbll=35.159326,-78.716193&panoid=laWvcPKoKaYMGuMKr6wRVw&cbp=12,174.23,,0,11.27) is a bridge over I-95 near Wade, N.C. that was being redecked (and
presumably raised) when GSV rode by.
WSDOT actually has over height detectors, with lights, and CB announcements, but only on one or two overpasses on I-5 near Centralia, otherwise there are a few 14'6" bridges on I-90 that have exits on them, but no detectors or lights.
Skagit River Bridge retrofit to raise the vehicle clearance:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021465867_skagitbridgexml.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021465867_skagitbridgexml.html)
Quote
Skagit River bridge's arches to be straightened in retrofit
Each of the 25 arched crossbeams on the I-5 Skagit River bridge will be reshaped this fall to provide uniform clearance in all lanes. The work will require some overnight closures.
By Mike Lindblom
Seattle Times transportation reporter
The state will cut, lift and straighten each of the 25 arched crossbeams on the Interstate 5 Skagit River bridge this fall, so they won't be smacked by tall truckloads.
All four lanes of the bridge will provide clearance of 18 feet, compared to the current 15 feet, 6 inches above the right-side fog lines.
The job requires 40 overnight closures, most of which will crimp only one direction of traffic.
(article continues)
Oh, and this is too funny not to pass on:
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2013/07/24/initiative-filed-to-name-skagit-river-bridge-after-tim-eyman/ (http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2013/07/24/initiative-filed-to-name-skagit-river-bridge-after-tim-eyman/)
Quote
Initiative filed to name Skagit River bridge after Tim Eyman
An initiative to the Legislature was filed Wednesday that would apparently name the infamous Skagit River bridge – that collapsed on Interstate 5 in May — after Tim Eyman.
The measure reads: "That portion of state route number 5 from the junction with state route number 538 in Mount Vernon, thence northerly to the junction with state route 20 in Burlington is designated "the Tim Eyman Memorial Bridge" , dedicated to the efforts of Tim Eyman to reduce Washington State tax revenues and the collapse of the Skagit River Bridge on May 23, 2013."
(and the article continues)
Quote from: kkt on July 24, 2013, 11:44:27 PM
Oh, and this is too funny not to pass on:
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2013/07/24/initiative-filed-to-name-skagit-river-bridge-after-tim-eyman/ (http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2013/07/24/initiative-filed-to-name-skagit-river-bridge-after-tim-eyman/)
Quote
Initiative filed to name Skagit River bridge after Tim Eyman
An initiative to the Legislature was filed Wednesday that would apparently name the infamous Skagit River bridge – that collapsed on Interstate 5 in May — after Tim Eyman.
The measure reads: "That portion of state route number 5 from the junction with state route number 538 in Mount Vernon, thence northerly to the junction with state route 20 in Burlington is designated "the Tim Eyman Memorial Bridge" , dedicated to the efforts of Tim Eyman to reduce Washington State tax revenues and the collapse of the Skagit River Bridge on May 23, 2013."
(and the article continues)
Idiots. The bridge collapsed because a non-redundant member was hit by a truck, not because of any issues with cost-cutting or maintenance.
That's fair, Steve. But if you're familiar at all work local politics, beating Tim Eyman at his own game would be well worth the faulty logic. (However, he is sadly still with is, so they may want to remove a word from the name.)
Quote from: Steve on July 25, 2013, 06:49:06 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 24, 2013, 11:44:27 PM
Oh, and this is too funny not to pass on:
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2013/07/24/initiative-filed-to-name-skagit-river-bridge-after-tim-eyman/ (http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2013/07/24/initiative-filed-to-name-skagit-river-bridge-after-tim-eyman/)
Quote
Initiative filed to name Skagit River bridge after Tim Eyman
An initiative to the Legislature was filed Wednesday that would apparently name the infamous Skagit River bridge – that collapsed on Interstate 5 in May — after Tim Eyman.
The measure reads: "That portion of state route number 5 from the junction with state route number 538 in Mount Vernon, thence northerly to the junction with state route 20 in Burlington is designated "the Tim Eyman Memorial Bridge" , dedicated to the efforts of Tim Eyman to reduce Washington State tax revenues and the collapse of the Skagit River Bridge on May 23, 2013."
(and the article continues)
Idiots. The bridge collapsed because a non-redundant member was hit by a truck, not because of any issues with cost-cutting or maintenance.
Yes, it's a most unfair attack. Much like Eyman's initiatives.
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/07/27/3114860/metal-piece-comes-loose-on-new.html
QuoteBURLINGTON, WASH. – The new temporary Skagit River Bridge on Interstate 5 will be closed one lane at a time on Saturday night for inspections after a metal joint came loose, state transportation officials said.
Part of an "L" joint that holds the asphalt in place between the temporary bridge and permanent roadway came loose Saturday morning and the right lane of the bridge was closed for about two hours while crews welded the joint back into place and spread new asphalt, Transportation Department spokesman Kris Olsen said.
The rest of the joints will be inspected between 8 p.m. Saturday and 5 a.m. Sunday.
glad I wasn't there Saturday! we detoured via WA-530 to WA-9 to avoid that bridge.
it appeared uneventful Sunday on our return to Seattle.