I-5 bridge over Skagit River collapses

[Duke87]

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.

[corco]

[Kacie Jane]

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.

The truck was headed southbound, so the collision happened at the beginning of the bridge.

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.

[hm insulators]

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? (There's a reason why the log books are nicknamed "lie sheets" or "comic books.")

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.

[corco]

They should make Canada pay for it- the load being transported was primarily going to benefit the Canadian economy anyway

[Kacie Jane]

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.

[Kacie Jane]

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.

[Brandon]

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.

[Brandon]

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:

It 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.

[Kacie Jane]

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.)

[kkt]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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:

It 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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

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.

[ShawnP]

Let's declare war on the Canucks and steal all their Cold Air.

[vdeane]

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).

[Bickendan]

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,

State 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).

[agentsteel53]

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.

[vtk]

So, a perfect storm of various people saying "good enough", "not my concern", etcetera...

[J N Winkler]

Don't see where the Canada hate is coming from though.

Mercantilism is deeply ingrained in the American psyche.

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 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.

So, a perfect storm of various people saying "good enough", "not my concern", etcetera...

This is how you get the holes in the Swiss cheese to line up.

[jeffandnicole]

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."

[myosh_tino]

Let's declare war on the Canucks...

The Canucks have already been dealt with.  The Sharks took care of that! 

[broadhurst04]

...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.

[sp_redelectric]

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.

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).

[Brandon]

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.

[NE2]

Was the truck oversized in width or only height?