Dump Truck Makes highway gantry collapse in Norwalk, CT

[KEVIN_224]

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Highway-Sign-Collapses-on-Route-7-173548141.html

Looks like a dump truck had a little oopsie!

This is at the southern terminus of US Route 7 in Norwalk, CT.

[NE2]

Dog bites man...

[cpzilliacus]

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Highway-Sign-Collapses-on-Route-7-173548141.html

Looks like a dump truck had a little oopsie!

This is at the southern terminus of US Route 7 in Norwalk, CT.

I have often wondered why there's not more in-cab warning systems when the dump bed is raised.

Hope the  insurance on the  truck was paid-up - that's going to be pretty expensive to repair!

[agentsteel53]

I have often wondered why there's not more in-cab warning systems when the dump bed is raised.

Hope the  insurance on the  truck was paid-up - that's going to be pretty expensive to repair!

I am figuring that, at some point, the operator just grew oblivious to Yet Another Idiot Light.

[roadman]

Hope the  insurance on the  truck was paid-up - that's going to be pretty expensive to repair!

I hope ConnDOT has the common sense to replace the signs and support without waiting to get the reimbursement check from the insurance company.  Recall those signs and support coming off the southbound Zakim Bridge in Boston that were also struck by a raised dump truck bed.  That was in 2007, and MassDOT STILL hasn't replaced them.

[Duke87]

Wonder if the new sign will still use Bridgeport as the northbound control point. This interchange is the only spot where it is used (as far as I'm aware, at least) - otherwise it's New Haven to the north and New York to the south.

[KEVIN_224]

This is making me remember a sign which was taken down by a truck a couple of years ago. It was along I-84 West in either Vernon or Manchester. They simply replaced it with a small green sign on the shoulder. A portion of the tube gantry (minus the BGS) still stands there today.

[jeffandnicole]

I have often wondered why there's not more in-cab warning systems when the dump bed is raised.

Hope the  insurance on the  truck was paid-up - that's going to be pretty expensive to repair!

I am figuring that, at some point, the operator just grew oblivious to Yet Another Idiot Light.

It could also be a malfunction.  The truck obviously was able to drive beneath other overpasses and signs.  Sometimes, a wrong button is hit, or a malfunction occurs, and stuff like this happens.  At least it was only a sign support and not a bridge!

[roadman]

This is making me remember a sign which was taken down by a truck a couple of years ago. It was along I-84 West in either Vernon or Manchester. They simply replaced it with a small green sign on the shoulder. A portion of the tube gantry (minus the BGS) still stands there today.

That sign and support on I-84 in Manchester are to be replaced under a ConnDOT "spot replacement" project for various damaged signs and supports.

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=24139

[SteveG1988]

What is this, dump truck hitting stuff month?

First it was the dumptruck hitting the I-195 overpass on the NJ Turnpike, now this.

[Alps]

What is this, dump truck hitting stuff month?

First it was the dumptruck hitting the I-195 overpass on the NJ Turnpike, now this.

I say make a FB event page for it and try to get October designated as such.

[SteveG1988]

October, National Dump Truck Awareness Month

[connroadgeek]

Wonder if the new sign will still use Bridgeport as the northbound control point. This interchange is the only spot where it is used (as far as I'm aware, at least) - otherwise it's New Haven to the north and New York to the south.

Bridgeport is also used (or was before the sign replacement project) at the Scribner Ave Norwalk on-ramp to I-95 N/B I believe. I think the sign that was struck was fairly new as it was part of the Route 7 sign replacement project that followed the lower Fairfield County I-95 sign replacement project. The Bridgeport sign looks OK for re-mounting anyway.

[roadman65]

What is this, dump truck hitting stuff month?

First it was the dumptruck hitting the I-195 overpass on the NJ Turnpike, now this.

We had one a few years back where one hit the FL 528 bridge over Orange Avenue in Orlando.  It was one of the construction vehicles working on the FL 528 at the time and caused his own company to be behind in finishing the project as well.  I bet he was fired on the spot!

[jeffandnicole]

What is this, dump truck hitting stuff month?

First it was the dumptruck hitting the I-195 overpass on the NJ Turnpike, now this.

Actually, the dump truck never hit the overpass.

The flames did, however.

[roadman]

What is this, dump truck hitting stuff month?

First it was the dumptruck hitting the I-195 overpass on the NJ Turnpike, now this.

We had one a few years back where one hit the FL 528 bridge over Orange Avenue in Orlando.  It was one of the construction vehicles working on the FL 528 at the time and caused his own company to be behind in finishing the project as well.  I bet he was fired on the spot!

This periodically happens in Massachusetts on resurfacing projects.  The operator of the truck dumping the asphalt for the spreading machines forgets to lower the bed when it's empty and whacks a sign or bridge.  At least in those cases, the state knows who to bill for the damages.

[southshore720]

Hope the  insurance on the  truck was paid-up - that's going to be pretty expensive to repair!

I hope ConnDOT has the common sense to replace the signs and support without waiting to get the reimbursement check from the insurance company.  Recall those signs and support coming off the southbound Zakim Bridge in Boston that were also struck by a raised dump truck bed.  That was in 2007, and MassDOT STILL hasn't replaced them.

I hope so too, Roadman.  I hate it when fresh signage gets ruined!  Although I wonder if they are going to use the pipe gantry support or keep the box-style as they are starting to revert to (evidenced on the new New Haven renovations).

[roadman]

I hope so too, Roadman.  I hate it when fresh signage gets ruined!  Although I wonder if they are going to use the pipe gantry support or keep the box-style as they are starting to revert to (evidenced on the new New Haven renovations).

Current support design policy (if CT actually has one) aside, and assuming the foundations and anchor bolts weren't damaged, it's likely that they will replace the box truss span with another truss instead of changing to a pipe support at this location.  Don't know how Connecticut's accident recovery program works, but in Massachusetts, the insurance companies are can be very strict about only paying for "in-kind" replacement when one of their clients damages or destroys state highway property.

I suspect the current CT "spot locations" support replacement project I mentioned in an earlier post is being funded through their accident reimbursement program, as every location calls for an "in-kind" replacement of the damaged support type instead of standardizing on one particular design for all the new supports.

Post revised 10/18 for clarity

[agentsteel53]

in Massachusetts, the insurance companies are very strict about only paying for "in-kind" replacement when one of their clients damages or destroys state highway property.

I'm totally gonna put up an embossed, cateyed cutout route marker and knock it down...

"well, gee, looks like you guys are gonna need a replacement."

[vdeane]

but in Massachusetts, the insurance companies are very strict about only paying for "in-kind" replacement when one of their clients damages or destroys state highway property.

How is that allowed?  If the sign damaged isn't MUTCD compliant, doesn't that place the insurance company in violation of federal law?

[roadman]

but in Massachusetts, the insurance companies are very strict about only paying for "in-kind" replacement when one of their clients damages or destroys state highway property.

How is that allowed?  If the sign damaged isn't MUTCD compliant, doesn't that place the insurance company in violation of federal law?

Allow me to clarify.  In most cases, minor changes to meet current design standards are allowed, especially if what is being replaced is no longer available.  As the costs of a compliant sign versus a non-compliant one (say changing a damaged text sign to a new graphic one) are roughly the same, making the sign MUTCD compliant would be allowed, especially if it's a standard design available "off the shelf" from fabricators.  Likewise, replacing a damaged non-compliant guardrail end treatment with a compliant one would also usually be allowed.  What normally wouldn't be allowed would be replacing a collapsed truss sign support with a tubular one (greater expense, and trusses are still commonly available), or extending a guardrail run several hundred feet in addition to replacing the damaged end treatment.

Of course, that's not to say that MassDOT could decide to upgrade sign supports or guardrail runs in conjunction with repairing the accident damage.  It's just that any additional improvements would be on the state's dime, and couldn't be billed to the insurance company.  And, obviously, if updating the damaged hardware to current standards can be done at equal or lower cost than furnishing an "in kind" replacement, then there should be no issues with the changes.

However, in most cases I've been aware of, such instances of updating hardware because of accident damage rarely come up.

[vdeane]

Not covering additional improvements is fair.  I read your statement to mean they would be off the hook.

[wytout]

This is making me remember a sign which was taken down by a truck a couple of years ago. It was along I-84 West in either Vernon or Manchester. They simply replaced it with a small green sign on the shoulder. A portion of the tube gantry (minus the BGS) still stands there today.

That sign and support on I-84 in Manchester are to be replaced under a ConnDOT "spot replacement" project for various damaged signs and supports.

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=24139

That was replaced a week ago...  Funny that that sign had already been recently replaced when it was struck by a dump truck.  It already had a circa 2008 right aligned exit tab with no border.  The new sign has a border on the tab, a-la 2010 +

there must have been some damage to the concrete foundation of the pipe gantry, as the remaining pipe disappeared a month ago, and a new base was poured.