I-5 bridge over Skagit River collapses

[kkt]

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?

[NE2]

"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.

[J N Winkler]

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?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but I imagine these issues will be gone into very thoroughly in the NTSB investigation.

Is 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).

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?

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.

[J N Winkler]

"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.

[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).

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.

[Landshark]

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. 

[NE2]

Whoa. It took four pages for someone to blame transit.

[Landshark]

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.

[NE2]

yawn

[Landshark]

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."   

[Landshark]

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. 

[agentsteel53]

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.

[sp_redelectric]

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.

[Kacie Jane]

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.

[agentsteel53]

Left-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.

[vtk]

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.

[Landshark]

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.

-   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. 

And 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.   

It'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.

[Landshark]

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.

[Kacie Jane]

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.

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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

Are you an APU veteran, by any chance?

[KEK Inc.]

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.

[NE2]

And there's the union blaming...

[Bickendan]

Ok, let's cool it with the political sidetracking and get back to our bridge at hand, please.

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[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."

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.