I-5 bridge over Skagit River collapses

[kkt]

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

[TEG24601]

Gov. Inslee just announced that the span is opening to traffic, with a 40MPH speed limit tomorrow, June 19.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[kkt]

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.

[kkt]

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.

[kkt]

The temporary bridge is open now in both directions.  No oversize or overweight trucks.

[agentsteel53]

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).

[jeffandnicole]

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?

[kkt]

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.

[kkt]

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.

[Bickendan]

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.

[Henry]

Apparently, they didn't learn from the Minneapolis disaster of 2007... 

But at least there is a bridge in place again for the short term.

[agentsteel53]

Apparently, they didn't learn from the Minneapolis disaster of 2007... 

what were they supposed to have learned?  immediate permanent replacement, not a temporary structure?

[kkt]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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!

[kkt]

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.

[agentsteel53]

also, how much of this is being paid by taxpayers, and how much by one very, very pissed off insurance company?

[kkt]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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 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 is the actual detector.

Here is the warning beacon (on top of a BYS) that is activated by overheight vehicles.

Last sign before the low bridge is here.

And the offending low bridge itself.

Here is a bridge over I-95 near Wade, N.C. that was being redecked (and presumably raised) when GSV rode by.

[TEG24601]

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.

[kkt]

Skagit River Bridge retrofit to raise the vehicle clearance:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021465867_skagitbridgexml.html

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)

[kkt]

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/

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)

[Alps]

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/

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.

[Kacie Jane]

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.)