Washington bridge collapse

[t walgamuth]

It has come out now that the truck was oversize and the bridge superstructure was not flat. As the truck entered the bridge he was forced to the right by another truck.

Apparently the car running in front of him has a pole the height of the load which cleared but he drove over to the right and hit the low part that comes down in a curve right at the edge of the opening.

Sounds like an unfortunate combination of errors which led to the big load hitting and taking out the "keystone" of the bridge which caused it to collapse.

Very fortunate that nobody was killed or seriously injured...incredible in fact.

[tbomachines]

Diesel truck explosion closes part of Route 81 - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Somewhat related, interesting read at least.

[davidmash]

I believe I also read that at the last inspection the bridge was in dire need of repair like manynof the bridges and roads in this country that have been neglected for decades.

[spdrun]

Bridge must have been really weakened -- it should be designed so that a vehicular impact at any one point would not cause it to collapse. (Really anything short of a ship taking out a pier shouldn't knock it over.)

[t walgamuth]

When it was built the traffic estimates were much lower than what we have now. Although having superstructure like that was common then it is not now....for now apparent reasons. Today's bridges tend to be concrete supported from below.

The interstates changed dramatically how goods flowed around the country. Estimates of total traffic expected over fifty years were reached in about fifteen years so these bridges which were intended to last maybe twenty years are now reaching age fifty and still in service.

The bridge was in good repair but was not designed to stay up if one member was knocked out.

[cmac2012]

Doesn't mean much but I've crossed that bridge, round trip, 4 or 5 times. Didn't take any notice of it at the time of course, just another of many bridges. I heard on the news that it's functionally obsolete, in large part because it's too narrow for modern standards. I forget the numbers but they went on to say that Washington has a higher percentage of narrow bridges than most states.

Apparently the driver was not notified of the normal practice of oversized loads staying in the center lanes. Word I heard was the bridge likely would have stood for some time if not for the collision, IOW, not a bridge near death.

[sloride]

It's Bush's fault, instead of going to Crawford TX after finishing his second term he should have rebuilt that bridge that he neglected. I never heard of a car driving in front of an over size load with a pole to check for height, and not use it at the lowest point.

[4x4_Welder]

Square load vs rounded corner- No way a pilot car could have checked that. That bridge is about 20miles north of my work, I've been across it a few times. There are worse bridges in the area, though.
Looking at the infrastructure in this country, weeds growing up from cracks in the pavement, bridges collapsing, giant heat heaves in concrete, it's starting to look like post-Soviet Russia.

[sloride]

Originally Posted by 4x4_Welder

Square load vs rounded corner- No way a pilot car could have checked that. That bridge is about 20miles north of my work, I've been across it a few times. There are worse bridges in the area, though.
Looking at the infrastructure in this country, weeds growing up from cracks in the pavement, bridges collapsing, giant heat heaves in concrete, it's starting to look like post-Soviet Russia.

There is a way to check for that, and it is at it's lowest clearance not in the center of the road.

[barry12345]

With the reported depth of the water combined with some cars going in. Really amazing there were no fatalities.

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by sloride

There is a way to check for that, and it is at it's lowest clearance not in the center of the road.

The height wasn't listed on a sign up the road, apparently it was supposed to be communicated at some point in the process that such loads use the center, or rather left lane on that bridge, perhaps all bridges, not sure. If they're going to allow oversized loads, they should be more up on making the protocol clear.

Originally Posted by sloride

It's Bush's fault, instead of going to Crawford TX after finishing his second term he should have rebuilt that bridge that he neglected. I never heard of a car driving in front of an over size load with a pole to check for height, and not use it at the lowest point.

Past worn out.

[sloride]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

The height wasn't listed on a sign up the road, apparently it was supposed to be communicated at some point in the process that such loads use the center, or rather left lane on that bridge, perhaps all bridges, not sure. If they're going to allow oversized loads, they should be more up on making the protocol clear.



Past worn out.

Then I guess you are saying that if the height is not marked that even if you exceed thirteen foot six inches and you top your trailer you are not at fault. That would be about what I would consider a current response, as that shifting the blame rather than accepting responsibility is the first priority.

[cmac2012]

First of all, chill out, oh hostile man. Your name is sorta like another member. Did you change your name? You sound a bit like him. At any rate, no I'm not trying to make excuses for anyone but I suspect various people in whatever body sanctions oversize loads - state highways, something - know that bridges like that have a lower overhead on the far right side. And maybe ought to have made it a priority to get that word out, if they are going to issue any sort of sanction to move such loads in the state. I couldn't tell you who screwed up the most on this, I know very freaking little about it. So sue me, and once more, chill the **** out.

Jeez . . .

[sloride]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

First of all, chill out, oh hostile man. Your name is sorta like another member. Did you change your name? You sound a bit like him. At any rate, no I'm not trying to make excuses for anyone but I suspect various people in whatever body sanctions oversize loads - state highways, something - know that bridges like that have a lower overhead on the far right side. And maybe ought to have made it a priority to get that word out, if they are going to issue any sort of sanction to move such loads in the state. I couldn't tell you who screwed up the most on this, I know very freaking little about it. So sue me, and once more, chill the **** out.

Jeez . . .

First of all if you are referring to me, I have not changed my name it's been the same for the two years or so that I have visited here. Second how are my comments hostile? And third you being from Berkley CA oh liberal one I think you are the one who needs to chill the #$%^out.

[cmac2012]

OK, your name is your name. Berkeley? You win a prize for first mention this week. But thanks for caring. The hostile part, and I guess hostile is too strong a word, is this notion that I'm trying to evade responsibility, like it was me who did it. I have no dog in the fight, if anything I'd tend to be down on the truck driver. I'm looking at this with an unbiased eye as to what happened and why. I could just as easily say that you're shifting blame from the state.

The lead truck should have gone under the lowest possible point? Seems unlikely that he'll spot the lower part every time and move over to the far edge of that lane. One sees bridge heights posted often enough, IIRC the deal on this one is that it's above a certain normally safe height so it wasn't posted. I found this on the WA trans web site:

WSDOT - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ

7.Loads exceed 14 ft. and 6 inches high, one escort vehicle is required in front equipped with a height pole. Manufactured housing requires front escort with height pole when exceeding 15 ft. in height. The Department does not guarantee height clearances; therefore, on any route where the height is in question, a front escort vehicle equipped with a height pole should be used.

8.In the opinion of the Department of Transportation, escort vehicles are necessary to protect the traveling public, for any over-dimensional and/or overweight move, either across, upon, or along a highway.

Given the expense that this collision will entail, and to many people, seems cost effective to me for the state to try to come up with a relatively close guarantee on clearances. Such dimensions don't vary that much through the seasons and with age. As they are charging a fee for the oversized load permit, it seems reasonable to me that the purchaser should get some value from it, such as info that would help prevent costly errors like this. Of course the fee is also justified in terms of compensation for extra wear and tear on roadways from giant loads.