Another Interstate Bridge Collapse

[asterism]

(My bold)

Here, let me help:

1. Remedial reading lessons for the semi-driver & his lead vehicle driver - who both should have seen the vertical clearance signs & stopped.

2. Remedial reading lessons for the semi-driver & his lead vehicle driver - who both should have seen the max load signs & stopped.

3. Both of these drivers' records should be investigated in depth. If they're such piss-poor drivers as to miss max height & max load signs, they've been driving for years if not decades, & probably have several suspended licenses each. They should probably be stricken from commercial driving, ever. If in fact they both have other suspended licenses, they should do some jail time - a coupla years sounds good to me, depending on how much damage & carnage they've been responsible for in total.

4. Both drivers' liability insurance should pay up for bridge repairs, bridge inspections, civil damages to the other vehicles, hospital charges, ambulance charges, lost labor, water rescue charges for the other drivers who took a bath as a result of these twos' stupidity.

Total costs are probably in the millions, mostly for bridge repair. If push comes to shove, I'd be willing to explore breaking up these two drivers for parts. If these two are too far gone to do their job in an acceptable manner, perhaps we can get Stephen Hawking back on his feet - a more than worhtwhile trade, my opinion.

My understanding is there is no sign.

My understanding is that the bridge was tall enough in the center, but not marked that it was lower in the right lane.


[youtube]01wxlztU6Z0[/youtube]




My understanding is the truck wasn't overweight, just over height and width.

Chances are good that this wasn't the drivers fault, although they or the escort driver will probably get the blame.

An oversized load is required to use the furthest right lane where possible.

The escort vehicle (pole car) is required to travel in the lane and over width load is using in addition to the lane it is traveling in...the center lane.

It the bridge was higher in the center lane than it was in the right lane, and it wasn't marked...the Washington State Department of Transportation is at fault.

It should be marked like this:

.
The bridge was a fracture critical bridge that should have been replaced years ago.


Bridge collapse shines light on aging infrastructure

Bridge collapse in Washington


The Skagit River bridge, built in 1955, is classified as a "fracture critical" bridge by the Federal Highway Administration. That means it lacks redundant supports elements, not that the design is faulty. Many fracture-critical bridges were built in the 1960s and 1970s to finish the Interstate highway system because they were quicker and cheaper to build. They generally aren't built today because newer designs require less maintenance.

• 
• 
• 

Source: Sources Arturo E. Schultz, professor of civil engineering, U-Minn.; AP; USA TODAY research
Frank Pompa, Janet Loehrke and Anne R. Carey, USA TODAY





I haven't heard anything on the local news about the Canadian company's truck being overweight but there have been reports about A) the truck was to tall and B) to wide for two trucks, side by side, to stay in their lanes on the functionally obsolete bridge that should have been replaced years ago.


"The lorry was hauling drilling equipment that was too tall, and the top right corner at the front of the load hit several of the bridge's trusses, Washington State Patrol trooper Mark Francis told the Skagit Valley Herald.

The vehicle was able to drive off the bridge and the driver waited for police at the scene.

'Miracles'
The company that owns the lorry, Mullen Trucking in Alberta, Canada, said it had a permit to transport the equipment across the bridge and had hired a local escort to help with navigation."
.

So why wasn't it replaced when the "shovel ready" stimulus was passed?

 

[Mertex]

Is that a serious question?

Well sure? How would you like to be the person driving a car a couple of blocks behind an oversize-load truck that is going to bring down a bridge that has been determined to be structurally sound?

Do you really not understand gravity?

Duh! Gravity had nothing to do with it. Oversize load doesn't mean "heavier"!

Or do think it's feasible to make sure that every bridge be able to hold any possible load that can be put on a truck?

Bridges have a load capacity (generally about the same for all) and trucks are supposed to know if their load exceeds it. From my understanding, the driver and his truck had been cleared for that bridge even though his "oversize" ended up being the cause - it hit the span.

 

[asterism]

Well sure? How would you like to be the person driving a car a couple of blocks behind an oversize-load truck that is going to bring down a bridge that has been determined to be structurally sound?

Do you really not understand gravity?

Duh! Gravity had nothing to do with it. Oversize load doesn't mean "heavier"!

Or do think it's feasible to make sure that every bridge be able to hold any possible load that can be put on a truck?

Bridges have a load capacity (generally about the same for all) and trucks are supposed to know if their load exceeds it. From my understanding, the driver and his truck had been cleared for that bridge even though his "oversize" ended up being the cause - it hit the span.

"Generally the same for all?"

You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Please stop commenting on policy until you learn a lot more.

 

[Mertex]

Do you really not understand gravity?

Duh! Gravity had nothing to do with it. Oversize load doesn't mean "heavier"!

Or do think it's feasible to make sure that every bridge be able to hold any possible load that can be put on a truck?

Bridges have a load capacity (generally about the same for all) and trucks are supposed to know if their load exceeds it. From my understanding, the driver and his truck had been cleared for that bridge even though his "oversize" ended up being the cause - it hit the span.

"Generally the same for all?"

The policy to determine the live load capacity of bridges is uniform throughout the US.

You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Please stop commenting on policy until you learn a lot more.

You want to blame the I-5 bridge collapse to "gravity" and I'm the one who doesn't know what I am talking about?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Do you really not understand gravity?

Duh! Gravity had nothing to do with it. Oversize load doesn't mean "heavier"!

Or do think it's feasible to make sure that every bridge be able to hold any possible load that can be put on a truck?

Bridges have a load capacity (generally about the same for all) and trucks are supposed to know if their load exceeds it. From my understanding, the driver and his truck had been cleared for that bridge even though his "oversize" ended up being the cause - it hit the span.

"Generally the same for all?"

You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Please stop commenting on policy until you learn a lot more.

the "oversized" vehicle hit part the support system

weight was not the issue

size was the issue

 

[Mertex]

Duh! Gravity had nothing to do with it. Oversize load doesn't mean "heavier"!


Bridges have a load capacity (generally about the same for all) and trucks are supposed to know if their load exceeds it. From my understanding, the driver and his truck had been cleared for that bridge even though his "oversize" ended up being the cause - it hit the span.

"Generally the same for all?"

You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Please stop commenting on policy until you learn a lot more.

the "oversized" vehicle hit part the support system

weight was not the issue

size was the issue

That's what I was trying to tell him, but he's the one who knows more!

 

[asterism]

Duh! Gravity had nothing to do with it. Oversize load doesn't mean "heavier"!


Bridges have a load capacity (generally about the same for all) and trucks are supposed to know if their load exceeds it. From my understanding, the driver and his truck had been cleared for that bridge even though his "oversize" ended up being the cause - it hit the span.

"Generally the same for all?"

The policy to determine the live load capacity of bridges is uniform throughout the US.

But that's not what you said. You said, "Bridges have a load capacity (generally about the same for all)"

You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Please stop commenting on policy until you learn a lot more.

You want to blame the I-5 bridge collapse to "gravity" and I'm the one who doesn't know what I am talking about?

Ok, this should be fun.

If gravity is not to blame, explain how this bridge would have collapsed without it.

 

[asterism]

Duh! Gravity had nothing to do with it. Oversize load doesn't mean "heavier"!


Bridges have a load capacity (generally about the same for all) and trucks are supposed to know if their load exceeds it. From my understanding, the driver and his truck had been cleared for that bridge even though his "oversize" ended up being the cause - it hit the span.

"Generally the same for all?"

You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Please stop commenting on policy until you learn a lot more.

the "oversized" vehicle hit part the support system

weight was not the issue

size was the issue

"Generally the same for all?"

You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Please stop commenting on policy until you learn a lot more.

the "oversized" vehicle hit part the support system

weight was not the issue

size was the issue

That's what I was trying to tell him, but he's the one who knows more!

If that's what you were trying to say, then why didn't you just say it?

Please link to where you were trying to say this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.
The tax cut culture strikes again!


I-5 bridge collapses over Skagit River; cars in the water | The Today File | Seattle Times


Posted by Brian M. Rosenthal




An Interstate 5 bridge collapsed into the Skagit River on Thursday evening, dumping cars and people into the waters north of Mount Vernon.

Washington State Patrol spokesman Mark Francis wrote on Twitter at 7:19 p.m. that both the northbound and southbound lanes had collapsed in the water.

Francis told the Associated Press he did not know how many people were in the water, whether there were any injuries or what caused the collapse.

Rescue efforts were under way soon after as dozens of people gathered on the shore to watch. A reporter on the scene said he saw a rescue boat take at least one person to shore amid cheers from the spectators.

Photographs of the collapse circulating on Twitter and Facebook showed a wide gap in the bridge and at least two vehicles in the water.

The bridge, built in 1955, was classified by the National Bridge Inventory as “functionally obsolete” in both 2000 and 2010. But the Washington Department of Transportation does not list it among its list of “structurally deficient bridges.”

Traffic around the site was backed up for miles.
U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen released a statement saying in part that he encourages “people to follow police instructions and stay away from the site of the collapse to let first responders address the situation safely.”

<snip>


.

Let me get this straight, the tax cuts caused the driver to ignore the height restrictions on the bridge, which caused him to drive a trailer that was too tall into the bridge support.

Glad to know your brain is so sharp.

 

[auditor0007]

Gee, another shovel ready project that could have been done with Stimulus funds instead of pouring money into Solyndra.

Pick a loser and ignore all the winners. How typical.

Solyndra's Failure Is No Reason To Abandon Federal Energy Innovation Policy

10 comments, 3 called-out Comment Now
Follow Comments
By Jesse Jenkins, Devon Swezey, and Alex Trembath

Wednesday’s news that the California solar cell manufacturer and DOE loan guarantee recipient Solyndra will be declaring Chapter 11 bankruptcy has government critics grumbling about clean tech boondoggles and failed government programs. But Solyndra’s failure, while unfortunate, is hardly an indictment of federal energy technology policy. Failure is to be expected with emerging, innovative companies, whether they are financed by the government or the private sector. The success of the Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) should thus be judged not by any one investment but by the performance of the entire portfolio.

Critics have seized on the news of Solyndra’s bankruptcy to condemn the Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program, which provided a $535 million loan guarantee in 2009. The National Review’s Greg Pollowitz writes that Solyndra’s failure shows “why the government should not play venture capitalist.” Yet the fact is that, when judged by its entire diverse portfolio of investments, the LGP has performed remarkably well. Indeed, with a capitalization of just $4 billion, DOE has committed or closed $37.8 billion in loan guarantees for 36 innovative clean energy projects. The Solyndra case represents less than 2% of total loan commitments made by DOE, and will be easily covered by a capitalization of eight to ten times larger than any ultimate losses expected following the bankruptcy proceedings.

The broad success story of the LGP shows why federal investment in clean energy is necessary to help early-stage clean energy technologies achieve scale and reach commercialization. The inherent uncertainty in investing in novel technologies, coupled with the high capital costs and long time horizons, prohibits most venture capital funds from investing in large-scale clean energy projects. Financing tools and direct investment from the federal government can help bridge this well-known “Commercialization Valley of Death,” and the LGP is an effective way of doing that.


Instead of “picking winners and losers,” as the program’s critics allege, the program actually reduces risk for a suite of innovative clean energy technologies and allows venture capitalists and other private sector investors to invest in the best technology. Rather than picking winners, the LGP enables innovative companies to compete in the marketplace, allowing winners to emerge from competition. And while Solyndra is shutting its doors, companies like SunPower, First Solar, and Brightsource Energy, which also received loan guarantees and other support from the federal government, are industry leading success stories.

Solyndra's Failure Is No Reason To Abandon Federal Energy Innovation Policy - Forbes

 

[asterism]

Gee, another shovel ready project that could have been done with Stimulus funds instead of pouring money into Solyndra.

Pick a loser and ignore all the winners. How typical.

Solyndra's Failure Is No Reason To Abandon Federal Energy Innovation Policy

10 comments, 3 called-out Comment Now
Follow Comments
By Jesse Jenkins, Devon Swezey, and Alex Trembath

Wednesday’s news that the California solar cell manufacturer and DOE loan guarantee recipient Solyndra will be declaring Chapter 11 bankruptcy has government critics grumbling about clean tech boondoggles and failed government programs. But Solyndra’s failure, while unfortunate, is hardly an indictment of federal energy technology policy. Failure is to be expected with emerging, innovative companies, whether they are financed by the government or the private sector. The success of the Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) should thus be judged not by any one investment but by the performance of the entire portfolio.

Critics have seized on the news of Solyndra’s bankruptcy to condemn the Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program, which provided a $535 million loan guarantee in 2009. The National Review’s Greg Pollowitz writes that Solyndra’s failure shows “why the government should not play venture capitalist.” Yet the fact is that, when judged by its entire diverse portfolio of investments, the LGP has performed remarkably well. Indeed, with a capitalization of just $4 billion, DOE has committed or closed $37.8 billion in loan guarantees for 36 innovative clean energy projects. The Solyndra case represents less than 2% of total loan commitments made by DOE, and will be easily covered by a capitalization of eight to ten times larger than any ultimate losses expected following the bankruptcy proceedings.

The broad success story of the LGP shows why federal investment in clean energy is necessary to help early-stage clean energy technologies achieve scale and reach commercialization. The inherent uncertainty in investing in novel technologies, coupled with the high capital costs and long time horizons, prohibits most venture capital funds from investing in large-scale clean energy projects. Financing tools and direct investment from the federal government can help bridge this well-known “Commercialization Valley of Death,” and the LGP is an effective way of doing that.


Instead of “picking winners and losers,” as the program’s critics allege, the program actually reduces risk for a suite of innovative clean energy technologies and allows venture capitalists and other private sector investors to invest in the best technology. Rather than picking winners, the LGP enables innovative companies to compete in the marketplace, allowing winners to emerge from competition. And while Solyndra is shutting its doors, companies like SunPower, First Solar, and Brightsource Energy, which also received loan guarantees and other support from the federal government, are industry leading success stories.

Solyndra's Failure Is No Reason To Abandon Federal Energy Innovation Policy - Forbes

True.

All losers but Tesla is a reason to abandon the crony capitalism that didn't stimulate the new green economy.

A battery factory in Michigan? Really? What about that situation made anyone think it would work?

 

[FA_Q2]

How does any of this have anything to do with road funding? As pointed out, obviously this has zero to do with the sequester as the funds were never slated for this project to begin with but there is plenty of cash for roads in Washington. The problem is not the funds but where they go. If bridges that are susceptible to this type of collapse need replacing then the funds for other projects need to go there.

It does not matter how much you pour into the highway system, until it is determined that this type of bridge needs replacing, it simply is not going to happen.

Instead of building this:
Alaskan Way Viaduct - Launch pit complete, ready for Bertha
who’s benefit has always been extremely dubious and insanely expensive we could have fixed some damn bridges.

 

[Jarlaxle]

(My bold)

Here, let me help:

1. Remedial reading lessons for the semi-driver & his lead vehicle driver - who both should have seen the vertical clearance signs & stopped.

2. Remedial reading lessons for the semi-driver & his lead vehicle driver - who both should have seen the max load signs & stopped.

3. Both of these drivers' records should be investigated in depth. If they're such piss-poor drivers as to miss max height & max load signs, they've been driving for years if not decades, & probably have several suspended licenses each. They should probably be stricken from commercial driving, ever. If in fact they both have other suspended licenses, they should do some jail time - a coupla years sounds good to me, depending on how much damage & carnage they've been responsible for in total.

4. Both drivers' liability insurance should pay up for bridge repairs, bridge inspections, civil damages to the other vehicles, hospital charges, ambulance charges, lost labor, water rescue charges for the other drivers who took a bath as a result of these twos' stupidity.

Total costs are probably in the millions, mostly for bridge repair. If push comes to shove, I'd be willing to explore breaking up these two drivers for parts. If these two are too far gone to do their job in an acceptable manner, perhaps we can get Stephen Hawking back on his feet - a more than worhtwhile trade, my opinion.

More than likely, there were no weight or height limit signs. Interstate bridges have minimum weight limits to meet when built, and unless called out as such, permit loads can use them. At 14'7", the bridge was over a foot higher than the Interstate minimum height (13'6"), and as such needed no height marking. (Note: MANY bridges have no height markings for that reason.)

Very true, but most interstates are marked to 15 ft at the lowest point of the bridge...especially west of the Mississippi.

​

It varies state by state. I have seen bridges marked with heights as high as 22', and unmarked bridges at about 13'8".

 

[Jarlaxle]

Er, the Sufficiency rate at 54 suggests the followiing.

Sufficiency Rating
50 – 79 - Eligible for costs to rehabilitate or refurbish bridge
http://old.post-gazette.com/downloads/20070814PennDOT_bridge_chart.pdf

Also, it was listed as being functionally obsolete.

The bridge is not considered structurally deficient but is listed as being “functionally obsolete” - a category meaning that their design is outdated, such as having narrow shoulders are low clearance underneath, according to a database compiled by the Federal Highway Administration.

The bridge was built in 1955 and has a sufficiency rating of 57.4 out of 100, according to federal records. That is well below the statewide average rating of 80, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal data, but 759 bridges in the state have a lower sufficiency score.
I-5 bridge collapses north of Seattle; people in water | West Central Tribune

Yes, it was "Functionally obsolete" because the guardrail transitions did not meet the current acceptable standard.

http://www.nationalbridges.com/inde...s&query=8&lqm_id=679300&&format=raw&&Itemid=2

The bridge was deemed structurally sound.

So, an oversized load can bring down a structurally sound bridge?

Truck hauling heavy equipment caused I-5 bridge collapse | Memphis Breaking News, Weather and Sports | WPTY-TV | ABC24, abc24.com

Yes, when it knocks out a support beam!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Seattle, where less than 6% of scientists and engineers are Republicans. No wonder stuff collapses. Liberal engineers designed the bridge based on their feelings and then used the tolls to pay union pension instead of repairs.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We should fund the construction of our infrastructure. This is a loser for us republicans to build other nations while doing nothing for ours.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Is that a serious question?

Well sure? How would you like to be the person driving a car a couple of blocks behind an oversize-load truck that is going to bring down a bridge that has been determined to be structurally sound?

Do you really not understand gravity?

Or do think it's feasible to make sure that every bridge be able to hold any possible load that can be put on a truck?

I was told by a structural engineer that the standard for road bridges is that it is designed to hold its rated weight, x the number of lanes, x4. Also note: this was NOT an overweight load, it was an overHEIGHT load! (Honestly, I suspect it was no heavier than a large dump truck or concrete mixer.)

 

[editec]

Any bridge that is designed in such a way that a truck passing over it can knock it down is NOT safe.

Either they ought to have limited the size of vehicles going over it, or built it to higher standards.

I am NOT at all sure this event has anything to do with maintenance.

 

[Jarlaxle]

AUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH! A truck going over it DID NOT cause the collapse! An oversized truck KNOCKING DOWN A SUPPORT BEAM caused the collapse! God and goddess, THINK!

 

[editec]

AUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH! A truck going over it DID NOT cause the collapse! An oversized truck KNOCKING DOWN A SUPPORT BEAM caused the collapse! God and goddess, THINK!

Yeah we get that Jarl.

Now I'll say it again...any bridge that is built to a standard where a truck crossing over it can knock it down if it has an accident is NOT built to an acceptable standard for the vehicles that cross over it.

The mere fact that a truck could hit such critical supporting structures makes me think the bridge was NEVER SAFE for THAT TYPE OF TRAFFIC in the first place.