Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
I-5 Bridge North Of Seattle Collapses  
User currently offlineAirstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2732 posts, RR: 3
Posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2947 times:

OK. Typing this, as I do, right the heck in downtown Minneapolis, a city still palpably shaken by the I-35W collapse five years ago, I am a little fed up with bridges in this country collapsing. At least this event so far appears to be gloriously fatality-free.

I am an enthusiastic consumer of the services afforded by our interstate highway system and I don't want to start traveling less due to compromised confidence in the system's physical safety.   


Pancakes are delicious.
86 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2728 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2911 times:

Glad noone was killed this time... Last time I heard there were 10s of 1000s of bridges in the US at risk structurally. This is what happens when you convince the electorate that public infrastructure investment is a socialist plot...


When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8913 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2892 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 1):
This is what happens when you convince the electorate that public infrastructure investment is a socialist plot...

Thankfully nobody here jumps to conclusions. Wouldn't it be embarrassing if it turns out that the bridge collapsed because of an oversized or overweight load, or something like that?

Quote:
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structurally deficient but is listed as being "functionally obsolete" - a category meaning that their design is outdated, such as having narrow shoulders are low clearance underneath, according to a database compiled by the Federal Highway Administration.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20782 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2895 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 1):
This is what happens when you convince the electorate that public infrastructure investment is a socialist plot.

Reports are that an oversized Stalinist truck had rammed the bridge shortly before its collapse, reminiscent of Chairman Mao's march across China, as the truck's driver was distracted while listening to an audiobook of Mein Kampf and tweeting with Mussolini!

I-5 bridge collapses over Skagit River near Mount Vernon; cars in river

Reports are that Castro has offered the offending driver immunity if he can procure transportation to Cuba. Airports have been alerted to lay on extra security measures.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2858 times:

This came as no real suprise. It's the desolate infrastructure in the US.

Fewer wars and the US would have the money to replace all these faulty bridges and other constructions. There are "developing countries" which have a better infrastructure than many states in the US.  

[Edited 2013-05-24 00:32:41]


Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlinetrav110 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 536 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2836 times:

Hardly surprising. You guys have lots of bridges in pretty bad shape. I you'd spent just a quarter of what you have spent on defense for the past 10 years, this wouldn't have happened. You get what you pay for.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Thankfully nobody here jumps to conclusions. Wouldn't it be embarrassing if it turns out that the bridge collapsed because of an oversized or overweight load, or something like that?

One overweight truck isn't going to immediately cause a bridge to collapse. It will cause fatigue and cracking that builds and builds over the life of the bridge (many of which are 50 or 60 years old) until it can no longer hold the weight that it was designed for and collapses.

[Edited 2013-05-24 00:49:52]

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8913 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2807 times:

Quoting trav110 (Reply 5):
One overweight truck isn't going to immediately cause a bridge to collapse.

It can if the truck or its load rams into a key structural member with enough force. It's a truss frame bridge. Take out the right piece and you compromise the whole thing.

I'm not saying that that is definitely what happened. We don't know yet. What I am saying is that we know a few facts:

1) The bridge was NOT considered structurally deficient - which means, oldeuropean, that if all of the money in the world were available they would not have replaced it. The bridge was considered obsolete in terms of modern height/width standards, but structurally OK.

2) They are talking to the driver of a specific truck and zeroed in on him very fast.

So instead of trying to make political statements (which have little basis in fact to begin with), how about waiting for a bit more info.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2450 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2801 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 3):

If the passengers could elect the aircrew, you'd be my choice for Captain. 
Quoting trav110 (Reply 5):
One overweight truck isn't going to immediately cause a bridge to collapse. It will cause fatigue and cracking that builds and builds over the life of the bridge (many of which are 50 or 60 years old) until it can no longer hold the weight that it was designed for and collapses.

  

At least 95% of all the bridges here were built when we still had a truck weight limit of less than 28 tons. Now, 40 ton trucks are travelling on our roads by the thousands, and... nothing has collapsed. Good engineering, surveillance and maintenance.

Nevermind that bridges are, after construction, actually tested by using massively overweight trucks to measure the tension that is build up in the bridge.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14127 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2702 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 7):
At least 95% of all the bridges here were built when we still had a truck weight limit of less than 28 tons. Now, 40 ton trucks are travelling on our roads by the thousands, and... nothing has collapsed. Good engineering, surveillance and maintenance.

Though lots of expensive maintenance and upgrades involved.

Jan


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2657 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 1):

That's not the problem. The problem is spending billions of fuel taxes that were once 100% earmarked for roads on the subsidization of mass transit, or wasteful regions like the Bay Area of California spending billions more on projects like the Bay Bridge because they don't know how to properly manage a project.

Thank God nobody was killed.

[Edited 2013-05-24 07:27:15]

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20782 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2638 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 9):
The problem is spending billions of fuel taxes that were once 100% earmarked for roads on the subsidization of mass transit

Federal fuel taxes have always been a slush fund of sorts, even being used to finance the defense budget in the 1940s. There are separate budgets financed from federal fuel taxes, one is the Highway Account, another is the Mass Transit Account. How much of the Highway Account is being plundered for the Mass Transit Account?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29812 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2596 times:

Glad to see nobody jumped to the conclusion it was structural failure due to age.

There is currently at least one witness to a tractor trailer with an oversized load striking the bridge immediately prior to the failure.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently onlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1726 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2595 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 9):
The problem is spending billions of fuel taxes that were once 100% earmarked for roads on the subsidization of mass transit,

I would argue that mass transit isn't necessarily an inappropriate use of this funding - we need to view our transportation network as just that, a network. The bigger issue is sensible use of the dollars in general, which is often lacking. In major cities with high transit ridership, dollars spent on transit are dollars not being spent to upgrade and rebuild highways that would otherwise have to carry the load.

The problem comes when we are paying big money for ineffective systems, but this is hardly unique to transit - we also spend big money inefficiently designing highways, airports, and other transportation infrastructure.


User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2570 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 1):
Last time I heard there were 10s of 1000s of bridges in the US at risk structurally. This is what happens when you convince the electorate that public infrastructure investment is a socialist plot...
Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 4):
This came as no real suprise. It's the desolate infrastructure in the US.
Quoting trav110 (Reply 5):
Hardly surprising. You guys have lots of bridges in pretty bad shape. I you'd spent just a quarter of what you have spent on defense for the past 10 years, this wouldn't have happened.

Another typical day in the U.S. ................I read all of the above yesterday, and didn't comment; ( why try to comment on anything, when you have no idea what you're talking about ? ) After all, I haven't had an occasion to cross that bridge for over 20 years now, so I didn't spend much time even worrying about it until I knew a little more about what happened to cause an Interstate highway bridge to collapse; ( which, IMO, would be a good idea for everyone to do )

Now today, after getting up late, (because of going to bed late), I see this article in the good old Chicago tribune, ( which is located about 2,000 miles east of the collapsed bridge ), and I now know slightly more than I did yesterday, and thereby being in a slightly better position to "speculate" as to what may have caused the bridge to go down.

Unfortunately, there are always going to be a few people who seem to frequently "talk about things" before they bother to get any information about what it is they're trying to talk about, ( which of course, is their "privilege", inasmuch as this is a public, international forum )

I have often asked myself, why so many people seem to be so prone to doing this; could it possible be that they "have something against" the U.S. ? If that's the case, I wonder what it could be ? ( I have no idea, but I DO have a better idea TODAY than I had YESTERDAY, why people crossing the I-5 bridge suddenly found themselves swimming in very cold water, rather than driving in their nice warm cars.) In case anyone is really concerned as to why the bridge collapsed, the provided link may enlighten you.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 10):
Federal fuel taxes have always been a slush fund of sorts, even being used to finance the defense budget in the 1940s. There are separate budgets financed from federal fuel taxes, one is the Highway Account, another is the Mass Transit Account. How much of the Highway Account is being plundered for the Mass Transit Account?

Imagine that ! We finally seem to be "wondering" the same thing ! Congratulations !

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 9):
That's not the problem. The problem is spending billions of fuel taxes that were once 100% earmarked for roads on the subsidization of mass transit, or wasteful regions like the Bay Area of California spending billions more on projects like the Bay Bridge because they don't know how to properly manage a project.

Now someone is REALLY getting to the heart of the on-going problem ! I completely agree with this reply !


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...-collapse-20130524,0,7787369.story

Take a few moments to read this article, and you too will know more about why the I-5 bridge collapsed.

Charley ( AKA......"Old American" )



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8414 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2548 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Wouldn't it be embarrassing if it turns out that the bridge collapsed because of an oversized or overweight load, or something like that?
Quote:

The tractor-trailer, which was marked as an oversize load, was hauling a housing for drilling equipment
http://mynorthwest.com/11/2281167/I5...er-near-Mount-Vernon-cars-in-river

This will be interesting. Another oil industry company with lax safety standards? At least the oil industry has enough money to get the entire bridge rebuilt. :I

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
It can if the truck or its load rams into a key structural member with enough force.

Especially since the bridge is nearing 60 years of use. Maybe we need to determine if the truck should not have used that bridge. We need to know the degree of blame to be put on the truck and the degree to be put on the condition of the bridge.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 8):
Though lots of expensive maintenance and upgrades involved.

Our politicians could care less about maintenance and upgrades. You don't get your picture in the paper for road or bridge maintenance, but you do when cutting a ribbon on a new road.

Politicians also know their voters have a short (or limited) memory of how many Americans die from infrastructure failures. The 13 deaths when a bridge fell in Minnesota in 2007? People don't remember that and if they do then the politician can quickly switch the top. Maybe to abortion or prayers in schools. Something that doesn't cost money.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 13):
could it possible be that they "have something against" the U.S. ?

Well, Charlie, I believe a lot of international comments comes from people who have actually visited (or lived in) the US for a while and have a basis for comparison. I have also found when I have been overseas that a lot of people in other countries know far more about the US than we know about them. The better the ability to use experience to compare, the more critical one can honestly be in commenting.

I know when we lived in Australia that I had a lot of time to compare differences, with each country coming out on top about the same amount of times.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 13):
We finally seem to be "wondering" the same thing !

I generally don't wonder about that shifting money around between highways and mass transit. First I understand that mass transit is critical for the NorthEast. Trains, buses and subways move far more people in that area than we can build roads & bridges to accommodate. Shut down a major part of commuting via mass transit into New York CIty and you can have a regional (if not national) impact..

I also know that politicians play games with all "Funds". They are incapable of any level of honesty when it comes to Funds - and that is both sides of the aisle. Republican & Democrats loose their integrity when it comes to Green.

And, let's be honest, inflation is something that no politician worries about if it means increasing taxes. I can remember Reagan bringing a 5¢ a gallon tax to increase maintenance of Interstate highways. That 5¢ sure doesn't buy anything close to the maintenance that it did when Reagan was in office. But has it ben increased to keep up with inflation?


User currently onlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1009 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2534 times:

Here's the kicker...The State Patrol is reporting it was a CANADIAN truck and trucker that trashed one of my state's MAJOR highways!!

Must have been a metric conversion issue...over height AND width.



Carpe Pices
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2586 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2531 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
This will be interesting. Another oil industry company with lax safety standards? At least the oil industry has enough money to get the entire bridge rebuilt. :I
Quoting bhill (Reply 15):
Here's the kicker...The State Patrol is reporting it was a CANADIAN truck and trucker that trashed one of my state's MAJOR highways!!

Must have been a metric conversion issue...over height AND width.

Saw a report this morning and the owner of the truck company says they not only got permits from WSDOT for taking this specific load on that route but also had a pilot car! Now go figure.........


User currently onlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1009 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2520 times:

I would like to see that permit...however, the ultimate responsibility relies with the person behind the wheel, I have been over that bridge MANY times, it is VERY well marked.


Carpe Pices
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2586 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day ago) and read 2492 times:

Quoting bhill (Reply 17):
I would like to see that permit...however, the ultimate responsibility relies with the person behind the wheel, I have been over that bridge MANY times, it is VERY well marked.

As a person who knows a thing or two about oversized loads (I've set up several thousand in my career) I am thinking something is not quite right here. Any time you want to move an over-dimensional or overweight load you need to contact the dept of transportation in every state you'll travel through. Depending on the size of the load, they may need to do a route survey which checks for clerances and weight limits on all bridges and overpasses. They may come back to you with a route that takes you on alternate roads to avoid low clearances etc. So I think one of the following scenarios took place:
Washington DOT has inaccurate info on file for that bridge (unlikely IMO)
Surveyor mis-read or neglected to check that info (again not likely but not impossible)
shipper provided inaccurate dimensions of the load to trucker
trucker did not verify dimensions once equipment waas secured on the truck
driver did not center the load on the road when approaching the bridge (most bridge clearances are higher in the center than on the sides)

Now the next question I'd have is that since the truck was able to continue over the bridge after impacting it, was the force of the impact enough to have brought down a structually sound bridge? I am sure the NTSB will be asking all of these questions in the course of their investigation.


User currently onlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1726 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day ago) and read 2472 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 18):
driver did not center the load on the road when approaching the bridge (most bridge clearances are higher in the center than on the sides)

Based on the limited information available at this time, primarily the eyewitness account of the trailing pickup driver, this was my impression. However, I actually read the descriptions to indicate that the truck struck not the top of the bridge structure, but rather the driver failing to center the load resulted in the load overhanging the right side of the roadway and striking the first vertical member on the side of the bridge. According to the eyewitness (who did fall into the water), he tried to fall back because he could see that the oversized load was too far to the right to avoid hitting the bridge, but another semi pulled ahead on the left and may have prevented the oversized load from centering.

I do acknowledge, of course, that this is all highly speculative since we don't yet know much.

EDIT: Reading further, it appears that it is a case of the truck hitting the top chord of the truss in the top right corner of the load due to failure to center the load under the truss structure.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 18):
Now the next question I'd have is that since the truck was able to continue over the bridge after impacting it, was the force of the impact enough to have brought down a structually sound bridge?

The bridge in question has multiple spans, with four truss spans over the river. The northernmost span is the one which collapsed, and it is only about 160-165 feet long. Assuming the truck was traveling at least 65 MPH, I wouldn't be surprised if an impact into a vertical truss member shifted the load such that the truck continued moving and it cleared the impacted span before the shifting of stress in the bridge could cause it to fall.

In general, it is entirely possible for the removal (or severe damage) of one critical loadbearing member from a truss bridge to cause its collapse. However, I do not know nearly enough about the bridge in question, its condition, or the collision to know if that's what happened in this scenario.

[Edited 2013-05-24 12:33:49]

User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day ago) and read 2469 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 16):
Saw a report this morning and the owner of the truck company says they not only got permits from WSDOT for taking this specific load on that route but also had a pilot car! Now go figure.........

Excuse me........have you ever obtained an oversized load permit from a state, in order to move an over-size, over-weight load ? I HAVE; many times; allow me to "explain" a bit about over-size load permits, and the way they "work";

First, you tell the state EXACTLY what the "load" you intend to move weighs, it's EXACT weight, width, length, AND, if it's possible to be "disassembled" in order to be moved in smaller "pieces"; only after careful review o6f the information you provide, the state then tells YOU, (right on the permit), EXACTLY what route you will use, what time you will execute said move, and any other things you WILL need to provide (or pay for the state to provide, (such as a police escort, utility workers to cut power to transformers, etc etc etc)

After all of this.........if you deviate from ANY of the requirements set forth in said permit, it becomes invalid, and YOU will very quickly in more "hot water" than would be necessary for several years worth of nice hot showers !
( "been there, did that".......many times, as they say.)

So we won't need to be worrying too much about "did the truck owner have proper insurance", or "was the truck driver lost" ? ( it doesn't work that way with permit loads )

And last but most important of all.........NO permit gives any truck or driver the authorization or permission to physically "run INTO anything"........least of all, support structures which hold bridges up.

My best guess, based on prior, first hand experience is........we will now be seeing someone's insurance carrier PAYING for a new bridge; ( which always cost TONS of money to build, and months and years of inconvenience and snarled traffic to cope with by local citizens. )

Everything, and I DO mean, everything, which can possibly happen (or "go wrong") is carefully considered, planned for, and then executed in moving permitted loads. There is nothing that can possibly be"torn up" by a truck that hasn't already been "torn up" by a previous truck, and all states are VERY skilled at knowing how to "affix the necessary responsibility" on the "responsible party".



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2586 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 22 hours ago) and read 2401 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 20):
Excuse me........have you ever obtained an oversized load permit from a state, in order to move an over-size, over-weight load ?

Ummm - yeah I have - read my reply #19. I mention pretty much the smae things you have

Quoting bhill (Reply 17):
I would like to see that permit...

Your wish is WSDOT's commeand - there's a link to it here:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I5/...RiverBridgeReplacement/default.htm


User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 22 hours ago) and read 2389 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 21):

In that pdf it states 'Route does not guarantee height clearances'. How can they issue the permit if they can't make sure the load will clear obstacles?



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 22 hours ago) and read 2375 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 12):
I would argue that mass transit isn't necessarily an inappropriate use of this funding - we need to view our transportation network as just that, a network. The bigger issue is sensible use of the dollars in general, which is often lacking. In major cities with high transit ridership, dollars spent on transit are dollars not being spent to upgrade and rebuild highways that would otherwise have to carry the load.

Mass transit fares collected in the US only account for 21.8% of the costs. The rest of the money comes from fuel taxes and Fed/State/Local government general funds/tax districts. Transit users need to do more to carry their fair share. Yes, highways get a subsidy, but the idea that its even in the same ballpark is absurd.

Comparatively cars are subsidized about 1.1 cents per passenger mile. Mass transit 60 cents per passenger mile

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 10):
How much of the Highway Account is being plundered for the Mass Transit Account?

Last year it was $7 billion just from Federal Fuel Taxes (Net fuel tax revenue was just under $35 Billion). Of course that's only part of the equation because it doesn't take into account what States do with their fuel taxes.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20782 posts, RR: 62
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 2361 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 23):
Last year it was $7 billion just from Federal Fuel Taxes (Net fuel tax revenue was just under $35 Billion).

To make sure I'm understanding this right, you're saying that the $7 billion was diverted from the Highway Account to the Mass Transit Account, over and above what the Mass Transit Account had been authorized by law as its normal allocation?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1726 posts, RR: 9
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 2411 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 23):
Mass transit fares collected in the US only account for 21.8% of the costs. The rest of the money comes from fuel taxes and Fed/State/Local government general funds/tax districts. Transit users need to do more to carry their fair share. Yes, highways get a subsidy, but the idea that its even in the same ballpark is absurd.

Comparatively cars are subsidized about 1.1 cents per passenger mile. Mass transit 60 cents per passenger mile

This doesn't entirely disagree with my point - not every mass transit implementation has the same efficiency, and as I said, I think it's critical to ensure that the dollars are allocated judiciously. However, in a city like Chicago, it will be more effective to allocate some of that funding to mass transit to keep 2.1 million trips off the highway (combined weekday ridership of CTA and Metra) than it will be to remove that funding and try to instead use it to accommodate highway construction to accommodate those trips being made by passenger vehicle instead.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8414 posts, RR: 9
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 2417 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 22):
In that pdf it states 'Route does not guarantee height clearances'.

That sounds like government workers using the CYA Stamp. I wonder if all states are that careful with the Stamp as opposed to actually checking the road & bridge data.

One interesting point:

Quote:

The bridge was inspected twice last year and repairs were made, Transportation Secretary Lynn Peterson said.

"It's an older bridge that needs a lot of work just like a good number of bridges around the state," she said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...n-state-blamed-on-tractor-trailer/

Did those repairs change the clearance on that fallen section in any way? The rest of the bridge seemed to have been able to handle the oversized load without a problem.


User currently offlinetrav110 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 536 posts, RR: 3
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 2438 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 13):
I have often asked myself, why so many people seem to be so prone to doing this; could it possible be that they "have something against" the U.S. ?

That is ridiculous. I have spent the vast majority of my life living in the US. What I said was based on personal experience and the state of the roads and bridges, etc. That I experienced firsthand. But go on ahead and assume that any and all suggestion from somebody not born in the US is automatically because I have something against you guys. Right.  


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 2427 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 24):
To make sure I'm understanding this right, you're saying that the $7 billion was diverted from the Highway Account to the Mass Transit Account, over and above what the Mass Transit Account had been authorized by law as its normal allocation?

No. I'm saying that before that allocation shift was made - all fuel taxes went to roads. We've been diverting 20% of the fuel tax revenue to mass transit for over two decades. That has amounted to over $100 billion in money that could have been spent on roads being spent on Mass Transit. The point being, you don't rob Peter to pay Paul. Especially if it puts Peter in a position where he doesn't have enough money to start with. Its caused a long term downward spiral on the long term maintenance and construction revenues for roads. Its also created an environment where there is a disconnect between building mass transit just to have it vs. building mass transit that you actually need. The disconnect comes from the fact that 1) users don't pay anywhere near the true cost and 2) the operator doesn't have to concern themselves with ensuring the system is economically viable long term by at least breaking even. Mass transit runs at a net loss, year in and year out in this country. That is not sustainable and eventually people will die because of it.

Quoting steex (Reply 25):
This doesn't entirely disagree with my point - not every mass transit implementation has the same efficiency, and as I said, I think it's critical to ensure that the dollars are allocated judiciously. However, in a city like Chicago, it will be more effective to allocate some of that funding to mass transit to keep 2.1 million trips off the highway (combined weekday ridership of CTA and Metra) than it will be to remove that funding and try to instead use it to accommodate highway construction to accommodate those trips being made by passenger vehicle instead.


So the ride in the city should be subsidized by the Suburbs? How about raising the mass transit fares by about 50% and cover more of the costs so someone else doesn't have to? If a person doesn't own a car, doesn't have to pay for insurance and maintenance on that car and isn't buying gas is a fare increase of a about buck a day going to kill you?

[Edited 2013-05-24 15:40:26]

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20782 posts, RR: 62
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 2413 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 28):
The point being, you don't rob Peter to pay Paul.

I don't see it as robbing Peter to pay Paul. Back in 1982 the federal fuel tax was raised from 4¢ to 5¢ to allocate 1¢ to pay for mass transit (not sure what it is now). As long as the Highway Fund isn't being robbed to pay for mass transit, with each fund using its funds as intended, we're good to go in my book.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 2412 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 29):
I don't see it as robbing Peter to pay Paul. Back in 1982 the federal fuel tax was raised from 4¢ to 5¢ to allocate 1¢ to pay for mass transit (not sure what it is now). As long as the Highway Fund isn't being robbed to pay for mass transit, with each fund using its funds as intended, we're good to go in my book.


Except that Peter is the only one buying the gas. Hence taking from Peter to pay Paul causes a perpetual problem for Peter.

[Edited 2013-05-24 15:45:12]

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20782 posts, RR: 62
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 30):
Except that Peter is the only one buying the gas.

Peter's paying to help move Paul out of his way onto more efficient ways to transport people. All good.   



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 31):
Peter's paying to help move Paul out of his way onto more efficient ways to transport people. All good.

You might be right if that were true. The reality is Paul is riding the least efficient and most expensive form of transportation known to man.

[Edited 2013-05-24 15:50:29]

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20782 posts, RR: 62
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 2390 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 32):
The reality is Paul is riding the least efficient and most expensive form of transportation known to man.

Difficult to evaluate without more details, such as which form of transportation you're referring to. Put some numbers and examples out there for folks to chew on. We're not psychic!  



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20186 posts, RR: 59
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 2391 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 19):
In general, it is entirely possible for the removal (or severe damage) of one critical loadbearing member from a truss bridge to cause its collapse.

Which strikes me as a problem. The idea that failure of a single structural member would cause complete collapse strikes me as poor design for a structure that has human lives driving across it every day.

As far as I can see, there are two bridges across that river. The other bridge is quite small by comparison. This is going to be a fustercluck of enormous proportions.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 2386 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 33):
Difficult to evaluate without more details, such as which form of transportation you're referring to. Put some numbers and examples out there for folks to chew on. We're not psychic!

You're in Portland. Are you kidding me:

http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=7881


User currently onlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1726 posts, RR: 9
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 2383 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 28):
So the ride in the city should be subsidized by the Suburbs? How about raising the mass transit fares by about 50% and cover more of the costs so someone else doesn't have to? If a person doesn't own a car, doesn't have to pay for insurance and maintenance on that car and isn't buying gas is a fare increase of a about buck a day going to kill you?

I gave the specific example of Chicago, where a great deal of the transit ridership as well as highway commuting is done from the suburbs to the City in addition to all of the intra-City transit. In fact, lots of people drive their cars to park-and-ride train stations in the suburbs because the highways are already overcrowded.

If you forced 2.1 million trips off of transit and onto the roadway system, then the City proper would be so clogged that the folks driving in from the suburbs today wouldn't even be able to penetrate the City limits (yes, slight hyperbole), not to mention that the Suburb-to-City roads would be so packed that tremendous highway expansion would be necessary to even get them that far.

So in that scenario, it's exactly as AeroWesty says:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 31):
Peter's paying to help move Paul out of his way onto more efficient ways to transport people. All good.

Keep in mind I'm acknowledging that there are wasteful, inefficient transit systems out there which have turned into albatrosses. Some cost a lot of money to build and never develop the ridership to justify their existence. You can't paint every situation with the same broad brush, and all I'm suggesting is you have to allow for the fact transit is SOMETIMES a more efficient use of funds.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 32):
You might be right if that were true. The reality is Paul is riding the least efficient form of transportation known to man.

Least efficient from some viewpoints of how funding should be handled - it is one of the MOST efficient in terms of allocation of scarce resources.


User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8218 posts, RR: 26
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 2372 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 35):
You're in Portland. Are you kidding me

Well now now we can see you are clearly unbiased.

I guess stuff like this would have made sense to you?

http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/freeway_revolt.jpg



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20782 posts, RR: 62
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 2369 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 35):
You're in Portland. Are you kidding me:

I actually voted against the MAX extension to Milwaukie. A couple of times, IIRC. Regardless, just tossing a link out about one project doesn't represent a well thought out argument for or against mass transit as an integral part of our infrastructure. When you come up with something more convincing, I encourage you to start a thread about it—this thread really should be limited to the discussion of the bridge accident.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 2368 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 36):

I gave the specific example of Chicago, where a great deal of the transit ridership as well as highway commuting is done from the suburbs to the City in addition to all of the intra-City transit.

I think you're kind of missing my point. The fuel tax revenues aren't enough to pay for all the roads. So why would you take more from that revenue source thereby exacerbating the problem? If you want to subsidize mass transit, just do it outright with the general fund. If you don't want to use the general fund, then raise fares.

Quoting steex (Reply 36):
it is one of the MOST efficient in terms of allocation of scarce resources.

If it were, it wouldn't need a 75% taxpayer subsidy.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 38):
I actually voted against the MAX extension to Milwaukie. A couple of times, IIRC. Regardless, just tossing a link out about one project doesn't represent a well thought out argument for or against mass transit as an integral part of our infrastructure. When you come up with something more convincing, I encourage you to start a thread about it—this thread really should be limited to the discussion of the bridge accident.

Where did I say I'm against mass transit? My issue is how the funding is handled and how billions are wasted on it. There is no financial accountability in the transit sector. If there were, projects like the Max extension wouldn't have been put out there in the first place.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
Which strikes me as a problem. The idea that failure of a single structural member would cause complete collapse strikes me as poor design for a structure that has human lives driving across it every day.

Could be a bad design coupled with age. Maybe 20 years ago it wouldn't have collapsed.

[Edited 2013-05-24 16:21:00]

User currently onlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1726 posts, RR: 9
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 2362 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
Which strikes me as a problem. The idea that failure of a single structural member would cause complete collapse strikes me as poor design for a structure that has human lives driving across it every day.

While it is possible, it's usually not the case - and keep in mind that it takes a relatively catastrophic event (or a long history or poor maintenance) to reach that failure point. The safety factors on structural design are typically very high, such that a member functioning at even 50% of its capacity will still hold traffic. In fact, with many major bridges, the physical structure is so heavy that the weight of traffic is almost insignificant.

It now sounds like the trailer load impacted every cross brace along the the top portion of the span that fell, and given the speed and weight of the truck, it would've significantly damaged the ability of the entire west side of the bridge's structure to transfer its load to the proper structural members. It may well have stood compromised but stable if only one had been hit.

I'll admit, though, that I've not done bridge design in many years and now focus primarily on other transportation and traffic engineering.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
As far as I can see, there are two bridges across that river. The other bridge is quite small by comparison. This is going to be a fustercluck of enormous proportions.

Yeah, traffic is going to be a disaster during the closure. There is only one directly adjacent bridge, but there are a few other slightly more circuitous routes that will likely take some of the load as well. Still, unlike the I-35W bridge, this doesn't have the benefit of being surrounded by a well developed transportation to absorb the redistribution of traffic.


User currently onlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1726 posts, RR: 9
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 2342 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 39):
I think you're kind of missing my point. The fuel tax revenues aren't enough to pay for all the roads. So why would you take more from that revenue source thereby exacerbating the problem? If you want to subsidize mass transit, just do it outright with the general fund.

I think you're kind of missing my point - in some places it is no longer possible to build a highway transportation system to accommodate all of the traffic demand that would exist WITHOUT a transit system. If you remove 2.1 million trips from the Chicago transit system, that doesn't suddenly open up a bunch of right-of-way with which to build new freeways and widen the existing ones. You reach a point of diminishing returns in your attempt to grow the highway system, and eventually you reach a tipping point where it's more efficient to spend that same money keeping people off the roads you have now so they remain sufficient rather than trying to build ever-larger highways to handle the growing traffic.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20782 posts, RR: 62
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 2341 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 39):
Where did I say I'm against mass transit?

Re-read what I wrote.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 39):
Regardless, just tossing a link out about one project doesn't represent a well thought out argument for or against mass transit as an integral part of our infrastructure.

With all of your one-liners, with little meat behind them, there isn't much to grasp onto to determine where you stand on what. Obviously, we view how the money is allocated differently, but that's about all that's clear to me at the moment.

But again, this thread should be limited to the bridge collapse. If you want to discuss mass transit, start a thread. I'm sure there'll be a lot of interest.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 2341 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 41):
I think you're kind of missing my point - in some places it is no longer possible to build a highway transportation system to accommodate all of the traffic demand that would exist WITHOUT a transit system. If you remove 2.1 million trips from the Chicago transit system, that doesn't suddenly open up a bunch of right-of-way with which to build new freeways and widen the existing ones. You reach a point of diminishing returns in your attempt to grow the highway system, and eventually you reach a tipping point where it's more efficient to spend that same money keeping people off the roads you have now so they remain sufficient rather than trying to build ever-larger highways to handle the growing traffic.

Having funds available is not always about expansion. Sometimes its just about proper maintenance or rebuilding things like bridges so that when a truck hits them they don't collapse...


User currently onlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1726 posts, RR: 9
Reply 44, posted (1 year 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 2338 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 43):
Having funds available is not always about expansion. Sometimes its just about proper maintenance or rebuilding things like bridges so that when a truck hits them they don't collapse...

Yes, I'm aware of this - and the more traffic a highway carries, the more frequently it requires maintenance, also.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6812 posts, RR: 12
Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 2310 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 36):
Least efficient from some viewpoints of how funding should be handled - it is one of the MOST efficient in terms of allocation of scarce resources.

BTW, does the fuel tax help pay for all the oil wars, oversize military that goes with them, etc. ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 2293 times:

We desperately need to fix our infrastructure...


Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 2274 times:

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 46):

Agreed. I'd like to see substantially more of the cost of transport taken off the general fund so that it can't be played with like a political toy so that real projects get completed, like replacing 60 year old bridges.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8414 posts, RR: 9
Reply 48, posted (1 year 6 months 17 hours ago) and read 2241 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 28):
So the ride in the city should be subsidized by the Suburbs?

Considering the value of the Park & Ride systems and the levels of commuters that mass transit can absorb from the roads I would say "Yes".

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 37):
I guess stuff like this would have made sense to you?

Funny you should put that map up. I had a friend who for years commuted from Palo Alto to the City every workday. Took coffee and the morning paper with him going to work and got a mixed drink in a can and a good book heading home. Like a lot of people he eliminated the need for all the freeways that were not built.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 39):
The fuel tax revenues aren't enough to pay for all the roads.

But we have more funds than federal fuel tax revenues. Start with local (state) petrol taxes. Then add in city/county sales and property taxes that go to roads. And, most importantly, include toll roads.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 39):
There is no financial accountability in the transit sector.

I believe that in order to look at the financial costs of mass transit you need to look at the road costs they absorb. The private sector in major cities like New York CIty or Chicago could not function at their present levels without mass transit. Not only are the roads totally inadequate there would be no reasonable parking facilities in the city itself.

Quoting steex (Reply 40):
It now sounds like the trailer load impacted every cross brace along the the top portion of the span that fell,

But it didn't impact the cross braces in every other span? I'd like to know if previous maintenance reduced clearance and that change was not properly noted by the state DOT.

Quoting steex (Reply 41):
I think you're kind of missing my point - in some places it is no longer possible to build a highway transportation system to accommodate all of the traffic demand that would exist WITHOUT a transit system.

Would 20 or 30 lanes in each direction be a problem for Chicago? I'd sure like to see the tunnels and/or bridges heading into New York City from various directions.  
Quoting cjg225 (Reply 46):

We desperately need to fix our infrastructure...

Not going to happen. That would take increasing various taxes that politicians are not going to do. Going full force on the various fixes would be a great boost for the economy, but even that doesn't matter.


User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 2208 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 48):

Not going to happen. That would take increasing various taxes that politicians are not going to do. Going full force on the various fixes would be a great boost for the economy, but even that doesn't matter.

Oh, I'm aware it won't happen. There will be some empty calls for infrastructure repairs now, but nothing will happen.

Our federal government is so incapable of accomplishing anything of value anymore and cannot possibly comprehend the need to tackle various practical but pedestrian areas of concern.



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 2203 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 18):
As a person who knows a thing or two about oversized loads

Likewise.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
Another oil industry company with lax safety standards?

I know the company involved and they are my default carrier for extreme outsize loads. There is absolutely no way this company has lax standards, they are the cream of the cream. They have the best and most specialist equipment in Canada - actually North America - these guys are the Volga Dnepr of truckers with Qatar service to put it into an airline analogy. Of course someone can make a mistake and have a bad day, but it is like saying hell is cold to say these guys are lax. Their standards and procedures when working with them are highly detail oriented and the epitome of professionalism. This is not some outfit trying to make a few bucks on an inappropriate trailer getting out of their depth, this is all these guys do, day in day out, this load would be small fry for them. They specialize is 100+ axle push/pull operations.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 16):
Saw a report this morning and the owner of the truck company says they not only got permits from WSDOT for taking this specific load on that route but also had a pilot car! Now go figure.........

Heard this on the local news here too. Having dealt with the WADOT, I can attest they are the biggest PITA ever to deal with, anything high, heavy, wide, forget it, they would never permit anything they would not be sure about. I can tell you all sorts of stories about deflating tires etc to get past height issues. As a result, I route a lot of our stuff through Houston port to avoid WA state.

If this load was this border line in terms of height, I am 98% sure I can catagorically state the DOT regulations require some sort of survey before granting permits for this route and it would not have been issued by some clerk without thinking about it. This would have gone over several desks and taken probably close to 4 weeks for people to work on. Of course, again the key being if it was that marginal, if they did not request a survey or it was inadequate, they are to blame by issuing the permit.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 18):
shipper provided inaccurate dimensions of the load to trucker
trucker did not verify dimensions once equipment waas secured on the truck

Shippers do this all the time - "its big, my tape measure isnt long enough so its about x" or "its about the same height as that truck over there which has a 8'6" box" (forgetting it is on wheels...) and so on.

But again, I refuse to believe this company would take the shippers word and they would survey the freight for themselves, probably using laser beams - particularly if it is this marginal.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 18):
driver did not center the load on the road when approaching the bridge (most bridge clearances are higher in the center than on the sides)

If there is such a specific precaution to be taken, then it would be mentioned on the survey report and therefore on the permit. The pilot car would have to pay specific attention to the spot and if it was this marginal, I would not be surprised if there would not be police or even DOT personnel on hand to see it through and make sure no other traffic is around and forces the driver to take the wrong course (as speculated).

Quoting Geezer (Reply 20):
My best guess, based on prior, first hand experience is........we will now be seeing someone's insurance carrier PAYING for a new bridge; ( which always cost TONS of money to build, and months and years of inconvenience and snarled traffic to cope with by local citizens. )

Amount mentioned on the news today is $15m. Truckers are of course covered, and this particular trucker always makes the shipper sign all sorts of stuff before even loading too, but of course it is going to come down to a court deciding who is liable after the investigation, it could equally be one dept of the government transferring funds to another.


Quoting steex (Reply 40):
It now sounds like the trailer load impacted every cross brace along the the top portion of the span that fell,

Would be interesting to know if that is categorically true. From the reports / photos I have seen, it seems he was on the west side of the bridge, which makes sense as he was heading south to Vancouver WA, so he was over the bridge to the south when it collapsed. I was wondering if there is any camber or ramp when exiting the bridge which means the tail end of the load was higher than the front. Although it should have been, it could be possible this was not accounted for when doing the survey, which would be done with a similar pole car as used here which itself would pass under no problems - its only a regular F150 type pick up normally - not 80' long. If that is the case, I am going to blame the DOT because the trucker relies on them confirm the load will pass along the route and put any conditions on the permit. If they didnt follow said conditions of course its a different matter, but again, these are not fatigued low wage guys in control of these trucks like some (a lot...) of the guys who ply their trade on our roads, though of course even the best can have a bad day / brain fart.

I have not seen the specifics of this load yet, in the case of real exceptional loads to irreglular places they will do an intensive survey themselves, but from what I know this load was fairly "routine" for these guys down the biggest most travelled road in the area and probably would not be required. The I5 corridor is a pretty known quantity here in YVR and I know I have discussed loads using it even with this trucker. Which leads to...

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
Did those repairs change the clearance on that fallen section in any way?

In which case the DOT should know all about this before issuing permits.

Could simply be a case of the last straw to break the proverbial camels back. Bridges and other infrastructure gets hit far more regularly than one would imagine, so along with the daily rigours of 58 years of use, it could simply be "unlucky" this hit was the last type of movement needed to bring down the pile of jackstraws.

Quoting steex (Reply 40):
Yeah, traffic is going to be a disaster during the closure. There is only one directly adjacent bridge, but there are a few other slightly more circuitous routes that will likely take some of the load as well

70,000 vehicles a day, its going to be a right bee-atch north/south now, right on the long weekend too. I was going to head to PAE for some spotting tomorrow, but knocked that idea on the head. This is going to take ages to repair too, its going to be a zoo for a long time while construction goes on.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 51, posted (1 year 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 2181 times:

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 46):
We desperately need to fix our infrastructure...

Why have there not been 37 different Congressional hearings on this bridge collapse? These people say they are concerned for the safety and well being of the American people, but when a bridge collapses on a major interstate, nothing is done.

Plus, there will not be any approval for infrastructure updates as long as Obama is president. The right will never ever allow that to do anything to help Obama or make him look good in any way.

And it's a shame. It is a shame more Americans will have to die because of it. Because they care about who is in the White House more than us.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7847 posts, RR: 19
Reply 52, posted (1 year 6 months 5 hours ago) and read 2113 times:

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 4):
This came as no real suprise. It's the desolate infrastructure in the US.
Quoting trav110 (Reply 5):
Hardly surprising. You guys have lots of bridges in pretty bad shape

I'd like my fellow Americans to note about this.

Even in Japan the media was saying how inadequate the infrastructure is.

One news person was questioning why Obama is so damn focused on the Obamacare program and not on spending all that money on modernizing our country.

Imagine that! A Japanese person on American politics...is correct?!



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20782 posts, RR: 62
Reply 53, posted (1 year 6 months 5 hours ago) and read 2098 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 52):
I'd like my fellow Americans to note about this.

Even in Japan the media was saying how inadequate the infrastructure is.

Billions and billions of dollars which could have been spent on infrastructure here at home in the past decade were spent abroad instead by the Bush administration. Recall the early claims that oil money would be funding the war and rehabilitation of Iraq? Instead, we were left with that bill. I was reading something a few months ago during the last fiscal cliff debate that Bush 43 was the only president who went to war without a tax increase to pay for the war. The costs were covered by diverting funds from domestic spending plus the issuance of additional treasury bonds, a large percentage of which were bought by non-Americans.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 6 months 5 hours ago) and read 2097 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 52):

It is a bit ironic. Spend all your energy on Obamacare which has raised insurance costs leaving many underinsured or at risk of higher costs in a catastrophic event while ignoring infrastructure projects that would have spurred growth and increased incomes so more people could afford insurance.


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13169 posts, RR: 15
Reply 55, posted (1 year 6 months 4 hours ago) and read 2094 times:

Like with many airplane crashes/incidents we talk on this site about, several factors seemed to be in play here.

Quoting bhill (Reply 15):
Must have been a metric conversion issue...over height AND width.

Remember the 'Gimli Glider'? This is a factor that needs to be considered.

Driver error. The failure to or inability to 'center' the load to the clearance area of the bridge. Near where I live is a truss style bridge that has corner brackets that lowers the clearance by about 12-18 inches so trucks and busses going over it must take care to be in the right position in the lane.

The bridges' design. Should we have bridges on such major roads with such weak points for collapse ? There have been a number of major bridge collapses where design flaws with a lack of redundancy in structure. There should be sufficient redundancy in a design, like with aircraft, to make it so that damaging one part doesn't lead to a full collapse. I also doubt this bridge was designed to last this long with such volumes of traffic, weight loads and in an area at high risk for earthquakes. Perhaps if such factors were included, a different design would have been used. Places where moisture can get trapped and not easily seen during inspections can add to the risk of collapse.

Maintenance. Even with flawed designs, years of poor maintenance, in part due to tight budgets or bad management, can increase the risks. In many states we have seen far too little funding for mx of existing infrastructure, meaning failures like this one with there further sets of issues and greater costs. Even improper painting or not using the right coatings, cheaply done inspections to meet low-bid requirements, lazy inspectors, adds to the risks.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6812 posts, RR: 12
Reply 56, posted (1 year 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 2059 times:

That specific kind of bridge is really common in North America it seems, I've never seen it here other than historic bridges not used since a long time. It's really vulnerable to such incidents with some structure being "inside" the path of vehicles. Here most small bridges like that are entirely concrete, since a long time. In fact doing some research even big ones are, for about a century (for example in Brest there is a 1920s bridge that was a record at the time for a single span of concrete, and is now decommissioned and replaced by a suspended concrete bridge with more lanes).


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2586 posts, RR: 7
Reply 57, posted (1 year 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 2032 times:

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 50):

Great post! Nice to hear from someone with experience using this very company. So they're heavy-haul guys...tells me they shouldn't have encountered an issue with this load as it wasn't all that huge. Complacency maybe? You can take all the precautions in the world, follow every rule to the letter and one moment of lapsed concentration results in disaster. I am not saying that IS what happened, but can't rule out driver error entirely based on the company's reputation. I tend to think along the same lines as you that WSDOT most likely had bad or outdated info about the bridge, that the repairs last year may have affected the clearance by just enough to cause an issue. But that of course is pure speculation as well (something we excel at here on a.net). Might have been a combination of factors as most major transportation incidents are. I'll be very interested to see the final NTSB report.
You made a wise choice by re-thinking your PAE trip. Traffic was a nightmare in the area yesterday and this looks to be a mess for some time to come unfortunately.


User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12260 posts, RR: 35
Reply 58, posted (1 year 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 2012 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
Politicians also know their voters have a short (or limited) memory of how many Americans die from infrastructure failures. The 13 deaths when a bridge fell in Minnesota in 2007?

Granted I don't live in Minneapolis anymore, but even last week driving over the replacement bridge, it crossed my mind.



“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8414 posts, RR: 9
Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1961 times:

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 49):
Our federal government is so incapable of accomplishing anything of value anymore and cannot possibly comprehend the need to tackle various practical but pedestrian areas of concern.

Our Federal Government is capable of far more than they currently deliver simply because the politicians prefer to cut tax revenues that are needed for the Government to fully function. We are shrinking government when we should be investing to keep up with the rest of the world. Or to spend the money to maintain our national assets.

You want achievements? Then vote out the Party of No

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 53):
I was reading something a few months ago during the last fiscal cliff debate that Bush 43 was the only president who went to war without a tax increase to pay for the war.

Bush gave us a tax cut, then went to war. Then he gave us another tax cut and invaded another country - a second war.

That made those wars the foundation for our deficit now and well into the future.

It's called Guns & Butter & Cake.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 54):
Spend all your energy on Obamacare which has raised insurance costs leaving many underinsured

Many Americans have been insured for decades - well before Obama was elected. I've posted a link that shows just how bad some states are in providing Medicaid to the poor, but here it is again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...acare_n_2272151.html#slide=1390669

Look for the series of slides titled "States With Medicaid Policies That Hurt The Poor"

States like Texas, Louisiana and Alabama consider you are too rich for Medicaid of your family of 3 earns over $295 a MONTH. Not a week, but a MONTH.

Obamacare increases that 11% or 12% of the poverty line to 133% of the poverty line, significantly increasing the number of Americans that will finally be covered.

As far as the costs of health insurance - that has been exploding long before Obama took office. Hy premiums doubled in the first 4 years of Bush/Cheney. At least insurance companies now must deliver 85% of premiums to actual health care.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 54):
while ignoring infrastructure projects that would have spurred growth and increased incomes so more people could afford insurance.

I'm all for continual infrastructure development and I don't believe that it costs that much. When you consider all the tax revenues generated by the actual construction (like from engineers, accountants, lawyers, heavy equipment companies, etc) the NET costs go down. Then add in the economic benefits of the infrastructure and net costs go down even further. (Just look at DFW and surrounding areas.)

You can grow the nation or shrink it - standing still is the same as shrinking it.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 55):
Should we have bridges on such major roads with such weak points for collapse ?

A lot of bridges were built so long ago that there was no understanding where we would be today. Those of us old enough to remember the old 2 lane highways (1 lane in each direction) find it easier to understand why we look at outdated bridges that were once considered state of the art.

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 58):
Granted I don't live in Minneapolis anymore, but even last week driving over the replacement bridge, it crossed my mind.



Sadly it really hadn't crossed my mind until this new failure. We seem to have so many other major issues hitting on a continual basis. Just look at Moore OK, which followed the Boston Bombing which followed Sandy.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20186 posts, RR: 59
Reply 60, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1922 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 36):
If you forced 2.1 million trips off of transit and onto the roadway system, then the City proper would be so clogged that the folks driving in from the suburbs today wouldn't even be able to penetrate the City limits (yes, slight hyperbole),

Not hyperbole at all. You should have seen what happened in NYC when there was the transit strike. I was there. I simply could not get onto Manhattan Island.

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 37):
I guess stuff like this would have made sense to you?

SF is notoriously impossible for lack of freeways. In fact, 101N ceases to exist and becomes 19th Ave until it hits the GG Bridge again. It can take the better part of an hour to go five miles from Potrero to the Outer Sunset. That's about 5 miles maybe.

The idea that 101 should be connected to 101 makes perfect sense to me. The idea that one should be able to go from GG Bridge to Bay Bridge without having to navigate surface streets makes perfect sense to me. The idea that people living in the Outer Richmond should not have to drive 45 minutes through surface streets just to meet a southbound freeway in one of the world's major cities makes no sense to me.

And do you know what else makes no sense to me? Why I-80W just before the Bay Bridge should be a traffic jam every day at the same time of day for thirty plus years and yet nothing has been done to fix it (I can think of at least three good solutions, all of which will be expensive, but then infrastructure is expensive).

As for many things in this country, special interests killed an adequate freeway system in SF.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 52):
One news person was questioning why Obama is so damn focused on the Obamacare program and not on spending all that money on modernizing our country.

Because (and please listen carefully, because I feel like you keep saying you're a Republican while agreeing with Democrats and disagreeing with Republicans) the GOP absolutely blocked any attempt to upgrade the infrastructure. The Tea Party called for the abolition of the Interstate system (in 2010, IIRC) and said it should be state-funded. Other voices within the GOP called infrastructure upgrades a "socialist agenda" to put more and more jobs under government control (never mind that the construction is usually done by private contractors).

Mr. Obama would love to focus on upgrading infrastructure and he has said this many times. Unfortunately, he cannot because the GOP will not even come to the White House to discuss a solution to the Sequester, nor will they discuss any other issues. With an opposition absolutely dedicated to obstructing all progress and literally bringing our once-great country to its knees solely with the goal of making the President look bad, Mr. Obama cannot pass an infrastructure. It's the oldest political trick in the book. Sabotage the economy through obstructionism and blame it on the ruling power.

And you're falling for it.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20782 posts, RR: 62
Reply 61, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1920 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 60):
Other voices within the GOP called infrastructure upgrades a "socialist agenda" to put more and more jobs under government control (never mind that the construction is usually done by private contractors).

To bring this point home, the Tea Party actually believes that it is largely untrue that we need money to repair roads and bridges, no matter which authority is responsible for their upkeep:

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2011/10/11/president-chicken-little/

Quote:
The President’s big pitch on his ‘jobs’ bill is running at fever pitch as he makes one whistle stop tour after another on a ‘jobs’ tour that looks remarkably like a campaign tour of the nation.

Chief among his issues in the current ‘jobs’ bill is the claim that the bill is needed to repair our roads and bridges which he claims are ‘falling down’ and in need of desperate repair. Most analysts agree that this is largely untrue, but lets analyze this a bit further and give the President the benefit of the doubt—let’s say simply for argument’s sake that it IS true and a lot of roads and bridges are in serious need of repair.

This is the funny part:

Quote:
If they are, it’s the fault of the government in the first place—namely he and his worshippers of politically correct ideas in the halls of Congress.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1880 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 52):

One news person was questioning why Obama is so damn focused on the Obamacare program and not on spending all that money on modernizing our country.

Been saying that for quite some time.

People, in general, do not care about things like infrastructure. It's not sexy. It's boring. It's just... there.

I have done most of my research and practical academic experience the last 5 or so years on transportation policy, management, and operations. The professor I've worked with most closely had a really good comment about transportation one day when we were on the phone with a frazzled client for a academic-consulting project we were doing:

"Transportation is like a public utility. When you get home and flip the light switch or turn on the faucet, you don't call the electric company or water authority and say, 'Thanks!' But when a utility doesn't work, you're on that phone in a flash. No one cares about what we do unless something goes wrong."

While some bridges have collapsed over a few years, it hasn't reached critical mass yet. Right now, this is just a summer brown-out that people just accept as a fact of life. No one is thinking that it may be an early sign of a catastrophic failure.



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1858 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 55):
Driver error. The failure to or inability to 'center' the load to the clearance area of the bridge. Near where I live is a truss style bridge that has corner brackets that lowers the clearance by about 12-18 inches so trucks and busses going over it must take care to be in the right position in the lane.

If the load was that marginal, I am pretty sure the authorities would not just let him wizz through unsupervised, remember the pilot cars are often up to half a mile in front. If the load was so marginal it was critical he was to be in a certain lane or portion or road, Im pretty sure the highway cops or someone would be there to make sure it happened.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 57):
So they're heavy-haul guys...tells me they shouldn't have encountered an issue with this load as it wasn't all that huge. Complacency maybe?

Yes, more than heavy haul - as I say they do 100+ axles trucks moving 400 ton generators and the like. Anyone can be complacent, but with this pedigree, I doubt it.

Anyway, my industry rumor mill is staying that there is not a scratch on the truck or cargo!! Which means it could not have touched the bridge, hitting steel girders even at a crawl, let alone (albeit governed) highway speed is going to leave some mark. Could just be a coincidence he was the last guy over a crappy bridge.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20186 posts, RR: 59
Reply 64, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1826 times:

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 63):
Could just be a coincidence he was the last guy over a crappy bridge.

If what you say is true, not coincidence, but because of the weight causing some final critical failure.


User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 65, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

I haven't had time to read more than maybe a dozen replies, so for all I know, you may have already seen this picture;
together with the attendent story, I can now easily see what happened to cause this incident; IMO, a whole BUNCH of people "screwed up"........including the State of Washington.

The big "CYA" frenzy has already started; everyone is pointing their fingers at "the other guy"; to start with....when a trucking company notifies a state that they intend to cross ANY bridge with a load that is 15ft. 9 in. high, in most states that right there would be enough to warrant closing the bridge to traffic, while the over-height load crosses the bridge in the middle. but no, some idiot clerk in some state office thinks this is "routine", and the state issues a permit for a load that has already been measured multiple times, and has been stated that it was 15ft 9in. A load that high wouldn't get very far on most Interstate Highways, let alone very many bridges ! Then, we have a load this high, crossing a bridge that has two traffic lanes, with elliptical structure overhead, a regular semi ( which will be 13' 6" Max) in the LEFT lane (which is at least a foot higher, and the truck with the 15'9" load in the right lane! To start with, ANYTIME you enter ANY bridge, tunnel, overpass, or whatever that's marked 14ft or less, if you value your job, you pull up just shy of the overhead, and if need be, you GET OUT, take your measuring stick, and you MEASURE whatever it is you're going to attempt the drive under. Most states issuing a permit for a load 15' 9" would require a pole vehicle in front of, and behind, both of which being in radio comm with the driver of the truck, and they damn sure wouldn't expect a load that high to cross a bridge with that type of overhead, and being surrounded by other traffic !

I'll make a prediction right now; I think the State of Washington will be PAYING for their bridge to be rebuilt; if they don't, they damn well should !

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...bre94p009-20130525,0,4644953.story

In case anyone is wondering, all overpasses and other structures above Interstate Highways must have a minimum clearance of 14 feet to meet Interstate standards; Max clearance for trucks is 13'6"; anytime you are about to go under ANY underpass with anything, unless you're in a convoy with other people watching, it's your responsibility to stop, and measure the clearance. Most bridges have the clearance marked; many don't have; many more have had 18 inches of blacktop put down since the clearance marks were painted. ( All of which is why driving trucks for a living is a pain in the butt )



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1817 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 52):
questioning why Obama is so damn focused on the Obamacare program and not on spending all that money on modernizing our country.

He (and many Democrats) understand that health care costs this country millions of dollars every year. And the right-wing keeps hammering away at it. The right-wing keeps talking about it like nothing is wrong with the whole private health care system we have. That, when a person is hovering near death, it is just fine they go to the emergency room and find out they have final stage cancer because they can not afford basic health insurance. The right-wing thinks that is how a "Christian" nation should treat everyone. You only get $1000 a month in pay after taxes? Surely you can afford $3000 a month in basic health care insurance! That is the right-wing logic.

If the right-wing would just accept that we all need to help one another, as Jesus did (we are a "Christian" nation, after all, according to them) they would shut up about the Affordable Care Act and try to keep people from falling into rivers from failing infrastructure.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2586 posts, RR: 7
Reply 67, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1776 times:

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 63):
Anyway, my industry rumor mill is staying that there is not a scratch on the truck or cargo!!

I think your rumor mill is broken. They've shown photos of the cargo on the news here and it is most definitely dented showing signs of an impact. There seems to be little doubt that the truck did strike the bridge.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8414 posts, RR: 9
Reply 68, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1765 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 65):
In case anyone is wondering, all overpasses and other structures above Interstate Highways must have a minimum clearance of 14 feet to meet Interstate standards;

If that is the minimum how many layers of asphalt will it take to wipe that standard out?

One interesting point in the linked article:

Quote:

While the Washington state Department of Transportation gave Alberta, Canada-based Mullen Trucking, the company that employs the trucker, a permit to carry an oversize load at a height of 15 feet, 9 inches, the state does not provide operators with the vertical limit of each bridge along a route, Hersman said.

We have reached a point in mobile technology that there is no reason why each bridge cannot be measured by the state (and re-measured after each maintenance) and those measurements placed on electronic Maps used in smart phones, iPads or even special tablets used by truckers. You enter your height, plot a route before starting and can see problem areas in terms of clearance or maintenance.

Lots of other information could be included, including the price of fuel - and a calculator letting you schedule refueling stops to minimize fuel costs. But the key is knowing you have a clear, safe route with minimal issues like maintenance backups.


User currently onlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1009 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1619 times:

Here is the odd thing, If you look at the route on the permit, it seems he was heading SOUTH on I-5 hauling oil drilling components to Vancouver, WA..approx 300 miles to be shipped NORTH to Alaska....curious as to why he did not just use a Canadian port? Are there no roadways in BC that this load would not pass under?


Carpe Pices
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20186 posts, RR: 59
Reply 70, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1593 times:

Quoting bhill (Reply 69):
Here is the odd thing, If you look at the route on the permit, it seems he was heading SOUTH on I-5 hauling oil drilling components to Vancouver, WA..approx 300 miles to be shipped NORTH to Alaska....curious as to why he did not just use a Canadian port?

Because then you'd have to import the goods to Canada and pay the necessary taxes and fees and then export them again. Probably cheaper to leave a US port for a domestic shipment.

That's my guess, anyway.

Any news on how they're handling the traffic?


User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 71, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1556 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 70):
Because then you'd have to import the goods to Canada and pay the necessary taxes and fees and then export them again. Probably cheaper to leave a US port for a domestic shipment.

Interesting question, though. The Jones Act requires a US flag vessel (i.e. very expensive) to ship between two US ports. Shipping through Vancouver BC (or even better Prince Rupert) should result in much lower (i.e. Monrovia-registered) shipping costs. I'd be interested to know if there were other obstacles. This rig must have been coming from northern Alberta/BC -- wonder why they didn't route it through Rupert.

Goods are already in Canada -- so no import issues. Whether it crosses a land border into the US or arrives on a ship shouldn't change that dynamic.

If this bridge is out for a long time, the impact on two-way Canada-US trade will be catastrophic.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2586 posts, RR: 7
Reply 72, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1526 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 70):
Any news on how they're handling the traffic?

It's not pretty - there's just not a lot of great alternatives up there to re-route 70,000 vehicles per day, over 14,000 of which are large trucks. They're building a temporary span and will drop it pre-fabbed onto the existing piers in something like three weeks (!) from now as a temporary fix. It will be four lanes (same as the downed bridge) but it will have speed and weight restrictions. They hope to have a permanent new bridge to replace the fallen section as well as the spans that remain standing in place by fall. That would be pretty amazing considering the glacial pace at which road projects in Washington State usually move.


User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1524 times:

Quoting bhill (Reply 69):
curious as to why he did not just use a Canadian port? Are there no roadways in BC that this load would not pass under?

No service from any Canadian ports at all to Alaska, even regular cargo goes down to Seattle and barged up. Roads - hahahahaha   Maybe in summer, but so long and uneconomical I gather that is why the barge service is used.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 67):
I think your rumor mill is broken

Out of date and confused. Still cant wait to know who screwed up here...

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 70):
Any news on how they're handling the traffic?

20-25 mins delay to do the detour today.

Probably unrelated, but the main Blaine border corssing had a line up of 90-120 mins this afternoon.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 71):
Shipping through Vancouver BC (or even better Prince Rupert) should result in much lower (i.e. Monrovia-registered) shipping costs. I'd be interested to know if there were other obstacles

Everything would have to move in customs bond, which is unpractical apart from anything else. The majority of the freight to AK would be coming from the lower 48 anyway and is a domestic mover, so makes more sense to route any thing from here down to WA, likewise Hawaii.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3144 posts, RR: 3
Reply 74, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1516 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 19):
EDIT: Reading further, it appears that it is a case of the truck hitting the top chord of the truss in the top right corner of the load due to failure to center the load under the truss structure

  

Exactly, and 50+ Obama Drama replies later, the bridge was structurally sound before hand and the load clipped the upper brace where it protrudes into the clearance area.

The best I can remember the clearance signs used to read "center clearance". Not being a truck driver I assumed the sign was written that way because of the slope of the underpass roadway or the change in elevation of a bridge from one side to the other. I just never considered that structural elements of a bridge design would encroach below the clearance indicated.

Okie


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 60):
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 61):

To some extent the Tea party is correct. The vast majority of the roads are built, operated and maintained by states with the Fed serving as nothing more than a cash flow middleman taking its cut along the way. The money could just as easily be managed by the states and we'd probably save half a billion a year by unloading the Federal Employees.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 76, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1476 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 74):
the bridge was structurally sound before hand and the load clipped the upper brace where it protrudes into the clearance area.

The load simply "clipped" the supports and the whole thing went down like a prize fighter. Heckuva clip, if you ask me!

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 75):
The vast majority of the roads are built, operated and maintained by states with the Fed serving as nothing more than a cash flow middleman taking its cut along the way. The money could just as easily be managed by the states and we'd probably save half a billion a year by unloading the Federal Employees.

So, on a FEDERAL highway system like any that start with US- or I- the right wing expects the individual states to shoulder 100% of the cost of interstate (or international) commerce?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20782 posts, RR: 62
Reply 77, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1486 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 75):
To some extent the Tea party is correct.

::yawn:: More unsupported mumbo-jumbo. Not even the slightest attempt at an example.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 78, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1420 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 74):
The best I can remember the clearance signs used to read "center clearance". Not being a truck driver I assumed the sign was written that way because of the slope of the underpass roadway or the change in elevation of a bridge from one side to the other.

I am pretty sure it is still center clearance. When I was a truck driver, I drove through a tunnel in the Oregon Cascades between Klamath Falls and Eugene. I had to drive near the middle of the road to get through.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1160 posts, RR: 13
Reply 79, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1375 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 75):
The money could just as easily be managed by the states

Using what central revenue collection and management system, exactly? Oh wait, that's called the Federal Government.

Without revenue sharing, there would be no Interstate System. If you are claiming that each state fully funds its part of the interstate system, I fear that you have been seriously misinformed, because that is the sheerest nonsense.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20186 posts, RR: 59
Reply 80, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1331 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 75):

To some extent the Tea party is correct. The vast majority of the roads are built, operated and maintained by states with the Fed serving as nothing more than a cash flow middleman taking its cut along the way

As usual, the Tea Party is dead wrong. The interstate system is a major conduit for freight and passengers. States like California have high utilization, but they also produce and consume a lot of goods. States like Nebraska have a lot of utilization in the form of through traffic, but relatively modest production and consumption. So that means that Nebraska is a net consumer of interstate dollars, while California is a net producer with its larger population centered around major cities.

If we were to defederalize the Interstate system, Nebraska would have to start putting tolls on their highways to fund them, as would Oklahoma and Arkansas and all the other "through states." It would be disjointed and a nightmare.

I take it you've never done a cross-country drive. The uniformity and reliability of the system is impressive and it is that way because you scarcely notice when you pass from one state to the next.

Defederalizing the interstate system makes exactly as much sense as defederalizing the FAA and allowing each state to develop and maintain its own ATC system, its own certification standards, etc. It would be a nightmare and it would wind up costing taxpayers MORE money overall in redundancy.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1323 times:

Quoting PITingres (Reply 79):

Considering the interstate system is complete save for a few connectors and all that is left is operation, maintenance and expansion the easiest way is to collect the fuel taxes and redistribute the funds to the states by lane miles without the middle man.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 80):

I didn't say defund the system. I said defund the bureaucracy. Stop clinging to the false notion that the Federal Government has to have a role in everything we do in life. In the same token, the FAAs funding should be limited to funding hat which is needed for the operation of the FAA. They can do airports a favor by allowing them to levy higher PFCs to self fund vs. beg for the occasional grant like the FAA is their master doing them a favor. Anyone who has worked with the FAA on grants knows exactly what I'm talking about.

[Edited 2013-05-29 17:30:13]

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20782 posts, RR: 62
Reply 82, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1308 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 81):
I didn't say defund the system. I said defund the bureaucracy.

Not that easy. You've factors such as age, traffic frequency and density, plus weather cycles affecting roadbed integrity, plus triaging necessity of expansion and repairs to consider. If funds were simply handed out by lane-mile, it would be a very lopsided system. Every orchestra has sheet music in front of the musicians, but they still need a conductor to bring it all together.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1299 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 82):

So what's the plan when the conductor hands out parts not because the music sounds great when its played properly but because he likes the hot blonde playing the flute?

If you have to you can add variances that take into account what you suggest. It doesn't take a cast of thousands to do it.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20782 posts, RR: 62
Reply 84, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1296 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 83):
So what's the plan when the conductor hands out parts not because the music sounds great when its played properly but because he likes the hot blonde playing the flute?

What it always is, our system of checks and balances. There are enough people looking over each other's shoulders at who gets how big of a piece of the pie, the 'bridges to nowhere' are few and far between.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1160 posts, RR: 13
Reply 85, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1284 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 81):
Considering the interstate system is complete save for a few connectors and all that is left is operation, maintenance and expansion the easiest way is to collect the fuel taxes and redistribute the funds to the states by lane miles without the middle man.

Leaving aside the problem that it often costs more to maintain an old road than it did to build it in the first place; and leaving aside the problem that not all lane miles are equal (far from it), I'm still not sure who you think will be collecting and redistributing these taxes "without a middle man", presumably for free. Elves? the fuel tax fairy?



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 86, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1214 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 22):
In that pdf it states 'Route does not guarantee height clearances'. How can they issue the permit if they can't make sure the load will clear obstacles?

We have several overpass/ bridge impacts in the Dallas are each year. Many are because a repaved section of roadway lowers the clearance by a few inches.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
Did those repairs change the clearance on that fallen section in any way? The rest of the bridge seemed to have been able to handle the oversized load without a problem.

One case we saw in the Dallas area a few years ago was caused because a pothole repair crew patched a small section of road the day before the impact. They raised the road bed by two inches under the right side tires, and the surveyed route/ load impacted the overpass. Luckly, it was only traveling at 5 mph.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 50):
I was wondering if there is any camber or ramp when exiting the bridge which means the tail end of the load was higher than the front.

That was my thought - a long load can easily pivot and increase the total height if the ramp changes the entry/ exit height.

I have a small travel trailer - 30 ft - with a relatively low height.

There is a railroad underpass near a favorite campground with a listed clearance of 13 ft 2 inches. And some of us have gotten out and actually measured the underpass. It is 13 ft 2 inches above the roadbed at the lowest point.

However because the roadbed is depressed below grade - the actual clearable height is much less. A friend with a 35 ft lon fifth-wheel camper struck his satellite antenna dome. On level ground that dome is 11 ft 11 inches high.

[Edited 2013-05-30 12:00:06]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Earthquake In SoCal - (North Of San Diego) posted Wed Jun 16 2004 00:36:25 by North County
Redwood Forests North Of SFO posted Mon Oct 20 2003 08:19:22 by Silverfox
Watchtower East Of North Bridge, Edinburgh posted Thu Oct 18 2007 12:23:25 by Ohthedrama747
New Photos Of North Korea's "Hotel Of Doom" posted Fri Sep 28 2012 12:42:04 by txjim
Pictures Of Hoover Dam And The Bypass Bridge posted Fri Nov 5 2010 13:46:50 by Confuscius
How? Oasis Of The Seas 72 M, Bridge 66 M Tall. posted Tue Oct 27 2009 04:03:53 by Mortyman
2009 North American Car/Truck Of The Year Nominees posted Mon Sep 22 2008 17:59:02 by StasisLAX
North Korea ‘uses Doubles To Hide Death Of Kim’ posted Mon Sep 8 2008 05:37:16 by Mortyman
For Those Of You Freezing Up North! posted Sat Mar 8 2008 07:49:43 by RJdxer
Situation Of Human Rights In North East China posted Thu Jan 10 2008 12:27:45 by LHStarAlliance