Talk:I-5 Skagit River bridge collapse

Heading off any deletion discussions

I actually think this article should be about the I-5 Skagit River Bridge, as the article didn't exist. The collapse would become a section of the page. tedder (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see why the bridge would be notable at all, outside of the collapse (though obviously I might be proven wrong). WP:NOTNEWS is a very good thing to keep in mind here, as is Joe Decker's essay on using breaking news sources, but I don't think there's much risk of deletion. Ignatzmice•talk 03:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree with "notnews", my personal philosophy is to not AFD within a week of an event since it's hard to gauge notability. I'm not sure about the notability of the bridge itself at this point- just suspect that's an option given the volume of traffic and other details that may come up with fresh coverage. tedder (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't be a bad time to dig up sources on the bridge as a bridge, to the extent that they're out there. It'll take a little time for the breaking news to break. Sadly, I'm AFK the next few hours. Tedder--I added a redirect at the Bridge title here, in the hope of avoiding accidental forks. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 03:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, was the I-35W Mississippi River bridge notable before its collapse? We have a nice history section now as well as coverage about its deficiencies pre-collapse, but I'm wondering if the bridge was more than a stub before then. See this 2006 stub hbdragon88 (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

2006/2007 was certainly a different time for Wikipedia, and that was a more substantial bridge too. tedder (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm good with either location, as long as there is an article about this, since it is all over the internet right now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A bridge collapse is certainly notable, and especially if it's part of a major national highway system like the US Interstate System. All the more so with I-5 being such a major Interstate highway. This is the primary road connecting Seattle with Vancouver, BC. -Helvetica (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur. The loss of this bridge will have major repercussions for commerce and tourism in the area for many, many months, perhaps as long as a year before the destroyed span can be replaced. It's definitely notable, even though there apparently was no loss of life. — Quicksilver^{T @} 16:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not like there are several detour routes that WADot have proposed. This is nothing like the I-35 bridge which was nearly a primary route over the river. This is a failure of NOTNEWS again. I know there's discussion of America's aging bridge structure that has arisen from this (however, I can't find an article that discussions the broad aspects of the US bridge infrastructure that would be appropriate), but this collapse should not be separate article per NOTNEWS and NEVENT. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources for bridge

Is this a good source? im not familiar with it. nationalbridges.comMercurywoodrose (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a copy of the National Bridge Index which is government maintained, and it has been used in several FAs. --Rschen7754 08:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Live video and audio coverage

I'm connected to NWCN.com with live and recorded video and audio feeds. Eyewitnesses report the truck was transporting what appeared to be a huge steel box-like frame with open sides, total height about 14 feet high. It was in the right lane (slow lane) when it hit one of the girders of the first span on the southbound side of the bridge. Due to the curved construction of the overhead girders, had the truck been in the left lane, closer to the center of the truss, it might have cleared the girders without incident. Although it may not be good for citations, this source is fleshing out what happened fairly well. — Quicksilver^{T @} 16:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Consistent with the KIRO 5 live coverage last night. Big empty steel box being hauled. Truck made it across rest of bridge without tearing it all down. Last night they were saying he was to close to one side. Legacypac (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Photos of the offending load are hard to come by, since all the gawking is focused on the downed bridge truss. However, I found a couple of shots here: http://www.kirotv.com/news/ap/washington/i-5-bridge-collapse-survivor-you-hold-on/nX2kb/
One photo shows the truck-trailer on the highway shoulder at dusk (credit Dean Rutz/ The Seattle Times), apparently shortly ofter the accident, the other in morning light (credit AP Photo/Elaine Thompson). We may not be able to use the photos in the article, but having the images may help construct a verbal description. When you look at the full-size images, you can see a door at the right front and another at the right rear of the structure. If those are normal man-size doors, it gives an approximate scale of the thing. In effect, the "box" is a bit larger than a 40-foot high-cube intermodal container. Lack of walls on the sides indicate that the roof would need significant reinforcement to prevent sagging, such as longitudinal steel I-beams or square tubes. If there was a steel beam in the upper corner area where the box contacted the bridge girder, it would have acted like a multi-tonne battering ram traveling at 40 to 55 miles per hour. The momentum and kinetic energy would have been quite large. — Quicksilver^{T @} 00:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a screengrab of the truck from the King5 live feed, but it doesn't show the damage and has licensing issues. Still curious what a 'drilling housing' actually is. tedder (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Name of driver

I concur with User:Tedder that we don't need the guy's name. It doesn't add anything to the article. If he was a escaped criminal, for example, it would be notable. But Joe Schmo the Truck Driver doesn't need to be called out. (P.S. Love the Eats, Shoots & Leaves reference.) Ignatzmice•talk 17:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional source

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Three+people+pulled+from+Skagit+River+after+bridge+collapses/8427846/story.html was a good article, but I had to remove the related text due to plagiarism concerns. --Rschen7754 18:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Google News has compiled a list of 600 sources related to the collapse, if we need them later. SounderBruce 20:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Pre-collapse photos

I took several photographs of the Skagit River Bridge on May 12 (showing its pre-collapse state). The photo set is at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ossguy/sets/72157633693673124/ . Just wanted to let people know in case some of them are useful to include in the article. I won't be copying any of them to the article myself, in order to avoid COI. Ossguy (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

These are all great pictures! And they really prove that a good picture is worth a thousand words! Could you please donate this particular one: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3806/8831881488_048dc78556_z.jpg since it really explains everything. While uploading at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard please release all rights including commercial - Attribution:Creative Commons (this is the only way they except pictures in Wikipedia which I personally dislike and unfortunately you have to register in order to do that) and please don't forget to leave a short description and a date when the picture was taken. After uploading the picture to Wikipedia Commons you can place the photo yourself into the article immediately. Another way, you can change the copyright on that much needed for the article image on Flickr to Attribution:Creative Commons and ask somebody with an account to do that. You can find the instructions at: http://www.wikihow.com/Apply-the-Creative-Commons-License-to-Flickr-Photographs Thank you very much! --75.148.6.211 (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Flickr should show that I've already licensed the pictures BY-SA. I think that's all that would be required for people to be able to copy them to Wikipedia. Please let me know if you think additional changes are required on my part. Thanks. Ossguy (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it. I don't have time at the moment; imagine I'm the one doing it, I'm just delegating you. COI resolved! :) Ignatzmice•talk 14:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

While the perceived COI was one reason for me not to post the pictures, I, too, do not have the time to integrate one or some of them into the article (and perhaps more importantly, nor do I have the vision for which ones to use or exactly how to use them in the article). So if anyone is able/willing to do that, please feel free. Ossguy (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. File:I-5 Skagit River bridge southbound pre-collapse.jpg. Ignatzmice•talk 03:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks so much for doing that. Ossguy (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Cause of collapse?

I understand that the collapse was preceded by a truck with an oversize load bumping the girders. But bridges elsewhere have survived much worse accidents, including tractor trailers slamming into them at full speed when the drivers fall asleep at the wheel, etc. Why was this low speed, relatively minor incident fatal to the bridge? I would like to see a better analysis referenced in the article... AlaskaMike (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It says why: "The bridge was a 'fracture critical' design, meaning the failure of just one part could cause the entire bridge to collapse." That, and the lack of clearance, is why it was considered obsolete. The reason it wasn't replaced it that there are hundreds of other bridges in Washington that are much worse off. The decay of American infrastructure has been a subject of controversy since the 1980s. To me the only unresolved question is the permitting of this truck and whether height limit signs should have been in place. I expect that to come to light in the coming weeks. No? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The trucker on the live king5 feed said signs are only required when the height is under 14 feet. tedder (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Dennis B., I understand the "fracture critical" designation. But why would even one girder fail just by being bumped? I have to admit I have only been on the I-5 from Seattle southbound so I am unfamiliar with this span. But I find it alarming that after such a catastrophic failure caused by what amounts to a hard bump, they are only planning to replace the damaged section. Maybe the rest of the bridge will collapse when someone gets out to take a picture and their car door hits something. Sadly, I'm not being entirely sarcastic. And yes, I agree, if it is going to accomadate oversize loads, it should have clearance signs. Thanks for everyones responses. AlaskaMike (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This press conference with NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman is very helpful. She says the permits given to transport an oversize load don't include any assurances about bridge clearance. The permits don't specify the dimensions of your load, and so can't anticipate whether or not you'll make past bridges and tunnels. She said the responsibility to plan the trip and check bridge heights rests with the shipper, and the final check is the pilot car's height pole. The pilot car must drive far enough ahead that if the pole strikes something, there is time for the car to radio the driver to stop. She also said the truck driver said the pilot car did not radio, and the truck driver did not see the height pole hit anything, or wobble as if it hit something.

That might be outdated info, but based on that, either the pilot car driver failed to radio a hit, or there was something wrong with the height pole.

I've seen elsewhere that WSDOT said it was bad luck that this hit made the bridge fail. It struck the bridge in "just the right way", and that many other similar hits might not have had the same result. But current standards call for much greater clearances on bridges, making a hit less likely. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Bridge Construction Date

Could someone please verify the construction date of this bridge as 1955? I am skeptical because the interstate highway project was not signed into law until 1956. I know some older bridges were incorporated into I-5, but I am doubtful that this is one of them. Washington usually stamps the construction date into the side of the bridge, and most I-5 bridges in the Seattle area are stamped 1964, so maybe the date should be 1965? Unfortunately, the police have the bridge blocked off so I cannot examine it. RoastDack (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The NBI gives the date as 1955. I thought I heard it was the first bridge constructed in the chain. tedder (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Big sections of pre-existing U.S. 99 were incorporated into I-5, so I don't see any real reason to challenge the date. This particular bridge was only 2 lanes in each direction, so it seems likely to be from one of the legacy segments. Federales (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Source requested

There is a claim in the opening paragraph that is unsupported. "The vertical clearance from the roadway to the upper arched beam in the outer southbound lane is 14 feet 7 inches (4.45 m), and all trucks with over-sized loads are expected to travel in the inside southbound lane where the clearance is around 17 feet (5.2 m)." The Seattle Times article that is cited says 14'5" not 14'7" -- and WSDOT says 14'5" and 14'3" -- and there is no reference to trucks riding in the center lane in that article. Apologies if this isn't the correct way to make such a request. Kegill (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it in Mount Vernon or Burlington?

The section of the bridge that collapsed was north of the centre line of the Skagit River, and this line defines the boundary between Mount Vernon (to the south) and Burlington (to the north). That puts the location of the collapse within Burlington, not Mount Vernon. If a span near the centre had collapsed, it most likely would be shared between the two cities, but this is not the case. --  Denelson83  07:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Every source in this article says Mount Vernon. The National Bridge Inventory says Mount Vernon. As editors, we don't look at maps to make our own determination - we look at what the sources say and we go with that. Federales (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent Engineering Analysis Published

A new peer-reviewed engineering paper examines this bridge collapse:

Maybe someone could update the article to reflect the information contained in it.

Aves n Leps (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I-5 Skagit River Bridge collapse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130526000401/http://www.king5.com/news/skagit-river-bridge/Report-I-5-bridge-collapses-over-Skagit-River-cars-in-water-208758631.html to http://www.king5.com/news/skagit-river-bridge/Report-I-5-bridge-collapses-over-Skagit-River-cars-in-water-208758631.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Height 15-9 or 15-11?

Correct link for Times 'easy to get' headline is http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/bridge-collapse-oversize-load-permits-easy-to-get-online/ . That story says "driver William Scott got a permit to drive his 15-foot 9-inch-tall load...", which is correct. They measured their load at 15-9 and that's what they got a permit for. Post crash, the NTSB says they measured the height as 15' 11". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I-5 Skagit River Bridge collapse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607114314/http://www.nwcn.com/news/washington/Report-I-5-bridge-collapses-over-Skagit-River-cars-in-water-208758631.html to http://www.nwcn.com/news/washington/Report-I-5-bridge-collapses-over-Skagit-River-cars-in-water-208758631.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)