I-5 over the Skagit River between Burlington and Mt. Vernon (Olympia: school, college)

[rantiquity]

SEATTLE (AP) - When assigning federal stimulus money for highways, Washington state transportation officials say they looked for ready-to-go projects that would meet the government's goal of getting people quickly to work.

And for the most part, they say, that excluded bridges.

An Associated Press analysis found many states are spending stimulus dollars on bridges already in good shape or on easier projects like repaving roads.

President Barack Obama urged Congress to pass his $787 billion stimulus package in part so some of the money could be used to rebuild what he called America's "crumbling bridges."

Inspection records show that more than a quarter of Washington state's 7,763 bridges are rated as either structurally deficient, meaning they need repair or replacement of a component, or functionally obsolete, meaning they need updates to handle capacity or such things as wider lanes and higher clearances.

AP's analysis found four obsolete bridges in the state among 29 bridge projects receiving stimulus money.

Washington state is fortunate because it has a good bridge replacement program, thanks to a $15 billion capital improvement plan, says state Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond.

Now you know why this bridge went down. It more important to repave Seattle streets than worry about a bridge.

[Botev1912]

If there is no sign for height clearance, then the it's 100% state's fault. Drivers are not required to guess anything.

[Botev1912]

Originally Posted by rantiquity

Now you know why this bridge went down. It more important to repave Seattle streets than worry about a bridge.

That is equally important. Both smooth roads and safe bridges should be priority.

[CarawayDJ]

Originally Posted by Botev1912

If there is no sign for height clearance, then the it's 100% state's fault. Drivers are not required to guess anything.

I'm with you on this. They got an oversized permit, and there was no sign. I'll go out on a limb and say it's the responsibility of the permit grantor to verify a load is suitable for a road. Don't know why they would exist otherwise. Placing a sign is just freaking common sense. Regardless of what the law required, someone with a lick of horse sense should have known bridges with limits need signs. Maybe Seattle needs to export some of their educated folk they so often tout down to Olympia.

[EDIT] The NTSB said the vehicle exceeded the height and width limits specified in the permit. I downloaded an oversized/overweight permit application and it absolutely requires you to enter the height and weight. We don't know if they put bad info in the application or not though. Responsibility might partially fall on both sides. I'm sure that will all come out soon enough. I better go back to programming. I'm better at that than I am being an Internet judge lol.

[sll3454]

Originally Posted by CarawayDJ

I'll go out on a limb and say it's the responsibility of the permit grantor to verify a load is suitable for a road. Don't know why they would exist otherwise. Placing a sign is just freaking common sense. Regardless of what the law required, someone with a lick of horse sense should have known bridges with limits need signs. Maybe Seattle needs to export some of their educated folk they so often tout down to Olympia.

It should be. Of course, the "fine print" on the permit (according to newspaper article) says that the driver has final responsibility.

I don't see how this driver can be held responsible, though. He broke no laws and did nothing careless. His "bump" was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. Today's paper says that the bridge has been hit numerous times, and that inspectors have seen the damage. I can't understand how, knowing that, they did not put up a sign or make some other changes.

[CarawayDJ]

Originally Posted by sll3454

It should be. Of course, the "fine print" on the permit (according to newspaper article) says that the driver has final responsibility.

I don't see how this driver can be held responsible, though. He broke no laws and did nothing careless. His "bump" was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. Today's paper says that the bridge has been hit numerous times, and that inspectors have seen the damage. I can't understand how, knowing that, they did not put up a sign or make some other changes.

I edited my post as you were responding. The NTSB is indicating the vehicle exceeded the permit limits.

It's kind of mind-boggling to think they knew the bridge had been hit numerous times and still didn't put up a sign.

[Fairwinds]

Here's an example of where WA state priorities lie as regards to state salaries:

OLYMPIA — College coaches are the top-paid state employees in Washington, according to a list of 2012 public salaries released by the state Office of Financial Management.

University of Washington football coach Steve Sarkisian earned $2.7 million last year, followed by Washington State University football coach Mike Leach at $2.3 million.

Third on the list is UW basketball coach Lorenzo Romar at $1.35 million, and fourth is WSU coach Ken Bone at $855,000.

By comparison, former Gov. Chris Gregoire — the state’s chief executive in 2012 — earned $162,000 after forfeiting a portion of her pay when other state workers’ pay was cut.

Most state workers saw a 3 percent reduction in pay since July 2011.

Sports expenditures trump infrastructure every time!

[Beenhere4ever]

I was wondering how, with the number of trucks on that highway, the bridge could have gone nearly 60 years with just one incident. But the fact is that there's really not much enthusiasm anywhere in the country for bridge fixing. Because it was allowed to go so long. Like a guy with high blood pressure for decades who doesn't see the consequences. By the time something does happen, his body has broken down to where NOW doing the necessary repair is overwhelming. But then, who was it said "Government is not the solution, government is the problem"? Well, then why didn't the private sector, supposedly the source of all solutions, take care of this? No short term profit, I guess. No big bonuses for decisonmakers. To say the entity who must take care of the problem is taking too much money and then not ask how else something is to be done is kinda putting on blinders. And drivers also never wanted more money taken to fund the fixing of things that were wearing out.

[sll3454]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

But then, who was it said "Government is not the solution, government is the problem"? Well, then why didn't the private sector, supposedly the source of all solutions, take care of this?

Hmm. Because the bridges don't belong to the private sector?

In general, I'm one who thinks the government tries to do too much. But I don't think that applies to bridges.

[StealthRabbit]

Originally Posted by sll3454

It should be. Of course, the "fine print" on the permit (according to newspaper article) says that the driver has final responsibility.

I don't see how this driver can be held responsible, though. He broke no laws and did nothing careless. His "bump" was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. Today's paper says that the bridge has been hit numerous times, and that inspectors have seen the damage. I can't understand how, knowing that, they did not put up a sign or make some other changes.

Bottom line... = driver's fault (I've been a CDL driver for 40 yrs). The driver does not have a huge dpt of Lawyers, as does WSDOT. Driver loses.

I'm sure it was over width and over height, and it may have exceeded max height (permitted)

A little math will show the top corner of load was very vulnerable to the curved arches of bridge. Poor Driver (ex-driver)...