Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
13. I found a news story that says:
Fri May 24, 2013, 07:07 PM
May 2013
There were no signs leading up to the Skagit River bridge to warn about its clearance height. State Transportation Secretary Lynn Peterson said that under federal and state standards, the clearance is tall enough to not require signage.


For reference, the vertical clearance from roadway to steel beam was 14'6". Here's an overpass with seven inches more clearance that's still marked:



The state regulations for highway safety in Washington state may have different criteria; I also found a USDOT memo re vertical clearances on the Interstate Highway System which specify 4.9m (16 feet) vertical clearance, and the Washington State DOT also specifies 16 feet 6 inches (on new structures). Further, contradicting Ms Peterson's statement:

Low clearance warning signs are necessary when the vertical clearance of an existing bridge is less than 15 feet 3 inches. Refer to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the Traffic Manual for other requirements for low-clearance signing.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/720.pdf

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Then he would complain about Politicalboi May 2013 #1
yes, a sign will solve everything 0rganism May 2013 #2
Did he ask him if he thanked the lord nobody was killed? CBGLuthier May 2013 #3
There are already signs Spider Jerusalem May 2013 #4
True, but I don't see any on or near that bridge. Up2Late May 2013 #7
I don't recall ever seeing any..... Capt.Rocky300 May 2013 #10
I don't see any either. Up2Late May 2013 #14
I went on the Google Maps Street view, last night, and couldn't find any low clearance signs.... Up2Late May 2013 #5
it is not a low clearance bridge KT2000 May 2013 #12
I found a news story that says: Spider Jerusalem May 2013 #13
It will be interesting to hear what the actual clearance was on this bridge... Up2Late May 2013 #15
Here's another piece of the puzzle, from one of the surviving witnesses Up2Late May 2013 #17
Yeah, I didn't see any, either. Have you noticed, though, how Google has copyrighted the earth? nilram May 2013 #18
Instead of signs, use the money to fix the goddamn bridge. Apophis May 2013 #6
That bridge is over 50 years old, it should be replaced. Up2Late May 2013 #8
That had nothing to do with this disaster. The bridge was structurally sound. If this truck rhett o rick May 2013 #19
Did you read the article that I linked to, it tells what "fracture critical" means. Up2Late May 2013 #20
The bridge was "fracture critical" the day is was completed. What happened had nothing to do with rhett o rick May 2013 #21
Maybe so, but it has a history of getting hit and was hit in the same spot sometime in the past... Up2Late May 2013 #22
I did not intend to come across as opposing replacing the outdated bridge. rhett o rick May 2013 #23
I'm not surprised that Blitzed wouldn't know, it is CNN after all WestStar May 2013 #9
Wolfie, you swiss cheese brained incompetent moran....why don't REPORT the news dixiegrrrrl May 2013 #11
Devil's advocate here eissa May 2013 #16
Infrastructure maintenance is the unseen tax. The longer we go w/o addressing the issue rhett o rick May 2013 #24
And so many jobs would be created. We're treading water when we should be speed swiming. randome May 2013 #25
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Wolf Blitzer To NTSB Spok...»Reply #13