String of failures led to I-5 bridge strike, collapse in 2013, NTSB says

| July 16, 2014
The collapsed section of I-5 in Washington over the Skagit River. The bridge has since been repaired.

The collapsed section of I-5 in Washington over the Skagit River. The bridge has since been repaired.

The National Transportation Safety Board blames a “series of deficiencies” on the events that led to a truck with an oversized load striking a sway brace on the bridge last May and causing it to collapse into the Skagit River, according to a soon-to-be-released report by NTSB.


VIDEO: I-5 Skagit River bridge replacement slides into place

Time-lapse video shows the elaborate work that went into putting the Skagit River I-5 Bridge's permanent span into place September 14-15, following collapse earlier ...

Negligence by the truck’s pilot vehicle, bad route planning by the carrier, an inadequate permitting processes in the state of Washington and the lack of low-clearance warning signs on the bridge all led to the truck striking  the bridge and its subsequent collapse.

NTSB says the truck’s pilot vehicle driver had placed five calls on her mobile phone in the 30 minutes preceding the bridge strike, and she was on a call when the truck struck the bridge, NTSB says.

The pilot vehicle was equipped with a height pole, and an off-duty truck driver said he saw the height pole hit the bridge in four or five places when it crossed. However, NTSB says it was unable to determine whether the pole actually hit the bridge, and the pilot driver said she didn’t notice the pole making contact.


Report on I-5 bridge collapse says trucker ‘felt crowded’

An NTSB report written from preliminary accounts of the collision that caused the bridge collapse on Interstate 5 near Mount Vernon, Wash., says that the ...

But the use of her phone was a distraction and “diminished her ability to recognize whether” the pole did hit the bridge, NTSB says.

The trucking company operating the truck also did not check the route or bridge clearances prior to the crash,either, NTSB says, even though it had obtained a permit for the oversized load. Had the truck been in the left lane on the bridge instead of the right, it would not have made contact with the bridge, NTSB concluded.

A lack of warning signage on the bridge was also a problem, NTSB says, as the Washington Department of Transportation had no signs on the bridge to warn truck drivers of the bridge’s height restrictions. Washington has 22 other bridges on its Interstate system similar to the Skagit River bridge, NTSB says, and none of them have low-clearance warnings, either, or direct oversize load drivers to the left lane, where clearance is higher.


I-5 bridge officially reopens after collapse in May

The Interstate 5 bridge that collapsed over the Skagit River in Washington in late May and caused major disruption of the West Coast corridor reopened ...

Lastly, NTSB says WDOT’s permitting process needs to be changed, saying the state needs a better review process for carriers obtaining oversize load permits.

NTSB has issued 18 recommendations to both federal and state departments to try to avoid a similar issue from reoccurring, including prohibiting nonemergency use of portable electronics by pilot car drivers and developing better signage requirements.

The bridge collapse last year occurred hen a 2010 Kenworth towing a 1997 Aspen flatbed with a casing shed struck the bridge in the southbound far right lane on I-5. The bridge collapsed after the truck had crossed. Though some cars fell into the river, no one was injured.

  • BetterCallSaul

    What about the “New Breed” Trucker that passed the Oversize on the span? You can see it in the you tube videos of the collapse…

  • Admiral Turtle

    NTSB seems to have missed the point. The State of WA issued a permit for a route, the truck followed the route, & the state got it wrong. What is NTSB implying by saying state permit departments need to do a better job of screening carriers when issuing permits? According to previous articles, the carrier that struck the bridge was very experienced in moving oversize loads, so they would have been issued the permit in any case. The feds issue the D.O.T. authority, so how can a state say some authorities can move oversize & others can’t? What did the N.T.S.B. mean by saying the carrier should have checked the route? The carrier is required to follow the state-issued route! I don’t know if the pilot car driver was distracted by their phone or not, but it seems like the use of phones is an excuse to throw blame on drivers anytime something goes wrong. If phone use causes accidents, prove it. I wonder what percentage of accidents involve drivers who were NOT using their phones? I’ll bet it is higher than the percentage of accidents where phones were in use. We don’t need more rules, we need people to do their job or be held accountable when they fail to do so.

  • george

    What the ntsb was saying is that the driver was not the only one to blame. Yes it was his responsibility, but the pilot car let him down by being on the phone, the company failed to double check the state’s work on the permit, and the state did not do the permit properly nor mark the bridge correctly. I have had to send permits back because of mistakes where they miss putting low bridges in the route . I am happy to see the ntsb get involved in this because they are there to find ALL the causes and to find ways to prevent it from happening again. The state, and the dot are only interested in blaming the truck driver. We all know that the state never makes a mistake. I wish the ntsb were called in for every truck Accident. Then the public will learn how few times it is the truck’s fault. And we can get some of the bad apple truck drivers off the road that damage the industry. strives to maintain an open forum for reader opinions. Click here to read our comment policy.