Five days after the Tacoma Narrows Bridge fell, L. R. Durkee, the Public Works Administration’s project engineer at Seattle, sent Washington the statements of five men who had watched it go. Two more were added later: the contractor’s engineer who had filmed the bridge that morning, and the commanding officer of the Coast Guard cutter that passed beneath it an hour before the end. The board that investigated the failure printed all seven as Appendix V of its report. They are given here as the report gives them, in the order the board printed them, with Durkee’s covering letter first.

Durkee’s letter, 12 November 1940

“The enclosures are copies of statements made by five different men who witnessed the disaster and were prepared and submitted by these men as soon afterward as we could get them. We thought it wise to secure as many different accounts as possible while the observed actions of the structure were still fresh in the minds of witnesses. The men submitting the statements all observed the failure; most of them from different points, and hence their reports may contain apparent discrepancies or contradictions. Professor Farquharson’s statement should be particularly valuable as he was the last man off the structure and, in fact, was still on the east side span at the time a part of the center span fell into the Sound. He was also able to secure motion pictures of the bridge movement before failure. As you know, Professor Farquharson had been collaborating with the Owner’s engineers in their studies of the bridge motion. He had visited the project November 7th with his cameras with the intention of securing pictures of bridge movements during the day.

“Our last report was dictated Saturday morning, November 9, and gave an account of the previous day’s happenings. After dictating this memorandum, we visited the project, made several examinations of various members, and secured photographs taken at the time of failure which we forwarded you with our report.

“We have made rather superficial inspections of both side spans and the two main towers, the latter from the roadway deck only. Owner’s employees have examined the conditions at both the tops and bases of the towers. An important fact revealed by the tower top examinations is that there has been no slippage of the main cables at this point. Both towers are leaning approximately 12.8 feet toward the shores and many of the plates on the shore side have buckled, the worst condition of this appearing a few feet above the bases.

“The worst damage to the main cables discovered to date appears at the west holddown point (Tower No. 3) of the south cable. At this point, the cable is lying on the stub end of a broken lamp standard which has been forced some three inches into the cable, damaging several wires. A definite determination has not yet been made regarding the condition of the north cable near the center of the center span, where either the wrapping wire or the individual cable wires appear to be frayed. At our suggestion, a photograph was taken from the water which, upon development, may further reveal the amount of damage.

“Crews are at work removing the concrete roadway deck of the two side spans and by the afternoon of November 12, approximately 75 linear feet of deck had been removed. It is, of course, important that the side spans be relieved of weight as soon as this can possibly be accomplished.

“It is doubtful whether any definite information with respect to the salvage of the towers and main cable can be obtained for several days. In any event, we shall continue to keep you advised of developments.”

Clark H. Eldridge, bridge engineer, Washington Toll Bridge Authority

Record of Observations of Narrows Bridge Failure, November 7, 1940.

“Drove across the bridge at about 8:30 as usual to observe the behaviour of the bridge as the wind during the latter part of the night had been quite severe and was still blowing moderately. The bridge appeared to be behaving in the customary manner, the east side span being practically quiet, the main span oscillating in a four noded manner and the west span oscillating considerably from the temporary holddown to the tower. All of these motions, however, were considerably less than had occurred many times before so I came to the office at about nine o’clock. Yesterday in a conference with Mr. Andrews, Professor Farquharson and Mr. Durkee, it had been determined that we would proceed immediately to streamline the southerly side of the main span. I was to prepare detailed sketches and secure prices on materials, etc. as quickly as possible and proceed with the work on the basis of owner’s force account. Therefore, upon my return to the office at nine o’clock, I immediately undertook the preparation of these sketches and obtaining of information. At about ten o’clock Mr. Walter Miles called from his office to come and look at the bridge that it was about to go. This was the first indication I had that anything of an unusual or serious nature was occurring. I immediately drove with Mr. Miles to the dock from which we could see the bridge. The center span was swaying wildly, it being possible first to see the entire bottom side as it swung into a semi-vertical position and then the entire roadway. It was at once apparent that instead of the cables in the main span rising and falling together, they were moving in opposite directions thereby tilting the deck from side to side. I could observe one car, stationary, some distance east from the center of the span. It appeared that the center of the span was remaining about horizontal and the two halves were revolving about a longitudinal axis of the bridge. I then returned to the office, took my own car and went immediately to the bridge where I observed that all traffic had been stopped and that several people were coming off the bridge from the easterly side span. I walked to tower No. 5 and out onto the main span to about the quarter point observing conditions. The east side span was practically quiet, there being but a few inches of vertical motion. I looked over the side at the temporary tie down cables and observed they were perfectly quiet and functioning in the manner intended. Then I observed on the main span that the concrete sidewalk around the stiffeners of the girders was failing badly. The curbs at the construction joints were also failing. Adjacent to the girders, it appeared that the concrete was entirely free and the girders and the concrete were working back and forth continuously three or four inches. The concrete roadway showed no signs of cracking. The main span was rolling wildly. It appeared to be in a true position horizontally. That is, the wind had not moved it a noticeable amount sidewise. The deck, however, was tipping from the horizontal to an angle approaching forty-five degrees. I could look beyond the center of the span at the lamp posts and see that the deck there was tilting in an opposite direction. The entire main span appeared to be twisting about a neutral point at the center of the span in somewhat the manner of a corkscrew. At tower No. 5, I met Professor Farquharson, who had his camera set up and was taking pictures. We remained there a few minutes and then decided to return to the east anchorage warning people who were approaching to get off of the span. From the east anchorage, I advised the officials of the Northern Pacific Railway that the span was in a dangerous condition and that train service should be discontinued. I also advised the Coast Guard and the U. S. Engineers. I then requested Mr. Stewart to go and examine the east holddown points and to go below into the cable tunnels to look at the anchorages. I then went from the administration building to the view plaza on the south side of the bridge to observe the behaviour. The main span was still rolling badly and the east side span was still quiet. The temporary tie downs were working as intended and appeared to be holding this span. At this moment, I felt very happy that these temporary guys were in. I requested Mr. Arkin, if possible, to determine whether the west tie downs were still in, he later reporting to me that they were. At that time, it appeared that should the wind die down, the span would perhaps come to rest and I resolved that we would immediately proceed to install a system of cables from the piers to the roadway level in the main span to prevent any recurrence. It appeared to me that this was extremely desirable so I returned to the administration building with the thought of making arrangements for crews to come in as quickly as the storm subsided for this purpose. I called Mr. Frincke of the Bethlehem Steel Company and requested him to send us a superintendent and a pusher immediately in order that we could undertake this work at once. I then called the Weather Bureau to determine whether or not the wind was dying down and was informed that the barometer was rising and in all probability the wind would quiet later in the day. During this interval, I talked with both Mr. Andrew in Seattle and Mr. Davis in Olympia who informed me they were proceeding to Tacoma at once. I was then informed that a panel of laterals in the center of the span had dropped out and a section of concrete slab had fallen. I immediately went to the south side of the plaza and from there could see that such was the case. The bridge was still rolling badly about the center as it had been doing previously. I returned to the toll plaza and from there observed the first section of steel fall out of the center. From then on successive sections towards each tower rapidly fell out. For fear that misfortune might come to the anchorage, I requested that all persons be cleared from the administration buildings back to a safe distance. Shortly thereafter, during this time and coinciding with the dropping of the sections from the center span, I observed the side span settle rapidly and was momentarily expecting the towers to come down. I did not observe the exact time that the center section fell out although I was later informed that it was 11:10. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Andrew, Mr. Davis, Mr. Durkee and others arrived. We made what examination we could in the vicinity of the east anchorage determining that in all probability, there was no immediate danger of failure there. Instructions were issued to Mr. Arkin to determine the verticality of the towers and he reported they were leaning shoreward about twelve feet at the top. At about 1:30 P.M. Governor Martin arrived and Senator Bone and a good deal of time was consumed in talking with newspaper and radio men. After the Governor left, Mr. Davis and others left for a meeting with the County Commissioners in order to arrange for ferry service.

“Mr. Andrew and I came to Sixth Avenue Dock and took the ‘Skylark’ for an inspection tour of the piers and towers. It has been reported to us by Mr. Stewart that it appeared that the north cable was badly frayed at mid span. We proceeded around pier No. 5 examining the tower from the boat. The tower appeared to be buckled at a point ten or twelve feet above the base on the shore side. From there to the top, it appeared bent in a smooth curve. We then proceeded to the center of the channel to examine the cable with spy glasses. Because of the movements of the boat it was impossible for us to determine whether the mass of wires was wrapping wire which had been broken or whether portions of the main cable had failed. At this time two Foss Company tugs were sweeping the channel which had been arranged for some time before to determine whether or not it was safe for shipping to proceed. We boarded one of these tugs and talked with Mr. Orville Sund, who was in charge of operation. He advised us that he had swept the channel and was doing it for the third time and it seemed entirely clear. We then proceeded to intercept a Coast Guard boat and inquire whether or not they would patrol the channel the entire night. They informed us that they were waiting orders from a second boat which had gone to the Sixth Avenue Dock to receive instructions. We then proceeded around Pier No. 4 observing the condition of this tower. It was buckled in a similar point to No. 5 and also was bent to a smooth curve from this point upward. It appeared that both these towers were not damaged beyond repair and that it might be possible to salvage them. We then returned to the Sixth Avenue Dock passing on the way the second Coast Guard boat with whom we communicated and learned that they expected to patrol the vicinity all night. We returned to the office and Mr. Andrew returned to Seattle. It was apparent that nothing further could be done, arrangements having been made with the State Highway Department and Capt. Owens of the Toll Bridge Authority for watchmen at both ends of the bridge to keep the public away.”

R. E. Stewart, instrumentman, Washington Toll Bridge Authority

Record of Observations of Narrows Bridge Failure, November 7, 1940.

“The bridge was moving slightly when I arrived at the bridge at approximately 8 A.M. The motion kept building up and at about 9:30 I drove out and parked in center of main span and counted the number of cycles the bridge was making per minute and found it to be thirty-five. I then came in and reported it to Mr. Eldridge. I then started back to the bridge and at the top of the hill noticed the vibrations of cables were out of step and bridge was rocking from side to side badly, so I turned around and came back to report but in the meantime the news had reached the office, so I drove back to bridge arriving around 9:45. Mr. Eldridge, Carl West and I walked out to tower No. 5. The only noticeable damage was small chunks of concrete broken out of sidewalk at girder stiffeners. It was getting more violent so we decided we had better get off and we turned back several that were coming out. We got back to toll house about 10:00 and Mr. Eldridge asked me if I would go in anchorage and see what the effect was on anchor and Bent K tie down cable.

“I first went in tunnel and noted anchor bars. I could feel a slight horizontal motion, the cables were moving as far horizontally as they could because they were hitting both sides of concrete where they went through the deck.

“I then went up to look at the tie down cables at Bent K. The motion there of the shoes was about two inches. I then noticed a great jar and some concrete fell down and I got out. I didn’t know that the bridge had failed until walking out and looking towards center span I saw a small portion gone near the center. I then went up on deck by toll house and watched until the final crash when most of center span fell into the bay.

“Mr. Eldridge then wanted to know how much the towers were out of plumb. Mr. K. B. Arkin and I took transit and taking some readings figured tower No. 5 leaned approximately twelve feet east. We went out in ‘Skylark’ and looked at tower No. 4 and it appeared to have the same lean as tower No. 5.

“On the trip we noticed a place on the north cable that was frayed. We thought it was only wrapping. We then took a level and set it up on shore and it appeared from there to be strands of main cable.”

C. M. West, bridge designer, Washington Toll Bridge Authority

Record of Observations of Narrows Bridge Failure, November 7, 1940.

“The first warning I had of any unusual condition existing on the bridge was when I happened to glance up at the bridge while standing on the Sixth Avenue Ferry Dock which is situated about one and one-half miles from the bridge in a southwesterly direction. The deck at that time appeared to be tilting crazily about the longitudinal axis of the bridge and since no such motion had previously been observed I immediately called Mr. Eldridge to inform him of the situation so that he could observe it.

“I immediately left the dock to go to the bridge site at the east anchorage. Upon reaching the bridge I observed a car that had been abandoned on the main span some distance from tower No. 5. At that time the deck in the main span did not appear to be deflected or swinging laterally but it was pitching about the longitudinal axis to about thirty degrees each way from the normal horizontal position. The east side span was normally quiet for such a windy day so I decided to go out to the main span to see if the concrete deck was showing any signs of breaking up. Upon reaching a point in the main span just west of tower No. 5 I observed that portions of the sidewalk slab were breaking badly next to the girder where vertical stiffeners occur. The sidewalk slab was also sliding back and forth along the shelf angle on the girder for a distance of approximately 2 1/2 inches. I did not at this point observe any disintegration of the deck slab nor curbs. Since the pitching of the deck did not appear to be abating, I did not consider it wise to go out further on the main span to see if any disintegration was occurring. I, therefore, turned and walked off the bridge to the east anchorage where I proceeded to the bluff just south of the bridge at approximately Station 72 and noticed that approximately at the mid point of the main span, the lateral bracing had come loose and was hanging suspended from the deck. Shortly thereafter portions of the concrete roadway dropped out and into the Narrows. I then noticed that the stiffening girders had been crimped in a horizontal direction indicating that with the lack of concrete deck at that point, the girders had failed in horizontal shear. I then turned my attention to the east side span particularly to the temporary guy cables and noticed that they were now becoming alternately slack and taut. However, the side span motion was still nothing to be alarmed about. I then proceeded to the toll house and reported to Mr. Eldridge the failure of the girders at mid span. Coming back to the bluff to my previous vantage point, had not been there but a short time until approximately 700 feet of the deck at about the west quarter point of the main span fell into the Narrows. The violent motion of the deck seemed to abate somewhat after this portion of the deck had fallen. It seemed as though the motion might die out completely and the bridge remain in that condition. However, as I was standing and thinking of that possibility, the remainder of the deck, both that portion from the previous break toward Tower #4 and also toward Tower #5 started to fall into the Narrows progressively as the suspender ropes snapped. I remained on the bluff for a short time thereafter watching for the possible failure of the towers as they leaned shoreward due to the weight of the side spans which were remaining intact. As the last of the main deck had come off and there was no apparent tower failure, I went back up to the toll house to report to Mr. Eldridge.”

Kenneth Arkin, chainman, Washington Toll Bridge Authority

Record of Observations of Narrows Bridge Failure, November 7, 1940.

“The wind awakened me at 5:00 A.M., Thursday, November 7, 1940. Got up and drove to the Narrows Bridge to check the temporary guys. A fresh wind blowing directly from the south was having very little effect on the bridge. Went back home, had breakfast and came back to work at 7:30 A.M. Went to mid span and took velocity of wind - reading 38 miles an hour on anemometer. The bridge bounce was noticeable but of no great magnitude. Drove on to the west side span and noticed the temporary guy cables were whipping in a two foot arc. Drove underneath west side span and again looked at temporary guys noting same conditions as above. Drove back to toll plaza and asked Reynolds if any pile butts had come through. He informed me that three had gone across. I drove back across the bridge, parked my car on the hill and walked down to the bay and waited for Lewis to come ashore (approximately five minutes). He told me he had stayed aboard the scow all night and was going to breakfast and stated that at 3:30 A.M. the thrashing of the temporary guys had awakened him and upon investigating he had found that the bottom nuts had unscrewed approximately a half inch. We discussed the length of piling needed. He said he would wait in the restaurant until I had talked with Mr. Eldridge. Drove to the office and informed Mr. Eldridge of the condition of the temporary guys and was told by him to tighten the nuts, also, was told that piling would be in at 11:00 A.M. Driving back across the bridges to the restaurant I noticed that the bounce had increased slightly in magnitude. Informed Lewis the piling would be in at 11:00 A.M., also, I might be held up at observation house and, if so, to go ahead and drive piling in position he had been shown. Drove back to mid span - anemometer reading showed wind velocity 42 miles per hour directly from the south. The magnitude of the bounce, in my opinion, did not appear to be the maximum recorded. Counted the r.p.m.’s and found a count of 38. Hurrying to the observation house, I encountered Mr. Farquharson. He asked me the velocity of the wind and the r.p.m.’s of the bounce and asked me to see him before he went back to Seattle. I climbed to the observation house and looking through the transit noticed about three feet of magnitude at mid span, the bridge having the same motion as hitherto recorded and the east side span having very little bounce. Then the mid span targets disappeared to the right of my vision. Looking over the transit, mid span seemed to have blown north approximately half the roadway width coming back into position in a spiral motion. I called quickly to Bill Ellis to stop traffic and call Mr. Eldridge. Turning back to transit I noticed the spiral motion had increased to great proportions. (Checking the call to the radio patrol office, the time was exactly 10:07 A.M. - this was approximately three minutes after the start of this peculiar motion.) Turning the transit on a tower leg, I noted that it was steady and turned back to the targets. I could not keep them in line of vision long enough to determine the exact amount of magnitude. The light poles crossing each other seemed to be almost horizontal at times. Observing the car parked beyond tower #5 on the right side of the roadway, noticed it suddenly careen to the left side and the driver fall out, grab the curb and hang on, for what appeared to be several minutes. The bridge calmed down sufficiently for him to struggle in. While this man was hanging onto the curb, Dolf came to me and asked if I thought it advisable for him to go out and help this man. I told him when the man had recovered from his fright, he would be able to make it. About this time Mr. Eldridge appeared and headed for Tower #5. Believing the bridge would right itself, I climbed down and walked after him. Stopping to look at the temporary guys, I noted they were intact. During this period the side span was moving very little. While walking out towards the pier, Hager called to me and said Eldridge was wanted on the phone. I ran on out with this information and we immediately came back together. I walked down on the parking area and noticed small chunks of concrete falling. I supposed they were the cracked sections around the light poles. I went to the observation house and noted the bridge had increased to as great a magnitude as previously observed. Hearing someone yell, I rushed down to the parking area and observed mid span was broken completely in two, the ends working against each other with a sidewise motion. Shortly thereafter two or three sections of roadway fell in. Then approximately 600 feet of girders and roadway fell in. I went back to toll house, saw Mr. Eldridge and as I came out the door, I heard a deafening crash and looking up saw clouds of dust and a snarled mass of suspenders and deck whipping. The east approach dropped below my vision and then everything became quiet. I went down into the tunnel. Not being able to see anything, I came back to the toll house and was told to determine the position of the top of the towers. Found them to be approximately twelve feet shoreward.”

F. B. Farquharson, University of Washington

The Failure of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, November 7, 1940.

“The following report covers a period starting just before 10:00 a.m. Thursday, November 7th, 1940, and lasting until the collapse of the bridge shortly after 11:00 a.m. of the same day.

“A series of observations and photographs taken just before 10:00 a.m. showed the bridge to be moving with the usual vertical motion with a frequency of 36 cycles per minute. An examination of the films will be necessary before the mode of motion can be identified with certainty but it appeared to involve at least nine waves or eight nodes. Thru several observations this condition did not change. At the same time it was observed that the center of line of the bridge was deflected to the north. Observations of wind velocity at this time showed 42 mph. The lateral deflection of the center of the bridge was not measured but did not appear to be excessive, perhaps four times the width of the yellow center line (about 2 ft.)

“While checking the frequency from a position on the roadway to the north of the toll plaza a few minutes later a violent change in motion was noted. This change appeared to take place without any intermediate stages and with such extreme violence that the span appeared to be about to roll completely over. The most startling condition arose out of the fact that from a line of sight very nearly parallel to the bridge the upper side of the roadway on the Gig Harbor side of the main span was visible while what appeared to be a nearly perpendicular view of the bottom of the roadway was offered on the Tacoma side. The motion, which a moment before had involved a number of waves (nine or ten) had shifted almost instantly to two. The frequency was not checked at this point, but a photographic record was taken from which this data may be taken after processing.

“On reaching the axis of the bridge just in front of the toll house it was apparent that a motion of catastrophic proportions had developed the greater part of which was confined to the main span. As quickly as possible a station was reached just outside the towers from which a photographic record of the motion of the main span was obtained. A considerable amount of shock motion of small amplitude was evident in the side span, enough to make operation of the motion picture camera difficult. It was quite impossible to operate a camera on the main span so violent was the motion.

“At the moment of first observing the main span from the vicinity of the towers the motion had a frequency of 14 cycles per minute and consisted of a differential action of the cables with the two waves in each cable. The node was at the center of the main span and the structure was subjected to a violent torsional action about this point. The motion was not pure, however, and involved considerable motion at the center point. At times for a short period the motion changed over to a single wave on each cable but still with the cables out of step. This motion which never lasted long seemed to be of slightly greater amplitude than the single noded motion, but of the same frequency.

“At this time, not more than 8 or 10 minutes after the start of this violent motion, a considerable amount of damage had been done to the concrete in the sidewalks and curbs, and several of the lamp posts in the vicinity of the Tacoma towers were already loose on their bases. At this time one lamp post was seen to fall on the Gig Harbor side of the span. At this same time it was noted that a considerable longitudinal motion had developed between the sidewalk and the girder. This motion was not measured at this time but seemed to be about two inches. No signs of fracture were observed in the concrete deck, but the curb had started to separate away from the deck at numerous places. Also rather large sections of concrete had broken out of the corners of the curb formed by the expansion joints. This loose concrete had, in some instances, been thrown to the center of the roadway by the violence of the motion.

“It should be noted at this point that the amount of lateral deflection of the center of the bridge seemed to have increased to a marked degree but no measure of it could be obtained from a location near the towers.

“A car was stalled some little distance beyond the quarter point towards the center of the bridge. An effort was made during a momentary decrease in the violence of the motion to drive this car to safety; but shortly after reaching the car the violence increased to a point where the acceleration must have reached that of gravity since the car began to shift about in a most alarming manner. While out on this portion of the span opportunity was taken to examine the state of the bridge. Close examination of the suspenders at the point where they entered the girder failed to disclose any evidence of excessive stress either in the form of heat or spalling of paint. However, at two points one of the four suspenders in its group was permanently slack. As far as the eye and ear could detect the double amplitude of approximately 28 ft. was causing no distress in the girder. On the other hand the motion between the deck and the girder was noted all the way from the tower to well beyond the quarter point. This motion at once suggested that the lateral ‘K’ bracing must at least have yielded. It appeared at this time that the velocity of the wind might have increased somewhat although no direct observations were available. While making observations in the vicinity of the stalled car several more lamp posts were seen to fall on the Gig Harbor side. Even at this time it seemed plain that the motion was more violent on the Gig Harbor side.

“While returning to the Tacoma tower several observations were taken along the side of both girders looking towards the center of the span. It was plain that at this stage the lower limit of the undulation was almost exactly flattening the girder to a straight line from tower to tower while the upper limit must have been something over 25 ft. above this level.

“It now became necessary to return to the toll house for a fresh supply of film and there ensued a gap of some ten or twelve inches in the observations. On returning to the Tacoma tower it was at once noted that the frequency had changed to 12 for single noded action and on one check the frequency of the single wave motion was also 12. A decided change had taken place by this time, however, in the character of the lateral deflection. It was no longer more or less steady but consisted of a very definite horizontal wave and the total amplitude of this lateral motion had very much increased. The complexity of these two superimposed motions was such that no adequate figure could be obtained regarding either the lateral frequency or amplitude. An immediate check was made on the motion between the concrete and the girder where this motion was found to have definitely increased to something over two and one half inches, suggesting that some further impairment in the lateral bracing system must have occurred. A further check on the lamp posts on the Gig Harbor side showed several more to have collapsed. Up until the final collapse of the bridge no lamp posts went down on the Tacoma side of the main span.

“At about this time, while observing the lateral deflection by sighting along the outside edge of the girder a distinct lateral failure was observed at what appeared to be about the quarter point on the Gig Harbor side. This was observed first on the south side of the bridge but a quick check showed that it had also occurred on the north side at approximately the same point.

“From this point on failure occurred so rapidly that observation became difficult and impression and fact are somewhat mixed. While still observing from the tower quarter point suspenders on the Gig Harbor side on the north side of the span were seen to fly high in the air above the main cable. This failure progressed rapidly toward the center of the span until apparently a whole section fell out of the bridge near the quarter point.

“After this first section fell the whole bridge almost at once ceased its violent torsional motion and fell into a much easier vertical motion which was photographed from the tower. Almost at once, however, the original motion resumed and this time also built up in the side span which had fallen from under the influence of the check reins when they sagged due to removal of weight from the main span. At once the failure became progressive along the main span the shock of each successive unloading of the main span producing a corresponding shock in the side span from which observations were being attempted. Two of these shocks were of sufficient force as to throw the observer violently to the deck. As the side spans sagged more and more they lost all of their torsional motion and finally came to comparative rest.”

Walter F. Miles, Pacific Bridge Company

Narrows Bridge Failure, rewritten from notes dictated at 5:10 P.M. on November 7, 1940, and signed on November 9.

“The following is a report of my movements and observations prior to and after the failure of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

“On the morning of November 7, 1940 I noted that the expected gale had arrived and was blowing rather hard so at breakfast asked my father Mr. F. M. Miles, who had just returned from Montana, if he wanted to see a bridge bounce. We arranged for him to meet me at the office after I arrived from picking up the mail.

“I took my motion picture camera with me and after picking up the mail stopped at the Dept. of Labor and Industries requesting final audit, then stopped at the Eastman Kodak Company and picked up a 50 ft. roll of Kodachrome film, as I wanted to photograph the motion of the bridge.

“Shortly after my arrival at the office my father arrived and at about 8:45 A.M. we took my car and went up to inspect the bridge. On driving across we went slowly past the east tie down and the east side span temporary guys and noted that the motion of the main span was being ironed out in the east side span indicating that the guys at this point were functioning satisfactorily. At mid-span we noticed that the mid-span guys were alternately tightening and loosening causing considerable snapping at this point. The west side span guys and holddowns were relatively quiet.

“We went over to the west anchorage and down to Woodworth & Cornell operations where they were cleaning up on the removal of the west dock. There we talked with Earl Starbard and my father talked with Ralph Keys, the crane operator. We observed the vertical wave motion of the bridge and remarked about the satisfactory way the temporary guys on this side were dampening out the wave motion in the west side span.

“We returned over the bridge at about 9:30 stopping at Tower #4 where I took pictures of the motion of the main span from this point. While taking pictures I noted that there was a slight horizontal motion of the tower at this point along the center line of the bridge and also that there was a slight horizontal motion of main span deck structure. A short count made estimate of wave frequency at about 35 per minute.

“We stopped at mid-span to observe the action of the mid-span guys and I took pictures of the guys and deck motion from this point. From here we went directly to the office at Sixth Avenue.

“At about 10:00 A.M. we drove to the Sixth Avenue Dock accompanied by Carl West. Upon arrival at the dock our attention was attracted to the bridge which had taken on a definite twisting motion, the deck apparently tilting from 30 to 40 degrees from horizontal, each half of the main span each side of mid-span being in opposite phase.

“I rushed back to the office and picked up Mr. Clark Eldridge and returned to the Sixth Avenue Dock taking motion pictures from this point of the continued motion of the bridge.

“From here all of the above party went directly to the east anchorage, Mr. Eldridge taking his car and arriving immediately behind us.

“My father and I went to the edge of the bluff on the south side of the bridge and noted that the motion was still continuing the deflection being so great that we could almost completely see a car stalled a short distance west of Tower #5.

“The motion continued for some time when the lateral bracing at mid-span failed, the beams dropping down so that they could be seen below the stiffening girders. After this some small pieces of concrete fell out at mid-span and a ray of light could be seen through the deck. Shortly after this I saw a lamp standard fall on the west side of main span. At this point I left leaving the camera with my father and went to the office at Sixth Avenue and called Mr. Keenan in San Francisco informing him that the bridge was failing and arranged to call him again at 1:00 P.M.

“Upon arriving back at the east anchorage I saw that the stiffening girders had sheared completely at mid-span and the motion continuing, if anything, a little faster than previously. Carl West was here at the time and we discussed notification of N. P. Railroad and Coast Guard. West informed me that Mr. Eldridge had previously notified them. My father, West and I observed the east side span temporary guys and saw that they were still effective. Noted however, that several lamp standards had fallen on the west side of the main span.

“The motion continued and at about 11 o’clock a section west of mid-span fell out causing the remainder of the main span to raise and the side spans to slack. Noted that the temporary guys went completely slack and that considerable motion started up in the east side span.

“State Patrolman and toll bridge men at this time and previously had been directing spectators away from the site of the bridge.

“We remained here for a few minutes when the remainder of the main span suspended str. with the exception of about 250 feet adjacent to each main tower fell, causing the center cables to fly up and the side span to take on a terrific deflection. At this point I left for a safer position away from the anchorage. The failure did not progress past this point so stopped and observed that the east side span was still in motion deflecting until it nearly touched the approach guard rail.

“Shortly after this my father left the site and I went to the office to send a wire to the San Francisco Office informing them of the failure and confirming phone call to be made at 1:00 P.M. I then returned to the east anchorage taking Mr. White, County Engineer, and another county man with me who were interested in resuming ferry service.”

Lieutenant W. C. Hogan, Coast Guard cutter Atalanta

Seattle, 27 December 1940, to Mr. L. R. Durkee.

“Agreeable to your request, you are advised in writing that at the time the ATALANTA passed under the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, approximately one hour before it fell, I particularly noted that the north cable was loose in its mooring, at the center of the bridge, and was sliding back and forth for a distance of about 1 to 2 yards.”

A note on the text

The report that printed these statements exists online as a scan without a text layer, and the statements were read through optical character recognition and checked against the page images where the recognition stumbled. Durkee’s covering letter names the fourth witness as “Kenneth Arkin, Chairman, W.T.B.A.”; his statement is that of a man on the survey crew, and the word is read here as “Chainman”. Farquharson’s typescript says that his trip to the toll house for film left “a gap of some ten or twelve inches in the observations”, where minutes are plainly meant; the word is left as he typed it. West puts the first section that fell at 700 feet where Arkin and the board’s report say 600.

Sources

• Othmar H. Ammann, Theodore von Kármán and Glenn B. Woodruff, The Failure of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge: A Report to the Honorable John M. Carmody, Administrator, Federal Works Agency, Pasadena, 28 March 1941, Appendix V: “Report of L. R. Durkee, Project Engineer, Public Works Administration, on the Failure of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and Statements of Witnesses”, with the authors’ note attaching the statements of Miles and Hogan. Scanned copy. authors.library.caltech.edu