Removal could have had small cushman type debris removal staged to another point on the bridge and then hi-loadered into dump trucks. Cushman’s wouldn't’t be a big load nor would small piles of debris staged for reloading. Only one truck would have been filled at a time and then it would depart. Others waiting would have been empty, not full as some have speculated in discussing “trucks full of gravel”
In the repaving operation, if concrete, we could have seen ready-mix trucks lined up too far out on the structure and a paving screed. I haven’t heard there were ready-mix trucks in the collapse debris vehicles.
Conversely, if asphaltic paving or wear course was underway, a “paving train” would have consisted of a crawler driven small paving machine and trucks loaded with heavy asphalt lined up to dump in it. These heavy trucks could have been staged off the structure or they could have lined up on the closed lanes.
It appeared that small sections were being done in stages so I don’t really think that any of the foregoing were the case, but there has been so much talk of construction material loads that at least we should discuss what we might be looking for in the debris or observations.
I can imagine that MDOT and the contractor aren't talking about specifics at all until the forensics and formal investigations are done.
I can imagine that the contractor and his liability carrier as sweating blood.
Something I noticed studying the images, was that the roughened deck surface visible after the collapse appeared to be confined to the SW corner of the bridge, maybe from pier 5 and south, in the southbound lanes.
I imagine the contractor had an overall schedule, and other parts of the contract work could have been underway elsewhere, but that corner seemed top be the primary focus of work in progress from what the post collapse imagery showed.