Bridges You Wish Were Different

[The Ghostbuster]

What I mean by this is: Bridges that have fewer lanes than you think they should have. Shoulderless bridges you think should have shoulders. Undivided bridge lanes that you think should be divided. Have at it.

[kkt]

There's the love-hate relationship with the Golden Gate.  Lovely styling, love that it's a majestic span, love that it's walkable.  Hate the 10 foot lanes, hate the no shoulders, really should be 4 lanes each way.  Hate it in the gusty winds that happen quite frequently.  This is one of the few cases where I'd ask for lanes wider than 12'.

And it should have rail tracks.  Marin County has old Northwestern Pacific right-of-way that would make a perfect rail track for commuters into S.F.  S.F.'s Geary Blvd. has needed a subway since the 1930s.  So really the only thing in the way is the Golden Gate Bridge and Presidio.

[jakeroot]

There's the love-hate relationship with the Golden Gate.  Lovely styling, love that it's a majestic span, love that it's walkable.  Hate the 10 foot lanes, hate the no shoulders, really should be 4 lanes each way.  Hate it in the gusty winds that happen quite frequently.  This is one of the few cases where I'd ask for lanes wider than 12'.

Are there lots of accidents due to lane widths on the GGB? I know it's a bit hair raising, but at least that keeps people from looking at their phones/eating/etc.

[corco]

Every bridge should be 8 lanes wide and divided with shoulders, because you never know when you might need that capacity.

[roadman65]

The William Preston Lane Jr. Bridge (aka Bay Bridge) in Maryland should be at least six lanes each way with full shoulders.  It might end up that way in about 20 years when MDSHTA decides the original 2 lane bridge is had it, so rather than just replace that one, they will build a modern cable stay bridge and demolish both of them like they did in Charleston, SC with the Pearmen and Grace Bridges.

[kkt]

There's the love-hate relationship with the Golden Gate.  Lovely styling, love that it's a majestic span, love that it's walkable.  Hate the 10 foot lanes, hate the no shoulders, really should be 4 lanes each way.  Hate it in the gusty winds that happen quite frequently.  This is one of the few cases where I'd ask for lanes wider than 12'.

Are there lots of accidents due to lane widths on the GGB? I know it's a bit hair raising, but at least that keeps people from looking at their phones/eating/etc.

The accident rate did go down significantly after the 1980s-1990s changes, in which the sidewalks were narrowed, the curb lanes widened to 11 feet, the speed limit was reduced to 45 mph, and fines for speeding increased.  Of course it's not a controlled experiment, there's room for speculation on which of those measures were most responsible for reducing the accident rate.  The rate of serious injury should reduce further, now that the movable median barrier is in place.

[Bruce]

I wish that the Homer M. Hadley Memorial Bridge (one of the two I-90 floating bridges near Seattle) had a few viewpoints or belvederes, like the ones planned for the new SR 520 Floating Bridge further north. I had to constantly look over my shoulder for bicycle traffic while snapping pictures:


I-90 Bike Trail westbound by SounderBruce, on Flickr

[iBallasticwolf2]

Wish the Brent Spence bridge was built with a larger capacity so it could at least have shoulder room. But it is early 60's engineering and thankfully it will be replaced soon and the existing will be re-configured in a proper way with shoulders and larger lanes. The Carroll Lee Cropper bridge was built with no shoulders and just 2 lanes in each direction. They are reducing it to a super-two for repaving work I believe which makes it a mess (It did have rough lanes though". Thankfully the Combs Hehli bridge was built in a much better way.

[ARMOURERERIC]

I wish the 579 Veterans Bridge in Pittsburgh was 8 lanes with more flair in it's design

[Beeper1]

Cape Cod Canal bridges.  Need to be six lanes with shoulders.

[DTComposer]

There's the love-hate relationship with the Golden Gate.  Lovely styling, love that it's a majestic span, love that it's walkable.  Hate the 10 foot lanes, hate the no shoulders, really should be 4 lanes each way.  Hate it in the gusty winds that happen quite frequently.  This is one of the few cases where I'd ask for lanes wider than 12'.

And it should have rail tracks.  Marin County has old Northwestern Pacific right-of-way that would make a perfect rail track for commuters into S.F.  S.F.'s Geary Blvd. has needed a subway since the 1930s.  So really the only thing in the way is the Golden Gate Bridge and Presidio.

There have been some sketches/fantasy designs for double-decking the bridge in the past. I have no idea what the engineering needs would be, but I could see:

Top deck:
8' walkway
14' rail ROW
10' shoulder
Four 11' lanes
6' shoulder
8' walkway

Bottom deck (northbound):
6' shoulder
Four 11' lanes
10' shoulder

Since I imagine the majority of the additional weight/stress comes from the new roadway itself, I kept the bottom deck to 60' wide instead of the top deck's 90'.

[kkt]

There's the love-hate relationship with the Golden Gate.  Lovely styling, love that it's a majestic span, love that it's walkable.  Hate the 10 foot lanes, hate the no shoulders, really should be 4 lanes each way.  Hate it in the gusty winds that happen quite frequently.  This is one of the few cases where I'd ask for lanes wider than 12'.

And it should have rail tracks.  Marin County has old Northwestern Pacific right-of-way that would make a perfect rail track for commuters into S.F.  S.F.'s Geary Blvd. has needed a subway since the 1930s.  So really the only thing in the way is the Golden Gate Bridge and Presidio.

There have been some sketches/fantasy designs for double-decking the bridge in the past. I have no idea what the engineering needs would be, but I could see:

Top deck:
8' walkway
14' rail ROW
10' shoulder
Four 11' lanes
6' shoulder
8' walkway

Bottom deck (northbound):
6' shoulder
Four 11' lanes
10' shoulder

Since I imagine the majority of the additional weight/stress comes from the new roadway itself, I kept the bottom deck to 60' wide instead of the top deck's 90'.

Unfortunately, the top deck roadway is only about 62 feet wide.  Six 10-foot lanes originally, the curb lanes were widened slightly by narrowing the sidewalks.  Adding to the difficulty, the towers below the bridge deck include diagonal beams that would greatly narrow a lower deck.  I thought about supporting train tracks on the sides of the lower deck, outside the towers, but that would create a temptation for vandals to throw things from the sidewalks onto the tracks.  Or at the very least not be able to look straight down from the railing, which is part of the fun.

I don't have a good answer.  A road tunnel on a completely separate ROW, leaving the bridge just for pedestrians and trains?

[iBallasticwolf2]

There's the love-hate relationship with the Golden Gate.  Lovely styling, love that it's a majestic span, love that it's walkable.  Hate the 10 foot lanes, hate the no shoulders, really should be 4 lanes each way.  Hate it in the gusty winds that happen quite frequently.  This is one of the few cases where I'd ask for lanes wider than 12'.

And it should have rail tracks.  Marin County has old Northwestern Pacific right-of-way that would make a perfect rail track for commuters into S.F.  S.F.'s Geary Blvd. has needed a subway since the 1930s.  So really the only thing in the way is the Golden Gate Bridge and Presidio.

There have been some sketches/fantasy designs for double-decking the bridge in the past. I have no idea what the engineering needs would be, but I could see:

Top deck:
8' walkway
14' rail ROW
10' shoulder
Four 11' lanes
6' shoulder
8' walkway

Bottom deck (northbound):
6' shoulder
Four 11' lanes
10' shoulder

Since I imagine the majority of the additional weight/stress comes from the new roadway itself, I kept the bottom deck to 60' wide instead of the top deck's 90'.

Unfortunately, the top deck roadway is only about 62 feet wide.  Six 10-foot lanes originally, the curb lanes were widened slightly by narrowing the sidewalks.  Adding to the difficulty, the towers below the bridge deck include diagonal beams that would greatly narrow a lower deck.  I thought about supporting train tracks on the sides of the lower deck, outside the towers, but that would create a temptation for vandals to throw things from the sidewalks onto the tracks.  Or at the very least not be able to look straight down from the railing, which is part of the fun.

I don't have a good answer.  A road tunnel on a completely separate ROW, leaving the bridge just for pedestrians and trains?

A road tunnel could be sort of "Express lanes" as they could be tolled and the existing bridge could have a lower deck for trains while the upper deck stays the same.

[DTComposer]

There's the love-hate relationship with the Golden Gate.  Lovely styling, love that it's a majestic span, love that it's walkable.  Hate the 10 foot lanes, hate the no shoulders, really should be 4 lanes each way.  Hate it in the gusty winds that happen quite frequently.  This is one of the few cases where I'd ask for lanes wider than 12'.

And it should have rail tracks.  Marin County has old Northwestern Pacific right-of-way that would make a perfect rail track for commuters into S.F.  S.F.'s Geary Blvd. has needed a subway since the 1930s.  So really the only thing in the way is the Golden Gate Bridge and Presidio.

There have been some sketches/fantasy designs for double-decking the bridge in the past. I have no idea what the engineering needs would be, but I could see:

Top deck:
8' walkway
14' rail ROW
10' shoulder
Four 11' lanes
6' shoulder
8' walkway

Bottom deck (northbound):
6' shoulder
Four 11' lanes
10' shoulder

Since I imagine the majority of the additional weight/stress comes from the new roadway itself, I kept the bottom deck to 60' wide instead of the top deck's 90'.

Unfortunately, the top deck roadway is only about 62 feet wide.  Six 10-foot lanes originally, the curb lanes were widened slightly by narrowing the sidewalks.  Adding to the difficulty, the towers below the bridge deck include diagonal beams that would greatly narrow a lower deck.  I thought about supporting train tracks on the sides of the lower deck, outside the towers, but that would create a temptation for vandals to throw things from the sidewalks onto the tracks.  Or at the very least not be able to look straight down from the railing, which is part of the fun.

I don't have a good answer.  A road tunnel on a completely separate ROW, leaving the bridge just for pedestrians and trains?

A road tunnel could be sort of "Express lanes" as they could be tolled and the existing bridge could have a lower deck for trains while the upper deck stays the same.

Sorry, I should have read the specs more clearly:

http://goldengatebridge.org/research/factsGGBDesign.php

The roadway is 62' wide with a 10' sidewalk.

If you're going to go with a tunnel, I would think you're much more likely to get public support for a trains tunnel (another Transbay Tube) or a trains and trucks tunnel, keeping autos (and pedestrians) on the bridge.

[kkt]

Or perhaps keep southbound road traffic on the bridge, while putting northbound road traffic and trains in a tunnel.

The bridge flexes a lot in wind and with load.  I'm not sure how much flexing train tracks can take while in operation, or even while closed without causing damage.

The tunnel would be hard too.  The water at the Golden Gate is deep and fast flowing.  Approach routes to Marin would be a problem too, you'd have to hook the underwater tunnel up to a long tunnel through the bluff.

[kkt]

Speaking of the Golden Gate, the bridge opened to pedestrians 78 years ago today.  Happy birthday!  Car traffic began the next day.

[DTComposer]

Eric Fischer's Flickr photostream has quite a few drawings, plans, etc. for a potential double-deck of the Golden Gate Bridge:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=24431382%40N03&view_all=1&text=Golden%20Gate%20Bridge

(I don't know who Eric Fischer is, but he's got a pretty awesome collection of Bay Area road-related stuff there)

[kkt]

His Figure 8 cross-section with a lower deck has the lower deck being only 12' 9" tall!  And only 44' wide.  Not as bad as it is now, yes, but if we spend a bunch of money to reconfigure the bridge it ought to end up meeting current standards.  I think that would hold a BART car, though.

[SteveG1988]

Or perhaps keep southbound road traffic on the bridge, while putting northbound road traffic and trains in a tunnel.

The bridge flexes a lot in wind and with load.  I'm not sure how much flexing train tracks can take while in operation, or even while closed without causing damage.

The tunnel would be hard too.  The water at the Golden Gate is deep and fast flowing.  Approach routes to Marin would be a problem too, you'd have to hook the underwater tunnel up to a long tunnel through the bluff.

Not exactly the same size of bridge, but look at the Ben Franklin Bridge. It has rail that was engineered into it, to hang off the trusswork. it uses continously welded steel rail i think due to the flexing. Not 100% sure, but your research on it can start there. It opened in 1926, Chief Engineer was  Ralph Modjeski, Lead Designer was  Leon Moisseiff, Leon later went on to design the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge, Ralph did the original I-74 suspension bridge, and technically the twin, and was a consulting engineer on the Oakland Bay Bridge. Look into how their designs differ from the Golden Gate, and you may be able to figure out how to make the bridge better.



One bridge that does need to be different is the NJ37 bridges out to Seaside Heights. They really need to work on widening the eastbound bridge. Even if it does come down to just removing the original sidewalk to gain a few feet elsewhere.

[cl94]

Every bridge between New York and the Niagara Region of Ontario needs more lanes, as do the Grand Island Bridges leading to three of them.

[vdeane]

Regarding the bridges between NY and Ontario, it's not the number of lanes that causes delays, it's the existence of border controls.

[SteveG1988]

Regarding the bridges between NY and Ontario, it's not the number of lanes that causes delays, it's the existence of border controls.

Simple solution....require reservations for crossing and you get told which crossing in that region to use.

Hypothetical Situation, Driver A wants to visit Toronto, and plans to use a Niagara river bridge. He is told to use Crossing B, Peace bridge at 0800. He gets a confirmation number, and a pass that he can print out, to get him waved over to the customs booth. Driver B is going to the same location, but due to traffic at Crossing B approaching a preset threhold he is told to use Crossing C, The Rainbow Bridge. Etc etc. One crossing would be open for any time travel of course, and of course nexus is kind of the same idea, but i would like to open this up to more people to get the confirmed slot of travel versus just a dedicated bridge.

[cl94]

Given the nature of crossing the border in general, especially around here, such an idea is BS. If you're coming from south of Buffalo, you're better off taking the Peace Bridge. Rainbow is best for people doing things in Niagara Falls. If you live in Niagara County, it would be stupid to use the Peace Bridge under just about any circumstance. Plus, the tolls are different on the Peace Bridge because it's run by another authority. Whirlpool makes sense as a Nexus-only crossing because 1) it's in residential neighborhoods and 2) there's no room for customs facilities

We're not talking about museum admissions here. The Peace Bridge alone is the busiest passenger crossing of the US-Canada border. Combine all of the crossings and you have a crazy amount of vehicles. You can't require everyone to make a reservation.

[kkt]

I'd be offended by the idea that I needed a reservation to cross the border.  Freedom of travel shouldn't require a reservation.  The border crossings should be staffed so that the wait is not over 30 minutes or so.

Freedom aside, many people come from over an hour away from the border and traffic is unpredictable so you couldn't necessarily hit a 15-minute window.

[SteveG1988]

I'd be offended by the idea that I needed a reservation to cross the border.  Freedom of travel shouldn't require a reservation.  The border crossings should be staffed so that the wait is not over 30 minutes or so.

Freedom aside, many people come from over an hour away from the border and traffic is unpredictable so you couldn't necessarily hit a 15-minute window.

You would not require it. Just there would be a bit more orginization, that way it isn't a clusterfuck when you get there. Also...i am just saying that it would be used in the tourist centers...