Raising the Bayonne Bridge

[Alps]

I had the pleasure tonight of attending an ASCE presentation on concept studies for the Bayonne Bridge.  Short synopsis: In order to fit the new Panamax ships (213' tall) under the Bayonne Bridge, which currently has a 150' clearance, it either has to be raised or replaced.  Off the table are options to construct a crossing in a different location or remove it entirely.  The story is mildly complicated by the fact that the arch would have to remain because it's eligible for the National Historical Register (why it's not already on it is beyond me), but apparently it may be okay to leave the arch intact if a new bridge is built.  The new bridge would likely be cable-stayed; duplicating the current design would probably not be cost effective (although it would solve the aforementioned problem).

Now to the fun part.  The option that piqued my interest and may be the frontrunner is to keep the bridge as it is now, simply raising the entire thing 65 feet.  Raising the roadway within the arch would just destroy the artistic profile, so that's pretty low on the alternatives rating.  Raising the bridge would apparently be 30% heavier than any object ever lifted anywhere before.  The bearings required to take the bridge forces as it is raised would cost nearly a million dollars EACH (times 8 - one at each end of the top and bottom chord on each side - or is that times 16?).  However, it still comes out half a billion dollars cheaper than a new bridge.

I really hope they go ahead and raise the existing bridge.  Now, I also don't think there are really traffic volumes there to warrant a bridge at all, but as I said, it's staying.  As part of raising it, they would redeck it so it could finally have 12' lanes (instead of 10') and adequate shoulders.  The cable-stayed bridge is pretty, especially with the arch behind it (and it would still have to be raised, just not as high and without the extra weight of the roadway on it), but it's just not the same.  The issue with the new clearance is that the interchange with CR 501 in Bayonne would be blown out.  Pending a traffic study, it was suggested the ramps may not be needed at all.  I will differ - the City of Bayonne would likely not accept any alternative that removes such a critical access in the heart of the city.  There's probably enough room to compensate for the grade differential and retain the connection, but preliminary and final design are still a few years down the road.

I do know a few more items than that - but since this is still at a preliminary stage, I don't see why I need to go into detail on uncertainties.  Panamax ships are supposed to be operational in 2015, and this bridge likely would not be raised until that year - work completing in 2016-2017.

[Revive 755]

I'm surprised the Bayonne only carried 21,755 back in 2005 (from Page 110 of http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bridgetrafrpt05.pdf); I was expecting at least 35,000.

[Alex]

Port Authority commits $1B to Bayonne Bridge fix

BAYONNE, N.J. (AP) – The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has agreed to spend up to $1 billion to find a solution to the Bayonne Bridge height problem.

The 151-foot-high road deck on the span connecting Bayonne with Staten Island is not high enough to accommodate the next generation of larger container ships.

Ships pass under the bridge to reach the Newark Bay port area.

The Army Corps of Engineers has said the best solution is to raise the bridge deck to 215 feet.

The Port Authority says options include jacking up the current road deck, creating a lift bridge mechanism at the center of the span or building a new, taller bridge.

The Port Authority said Tuesday that a prioritized list of alternatives will be completed by the end of the year.

[Zmapper]

I don't know specifics on this one, but does raising the Bayonne allow light rail to be built across to Staten Island?

[Alps]

I don't know specifics on this one, but does raising the Bayonne allow light rail to be built across to Staten Island?

Light rail could already have been built across the Bayonne Bridge.  Raising it has nothing to do with viability - if anything, it makes it harder to get the rail up to the bridge on either side.  It's politics, residential concerns, and money.

[Alex]

Port Authority plan: Raise Bayonne Bridge roadway

BAYONNE, N.J. (AP) – The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey says raising the roadbed is the best way to fix the Bayonne Bridge so larger ships can pass underneath.

The 151-foot-high road deck on the span connecting Bayonne with Staten Island is not high enough to accommodate the next generation of larger container ships.

Ships pass under the bridge to reach Newark Bay port terminals

The Port Authority said Wednesday that raising the bridge deck to 215 feet is the most cost-effective solution and will have the least environmental and neighborhood impact. If approved, crews would reconstruct the existing approaches, ramps, and main span roadway to a higher elevation that would allow the crossing to accommodate larger ships for years to come.

Officials say this solution would also minimize visual and physical impacts to the historic bridge and seeks to preserve its iconic arch.

In October, the authority agreed to provide up to $1 billion in its capital planning process to help finance a Bayonne Bridge solution.

"This (raising plan) is an important next step to developing a cost-effective solution to address the Bayonne Bridge navigational issues," Port Authority Executive Director Chris Ward said.

Other options considered included installing a lift bridge mechanism at the center of the span or building a new, taller bridge. The Port Authority said its staff has begun working on engineering issues related to raising the roadbed.

"This plan provides fiscally appropriate and environmentally sound solution," Gov. Chris Christie said. "Modernizing the Bayonne Bridge is essential to maintaining port access for the next generation of transportation and shipping vessels and crucial to the economic future of New Jersey and the region. International trade is a key piece of our economic development strategy."

[Alps]

Port Authority plan: Raise Bayonne Bridge roadway

I've seen the plan, and this makes the arch terribly ungainly because only the roadway is being raised, not the arch itself.  I'm sure there is no plan to improve that, either.

[cpzilliacus]

[I think this is an appropriate "bump" of an old thread]

NJ.COM: EPA questions Bayonne Bridge environmental assessment by Coast Guard

TOLLROADSnews: USEPA slow-tracks Obama's fast-track for Bayonne Bridge NY-NJ

[mc78andrew]

So the EPA doesn't want the port to expand it operations beucase that would increase pollution?  It seems like their dissent has nothing to do with the changes to the bridge or even the dredging of what has to be a very polluted pile of silt.  Seems backwards to me. 

[Pete from Boston]

Some shots from this weekend.  There are a few more if you click through.


New embankment at the Staten Island side


Former northbound side seems to be being dismantled while traffic is one lane each way on the west (former southbound) side


South tower being extended upward using faux-antique girders


Launching crane, one of two poised at north and south ends

[Jardine]

Just curious, but while they are there raising the road deck, I'm assuming the bridge is riveted together.  Any thought about replacing them with those new high strength bolts?

I'm not anticipating an earthquake, but nor'easters, industrial accidents, error  in navigation, yada, yada, yada, mebbee the bridge needs to be as strong and up to date all over as possible ?

[cpzilliacus]

Some shots from this weekend.  There are a few more if you click through.

This is a neat project, though I do wonder if the bridge will "look right" after it is complete. 

Thanks for sharing the photographs.

[Pete from Boston]

It won't, but it would have been the largest item ever lifted if they pursued the option that kept the deck in the same relative place.  I will miss its familiar form.

[cpzilliacus]

It won't, but it would have been the largest item ever lifted if they pursued the option that kept the deck in the same relative place.  I will miss its familiar form.

That would have been an awful lot of weight to try and raise over 50 feet!  I suppose the load could have been reduced by removal of the bridge deck, but still, that arch is not light.

[Alps]

Just curious, but while they are there raising the road deck, I'm assuming the bridge is riveted together.  Any thought about replacing them with those new high strength bolts?

I'm not anticipating an earthquake, but nor'easters, industrial accidents, error  in navigation, yada, yada, yada, mebbee the bridge needs to be as strong and up to date all over as possible ?

I don't think that is part of it. They'll probably have already inspected the entire bridge to make sure what they have is in tiptop shape.

[mapman1071]

Would raising the bridge deck lower clearance for trucks?
 

[Alps]

Would raising the bridge deck lower clearance for trucks?
 

No, it's going to go through a different part of the arch and it will of course have full Interstate clearance (16'-6" I believe) because of the port areas it connects.

[Pete from Boston]

Some shots from today:







More at https://flickr.com/photos/93617544@N08/sets/72157679378431905

[roadman65]

Nice pics.  I take that the other half of the road will be built after the original approaches have been dismantled.

I was wondering how they got the new roadway piers into place with the old one there.  Now I see they got part of the current roadway "cut out" to allow the new deck's piers. Great caption of the whole project.

[Alps]

Nice pics.  I take that the other half of the road will be built after the original approaches have been dismantled.

I was wondering how they got the new roadway piers into place with the old one there.  Now I see they got part of the current roadway "cut out" to allow the new deck's piers. Great caption of the whole project.

It's really something to visit in person. The piers go seemingly right through the existing deck. It took some close inspection to reveal how they got it done. And yes, they will open the new half-roadway to 2 lane traffic (which is all they're running now anyway) before dismantling the original roadway and building the rest. 440 doesn't need more than 2 lanes here, it's all just for safety.
I will never take another photo of the bridge. The last ones I took captured the new deck closing in on the old. The beautiful, graceful lines will be lost forever. Ammann will be spinning in his grave.

[Pete from Boston]

Nice pics.  I take that the other half of the road will be built after the original approaches have been dismantled.

I was wondering how they got the new roadway piers into place with the old one there.  Now I see they got part of the current roadway "cut out" to allow the new deck's piers. Great caption of the whole project.

It's really something to visit in person. The piers go seemingly right through the existing deck. It took some close inspection to reveal how they got it done. And yes, they will open the new half-roadway to 2 lane traffic (which is all they're running now anyway) before dismantling the original roadway and building the rest. 440 doesn't need more than 2 lanes here, it's all just for safety.
I will never take another photo of the bridge. The last ones I took captured the new deck closing in on the old. The beautiful, graceful lines will be lost forever. Ammann will be spinning in his grave.

While I am not imposing the same moratorium as you, I am right there with you.  From the moment this project was proposed, I cringed.  Ruins the proportions and lines.  The grace of the approachway arches will also be lost in favor of the ungainly, artless concrete pillars going in.

[cpzilliacus]

I will never take another photo of the bridge. The last ones I took captured the new deck closing in on the old. The beautiful, graceful lines will be lost forever. Ammann will be spinning in his grave.

I read someplace (perhaps on the PANYNJ Web site) that project managers got "approval" from the Ammann family (his children?) to raise the deck of the roadway with the understanding that the arch would remain as before.

While I am not imposing the same moratorium as you, I am right there with you.  From the moment this project was proposed, I cringed.  Ruins the proportions and lines.  The grace of the approachway arches will also be lost in favor of the ungainly, artless concrete pillars going in.

While respecting your opinions, I am not as negative as you guys, since the only viable alternative seems to have been an  entirely new bridge, presumably leading to the eventual removal of the arch.

Do I like the "new" appearance of the bridge?  No, not at all.  But it had to be raised, and it seems that raising the arch was apparently not workable.

[Alps]

I will never take another photo of the bridge. The last ones I took captured the new deck closing in on the old. The beautiful, graceful lines will be lost forever. Ammann will be spinning in his grave.

I read someplace (perhaps on the PANYNJ Web site) that project managers got "approval" from the Ammann family (his children?) to raise the deck of the roadway with the understanding that the arch would remain as before.

While I am not imposing the same moratorium as you, I am right there with you.  From the moment this project was proposed, I cringed.  Ruins the proportions and lines.  The grace of the approachway arches will also be lost in favor of the ungainly, artless concrete pillars going in.

While respecting your opinions, I am not as negative as you guys, since the only viable alternative seems to have been an  entirely new bridge, presumably leading to the eventual removal of the arch.

Do I like the "new" appearance of the bridge?  No, not at all.  But it had to be raised, and it seems that raising the arch was apparently not workable.

Raising the arch was one of the options. Another option was keeping just the arch, moving it a bit, and building a new bridge. Raising the arch had the issue of the approaches becoming much longer, which became too expensive due to interchanges on either side.

[Pete from Boston]

I've probably already said this upthread, but I recall the phrase "largest object ever lifted" being used in regard to the arch-raising option.

[cpzilliacus]

Raising the arch was one of the options. Another option was keeping just the arch, moving it a bit, and building a new bridge. Raising the arch had the issue of the approaches becoming much longer, which became too expensive due to interchanges on either side.

I think you said (upthread) that raising the arch (because of the weight) would have been an enormously difficult thing to do (but the cool factor would have been approaching infinity to raise it).

Again, I respect and agree with your comments about the arch not looking nearly as nice when this job is completed, but I am very glad that the iconic arch will still be standing there.