AARoads Forum

National Boards => Bridges => Topic started by: tolbs17 on March 16, 2021, 09:56:50 PM

Title: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on March 16, 2021, 09:56:50 PM
If this highway (I-95 in Roanoke Rapids) opened in the 60s, were these (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4302661,-77.6300181,3a,42.2y,14.26h,84.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svJ0LyTzytVG58k5WooDH8w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DvJ0LyTzytVG58k5WooDH8w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D95.84876%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) bridges built in the 60s? Look at the Roanoke river too.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 16, 2021, 10:10:27 PM
Have you checked the substructure of the bridge on the street below for construction year stamps?
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: webny99 on March 16, 2021, 10:14:38 PM
My gut instinct was that they're definitely not built in the '60's; they look fairly new to me.

I looked it up, and sure enough: Both the Roanoke River and US 158 bridges were built in 1999/2000, per NC's bridge inventory (https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/bridges/Documents/StatewideBridges.pdf) (see page 133).
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on March 16, 2021, 10:29:11 PM
My gut instinct was that they're definitely not built in the '60's; they look fairly new to me.

I looked it up, and sure enough: Both the Roanoke River and US 158 bridges were built in 1999/2000, per NC's bridge inventory (https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/bridges/Documents/StatewideBridges.pdf) (see page 133).
I see. It says 1999. They must have been replaced then cause the highway opened in the 60s.

Compare it to the Dunn bridges and those haven't been replaced since then?
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on March 17, 2021, 11:02:14 AM
My gut instinct was that they're definitely not built in the '60's; they look fairly new to me.

I looked it up, and sure enough: Both the Roanoke River and US 158 bridges were built in 1999/2000, per NC's bridge inventory (https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/bridges/Documents/StatewideBridges.pdf) (see page 133).
I see. It says 1999. They must have been replaced then cause the highway opened in the 60s.

Compare it to the Dunn bridges and those haven't been replaced since then?

Yes, the Dunn bridges are original 1955 structures.

Here are some tips on figuring out this kind of question in NC...

- Original 1960s bridges on NC interstates have no shoulders at all and have the railing style like this (many covered by guard rail now) - https://goo.gl/maps/kKDP1BiQw6cBb5CVA

Could a 1960s bridge be rehabbed instead of rebuilt entirely?  The modern railing gives a hint but not the whole story...
Compare the underneath of the US 158 interchange which has modern piers - https://goo.gl/maps/mJpo9VdwrV13gVUg9
Compare the underneath at Exit 97 which has original piers, plus new piers added to get shoulders onto it - https://goo.gl/maps/mSkGGd2BzzZzQ1Tv8

On the first bridge I link way above, the surface has been rehabbed but nothing else.

The US 158 interchange used to be really dangerous northbound because the on-ramp from US 158 ended entirely before the adjacent railroad bridge and there was next to no merge area.  This has always been a very busy interchange.

For bridge dates in general:

If you want to know when a bridge was built (or rebuilt - sometimes they have original and rebuilt dates) go here - http://bridgereports.com/

If you want to know when a bridge rebuilt entirely since 2011 was built prior to replacement, go here - https://web.archive.org/web/20110501230146/http://www.uglybridges.com/
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 17, 2021, 01:46:25 PM
Could a 1960s bridge be rehabbed instead of rebuilt entirely?  The modern railing gives a hint but not the whole story...
Compare the underneath at Exit 97 which has original piers, plus new piers added to get shoulders onto it - https://goo.gl/maps/mSkGGd2BzzZzQ1Tv8

Slick.  I don't drive the I-95 corridor much anymore, so I totally missed this construction.  Wasn't aware that NCDOT had any bridges that widened both sides of the original lanes to add shoulders.  These bridges are over the North Carolina Rail Road, which may have something to do with the construction methodology.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on March 17, 2021, 02:40:51 PM
Could a 1960s bridge be rehabbed instead of rebuilt entirely?  The modern railing gives a hint but not the whole story...
Compare the underneath at Exit 97 which has original piers, plus new piers added to get shoulders onto it - https://goo.gl/maps/mSkGGd2BzzZzQ1Tv8

Slick.  I don't drive the I-95 corridor much anymore, so I totally missed this construction.  Wasn't aware that NCDOT had any bridges that widened both sides of the original lanes to add shoulders.  These bridges are over the North Carolina Rail Road, which may have something to do with the construction methodology.

Here are examples of the same method with no railroad involved, on I-85 northeast of Durham - https://goo.gl/maps/jURrNWqRj7vAVqWLA
https://goo.gl/maps/YAc4CPfuqx88njm86
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 12:14:39 PM
This my guess for the bridges in North Carolina.

1950s (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8987461,-75.9998776,3a,75y,278.85h,80.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDc5otx-Yhz5sag0sYJsUng!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DDc5otx-Yhz5sag0sYJsUng%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D15.319344%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

1960s (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7554461,-79.4751926,3a,38.7y,48.68h,84.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgBCgeDyvz_HgZCXmTxHHSw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

1970s steel barriers (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7984252,-78.1761879,3a,75y,308.38h,83.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szV4OkOSGNq54mXTkATwl5g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

1970s brown barriers (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1403677,-77.1790577,3a,75y,34.12h,50.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipNT1t9eS93OUCJjxkSnPYLyOvMBgp6ymhI6wN4J!2e10!3e11!7i7680!8i3840)

1980s (present-day) (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0367455,-79.0973942,3a,75y,132.97h,69.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssrdY9iUA2auUa0s3YmfaMw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

1990s steel barriers (1) (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0983281,-77.0218611,3a,75y,290.83h,85.32t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipOrV2LEMtozavunD5oA9ynYXwp07P153R6FRRfn!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOrV2LEMtozavunD5oA9ynYXwp07P153R6FRRfn%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-1.069089-ya207.1152-ro8.112385-fo100!7i7680!8i3840)

1990s steel barriers (2) (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0481355,-76.6947869,3a,75y,235.87h,83.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sS8Jtz13LzGEfz1jf4BlUUw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DS8Jtz13LzGEfz1jf4BlUUw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D329.63074%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

1990s normal barriers (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1900974,-76.4554174,3a,40.4y,26.96h,87.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3NL99vYcdNZ6uKbtDXOWTg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D3NL99vYcdNZ6uKbtDXOWTg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D92.50605%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) (the southbound bridge)

2000s (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7081221,-77.9951609,3a,75y,306.64h,86.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7omCvGCCF-IXD9AuOWTsQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

2010s (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1183148,-79.7053192,3a,38.6y,323.14h,88.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNSEyXoEmH_V9_9Ec9NxoCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) I miss those red things on the bottom. compared to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5614769,-77.4626251,3a,42.6y,59.11h,90.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smp0VrcECS8NpIUWrRXzAWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) which doesn't have them.

2010s (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5128696,-77.4549896,3a,75y,34.95h,102.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbXyfFVRK4BBusJvgmSjLkw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) This one uses the steel barriers. On a freeway. Interesting.


I have to say, I enjoy the ones with the steel barriers more. They look nicer and not so dull looking. But I'm sure it's a little more costly to build though.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: SkyPesos on March 18, 2021, 12:24:10 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from some observations, it looks like some of the early bridges have steel railings on them, like this example  (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7475681,-90.4392879,3a,20y,229.23h,95.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siNtzJXPfgbrL39F7rw1PnA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 12:32:13 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from some observations, it looks like some of the early bridges have steel railings on them, like this example  (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7475681,-90.4392879,3a,20y,229.23h,95.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siNtzJXPfgbrL39F7rw1PnA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
The ones from the 60s have them posted above. Also the I-440 segment (currently being upgraded right now) has them.

The steel railings are just for decoration so they can look nicer.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on March 19, 2021, 01:00:17 PM
This my guess for the bridges in North Carolina.

1950s (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8987461,-75.9998776,3a,75y,278.85h,80.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDc5otx-Yhz5sag0sYJsUng!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DDc5otx-Yhz5sag0sYJsUng%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D15.319344%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

1960s (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7554461,-79.4751926,3a,38.7y,48.68h,84.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgBCgeDyvz_HgZCXmTxHHSw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

1970s steel barriers (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7984252,-78.1761879,3a,75y,308.38h,83.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szV4OkOSGNq54mXTkATwl5g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

1970s brown barriers (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1403677,-77.1790577,3a,75y,34.12h,50.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipNT1t9eS93OUCJjxkSnPYLyOvMBgp6ymhI6wN4J!2e10!3e11!7i7680!8i3840)

1980s (present-day) (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0367455,-79.0973942,3a,75y,132.97h,69.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssrdY9iUA2auUa0s3YmfaMw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

1990s steel barriers (1) (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0983281,-77.0218611,3a,75y,290.83h,85.32t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipOrV2LEMtozavunD5oA9ynYXwp07P153R6FRRfn!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOrV2LEMtozavunD5oA9ynYXwp07P153R6FRRfn%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-1.069089-ya207.1152-ro8.112385-fo100!7i7680!8i3840)

1990s steel barriers (2) (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0481355,-76.6947869,3a,75y,235.87h,83.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sS8Jtz13LzGEfz1jf4BlUUw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DS8Jtz13LzGEfz1jf4BlUUw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D329.63074%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

1990s normal barriers (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1900974,-76.4554174,3a,40.4y,26.96h,87.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3NL99vYcdNZ6uKbtDXOWTg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D3NL99vYcdNZ6uKbtDXOWTg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D92.50605%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) (the southbound bridge)

2000s (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7081221,-77.9951609,3a,75y,306.64h,86.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7omCvGCCF-IXD9AuOWTsQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

2010s (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1183148,-79.7053192,3a,38.6y,323.14h,88.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNSEyXoEmH_V9_9Ec9NxoCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) I miss those red things on the bottom. compared to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5614769,-77.4626251,3a,42.6y,59.11h,90.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smp0VrcECS8NpIUWrRXzAWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) which doesn't have them.

2010s (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5128696,-77.4549896,3a,75y,34.95h,102.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbXyfFVRK4BBusJvgmSjLkw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) This one uses the steel barriers. On a freeway. Interesting.


I have to say, I enjoy the ones with the steel barriers more. They look nicer and not so dull looking. But I'm sure it's a little more costly to build though.

NC uses a few more types on its freeways, especially in urban areas:

The double steel rail - https://goo.gl/maps/MMWqJhWYC3qUD8wU9
The triple steel rail - https://goo.gl/maps/D5ibR3rXrAtJBZvY8
This style was prevalent in the 1950s/early 60s for bridges wider than 2 lanes - https://goo.gl/maps/aDshucV6LDpduxY6A

My grandfather was a laborer for a time on the 1950s bridge you linked to.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on March 19, 2021, 01:56:43 PM
^^^^

I'm sure you're talking about grade separations.

and the 1950 bridges that they use that's wider than 2 lanes, they try to keep the same original design like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7530456,-77.4349033,3a,75y,258.65h,84.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sM1uiis5fKZ86QaetgdDRwg!2e0!5s20161201T000000!7i13312!8i6656) one or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2464465,-77.5830935,3a,75y,33.76h,85.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snRTiub3O7y9KaAeo-FnSLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) one.

Can't find where the original structure was converted to the modern one, but the ones need replacing in Greenville are the northbound bridges that are on Memorial Dr, 5th st over a creek near 10th, and the one at rock spring rd.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on March 19, 2021, 03:12:40 PM
^^^^

I'm sure you're talking about grade separations.

and the 1950 bridges that they use that's wider than 2 lanes, they try to keep the same original design like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7530456,-77.4349033,3a,75y,258.65h,84.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sM1uiis5fKZ86QaetgdDRwg!2e0!5s20161201T000000!7i13312!8i6656) one or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2464465,-77.5830935,3a,75y,33.76h,85.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snRTiub3O7y9KaAeo-FnSLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) one.

Can't find where the original structure was converted to the modern one, but the ones need replacing in Greenville are the northbound bridges that are on Memorial Dr, 5th st over a creek near 10th, and the one at rock spring rd.

The 1950s design has all kinds of possibilities...

A lot of the ones in the larger cities on older freeways were rehabbed to double or triple metal rail style
The US 301 Cape Fear river bridge was rebuilt to a weird triple metal rail - https://goo.gl/maps/3JRan6zPxHGraxPp7
The NC 39 overpass of I-85 started out as one, remodeled to triple metal rail, then remodeled back to the 1950s style - https://goo.gl/maps/py73ZyMmJorxWohL7

Another much older style that was never used on freeways would be like this one - https://goo.gl/maps/PdArPCCrFtmD8ZMD7
This style was used on longer bridges too - https://goo.gl/maps/E7bAdbgZnCUSxFrE7

The Memorial Dr bridges are originals, NB from 1955 and SB from 1977.  The other two bridges you mention were built in 1950.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on March 19, 2021, 03:26:20 PM
and do they still use the single metal rail style like they did in the 70s?

Also, surprisingly, the southwest bypass has no fences on the bridges for the railroad tracks.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on March 20, 2021, 09:06:50 PM
I was thinking the triple rail style was used in the mid 2000s. They stopped using that design I assume. They use the double rails
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Tom958 on March 28, 2021, 02:21:29 PM
If this highway (I-95 in Roanoke Rapids) opened in the 60s, were these (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4302661,-77.6300181,3a,42.2y,14.26h,84.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svJ0LyTzytVG58k5WooDH8w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DvJ0LyTzytVG58k5WooDH8w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D95.84876%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) bridges built in the 60s? Look at the Roanoke river too.

I'm late to the party here, but... the guardrails on these bridges are Jersey barriers. While Jersey barriers first appeared in their present form in 1959, they were used almost exclusively as median barriers until the mid/late '70s-early '80s, when they became the dominant form of bridge guardrail for high-speed highways. Also, weathering steel with its rusty appearance didn't come into wide use until a bit after that. That holds up for pretty much every state.

I'm 62, so this type of thing is a lot more meaningful to me as someone who's watched bridge designs evolve over time. You, on the other hand, weren't even born when the bridges in question were built. I'm happy to see that you're interested, though. Have you perchance had a look at ORIGINAL Interstate Bridge Designs From Every State (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26007.0)? Someone needs to do a proper post about North Carolina there...

Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on March 28, 2021, 03:43:17 PM
If this highway (I-95 in Roanoke Rapids) opened in the 60s, were these (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4302661,-77.6300181,3a,42.2y,14.26h,84.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svJ0LyTzytVG58k5WooDH8w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DvJ0LyTzytVG58k5WooDH8w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D95.84876%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) bridges built in the 60s? Look at the Roanoke river too.

I'm late to the party here, but... the guardrails on these bridges are Jersey barriers. While Jersey barriers first appeared in their present form in 1959, they were used almost exclusively as median barriers until the mid/late '70s-early '80s, when they became the dominant form of bridge guardrail for high-speed highways. Also, weathering steel with its rusty appearance didn't come into wide use until a bit after that. That holds up for pretty much every state.

I'm 62, so this type of thing is a lot more meaningful to me as someone who's watched bridge designs evolve over time. You, on the other hand, weren't even born when the bridges in question were built. I'm happy to see that you're interested, though. Have you perchance had a look at ORIGINAL Interstate Bridge Designs From Every State (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26007.0)? Someone needs to do a proper post about North Carolina there...
Yes I did and did not know what to say. Maybe we can merge these threads?
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 30, 2021, 03:35:47 PM
If this highway (I-95 in Roanoke Rapids) opened in the 60s, were these (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4302661,-77.6300181,3a,42.2y,14.26h,84.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svJ0LyTzytVG58k5WooDH8w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DvJ0LyTzytVG58k5WooDH8w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D95.84876%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) bridges built in the 60s? Look at the Roanoke river too.

I'm late to the party here, but... the guardrails on these bridges are Jersey barriers. While Jersey barriers first appeared in their present form in 1959, they were used almost exclusively as median barriers until the mid/late '70s-early '80s, when they became the dominant form of bridge guardrail for high-speed highways. Also, weathering steel with its rusty appearance didn't come into wide use until a bit after that. That holds up for pretty much every state.
Bridge Designs From Every State[/url]? Someone needs to do a proper post about North Carolina there...

I don't think North Carolina has any, but there are some states that converted bridges built in the 1960s to modern Jersey barriers when their decks were fully reconstructed.  The engineers have to be careful, as the modern Jersey barriers have loads much greater than the older metal barriers.  As mention early in this thread, North Carolina does have a few bridges where the decks were widened and have additional side columns beneath the new shoulder, and thus were modified to allow the use of Jersey barriers.  I don't know how prevalent that is.  The one mentioned above is over the North Carolina Rail Road (private company, wholly owned by the State) which manages its railroad property much differently than the Class 1 carriers.

Indeed, someone needs to help out North Carolina on the BDFES thread.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on March 30, 2021, 07:54:52 PM
North Carolina spent all their time figuring out ways to raise the 1960s overpass heights on I-95 instead of doing anything else.

However, my example from Reply #4 at Selma might be an example of resurface and convert to jersey wall - https://goo.gl/maps/mSkGGd2BzzZzQ1Tv8

Here's one on I-85 where 3 (?!?) of the 4 rails were converted - https://goo.gl/maps/AafxPCB13qDGBK9h7

I don't get down to NC much anymore but cannot recall narrow bridges with jersey barriers (a sign an older bridge is converted).
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on March 30, 2021, 08:26:53 PM
Here's one on I-85 where 3 (?!?) of the 4 rails were converted - https://goo.gl/maps/AafxPCB13qDGBK9h7
There are many in Goldsboro, and check out the one in New Bern here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.098872,-77.0526132,3a,75y,112.85h,82.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk97NevNuFtx1ty5Gf4yC9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). It was widened in the late 90s.

And I assume they widened that bridge as an emergency cause there was no deceleration lane.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on March 30, 2021, 09:02:22 PM
The Swing Bridges are going away! This one has been replaced by a high-rise one.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5747671,-77.1750697,3a,75y,216.27h,87.48t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXQu5sitfkwyIxcxrsCXzDw!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i3328!8i1664
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 30, 2021, 09:25:07 PM
...my example from Reply #4 at Selma might be an example of resurface and convert to jersey wall - https://goo.gl/maps/mSkGGd2BzzZzQ1Tv8

Indeed.  That's the one over the NCRR that I was referencing. 
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on April 05, 2021, 02:00:16 PM
What happened here....

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2702318,-78.6169756,3a,75y,299.35h,114.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWTpR9tXMN688AX8Cn-3rIw!2e0!5s20190501T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on April 06, 2021, 12:42:47 PM
What happened here....

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2702318,-78.6169756,3a,75y,299.35h,114.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWTpR9tXMN688AX8Cn-3rIw!2e0!5s20190501T000000!7i16384!8i8192
It's been replaced by a newer prestressed bridge.
(https://storage13.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2020/8/22/proc/2942542_f31a1e12e7e51d613530df3399664e6b.jpg)
Yes, but looking at the bottom.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: wanderer2575 on April 06, 2021, 01:18:30 PM
What happened here....

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2702318,-78.6169756,3a,75y,299.35h,114.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWTpR9tXMN688AX8Cn-3rIw!2e0!5s20190501T000000!7i16384!8i8192

You mean the corrugated aluminum panels?  That's standard design now in some states.  Michigan has been including them in new bridges for at least a dozen years.  It prevents crumbling concrete from falling onto the roadway below. 
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on April 09, 2021, 02:52:30 PM
What happened here....

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2702318,-78.6169756,3a,75y,299.35h,114.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWTpR9tXMN688AX8Cn-3rIw!2e0!5s20190501T000000!7i16384!8i8192

You mean the corrugated aluminum panels?  That's standard design now in some states.  Michigan has been including them in new bridges for at least a dozen years.  It prevents crumbling concrete from falling onto the roadway below.
But look at the sanford bypass and the winton one.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on April 09, 2021, 03:24:29 PM
What happened here....

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2702318,-78.6169756,3a,75y,299.35h,114.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWTpR9tXMN688AX8Cn-3rIw!2e0!5s20190501T000000!7i16384!8i8192

You mean the corrugated aluminum panels?  That's standard design now in some states.  Michigan has been including them in new bridges for at least a dozen years.  It prevents crumbling concrete from falling onto the roadway below.
But look at the sanford bypass and the winton one.

Every bridge isn't required to have these...could be contractor's preferred design or NCDOT might have certain criteria about when that is necessary.

In the link above, the metal was added when they raised the height of the bridge with spacers.  The US 70 Bus Smithfield bridge was raised even higher with spacers but no metal placed underneath.  Was it because one deck was in worse shape than the other?  Or is there flexibility on stuff like this?  NCDOT-region specific?

I've seen these much longer ago than 12 years - some I526 bridges from the early 1980s have them.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on April 09, 2021, 03:50:06 PM
I've seen these much longer ago than 12 years - some I526 bridges from the early 1980s have them.
And when I-40 was first built going to Wilmington, they have them and it was in the 80s.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on April 13, 2021, 11:04:40 PM
In this (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3994305,-76.9314408,1747m/data=!3m1!1e3) area, there used to be a swing bridge going straight to Winton.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: plain on April 14, 2021, 01:22:26 AM
I've seen these much longer ago than 12 years - some I526 bridges from the early 1980s have them.
And when I-40 was first built going to Wilmington, they have them and it was in the 80s.

I used to wonder about these. I believe they were first used in the 1970's, at least they were in VA. Most of I-195, as well as I-95 between the James River and Petersburg has overpasses with this underneath them.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on April 14, 2021, 06:28:48 AM
In this (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3994305,-76.9314408,1747m/data=!3m1!1e3) area, there used to be a swing bridge going straight to Winton.

Eastern NC used to have quite a few of these
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: kphoger on April 14, 2021, 10:39:55 AM
I like how Branson (MO), after building the new bridge across Taneycomo, kept the old bridge in service.  GSV (https://goo.gl/maps/kJuUKCrRmBApzbvB8)
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on April 14, 2021, 11:09:01 AM
In this (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3994305,-76.9314408,1747m/data=!3m1!1e3) area, there used to be a swing bridge going straight to Winton.

Eastern NC used to have quite a few of these
They will all disappear soon. It's a goodbye to the swing bridges.

There's still one on US-64 which is the alligator river bridge and will soon be replaced by a high rise one.

This (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5433084,-77.0616147,3a,75y,16.42h,74.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sedx4BFGPJF4O2glGCeFoDg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) one will probably stay movable, but it will be turned into a bascule bridge (the one similar in New Bern).
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on April 15, 2021, 07:46:58 AM
Remember this? They had 5 alternatives. They went with 3 which was replace this bridge with a bascule bridge.

It says 2019-10-21 but this document is actually from 2004.

https://files.nc.gov/ncdcr/historic-preservation-office/PDFs/ER_90-8222.pdf
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: MCRoads on April 16, 2021, 02:10:41 AM
Remember this? They had 5 alternatives. They went with 3 which was replace this bridge with a bascule bridge.

It says 2019-10-21 but this document is actually from 2004.

https://files.nc.gov/ncdcr/historic-preservation-office/PDFs/ER_90-8222.pdf

Alt. 5: Replace Existing Bridge With A Tunnel.

The fact that that was considered is weird. A tunnel seems very out of place in this situation. I might be wrong, but it looks like the river it crosses only serves pleasure craft. Opening the bridge on a schedule would probably work just fine. Or, maybe even just calling ahead could work. Most of those alternatives seem like way overkill.

Also, regarding the Branson, NO bridges, which one is the newer one? I would guess the plate girder bridge, but that seems like an odd place to put a new bridge, why not just build the new bridge as a second span for the existing road?
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Big John on April 16, 2021, 12:02:05 PM
^^ The EIS statement requires you to use all possible alternatives.  While doing one we had to consider a double-decker bridge on a county road in order to reduce wetlands impact and came out to a conclusion that it was too expensive.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: kphoger on April 16, 2021, 12:12:23 PM
I like how Branson (MO), after building the new bridge across Taneycomo, kept the old bridge in service.  GSV (https://goo.gl/maps/kJuUKCrRmBApzbvB8)

Also, regarding the Branson, NO bridges, which one is the newer one? I would guess the plate girder bridge, but that seems like an odd place to put a new bridge, why not just build the new bridge as a second span for the existing road?

Yes, the one in the foreground is the newer one.  The answer is that they serve different corridors.  The old bridge is MO-76 and what used to be US-65-Business.  The new bridge was constructed as part of the whole Branson Landing development.  The road it connects to (Branson Landing Blvd) didn't exist before that—not in its current iteration, anyway.

Take a look at this GSV (https://goo.gl/maps/MoefEipxbnSjTqMcA), and you can see that the area connected by the newer bridge (Branson Landing) is lower in elevation, down along the lakefront riverfront—whereas the area connected by the older bridge (the western half of the old downtown) up higher above the shoreline.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on April 16, 2021, 01:59:32 PM
I'm glad they used alternative 3. Alternative 4 would have some height restrictions, so that's prolly why they didn't choose that. Alternative 2 would be risky, cause swing bridges are a pain in the ass. Alternative 5 is expensive as hell and not so pedestrian friendly. Those can be used if large amounts of traffic go on it.

Alternative 1 wouldn't be the best choice either. We always need a direct gateway to downtown!

Alternatives 6 and 7 are too expensive imo and just unnecessary.

I love having movable bridges..... I wish the Pitt and Greene streets had one of those but they are fixed and hardly any boats get on it cause the river is soo thin.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on April 19, 2021, 11:21:57 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1236654,-79.8827846,3a,75y,277.76h,82.43t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sh9FX6w6hhZQEbfM5kpzCJg!2e0!5s20190401T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Why is this being replaced with a bridge...
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Big John on April 19, 2021, 11:32:07 PM
^^ I assume there is a culvert under that road now, and I assume it can't handle stormwater flow.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: kphoger on April 20, 2021, 09:47:56 AM
So you're wondering why they didn't leave one half of the road a culvert and just construct the other half as a new bridge?

(https://i.imgur.com/CiqDIbS.jpg)
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: MCRoads on April 20, 2021, 10:46:48 AM
They did something similar on US-1 near where my grandfather worked in Ft Belvoir. From what he told me, that road sometimes had issues during heavy rain because the culvert had deteriorated or clogged up. They just did away with the culvert and put a bridge when widening the road. I’m guessing it’s a similar situation.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on April 20, 2021, 12:05:31 PM
So you're wondering why they didn't leave one half of the road a culvert and just construct the other half as a new bridge?

(https://i.imgur.com/CiqDIbS.jpg)
That would look retarded. They did propose that for NC 73 but it wasn't chosen.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: kphoger on April 20, 2021, 12:19:53 PM
Why is this being replaced with a bridge...


So you're wondering why they didn't leave one half of the road a culvert and just construct the other half as a new bridge?

That would look retarded. They did propose that for NC 73 but it wasn't chosen.

Then what exactly are you wondering?
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on April 20, 2021, 12:23:03 PM
Why is this being replaced with a bridge...


So you're wondering why they didn't leave one half of the road a culvert and just construct the other half as a new bridge?

That would look retarded. They did propose that for NC 73 but it wasn't chosen.

Then what exactly are you wondering?
To make them both culverts. (like I-77)
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: UnumProvident101 on April 20, 2021, 06:27:40 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0139705,-85.2521206,3a,63.9y,35.4h,95.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9haBqBwJokky66E0LcC9Ig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

these two bridges in Chattanooga, TN are being replaced since they were built in 1964 and are 56 years old and the ABC method is being used to build the two new bridges
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on April 20, 2021, 08:43:08 PM
This is what kphoger was asking - https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/nc-73-mecklenburg-cabarrus/Documents/davidson-concord-us-29-meeting-map-3.pdf

This is what I was thinking would be done - https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/nc-73-mecklenburg-cabarrus/Documents/davidson-concord-us-29-meeting-map-3a.pdf

This is the final design plans! - https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/nc-73-mecklenburg-cabarrus/Documents/R-5706-map-3-wellington-chase-east-reservoir.pdf
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Tom958 on April 20, 2021, 09:48:30 PM
What happened here....

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2702318,-78.6169756,3a,75y,299.35h,114.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWTpR9tXMN688AX8Cn-3rIw!2e0!5s20190501T000000!7i16384!8i8192

You mean the corrugated aluminum panels?  That's standard design now in some states.  Michigan has been including them in new bridges for at least a dozen years.  It prevents crumbling concrete from falling onto the roadway below.

Sometime between 2013 and 2015, the two main spans were replaced. In this 2015 Streetview (https://goo.gl/maps/NtzAyT2naS7XAdmN7) you can see that the side spans were formed with plywood which was removed, while the main spans rest on metal decking. That's also why the steel girders are different colors on the main and side spans. This 2013 Streetview (https://goo.gl/maps/3CyJv3aUEv7T1XyG7) shows no metal decking under the main spans and all of the girders the same color. I can't imagine why they would've done this other than crash damage on both spans. Even then, why not replace the steel girders with voided slabs to increase the clearance, as they did elsewhere along I-95 (https://goo.gl/maps/x6QgMZ15F3AfC69c6)? I dunno.

Annoyingly, http://bridgereports.com/1327621 makes no mention of what so obviously happened.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on April 20, 2021, 10:55:38 PM
Oh, what happened here (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5192361,-77.959986,3a,75y,122.58h,68.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJ4EMe_47hFcQ-LeWwxRTVw!2e0!5s20160201T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)?

Did a car hit that area? Did the bridge collapse by itself?

It needs replacing.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Big John on April 21, 2021, 04:01:32 PM
^^ Looks like a vehicle hit that.  The guardrail is a temporary fix until they replace the railing in that area.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on April 21, 2021, 04:10:32 PM
^^ Looks like a vehicle hit that.  The guardrail is a temporary fix until they replace the railing in that area.
The bridge will probably be replaced totally. It's the original 1950s 60s design.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: dlsterner on April 22, 2021, 12:27:07 AM
^^ Looks like a vehicle hit that.  The guardrail is a temporary fix until they replace the railing in that area.
The bridge will probably be replaced totally. It's the original 1950s 60s design.
If the bridge is otherwise sound, I doubt that there will be any hurry to replace the entire bridge when it is easy enough to replace the lost piece of railing.  Or they may even leave the piece if guardrail in there indefinitely.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: index on April 22, 2021, 04:27:32 AM

This style was prevalent in the 1950s/early 60s for bridges wider than 2 lanes - https://goo.gl/maps/aDshucV6LDpduxY6A (https://goo.gl/maps/aDshucV6LDpduxY6A)


That ornate style along with a few other similar variants seems to have been the dominant style for a pretty long time in the 20th century for anything that wasn't a truss bridge, from around the 1900s-1950s I've noticed. The US 74/29 bridge over the Catawba River has that style of guardrail, built in 1933, as well as the Bearskin Creek bridge in Monroe on what used to be US 74 before the mid-50s. That one was built in 1922. US 17's Ashley River Bridge in Charleston (1926) also has that design.

My favorite execution of the ornate type guardrails are the ones on the Old Victory Bridge over the Apalachicola River, also built in 1922. The Old Trout River Bridge (1930) in Duval County, FL also has a similar design I like. I think there was another bridge in Jacksonville that had a similar style, and when it was replaced they kept the design in the new construction.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on April 23, 2021, 05:44:23 PM
for this one, they did not keep the original design. https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4698457,-77.3548269,3a,75y,298.39h,77.06t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdujbVucfyCMezHFlqhYzrA!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Big John on April 23, 2021, 09:19:57 PM
^^ The 2012 shot was built of that era, the 2019 shot shows the new bridge with modern design standards.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on May 09, 2021, 12:03:09 AM
^^ The 2012 shot was built of that era, the 2019 shot shows the new bridge with modern design standards.
And it's in an odd area for them to keep the original design I'm sure.

Can they build a new bridge and keep the 1950 and 60s design or not I think?
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Big John on May 09, 2021, 12:12:43 AM
^^ The 2012 shot was built of that era, the 2019 shot shows the new bridge with modern design standards.
And it's in an odd area for them to keep the original design I'm sure.

Can they build a new bridge and keep the 1950 and 60s design or not I think?
The decorative railings do not meet modern crash standards.  If an aesthetic look was requested, they could have used a Texas railing:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LBWeRsNcsFI/Rwvimc2EwcI/AAAAAAAABi8/eOGUGzoJRDY/S660/Texas+Rail_1744r.jpg)
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on May 09, 2021, 12:15:18 AM
^^ The 2012 shot was built of that era, the 2019 shot shows the new bridge with modern design standards.
And it's in an odd area for them to keep the original design I'm sure.

Can they build a new bridge and keep the 1950 and 60s design or not I think?
The decorative railings do not meet modern crash standards.  If an aesthetic look was requested, they could have used a Texas railing:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LBWeRsNcsFI/Rwvimc2EwcI/AAAAAAAABi8/eOGUGzoJRDY/S660/Texas+Rail_1744r.jpg)
double railings are the normal kind right now.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on May 10, 2021, 10:25:44 PM
What kind of bridge is this??!!

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4088228,-78.3917217,3a,62.4y,98.74h,66.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skAAwRNukJreUq1swddMf1Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DkAAwRNukJreUq1swddMf1Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D356.7724%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Rothman on May 10, 2021, 10:51:38 PM
What kind of bridge is this??!!

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4088228,-78.3917217,3a,62.4y,98.74h,66.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skAAwRNukJreUq1swddMf1Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DkAAwRNukJreUq1swddMf1Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D356.7724%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
A causeway with railings.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: dlsterner on May 10, 2021, 11:45:21 PM
What kind of bridge is this??!!

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4088228,-78.3917217,3a,62.4y,98.74h,66.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skAAwRNukJreUq1swddMf1Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DkAAwRNukJreUq1swddMf1Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D356.7724%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

A bridge hosting (gasp!) unlawful activity!  I see some scofflaws fishing from the bridge despite the "No Fishing From Bridge" signs at each end.  (And one fine upstanding citizen properly using the catwalk)
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on May 11, 2021, 07:14:58 AM
Oh, what happened here (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5192361,-77.959986,3a,75y,122.58h,68.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJ4EMe_47hFcQ-LeWwxRTVw!2e0!5s20160201T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)?

Did a car hit that area? Did the bridge collapse by itself?

It needs replacing.

Here's your answer - https://www.lakegastongazette-observer.com/news/article_2b45916c-2af8-11e5-b25a-37bb01c46f50.html

I note the concrete surface in the opposite lane is pretty worn out, too, in the 2016 GMSV

Quote
as well as the Bearskin Creek bridge in Monroe on what used to be US 74 before the mid-50s. That one was built in 1922

That railing was not there in 1922 - was made that way when the bridge was widened in 1939
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on May 24, 2021, 02:39:01 PM
This my guess for the bridges in North Carolina.

1950s (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8987461,-75.9998776,3a,75y,278.85h,80.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDc5otx-Yhz5sag0sYJsUng!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DDc5otx-Yhz5sag0sYJsUng%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D15.319344%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

1960s (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7554461,-79.4751926,3a,38.7y,48.68h,84.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgBCgeDyvz_HgZCXmTxHHSw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

1970s steel barriers (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7984252,-78.1761879,3a,75y,308.38h,83.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szV4OkOSGNq54mXTkATwl5g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

1970s brown barriers (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1403677,-77.1790577,3a,75y,34.12h,50.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipNT1t9eS93OUCJjxkSnPYLyOvMBgp6ymhI6wN4J!2e10!3e11!7i7680!8i3840)

1980s (present-day) (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0367455,-79.0973942,3a,75y,132.97h,69.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssrdY9iUA2auUa0s3YmfaMw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

1990s steel barriers (1) (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0983281,-77.0218611,3a,75y,290.83h,85.32t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipOrV2LEMtozavunD5oA9ynYXwp07P153R6FRRfn!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOrV2LEMtozavunD5oA9ynYXwp07P153R6FRRfn%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-1.069089-ya207.1152-ro8.112385-fo100!7i7680!8i3840)

1990s steel barriers (2) (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0481355,-76.6947869,3a,75y,235.87h,83.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sS8Jtz13LzGEfz1jf4BlUUw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DS8Jtz13LzGEfz1jf4BlUUw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D329.63074%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

1990s normal barriers (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1900974,-76.4554174,3a,40.4y,26.96h,87.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3NL99vYcdNZ6uKbtDXOWTg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D3NL99vYcdNZ6uKbtDXOWTg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D92.50605%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) (the southbound bridge)

2000s (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7081221,-77.9951609,3a,75y,306.64h,86.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7omCvGCCF-IXD9AuOWTsQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

2010s (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1183148,-79.7053192,3a,38.6y,323.14h,88.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNSEyXoEmH_V9_9Ec9NxoCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) I miss those red things on the bottom. compared to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5614769,-77.4626251,3a,42.6y,59.11h,90.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smp0VrcECS8NpIUWrRXzAWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) which doesn't have them.

2010s (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5128696,-77.4549896,3a,75y,34.95h,102.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbXyfFVRK4BBusJvgmSjLkw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) This one uses the steel barriers. On a freeway. Interesting.


I have to say, I enjoy the ones with the steel barriers more. They look nicer and not so dull looking. But I'm sure it's a little more costly to build though.
The ones that are built right now compared to the ones from the 80s and 2000s, the bridge structures are a little bit taller.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on May 25, 2021, 07:05:30 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4262233,-78.0178448,3a,38.4y,254.87h,89.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-5JjsNEd1j5hVJcHsf1exg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This bottom structure looks different compared to all of the other bridges. Wonder why that is...

Compared to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1215664,-79.7078445,3a,75y,139.52h,86.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svWy5IvYibwzU8PnyJ999Qg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)...

Or even this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7843861,-78.513974,3a,75y,131.11h,88.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8b-L9udqalp2v6t1Ejyrug!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)...

Hell... even this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5234353,-77.084919,3a,75y,4.64h,80.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-fag2G5tlrxCayCbbZY5lg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) looks cheap and funny looking....

How are the steel and the concrete beams chosen and why?
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: roadman65 on May 26, 2021, 01:03:23 AM
Look under the Garden State Parkway where it's a dual configuration between the Raritan and Asbury Park Toll Plazas. They built the later express lanes with concrete beams as supposed to making it match the original local lanes. Heck on US 9 in Sayreville the Parkway Express lanes have no side piers. The bridges span from top of slant wall to median pier in center of Route 9.  The original Parkway Bridges have a pier on both sides of US 9 and in the median of it.

No aesthetic consideration.  Even the former NJ 138 overpass had two designs instead of making the later bridge look like the older one which was a concrete arch bridge similar to Route 36 over the NB local lanes in Tintin Falls.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on June 17, 2021, 10:52:12 PM
Found another unique bridge - https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7780308,-77.7830242,3a,75y,324.86h,69.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stazvXe5BuWIvP_8rIi7f1w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It was built in 1920 and has been replaced already.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: roadman65 on July 14, 2021, 11:24:21 AM
The bridge on I-80 in Vallejo, CA is noticeable as the 2003 Westbound span is a cable suspended bridge while the EB bridge built in 1958 is cantilever.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on July 16, 2021, 05:31:47 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3112156,-77.8249814,3a,78.8y,63.08h,68.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdTxiv10ubQmZ7t9481f_iA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5561627,-77.4614197,3a,75y,113.26h,85.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq9ht9IZoAVx5X1WhmbIbyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Both bridges look pretty wide with the bottom one having taller shoulders.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on July 23, 2021, 08:16:59 PM
These (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0897959,-79.6975516,3a,75y,348.4h,80.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOIonPvrr0fhf-lH0GerNkg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) bridges do not match.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on July 23, 2021, 11:09:47 PM
These (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0897959,-79.6975516,3a,75y,348.4h,80.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOIonPvrr0fhf-lH0GerNkg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) bridges do not match.

They were built almost 15 years apart...why do they need to match?
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Big John on July 23, 2021, 11:23:44 PM
Juxtaposition of a new and old side-by-side bridges.  Photo by John Weeks (https://www.johnweeks.com/river_mississippi/picsA/us14us61lax27.jpg)
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on July 23, 2021, 11:29:09 PM
These (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0897959,-79.6975516,3a,75y,348.4h,80.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOIonPvrr0fhf-lH0GerNkg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) bridges do not match.

They were built almost 15 years apart...why do they need to match?
Talking about how the way they were built. They probably didn't even think they were going to extend the highway. The left barrier is taller compared to the right barrier.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on July 24, 2021, 09:12:58 AM
These (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0897959,-79.6975516,3a,75y,348.4h,80.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOIonPvrr0fhf-lH0GerNkg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) bridges do not match.

They were built almost 15 years apart...why do they need to match?
Talking about how the way they were built. They probably didn't even think they were going to extend the highway. The left barrier is taller compared to the right barrier.

For someone who notices small differences in stuff (which you should come out and say in the initial post instead of us guessing), you miss the bigger pictures.

Yes, it is true the left barrier is taller than the right one.  If you check out older streetviews, you will notice the bridge has been widened and I believe they wanted the left barrier to be the same height as the new bridge's left barrier.  This actually supports your theory that they weren't 100% sure the road would get extended (though they definitely knew they wanted to, as it was signed as Future I-840 by 2002).

A much bigger difference in the two bridges can be seen from a different viewpoint - https://goo.gl/maps/cXaPpRpzSPtRjBbu7

Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on July 24, 2021, 07:19:58 PM
These (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0897959,-79.6975516,3a,75y,348.4h,80.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOIonPvrr0fhf-lH0GerNkg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) bridges do not match.

They were built almost 15 years apart...why do they need to match?
Talking about how the way they were built. They probably didn't even think they were going to extend the highway. The left barrier is taller compared to the right barrier.

For someone who notices small differences in stuff (which you should come out and say in the initial post instead of us guessing), you miss the bigger pictures.

Yes, it is true the left barrier is taller than the right one.  If you check out older streetviews, you will notice the bridge has been widened and I believe they wanted the left barrier to be the same height as the new bridge's left barrier.  This actually supports your theory that they weren't 100% sure the road would get extended (though they definitely knew they wanted to, as it was signed as Future I-840 by 2002).

A much bigger difference in the two bridges can be seen from a different viewpoint - https://goo.gl/maps/cXaPpRpzSPtRjBbu7
I say it should have been built as a T intersection until an extension was put there or just make a wide bridge. Then it would look more handy. But it looks awkward.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: kphoger on July 25, 2021, 05:10:46 PM
But it looks awkward.

well we don't want that
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on July 25, 2021, 05:12:08 PM
But it looks awkward.

well we don't want that
I mean like, how were they thinking when they were thinking about extending the highway...
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: dlsterner on July 25, 2021, 07:02:10 PM
These (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0897959,-79.6975516,3a,75y,348.4h,80.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOIonPvrr0fhf-lH0GerNkg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) bridges do not match.
If the poster is concerned about the above bridges not matching (they look almost identical to me), image the hysteria resulting from our mis-matched Bay Bridges across the Chesapeake:

(https://bridgehunter.com/photos/13/26/132685-M.jpg)

And I would guess a third bridge (if ever built in our lifetimes) would be visually different as well.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on July 25, 2021, 07:17:48 PM
These (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0897959,-79.6975516,3a,75y,348.4h,80.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOIonPvrr0fhf-lH0GerNkg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) bridges do not match.
If the poster is concerned about the above bridges not matching (they look almost identical to me), image the hysteria resulting from our mis-matched Bay Bridges across the Chesapeake:

(https://bridgehunter.com/photos/13/26/132685-M.jpg)

And I would guess a third bridge (if ever built in our lifetimes) would be visually different as well.
Compared to these (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1904534,-76.4554131,3a,75y,189.87h,76.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ40Vs4E8o0Ej7SL3hLFWIw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), or even these (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0867969,-75.7667817,3a,75y,239.92h,79.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfudaDCksUQmCCrexRwVU5g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DfudaDCksUQmCCrexRwVU5g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D342.0526%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)?

Hell, even these (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1829191,-90.1255144,3a,75y,357.89h,77.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJVKIL8_ZXqH9Wr7yUNVQMg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) do not match.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on July 27, 2021, 11:10:24 PM
When looking at these (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4577123,-76.3323858,3a,54.9y,329.82h,106.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgyeb0LG70RgN-sRwr6ofqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) bridges, you may wonder why they are very high (I've seen some ones that are a little lower to carry trains), And the reason is cause of the low voltage lines and a nearby river next to a road.

Like hell, even these (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5281111,-78.2714422,3a,75y,314.11h,96.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5cbM_zs3GX5SAudpcj-7hw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) are lower.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on July 28, 2021, 06:25:01 AM
When looking at these (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4577123,-76.3323858,3a,54.9y,329.82h,106.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgyeb0LG70RgN-sRwr6ofqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) bridges, you may wonder why they are very high (I've seen some ones that are a little lower to carry trains), And the reason is cause of the low voltage lines and a nearby river next to a road.

Like hell, even these (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5281111,-78.2714422,3a,75y,314.11h,96.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5cbM_zs3GX5SAudpcj-7hw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) are lower.

The first bridge is that high because it crosses the Intracoastal Waterway.  Otherwise it would need to be a draw bridge.

The second bridge can be lower because trains are not as tall as sailboats.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: kphoger on July 28, 2021, 09:59:34 AM

When looking at these (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4577123,-76.3323858,3a,54.9y,329.82h,106.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgyeb0LG70RgN-sRwr6ofqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) bridges, you may wonder why they are very high (I've seen some ones that are a little lower to carry trains), And the reason is cause of the low voltage lines and a nearby river next to a road.

Like hell, even these (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5281111,-78.2714422,3a,75y,314.11h,96.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5cbM_zs3GX5SAudpcj-7hw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) are lower.

The first bridge is that high because it crosses the Intracoastal Waterway.  Otherwise it would need to be a draw bridge.

The second bridge can be lower because trains are not as tall as sailboats.

If it were all about the power lines, then I'm sure it would have been a lot cheaper to just run them underground at that point or else construct taller towers and run them over both roads.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: MCRoads on September 14, 2021, 09:36:57 AM
These (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0897959,-79.6975516,3a,75y,348.4h,80.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOIonPvrr0fhf-lH0GerNkg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) bridges do not match.
If the poster is concerned about the above bridges not matching (they look almost identical to me), image the hysteria resulting from our mis-matched Bay Bridges across the Chesapeake:

(https://bridgehunter.com/photos/13/26/132685-M.jpg)

And I would guess a third bridge (if ever built in our lifetimes) would be visually different as well.

If a third bridge is built, what do you want to bet that it will be a precast box beam, with a cable stayed main span?
I hate those types of bridges, as they are used so much. But, they are used a lot because they are cheap.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on September 22, 2021, 07:55:04 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4447724,-80.6133352,3a,75y,262.09h,102.8t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqjkbqC6Ck5ABhMUyw8_qgg!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4447724,-80.6133352,3a,75y,262.09h,102.8t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqjkbqC6Ck5ABhMUyw8_qgg!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192)
Another one of a recycled bridge. When I85 was rebuilt in 2016, they took everything but the guardrail. :ded:
Are you referring to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4447724,-80.6133352,3a,42.7y,121.69h,82.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqjkbqC6Ck5ABhMUyw8_qgg!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192) guardrail? If yes, then it's because it's dangerously close to the mainline highway.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on October 11, 2021, 03:41:29 PM
So, when bringing a freeway to interstate standards, this plan shows that the bridges that the main freeway bridge over will be replaced. They look fine to me... I don't see why they need to be replaced.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-feasibility-study/Documents/us-17-segment-6.pdf

Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on October 11, 2021, 08:11:55 PM
So, when bringing a freeway to interstate standards, this plan shows that the bridges that the main freeway bridge over will be replaced. They look fine to me... I don't see why they need to be replaced.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-feasibility-study/Documents/us-17-segment-6.pdf



All of the southbound bridges were built in 1976, so they will be pushing 50 years old when they get around to doing construction.

The northbound bridges were built in 1999.  Less sure why they would want to replace those at the outset unless they don't meet interstate standard in some way.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on October 12, 2021, 12:09:57 AM
So, when bringing a freeway to interstate standards, this plan shows that the bridges that the main freeway bridge over will be replaced. They look fine to me... I don't see why they need to be replaced.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-feasibility-study/Documents/us-17-segment-6.pdf


The northbound bridges were built in 1999.  Less sure why they would want to replace those at the outset unless they don't meet interstate standard in some way.
Which is funny cause the US-264 bridges east of Wilson are older and it's already up to interstate standards and yet they didn't replace the bridges. I'm referring to the the Farmville bypass (US-258) and the VOA Site C rd bridges.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on October 12, 2021, 09:53:26 PM
Seems like MSE walls are the new standard bridges for construction.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on October 24, 2021, 02:21:38 AM
I didn't know they still build bridges like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1187362,-80.0447455,3a,90y,359.57h,78.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5ZeuZtIwK2a0SN8Ea0030A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).

I thought they stopped with this design...

I normally see double rails as the standard.

The Greenville Southwest Bypass (NC 11 bypass) bridges (which is kind of rare for freeways to have here in North Carolina except for older ones built back in the 60s and 70s) has the double railings over NC 903 and Abbott Farm Road.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on November 01, 2021, 07:10:48 AM
This bridge did not keep the same design. I also wonder why they made it extra wide compared to some bridges I see are narrower than that.

2008 - GSV https://www.google.com/maps/@36.078266,-77.7484517,3a,75y,9.6h,83.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sF6zeCY5HRurrVBU3SjfcsQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

2016 - GSV https://www.google.com/maps/@36.078279,-77.7484316,3a,75y,9.6h,83.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjXJ_YZNGarVa9gAO1a8SoQ!2e0!5s20160701T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on November 01, 2021, 10:28:04 AM
This bridge did not keep the same design. I also wonder why they made it extra wide compared to some bridges I see are narrower than that.

2008 - GSV https://www.google.com/maps/@36.078266,-77.7484517,3a,75y,9.6h,83.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sF6zeCY5HRurrVBU3SjfcsQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

2016 - GSV https://www.google.com/maps/@36.078279,-77.7484316,3a,75y,9.6h,83.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjXJ_YZNGarVa9gAO1a8SoQ!2e0!5s20160701T000000!7i13312!8i6656

The ornate rail designs tend to be propagated on modern bridges only in cities for aesthetic purposes. 

They gave the new bridge shoulders...not sure why that is considered extra wide.  It is US 301 and does see the occasional tractor trailer, so having a shoulder makes some sense.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Big John on November 01, 2021, 09:42:17 PM
^^ The shoulders are a safety measure and for a 2-lane 2-way traffic it is recommended to be 10' wide each.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on January 01, 2022, 02:28:36 PM
Going to miss driving over this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5697408,-77.2037485,3a,75y,314.87h,75.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa76B8XvHnGq_Ok3h8GaPoA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) bridge when it gets replaced in a few months (the bridge will still be open during construction of the new one). It's fun going over it!

Before this bridge was built, traffic used to be on a dirt road where they had to stop and look for a train.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on January 01, 2022, 09:46:55 PM
Going to miss driving over this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5697408,-77.2037485,3a,75y,314.87h,75.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa76B8XvHnGq_Ok3h8GaPoA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) bridge when it gets replaced in a few months (the bridge will still be open during construction of the new one). It's fun going over it!

Before this bridge was built, traffic used to be on a dirt road where they had to stop and look for a train.

The road prior to this 1938 bridge (then-US 264) was paved by 1926.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on January 01, 2022, 09:53:58 PM
Going to miss driving over this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5697408,-77.2037485,3a,75y,314.87h,75.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa76B8XvHnGq_Ok3h8GaPoA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) bridge when it gets replaced in a few months (the bridge will still be open during construction of the new one). It's fun going over it!

Before this bridge was built, traffic used to be on a dirt road where they had to stop and look for a train.

The road prior to this 1938 bridge (then-US 264) was paved by 1926.
So, it makes me wonder if they used railroad gates or just stop and look crossing during that time...
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 02, 2022, 10:11:05 PM
Going to miss driving over this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5697408,-77.2037485,3a,75y,314.87h,75.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa76B8XvHnGq_Ok3h8GaPoA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) bridge when it gets replaced in a few months (the bridge will still be open during construction of the new one). It's fun going over it!

Before this bridge was built, traffic used to be on a dirt road where they had to stop and look for a train.

The road prior to this 1938 bridge (then-US 264) was paved by 1926.

You can still see the old route on the aerial view.  Plus a piece of it is still in use to the northwest of this overpass (ironically, the old road is called Overpass Lane).

So, it makes me wonder if they used railroad gates or just stop and look crossing during that time...

Prior to the 1960s, most crossings in the South only needed crossbucks (R15-1 = stop/look/listen rule) except when the crossing was too close to a railyard or industrial spur.  Railroad operating rules require that the crossing be flagged by the crew in those situations.  Quite frankly, those train crews were plenty sufficient to flag the crossing (often comprised of five or more railroaders riding the train).  I suspect that the reason for a grade separation was that there had been a busy agricultural siding in Grimesland where trains frequently blocked US-264.  There's still a switch with a short section of siding track heading back towards this bridge, closer into town.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on January 03, 2022, 01:48:19 AM
Another one for US-17 in Chocowinity can be seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5297464,-77.0758966,3a,36.3y,47.65h,83.82t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQ7LgxWSFxiB1V-yZy17FpQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DQ7LgxWSFxiB1V-yZy17FpQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D102.82074%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on January 21, 2022, 07:55:59 PM
Going to miss driving over this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5697408,-77.2037485,3a,75y,314.87h,75.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa76B8XvHnGq_Ok3h8GaPoA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) bridge when it gets replaced in a few months (the bridge will still be open during construction of the new one). It's fun going over it!

Before this bridge was built, traffic used to be on a dirt road where they had to stop and look for a train.

The road prior to this 1938 bridge (then-US 264) was paved by 1926.

You can still see the old route on the aerial view.  Plus a piece of it is still in use to the northwest of this overpass (ironically, the old road is called Overpass Lane).

So, it makes me wonder if they used railroad gates or just stop and look crossing during that time...

Prior to the 1960s, most crossings in the South only needed crossbucks (R15-1 = stop/look/listen rule) except when the crossing was too close to a railyard or industrial spur.  Railroad operating rules require that the crossing be flagged by the crew in those situations.  Quite frankly, those train crews were plenty sufficient to flag the crossing (often comprised of five or more railroaders riding the train).  I suspect that the reason for a grade separation was that there had been a busy agricultural siding in Grimesland where trains frequently blocked US-264.  There's still a switch with a short section of siding track heading back towards this bridge, closer into town.
Also, when looking at it again, wasn't Grimes Farm Road the original alignment? They left it there for neighborhood access. It has public at-grade crossings.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on January 21, 2022, 08:26:13 PM
Also, when looking at it again, wasn't Grimes Farm Road the original alignment? They left it there for neighborhood access. It has public at-grade crossings.

Yes...1936 Pitt County map shows US 264 using it, while 1938 Pitt County map shows US 264 on new alignment.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on February 09, 2022, 03:48:05 PM
SW bypass has the Dec 2021 imagery, now this is the unique bridges for highways that I'm talking about.

https://goo.gl/maps/Hd5ZaKNX9bqddDre6
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on February 23, 2022, 01:16:21 AM
Is this a temporary bridge? It was replaced because the old old probably was damaged or it collapsed or it was in really bad condition. But this is a really ugly bridge I have to say.

https://goo.gl/maps/613KABSpWSwWCgn69
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Dirt Roads on February 23, 2022, 12:04:23 PM
Is this a temporary bridge? It was replaced because the old old probably was damaged or it collapsed or it was in really bad condition. But this is a really ugly bridge I have to say.

https://goo.gl/maps/613KABSpWSwWCgn69

You may be correct in your suspicion.  That was one of several bridges along I-95 that were replaced due to low clearance, requiring some truckers to use alternate routes.  Unless there are plans to add the extra lanes in the median (one lane in each direction), the SR-1726 bridge over I-95 will need to replaced and reconfigured to permit widening to 6 lanes.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on February 23, 2022, 12:09:49 PM
Is this a temporary bridge? It was replaced because the old old probably was damaged or it collapsed or it was in really bad condition. But this is a really ugly bridge I have to say.

https://goo.gl/maps/613KABSpWSwWCgn69

the SR-1726 bridge over I-95 will need to replaced and reconfigured to permit widening to 6 lanes.
I assume you mean 8 lanes. Plans call for widening I-95 south of Fayetteville to I-74 to 8 lanes. It was originally proposed as 6, but given to the growth they bumped it up to 8. The widening in Lumberton was purposely accelerated due to the vulnerability of getting flooded. Hurricanes Matthew and Florence did that.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Dirt Roads on February 23, 2022, 12:49:53 PM
Is this a temporary bridge? It was replaced because the old old probably was damaged or it collapsed or it was in really bad condition. But this is a really ugly bridge I have to say.

https://goo.gl/maps/613KABSpWSwWCgn69

the SR-1726 bridge over I-95 will need to replaced and reconfigured to permit widening to 6 lanes.

I assume you mean 8 lanes. Plans call for widening I-95 south of Fayetteville to I-74 to 8 lanes. It was originally proposed as 6, but given to the growth they bumped it up to 8. The widening in Lumberton was purposely accelerated due to the vulnerability of getting flooded. Hurricanes Matthew and Florence did that.

There you go.  Very few of the overpasses along I-95 will provide room for 8 lanes beneath.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on February 23, 2022, 05:56:34 PM
Is this a temporary bridge? It was replaced because the old old probably was damaged or it collapsed or it was in really bad condition. But this is a really ugly bridge I have to say.

https://goo.gl/maps/613KABSpWSwWCgn69

Definitely not temporary…was refurbished to increase clearance in 2009.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on February 23, 2022, 05:59:36 PM
Is this a temporary bridge? It was replaced because the old old probably was damaged or it collapsed or it was in really bad condition. But this is a really ugly bridge I have to say.

https://goo.gl/maps/613KABSpWSwWCgn69

Definitely not temporary…was refurbished to increase clearance in 2009.
Well this one was refurbished and raised too and it still looks old.

I-40 ALT
https://maps.app.goo.gl/X5MLnR5Z8N9aPLo66
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on February 23, 2022, 06:44:25 PM
Is this a temporary bridge? It was replaced because the old old probably was damaged or it collapsed or it was in really bad condition. But this is a really ugly bridge I have to say.

https://goo.gl/maps/613KABSpWSwWCgn69

Definitely not temporary…was refurbished to increase clearance in 2009.
Well this one was refurbished and raised too and it still looks old.

I-40 ALT
https://maps.app.goo.gl/X5MLnR5Z8N9aPLo66

They didn’t use the same method on every bridge but personal observation is that they wanted to use the method in your last post’s link - raise the height with stilts. Sometimes that wasn’t feasible though the 2009 bridge may have been stilted first.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Dirt Roads on February 23, 2022, 07:15:23 PM
I-40 ALT
https://maps.app.goo.gl/X5MLnR5Z8N9aPLo66

May I ask why you keep posting these as "I-40 Alt"?  I-95 is certainly more important than whatever goofy number Google shows it as.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on February 23, 2022, 07:18:23 PM
I-40 ALT
https://maps.app.goo.gl/X5MLnR5Z8N9aPLo66

May I ask why you keep posting these as "I-40 Alt"?  I-95 is certainly more important than whatever goofy number Google shows it as.
Because when I copy and paste from my phone, that's what it shows. Again whoever added that to the map does not know what he/she is doing.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: tolbs17 on March 06, 2022, 04:53:07 PM
So, when bringing a freeway to interstate standards, this plan shows that the bridges that the main freeway bridge over will be replaced. They look fine to me... I don't see why they need to be replaced.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-feasibility-study/Documents/us-17-segment-6.pdf



All of the southbound bridges were built in 1976, so they will be pushing 50 years old when they get around to doing construction.

The northbound bridges were built in 1999.  Less sure why they would want to replace those at the outset unless they don't meet interstate standard in some way.
All of them are fine tbh even when they start doing construction. I don't see any reason to replace them

That section can easily be upgraded to interstate standards without having to replace those bridges.

http://bridgereports.com/nc/chowan/
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Big John on May 14, 2022, 07:34:40 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/nPRpp5BGAMzFGGDe8 (https://goo.gl/maps/nPRpp5BGAMzFGGDe8)
how come these bridges have new parapets albeit old piers?
It either got a new deck (which comes with a new parapet) or was otherwise rehabbed with a new parapet called for in the contract.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2022, 12:15:57 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6estLpUFLado9Vic9 (https://goo.gl/maps/6estLpUFLado9Vic9)
This looks like a 1950s bridge, but from 2016.
How come this bridge looks newer, but is got older piers? :hmmm:
Bryce

Posting inane GSV images from the vicinity of Raleigh?  That seems oddly familiar, how suspicious.   :hmmm:
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: kphoger on May 18, 2022, 12:30:57 PM
This looks like a 1950s bridge

How so?
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Big John on May 18, 2022, 01:45:04 PM
^^ I think he is referring to the style of bent/pier supports that is still used for bridges over water/wetlands mainly in certain regions.
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: dlsterner on May 18, 2022, 07:33:49 PM
snolbs ?
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: epzik8 on May 19, 2022, 09:41:32 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6estLpUFLado9Vic9 (https://goo.gl/maps/6estLpUFLado9Vic9)
This looks like a 1950s bridge, but from 2016.
How come this bridge looks newer, but is got older piers? :hmmm:
Bryce
Maybe it is?
Title: Re: Old vs new bridges
Post by: Mapmikey on May 19, 2022, 10:23:24 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6estLpUFLado9Vic9 (https://goo.gl/maps/6estLpUFLado9Vic9)
This looks like a 1950s bridge, but from 2016.
How come this bridge looks newer, but is got older piers? :hmmm:
Bryce

Here is an official answer to your question.  This is a current VDOT bridge pier document.  Go to pdf pg 6.
https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/bridge/Manuals/Part2/Chapter15.pdf

Definitely other modern NC bridges have these...