New Jersey Turnpike

[SignBridge]

Is it known how long that fractured beam had been in that condition before it was discovered?

[jeffandnicole]

Could it be that eventually the Connector Bridge is only reopened to automobiles?

No...it would be impossible to enforce, especially with the free-flowing EZ Pass lanes.  Plus being an interstate highway, and its location within the northeast corridor, it's a very important trucker route.

Is it known how long that fractured beam had been in that condition before it was discovered?

It's been estimated not very long...a few weeks at most...best guess is probably a few days...but even as short as a few hours.

[cpzilliacus]

Could it be that eventually the Connector Bridge is only reopened to automobiles?

No...it would be impossible to enforce, especially with the free-flowing EZ Pass lanes.  Plus being an interstate highway, and its location within the northeast corridor, it's a very important trucker route.

Very much agree. 

Beyond your correct and realistic comments, the road also has to be able to support trucks belonging to the maintenance forces of both state turnpike agencies.  Even a road like the  Garden State Parkway (north of I-195) where most trucks are banned does have some truck traffic in the form of maintenance trucks as well as wreckers serving disabled and motorists.  Some of those wreckers are (especially roll-back tow trucks designed to be able to tow at least two vehicles) are quite heavy.

[jeffandnicole]

Could it be that eventually the Connector Bridge is only reopened to automobiles?

No...it would be impossible to enforce, especially with the free-flowing EZ Pass lanes.  Plus being an interstate highway, and its location within the northeast corridor, it's a very important trucker route.

Very much agree. 

Beyond your correct and realistic comments, the road also has to be able to support trucks belonging to the maintenance forces of both state turnpike agencies.  Even a road like the  Garden State Parkway (north of I-195) where most trucks are banned does have some truck traffic in the form of maintenance trucks as well as wreckers serving disabled and motorists.  Some of those wreckers are (especially roll-back tow trucks designed to be able to tow at least two vehicles) are quite heavy.

Other than some low clearance shoulders, the only thing keeping trucks off the northern portion of the Parkway is NJTA laws and policies.  If a truck want thru a toll plaza, the collector simply collects their appropriate toll and they continue on, until they are stopped by a state trooper.  There's no weight restricted bridges or other issues keeping trucks off the highway.

[roadman65]

From what I understand the Parkway had to be built to certain standards for military convoys to use, because they are not restricted from any road unless there is something physical to stop them.

As far as the trucks go, I can believe that one might actually ignore the signs and drive on the restricted part north of 105.  Heck I have seen a semi use the left lane of I-4, where it is restricted for trucks from MP 7 to MP 72, to pass me in while I was in the center lane of a three lane roadway passing a slow poke in the right lane.  FDOT does print large NO TRUCKS LEFT LANE signs that are more noticeable than NJDOT or NJTA signs.  Who is to say that they are not already.

In fact I am waiting for that one day when a bridge collapses because a semi driver ignores a WEIGHT LIMIT 4 TONS sign.  In fact I am wondering if many truck drivers are using the same GPS the cars are using that carelessly tell motorists to use any road even if it is restricted to SunPass or EZ Pass only customers on the toll roads.  I am sure the GPS does the same too, by sending any vehicle on the direct way even if there is a weigh restriction along its path.  Considering that today's truckers are not like those of many years ago who were well informed of the national road network, it could be possible that some drivers are using that device.

[NJRoadfan]

When the GSP went to one way tolling at the Raritan plaza, almost all the VMSes northbound from the Asbury barrier were displaying the message "No Trucks north of Exit 105" for a good couple of months. If a truck did stay on north of NJ-18. they were likely stopped from crossing the Driscoll Bridge at the toll plaza. I wouldn't be surprised if the old bridge had a weight restriction before it was rebuilt.

Otherwise, there is plenty of clearance on the overpasses until Exit 129/NJTP. North of there, trucks that accidentally wander onto the GSP hit low overpasses.

As for the trucks allowed north of Exit 105, the weight limit has actually increased from what it used to be. Now trucks up to 10,000lbs (5 tons) are allowed north of Exit 105. It used to be 7,000lbs (3.5 tons).

[jeffandnicole]

There aren't and weren't any weight restrictions on the Parkway.  The Driscoll Bridge was simply too narrow, with too few lanes, squeezed in way too tightly. 

[Alps]

There aren't and weren't any weight restrictions on the Parkway.  The Driscoll Bridge was simply too narrow, with too few lanes, squeezed in way too tightly. 

There are and were restrictions as cited: 7,000 and 10,000.

[cpzilliacus]

Other than some low clearance shoulders, the only thing keeping trucks off the northern portion of the Parkway is NJTA laws and policies.  If a truck want thru a toll plaza, the collector simply collects their appropriate toll and they continue on, until they are stopped by a state trooper.  There's no weight restricted bridges or other issues keeping trucks off the highway.

I have seen trucks stopped by the NJSP on the section of the GSP between the N.J. Turnpike and the New York state line.

As regards design, in addition to the right and left lanes having low clearances,  it seems to me that the lane widths are too narrow (in places) for Class 8 and similar trucks, though intercity coaches are apparently allowed on the entire GSP.

[SignBridge]

Re: the Penna. Tpk. bridge, lets not forget also that heavy fire trucks have to be able to use it for responding to vehicle fires and accidents.

[jeffandnicole]

There aren't and weren't any weight restrictions on the Parkway.  The Driscoll Bridge was simply too narrow, with too few lanes, squeezed in way too tightly. 

There are and were restrictions as cited: 7,000 and 10,000.

I meant (not very clearly), in reference to the bridges.  None of the bridges were weight restricted due to anything structurally wrong with them as far as I know.

[cpzilliacus]

There aren't and weren't any weight restrictions on the Parkway.  The Driscoll Bridge was simply too narrow, with too few lanes, squeezed in way too tightly. 

There are and were restrictions as cited: 7,000 and 10,000.

It may  be that those weight restrictions are about the classes of trucks that are allowed on the GSP.  I believe that the entire GSP allows intercity coaches.  A double-decker coach (81 passenger seats) like the Van Hools that Megabus runs in the East can weigh over 57,000 pounds on three axles.  Conventional coaches (54 to 56 seats) scale out at around 50,000 pounds (also on three axles).

7,000 pounds gross is about the GVW of a 1/2 ton truck.  Most parkways outside of New York seem to have no problem with them.

10,000 pounds gross allows 3/4 ton (like mine) and many 1 ton trucks (at least those with two wheels in  the rear, but probably not "dually" trucks with four wheels in the back).

[D-Dey65]

In fact I am waiting for that one day when a bridge collapses because a semi driver ignores a WEIGHT LIMIT 4 TONS sign.  In fact I am wondering if many truck drivers are using the same GPS the cars are using that carelessly tell motorists to use any road even if it is restricted to SunPass or EZ Pass only customers on the toll roads.  I am sure the GPS does the same too, by sending any vehicle on the direct way even if there is a weigh restriction along its path.  Considering that today's truckers are not like those of many years ago who were well informed of the national road network, it could be possible that some drivers are using that device.

They do have GPS devices that are geared towards truckers. I forget what the prices are on them, but I suspect they're more expensive than your standard devices. Maybe those versions tell them not to use any restricted roads, lanes, etcetera.

[Alps]

There aren't and weren't any weight restrictions on the Parkway.  The Driscoll Bridge was simply too narrow, with too few lanes, squeezed in way too tightly. 

There are and were restrictions as cited: 7,000 and 10,000.

I meant (not very clearly), in reference to the bridges.  None of the bridges were weight restricted due to anything structurally wrong with them as far as I know.

I believe that you're right, but I don't know, because if you design bridges to almost never have a weight per axle of more than 5,000 lb, by definition they're not structurally deficient, and you don't need to post specific weight restrictions because the whole roadway is under one.

[cpzilliacus]

In fact I am waiting for that one day when a bridge collapses because a semi driver ignores a WEIGHT LIMIT 4 TONS sign.  In fact I am wondering if many truck drivers are using the same GPS the cars are using that carelessly tell motorists to use any road even if it is restricted to SunPass or EZ Pass only customers on the toll roads.  I am sure the GPS does the same too, by sending any vehicle on the direct way even if there is a weigh restriction along its path.  Considering that today's truckers are not like those of many years ago who were well informed of the national road network, it could be possible that some drivers are using that device.

Truck drivers using cheap GPS units designed for automobiles are indeed a problem (the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration even devotes a page to the problem here). 

I believe GPS units and software designed for cars but used in trucks is why there are so many tractor/semitrailer combinations illegally using the federal part of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway ("secret" MD-295), as well as the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway in D.C. (often these have a sign that reads "COMMERCIAL VEHICLES EXCLUDED" or something similar, while on intersecting state-maintained roads, the signs read "NO TRUCKS").

Of course, the various parkways in New York (city and state), usually signed at the entrances with "PASSENGER CARS ONLY" signs.

IMO all parkways that ban trucks  should  be signed with NO TRUCKS in text and graphic form at all access points.

Last time I had a WCBS-880 traffic report on, they reported a tractor/semitrailer combination had blundered onto the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut and had to be backed away from a low overpass (I had not personally heard about such an incident before, but I am certain that it happens rather frequently).

Anytime that the police catch a heavy commercial vehicle on a road where it should not be, they should make it standard procedure to confiscate the GPS unit from the driver as evidence, and tell them to ask for it back from the judge. They might suggest to the driver that they ask the boss to get them a GPS unit designed for use in a commercial vehicle.

[Steve D]

They've been spending a ton of money on this span. Suspender cable replacement, redecking, etc. It's repairable.

Yes, all of the structural steel was just scraped and cleaned and primered and re-painted by a contractor working for NJTA (that's how the beam fracture was discovered, when an engineer working for New Jersey was out inspecting the work).

And I recall reading that the ropes were recently replaced too.

But I am not a bridge engineer, and this failure could have had catastrophic consequences had it not been discovered, so I will wait to hear what the real engineers have to say first (for example, I thought  that the fractured beam (once it was identified) could be simply repaired by a splice or complete replacement, and then the bridge would be ready to carry traffic - but unfortunately, things are not quite so easy).

From what I've been reading in various articles and commentary, they are bringing in very senior experts from all over the country, which are leading people to believe 1) this is way more serious than first thought 2) it is unlikely there will be a quick, easy, or inexpensive solution.   My question is - if they do have to replace the bridge (with one or two new bridges) how much would it cost and how would they pay for it?  I also think the Hudson County extension bridge between exits 14 and 14a was built with a similar style bridge, so I'm wondering if that has been inspected yet?

[02 Park Ave]

There are several aspects to a complete analysis of this failure on the Connector Bridge.

1. Why did the member fail in the way that it did?  It is almost unheard of for a beam to sever in this manner.  The usual mode of failure is bending or twisting.  (By the way, this was probably a farly recent failure as it was reported that there no signs of rust.). Once the cause is determined all other members would have to be inspected accordingly.

2. The design of the bridge would have to be analysed, with the failed member being omitted, to determine how the load it was bearing would be transferred to the other members (and their connections) and then if that overloaded any of them.  Since the original design work was performed over 60 years ago, they may have to start from scratch with this analysis.

This will all take time.

[Alps]

They've been spending a ton of money on this span. Suspender cable replacement, redecking, etc. It's repairable.

Yes, all of the structural steel was just scraped and cleaned and primered and re-painted by a contractor working for NJTA (that's how the beam fracture was discovered, when an engineer working for New Jersey was out inspecting the work).

And I recall reading that the ropes were recently replaced too.

But I am not a bridge engineer, and this failure could have had catastrophic consequences had it not been discovered, so I will wait to hear what the real engineers have to say first (for example, I thought  that the fractured beam (once it was identified) could be simply repaired by a splice or complete replacement, and then the bridge would be ready to carry traffic - but unfortunately, things are not quite so easy).

From what I've been reading in various articles and commentary, they are bringing in very senior experts from all over the country, which are leading people to believe 1) this is way more serious than first thought 2) it is unlikely there will be a quick, easy, or inexpensive solution.   My question is - if they do have to replace the bridge (with one or two new bridges) how much would it cost and how would they pay for it?  I also think the Hudson County extension bridge between exits 14 and 14a was built with a similar style bridge, so I'm wondering if that has been inspected yet?

The money will come at the expense of some other projects. Since the twin bridge wasn't anticipated until a few years later, everything else will be pushed back a bit. How much would it cost? My guess is in the single billions, but that's a guess. The Hudson County bridge has a lot more work on it all the time due to the heavy traffic and truck loads, so I wouldn't expect the same thing to happen there.

[cpzilliacus]

The money will come at the expense of some other projects. Since the twin bridge wasn't anticipated until a few years later, everything else will be pushed back a bit. How much would it cost? My guess is in the single billions, but that's a guess. The Hudson County bridge has a lot more work on it all the time due to the heavy traffic and truck loads, so I wouldn't expect the same thing to happen there.

[Bashing of Pennsylvania and Act 44/Act 89 follows]

The  Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission would have a billion or two dollars in the bank pretty quickly if the Act 44/Act 89 payments to PennDOT for transit subsidies were to cease or be delayed?

Maybe the transit projects that are supposed to be funded by PTC could be delayed until there is a sound structure carrying traffic across the Delaware River?

[vdeane]

They've been spending a ton of money on this span. Suspender cable replacement, redecking, etc. It's repairable.

Yes, all of the structural steel was just scraped and cleaned and primered and re-painted by a contractor working for NJTA (that's how the beam fracture was discovered, when an engineer working for New Jersey was out inspecting the work).

And I recall reading that the ropes were recently replaced too.

But I am not a bridge engineer, and this failure could have had catastrophic consequences had it not been discovered, so I will wait to hear what the real engineers have to say first (for example, I thought  that the fractured beam (once it was identified) could be simply repaired by a splice or complete replacement, and then the bridge would be ready to carry traffic - but unfortunately, things are not quite so easy).

From what I've been reading in various articles and commentary, they are bringing in very senior experts from all over the country, which are leading people to believe 1) this is way more serious than first thought 2) it is unlikely there will be a quick, easy, or inexpensive solution.   My question is - if they do have to replace the bridge (with one or two new bridges) how much would it cost and how would they pay for it?  I also think the Hudson County extension bridge between exits 14 and 14a was built with a similar style bridge, so I'm wondering if that has been inspected yet?

Glad I clinched that bridge when I did.  Just a couple months before it closed, too!

[74/171FAN]

Glad I clinched that bridge when I did.  Just a couple months before it closed, too!

I guess at this point I am all but saving it until the I-95 re-route.  Oh well at least if the NYC meet happens, I still have not done I-80.

[Alps]

Glad I clinched that bridge when I did.  Just a couple months before it closed, too!

So it was your fault.

[jeffandnicole]

They've been spending a ton of money on this span. Suspender cable replacement, redecking, etc. It's repairable.

Yes, all of the structural steel was just scraped and cleaned and primered and re-painted by a contractor working for NJTA (that's how the beam fracture was discovered, when an engineer working for New Jersey was out inspecting the work).

And I recall reading that the ropes were recently replaced too.

But I am not a bridge engineer, and this failure could have had catastrophic consequences had it not been discovered, so I will wait to hear what the real engineers have to say first (for example, I thought  that the fractured beam (once it was identified) could be simply repaired by a splice or complete replacement, and then the bridge would be ready to carry traffic - but unfortunately, things are not quite so easy).

From what I've been reading in various articles and commentary, they are bringing in very senior experts from all over the country, which are leading people to believe 1) this is way more serious than first thought 2) it is unlikely there will be a quick, easy, or inexpensive solution.   My question is - if they do have to replace the bridge (with one or two new bridges) how much would it cost and how would they pay for it?  I also think the Hudson County extension bridge between exits 14 and 14a was built with a similar style bridge, so I'm wondering if that has been inspected yet?

I know when the fracture first happened they brought in experts from thoughout the country. Have they brought in more, or was it that original story you had read?

[roadman65]

In fact I am waiting for that one day when a bridge collapses because a semi driver ignores a WEIGHT LIMIT 4 TONS sign.  In fact I am wondering if many truck drivers are using the same GPS the cars are using that carelessly tell motorists to use any road even if it is restricted to SunPass or EZ Pass only customers on the toll roads.  I am sure the GPS does the same too, by sending any vehicle on the direct way even if there is a weigh restriction along its path.  Considering that today's truckers are not like those of many years ago who were well informed of the national road network, it could be possible that some drivers are using that device.

Truck drivers using cheap GPS units designed for automobiles are indeed a problem (the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration even devotes a page to the problem here). 

I believe GPS units and software designed for cars but used in trucks is why there are so many tractor/semitrailer combinations illegally using the federal part of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway ("secret" MD-295), as well as the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway in D.C. (often these have a sign that reads "COMMERCIAL VEHICLES EXCLUDED" or something similar, while on intersecting state-maintained roads, the signs read "NO TRUCKS").

Of course, the various parkways in New York (city and state), usually signed at the entrances with "PASSENGER CARS ONLY" signs.

IMO all parkways that ban trucks  should  be signed with NO TRUCKS in text and graphic form at all access points.

Last time I had a WCBS-880 traffic report on, they reported a tractor/semitrailer combination had blundered onto the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut and had to be backed away from a low overpass (I had not personally heard about such an incident before, but I am certain that it happens rather frequently).

Anytime that the police catch a heavy commercial vehicle on a road where it should not be, they should make it standard procedure to confiscate the GPS unit from the driver as evidence, and tell them to ask for it back from the judge. They might suggest to the driver that they ask the boss to get them a GPS unit designed for use in a commercial vehicle.

You are right about GPS units as they should be confiscated.  I work collecting tolls and most of the problem we have is people that are not prepaired to pay the tolls ( are not with cash in their wallets, in the suitcase located in the trunk, etc) all because the GPS is not telling people that there are other options.  Of course most of the people use the GPS just like they keep upgrading their other devices like cell phones because its ego pleasing to own modern inventions and it takes the load off of thinking in a high demand society.

Of course it would have to be post incident like you said when a truck gets caught but when the infraction is as simple as a common automobile with a common issue at a toll booth, it cant be done just like enforcing speed limits which cops gave up on decades ago.  With a truck using a GPS that could severely damage a bridge or in the case you described, held up traffic so he can go in reverse to leave the area as the low overpass prevents him from going forward, efforts need to be made to have confiscation measures ensured as many now are using the devices ignorantly.  Plus in general truck drivers are careless and these days unprofessional to their trade as many stupid questions are asked by truckers to me as a toll collector on a major truck haul route in an area that has many warehouses and distributors about their orientation.

[cpzilliacus]

You are right about GPS units as they should be confiscated.  I work collecting tolls and most of the problem we have is people that are not prepaired to pay the tolls ( are not with cash in their wallets, in the suitcase located in the trunk, etc) all because the GPS is not telling people that there are other options.  Of course most of the people use the GPS just like they keep upgrading their other devices like cell phones because its ego pleasing to own modern inventions and it takes the load off of thinking in a high demand society.

In some cases, the problem is that the files used by GPS do not show a section of highway as being a toll road or toll crossing.  I ran across this (on a tiny scale) talking with the toll collector at the privately-owned Oldtown Low-Water Toll Bridge over the upper Potomac River between Oldtown, Maryland and Green Spring, W.Va. Traffic there is very light (it's a one-lane wood-deck bridge) and E-ZPass is not accepted, so we talked a while and he complained bitterly about people not knowing that this crossing of the river is tolled. I actually submitted a change to TomTom, and at least for TomTom users that have a current file in their GPS units or on their phones or tablet computers, they are now told that the route involves a toll to use that bridge.

Of course it would have to be post incident like you said when a truck gets caught but when the infraction is as simple as a common automobile with a common issue at a toll booth, it cant be done just like enforcing speed limits which cops gave up on decades ago.  With a truck using a GPS that could severely damage a bridge or in the case you described, held up traffic so he can go in reverse to leave the area as the low overpass prevents him from going forward, efforts need to be made to have confiscation measures ensured as many now are using the devices ignorantly.  Plus in general truck drivers are careless and these days unprofessional to their trade as many stupid questions are asked by truckers to me as a toll collector on a major truck haul route in an area that has many warehouses and distributors about their orientation.

Unfortunately, truck driving is not (for many drivers) the honorable work that it was some years ago (even in my lifetime).

But all law enforcement officers that deal with traffic incidents should be under general orders to always confiscate GPS units from truck drivers that blunder up to a low bridge (or, for that matter, drive on roads that forbid truck traffic or have posted weight limits).