So, it's about time a thread for bridges that were seriously proposed but rejected, multiple times even, got their own thread.
Let's start with the long-fabled bridges and/or tunnels across the Puget Sound from Seattle to the Kitsap Peninsula, as seen in this map from 1950:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FajgdnZi.jpg&hash=bf0a11634b3755e490969257665716355b94830b)
There's the other possible Maryland crossings of the Chesapeake Bay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Chesapeake_Bay_crossing_study
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Chesapeake_Bay_crossing_study
I don't know if any Potomac River bridge ideas really got to the serious stage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Outer_Beltway
Several alternatives were proposed for a Long Island crossing (NY - CT): http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/licrossing.html
A CT 82 bridge was proposed, possibly freeway grade, south of the existing CT river bridge. I haven't found much information on this one at all.
A new CT 17/66 bridge was also proposed, south of the Arrigoni Bridge, in Middletown/Portland.
The Hartford Bridge Commission (mid-20th Century) apparently planned for 7 Hartford-area bridges, though it eventually ended up with five (291, 84, 2, 15, 3).
A new burlington bristol bridge was planned between the 1960s and 1990, canceled after 1990. Was either going to be a Cable Stay or Box Girder span.
US9 bridge between Cape May and Delaware has been proposed over the years to replace the current ferry.
I-495 across the Long Island Sound.
I-287 across the same body of water connecting it with the Seaford- Oyster Bay Expressway.
Then I do not know if there was any fact to this proposal, but a bridge between New Haven, CT and Port Jefferson, NY that would have extended I-91 into Long Island.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 17, 2014, 09:25:09 AMThen I do not know if there was any fact to this proposal, but a bridge between New Haven, CT and Port Jefferson, NY that would have extended I-91 into Long Island.
Shoreham. Port Jeff proposal was to Bridgeport.
http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/shoreham-newhaven/
Apparently eight crossings were studied:
http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/LI-sound-2/
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 17, 2014, 09:31:02 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 17, 2014, 09:25:09 AMThen I do not know if there was any fact to this proposal, but a bridge between New Haven, CT and Port Jefferson, NY that would have extended I-91 into Long Island.
Shoreham:
http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/shoreham-newhaven/
Thanks for pointing that one out. Now that I have seen your link it brings back memories of where I saw that proposal. It obviously stuck with me from reading it once there, and the where just eluded me all these years.
Ruck a Chucky Bridge, American River, California
The "Southern Crossing" has been proposed almost since the Bay Bridge first opened. Most plans had originating from US-101 along the Cesar Chavez Street (nee Army Street) corridor, either crossing to Alameda:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4235799354/in/set-72157622139053795
or Bay Farm Island, by the Oakland Airport:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4231789143/in/set-72157622139053795
Quote from: SteveG1988 on May 17, 2014, 08:53:42 AM
A new burlington bristol bridge was planned between the 1960s and 1990, canceled after 1990. Was either going to be a Cable Stay or Box Girder span.
I-895.
Quote from: Alps on May 20, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on May 17, 2014, 08:53:42 AM
A new burlington bristol bridge was planned between the 1960s and 1990, canceled after 1990. Was either going to be a Cable Stay or Box Girder span.
I-895.
Correct.
Also: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2328.htm
The Gustav Lindenthal Hudson River bridge
One proposed bridge across the Potomac would have connected the GW Parkway with what is now the Clara Barton Parkway near Great Falls. Another, the Three Sisters Bridge, would have crossed the river at the western edge of Georgetown and would have been designated I-266.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on May 21, 2014, 06:55:30 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 20, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on May 17, 2014, 08:53:42 AM
A new burlington bristol bridge was planned between the 1960s and 1990, canceled after 1990. Was either going to be a Cable Stay or Box Girder span.
I-895.
Correct.
Also: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2328.htm
The Gustav Lindenthal Hudson River bridge
16 lanes... 155 feet. Interesting thinking back then. You could squeeze fourteen 11' lanes on there, maybe cheat an inch off each one to get a 2' median out of it. I imagine that's what it would look like today - and we'd STILL have traffic jams. (I can't imagine what it would have tied into on either side - probably just boulevards, no interchanges.)
Mississippi River between Missouri and Illinois
Seriously Considered
* Crossing at Scott City - Considered back when I-24 was seriously considered to extend into Missouri to end at I-55
* Crossing between Cahokia, IL, and St. Louis - was planned as a toll bridg, seems to have died in the late 1950's. Would have crossed I-55 between the 4500 Broadway Exit (204) and the Potomac Street interchange (206)
* St. Charles County to Calhoun County - Somewhere around the Golden Eagle Ferry; one of those projects that comes up every now and then.
Not Considered As Seriously
* Crossing at Ste Genevieve - Had been considered for accommodating both road and rail traffic.
* Crossing at Festus/Crystal City - Considered around the 1960's or 1970's
* Crossing around Cass Avenue in St. Louis City - Considered long before the current I-70 bridge was under consideration
Quote from: SteveG1988 on May 21, 2014, 06:55:30 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 20, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on May 17, 2014, 08:53:42 AM
A new burlington bristol bridge was planned between the 1960s and 1990, canceled after 1990. Was either going to be a Cable Stay or Box Girder span.
I-895.
Correct.
Also: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2328.htm (http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2328.htm)
The Gustav Lindenthal Hudson River bridge
There used to be rumors that a part of an anchorage for this was built on the Stevens campus in Hoboken. Anyone know of there's any truth to this?
Your text goes at the BOTTOM. ~s
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 22, 2014, 09:34:37 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on May 21, 2014, 06:55:30 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 20, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on May 17, 2014, 08:53:42 AM
A new burlington bristol bridge was planned between the 1960s and 1990, canceled after 1990. Was either going to be a Cable Stay or Box Girder span.
I-895.
Correct.
Also: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2328.htm (http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2328.htm)
The Gustav Lindenthal Hudson River bridge
There used to be rumors that a part of an anchorage for this was built on the Stevens campus in Hoboken. Anyone know of there's any truth to this?
The cornerstone was built somewhere else (1200 Liberty I think?), and then recently moved to Stevens.
There was a proposal to extend the Cross County Parkway across the Hudson River to New Jersey. See http://www.nycroads.com/roads/cross-county/.
How about a new Goethals Bridge? It has been proposed for decades now, but until I see work done on this structure I will consider it proposed.
I-69 Ohio River Bridge in Evansville may end up being added to list one day.
I think proposed bridges that are confirmed to be in the works should not count towards "never built" as sometimes it takes a while between approval and actual construction start or even opening. For example the I-295 bridge over Crosswicks Creek in NJ probably was planned as early as 1970, but was not actually built and opened until 1995. Or the new span for the Oakland Bay Bridge, over 20 years since it was first brought up until it was completed
Quote from: Doctor Whom on May 21, 2014, 07:42:57 PM
One proposed bridge across the Potomac would have connected the GW Parkway with what is now the Clara Barton Parkway near Great Falls. Another, the Three Sisters Bridge, would have crossed the river at the western edge of Georgetown and would have been designated I-266.
Outer Capital Beltway crossing between Montgomery County, Maryland and either Fairfax County, Va. or Loudoun County, Va.
In recent years, discussed as part of a "Techway" crossing to provide relief to the American Legion Bridge (I-495).
Quote from: SteveG1988 on May 24, 2014, 03:48:56 PM
I think proposed bridges that are confirmed to be in the works should not count towards "never built" as sometimes it takes a while between approval and actual construction start or even opening. For example the I-295 bridge over Crosswicks Creek in NJ probably was planned as early as 1970, but was not actually built and opened until 1995. Or the new span for the Oakland Bay Bridge, over 20 years since it was first brought up until it was completed
It depends really on how you look at it. Many cases a road agency has a bridge on the books, and you know that it will never get built even though the politicians are fighting to get it done. I sort of feel this way about the Goethals Bridge, that PANYNJ is not going to ever build a new bridge between NJ and NY.
The Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel was originally proposed by Robert Moses as the Brooklyn-Battery Bridge, and it would have been built that way if President Roosevelt hadn't stopped it.
A few of note in the Norfolk, VA area:
- The 1960s freeway proposals included a bridge over the Elizabeth River south of I-264 roughly at Ballentine, proposed as part of the "Metropolitan Loop" that would've encircled downtown Norfolk/downtown Portsmouth.
- A 1970s study considered a bridge or tunnel (more likely the latter) across the Elizabeth River just north of Lamberts Point, crossing over to Craney Island and connecting to Hampton Blvd near ODU.
- VDOT's 1990 Plan proposed a new crossing of the York River near Cheatham Annex east of Williamsburg. It was to have connected the southern I-64/VA 199 interchange to US 17 near Gloucester. Instead of building this bridge, VDOT chose to widen the US 17 Coleman Bridge at Yorktown to 4 lanes in 1996.
Also from Southeastern Virginia...
Permits were granted to the Eastern Virginia Bridge Company by CTB to build toll bridges over both the James River in Aug 1928 (Scotland Wharf to Jamestown Island) and the York River in March 1928 at Gloucester Point.
The Eastern Virginia Bridge Company was again granted a permit for the James River crossing again in March 1933.
The permits had 20-year recapture clauses.
The CTB Minutes don't (at least not that I could find) state why these bridges were never constructed (the York River bridge was finally built in the 1950s).
In hindsight it probably worked out for the best with the Jamestown bridge because that would've kept the state highway on the historic part of the island permanently. Instead VA 31 was rerouted to the west of Jamestown to the present ferry location between 1942-44. The causeway VA 31 used from what is now the Jamestown Informational Center parking area south across the marsh approaching Back River and the historic area is still visible on satellite photos.
Mapmikey
If they could build a link between Connecticut and Long Island, that'd be great. Nowadays, you'd have to travel west, preferably use the Whitestone, Throgs Neck, or Triboro Bridge (which are laden with heavy traffic as it is), and travel northeast-east again. It's not the bridge leads to an uninhabited place. Both places, southern Connecticut and Long Island, are very crowded places and a bridge/tunnel link between the two would reduce traffic loads and commute times. I think another option that I read about was that they might extend I-287 south-southwest and provide a link to Long Island (so that travelers going to Eastern Long Island from elsewhere wouldn't have to go through NYC).
If counting tunnels, what's the one that Chris Christie refused to have built?
I believe the Amtrak tunnel under the Hudson that is technically still proposed and moving along.
Haven't heard anything for several years about extending 16th street in Omaha Nebraska, north over the Missouri River, and then lining up with 130th street in Pottawatomie Co. and connecting with i-680 at the first interchange east of the Mormon Bridge.
The idea here is the bridge and connections would connect the Storz Expressway to I-680 (and I-29).
It would provide better access to Eppley Airfield from the north, and at last extend the North Expressway (albeit indirectly) to an interstate instead of dumping a crush of traffic into the historic downtown Florence area via 30th street.
Quote from: golden eagleIf counting tunnels, what's the one that Chris Christie refused to have built?
Was called Access to the Region's Core (or ARC). It was to have been a pair of NJTransit tunnels connecting to a new station adjacent to Penn Station, but the tracks would not have connected to anything else. In theory, it would have preserved capacity on Amtrak's existing tunnels as NJTransit trains currently using the Amtrak tunnels would have been diverted.
The project Val is referring to is something different...called the Gateway Project. It will, in effect, build two new Amtrak lines parallel to the existing lines. A later phase will shift traffic to the new tunnels so that the existing Amtrak tunnels can be rehabilitated. The end result will be 4 Amtrak tracks under the Hudson, all with through-running capability, instead of the existing 2.
On the subject of bridges...noticed I didn't mention these when the thread first started.
A 1963 Saint Paul thoroughfare plan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/5145820639/) proposed 3 new bridges across the Mississippi River that were never built:
- One would have directly connected E 34th St in Minneapolis to Summit Ave in St. Paul.
- A second bridge near downtown St. Paul would have connected to Plato Blvd on one side of the river and to Kellogg Blvd in the vicinity of the Xcel Center/Convention Center parking ramp on the downtown side.
- A third bridge was proposed near Pig's Eye that would have connected to a relocated Butler Ave in South St. Paul and to Lower Afton Rd at US 10/61 on the St. Paul side.
Not included on the 1963 map was a proposal that I've dated to the late 1960s that would have built a semi-direct river crossing connecting MN 62 to Shepard Rd in St. Paul.
The Skylink Aerial Tram between Camden NJ and Philadelphia PA. Pier built on the PA side, foundation for a pier built on the NJ Side.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-VbtJQ9Wg0aY%2FToNfl8hTcII%2FAAAAAAAAAuA%2Fvk_7H25vLwY%2Fs1600%2Ftram%252Brender%252B3.JPG&hash=b6067db307768eda0579ef97c418114f9dbf0280)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-sXbUyZxtpQs%2FToNw8w0baEI%2FAAAAAAAAAuc%2Fp1wFzb8chmU%2Fs1600%2Ftram%252Banchor%252Bnow.jpg&hash=006e66fe413e0163840407451e3264547884b27c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi230.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee237%2Fchuchubob%2FPhotoMail%2520Uploads%2F0808-2514.jpg&hash=1c19e1af1c36acde617df1a692a2e92678d94a83)
On the Camden side in aerial imagery you see the pier foundations, but nothing really got built.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/news/2004-07-21-tram-trouble_x.htm
I missed this the first time around, and since someone has revived it ....
There were several proposals to cross the Straits of Mackinac before the Mackinac Bridge was built:
QuoteIn 1920, the Michigan state highway commissioner advocated construction of a floating tunnel across the Straits. At the invitation of the state legislature, C. E. Fowler of New York City put forth a plan for a long series of causeways and bridges across the straits from Cheboygan, 17 miles (27 km) southeast of Mackinaw City, to St. Ignace, using Bois Blanc, Round, and Mackinac islands as intermediate steps.
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Bridge )
Thanks for answering the Philadelphia question! I always wondered what that concrete was for! :)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.som.com%2FFILE%2F16922%2Fruckachuckybridge_800x450_hedrichblessing_02jpg.jpg%3Fh%3D800%26amp%3Bs%3D17&hash=e71dbcb691a64a1fecd4aa6ad9aafad77282ff0f)
model of Ruck a Chucky Bridge.
I just love this one, too bad it's unbuilt.
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2016, 11:46:01 AM
Quote from: golden eagleIf counting tunnels, what's the one that Chris Christie refused to have built?
Was called Access to the Region's Core (or ARC). It was to have been a pair of NJTransit tunnels connecting to a new station adjacent to Penn Station, but the tracks would not have connected to anything else. In theory, it would have preserved capacity on Amtrak's existing tunnels as NJTransit trains currently using the Amtrak tunnels would have been diverted.
The project Val is referring to is something different...called the Gateway Project. It will, in effect, build two new Amtrak lines parallel to the existing lines. A later phase will shift traffic to the new tunnels so that the existing Amtrak tunnels can be rehabilitated. The end result will be 4 Amtrak tracks under the Hudson, all with through-running capability, instead of the existing 2.
Correct. Part of the project would include converting the adjacent post office into an expanded Penn Station and 2 more tunnels under the East River (for a total of 6), in addition to added tracks east of Newark and a high-level bridge to replace a lift span. The North River Tunnels were severely damaged by Sandy, so building a new tunnel is the only way to repair them without greatly reducing capacity. Engineering is ongoing and the project is quite active, with the feds funding half of it and much of the rest coming from the Port Authority. Construction is expected to begin in 2019 with a planned 2024 opening. I'd be shocked if it wasn't built given the amount of support for it in both states.
ARC was a NJ Transit project that would have diverted most of their services, freeing the North River Tunnels for increased Amtrak service. In all, Gateway is actually a better project that is being lumped with the high-speed rail upgrades on the NEC to reduce travel times (and thus, theoretically, congestion on I-95).
Quote from: DTComposer on May 18, 2014, 12:11:06 AM
The "Southern Crossing" has been proposed almost since the Bay Bridge first opened. Most plans had originating from US-101 along the Cesar Chavez Street (nee Army Street) corridor, either crossing to Alameda:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4235799354/in/set-72157622139053795
or Bay Farm Island, by the Oakland Airport:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4231789143/in/set-72157622139053795
That proposal has evolved. More recently it's been studied as a crossing farther south, connecting I-238 to I-380. The advantage to crossing there is that 238 and 380 provide feeder routes farther inland than 880 and 101, so 880 and 101 wouldn't get as congested with traffic to and from the bridge. The disadvantages are that it crosses the bay at its widest and most expensive point, that airplanes to and from both SFO and OAK would restrict the height of the bridge, there's still a couple of miles of housing and business subdivisions and wetlands it would have to pass through on the eastern side, and of course tremendous expense - estimated at $8 billion back in 2002 and who knows how much more now.
Quote from: kkt on January 16, 2016, 11:05:59 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on May 18, 2014, 12:11:06 AM
The "Southern Crossing" has been proposed almost since the Bay Bridge first opened. Most plans had originating from US-101 along the Cesar Chavez Street (nee Army Street) corridor, either crossing to Alameda:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4235799354/in/set-72157622139053795
or Bay Farm Island, by the Oakland Airport:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4231789143/in/set-72157622139053795
That proposal has evolved. More recently it's been studied as a crossing farther south, connecting I-238 to I-380. The advantage to crossing there is that 238 and 380 provide feeder routes farther inland than 880 and 101, so 880 and 101 wouldn't get as congested with traffic to and from the bridge. The disadvantages are that it crosses the bay at its widest and most expensive point, that airplanes to and from both SFO and OAK would restrict the height of the bridge, there's still a couple of miles of housing and business subdivisions and wetlands it would have to pass through on the eastern side, and of course tremendous expense - estimated at $8 billion back in 2002 and who knows how much more now.
What is the comparison cost between putting up this bridge vs. widening the San Mateo Bridge. In my mind, it would be most useful to widen existing bridges than to put up this new bridge.
Quote from: mrsman on January 18, 2016, 10:51:27 AM
Quote from: kkt on January 16, 2016, 11:05:59 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on May 18, 2014, 12:11:06 AM
The "Southern Crossing" has been proposed almost since the Bay Bridge first opened. Most plans had originating from US-101 along the Cesar Chavez Street (nee Army Street) corridor, either crossing to Alameda:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4235799354/in/set-72157622139053795
or Bay Farm Island, by the Oakland Airport:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4231789143/in/set-72157622139053795
That proposal has evolved. More recently it's been studied as a crossing farther south, connecting I-238 to I-380. The advantage to crossing there is that 238 and 380 provide feeder routes farther inland than 880 and 101, so 880 and 101 wouldn't get as congested with traffic to and from the bridge. The disadvantages are that it crosses the bay at its widest and most expensive point, that airplanes to and from both SFO and OAK would restrict the height of the bridge, there's still a couple of miles of housing and business subdivisions and wetlands it would have to pass through on the eastern side, and of course tremendous expense - estimated at $8 billion back in 2002 and who knows how much more now.
What is the comparison cost between putting up this bridge vs. widening the San Mateo Bridge. In my mind, it would be most useful to widen existing bridges than to put up this new bridge.
The San Mateo Bridge widening project in 2002 cost $189 million at the time. That project built a new 3-lane bridge and converted the old 4-lane, no shoulders bridge into a 3-lane bridge with shoulders. Adjusting the $189 million for today's construction costs is left as an exercise.
Quote from: kkt on January 18, 2016, 11:43:48 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 18, 2016, 10:51:27 AM
Quote from: kkt on January 16, 2016, 11:05:59 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on May 18, 2014, 12:11:06 AM
The "Southern Crossing" has been proposed almost since the Bay Bridge first opened. Most plans had originating from US-101 along the Cesar Chavez Street (nee Army Street) corridor, either crossing to Alameda:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4235799354/in/set-72157622139053795
or Bay Farm Island, by the Oakland Airport:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4231789143/in/set-72157622139053795
That proposal has evolved. More recently it's been studied as a crossing farther south, connecting I-238 to I-380. The advantage to crossing there is that 238 and 380 provide feeder routes farther inland than 880 and 101, so 880 and 101 wouldn't get as congested with traffic to and from the bridge. The disadvantages are that it crosses the bay at its widest and most expensive point, that airplanes to and from both SFO and OAK would restrict the height of the bridge, there's still a couple of miles of housing and business subdivisions and wetlands it would have to pass through on the eastern side, and of course tremendous expense - estimated at $8 billion back in 2002 and who knows how much more now.
What is the comparison cost between putting up this bridge vs. widening the San Mateo Bridge. In my mind, it would be most useful to widen existing bridges than to put up this new bridge.
The San Mateo Bridge widening project in 2002 cost $189 million at the time. That project built a new 3-lane bridge and converted the old 4-lane, no shoulders bridge into a 3-lane bridge with shoulders. Adjusting the $189 million for today's construction costs is left as an exercise.
Seems remarkably cheap in any matter.
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2016, 11:04:45 AM
Quote from: kkt on January 18, 2016, 11:43:48 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 18, 2016, 10:51:27 AM
Quote from: kkt on January 16, 2016, 11:05:59 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on May 18, 2014, 12:11:06 AM
The "Southern Crossing" has been proposed almost since the Bay Bridge first opened. Most plans had originating from US-101 along the Cesar Chavez Street (nee Army Street) corridor, either crossing to Alameda:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4235799354/in/set-72157622139053795
or Bay Farm Island, by the Oakland Airport:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4231789143/in/set-72157622139053795
That proposal has evolved. More recently it's been studied as a crossing farther south, connecting I-238 to I-380. The advantage to crossing there is that 238 and 380 provide feeder routes farther inland than 880 and 101, so 880 and 101 wouldn't get as congested with traffic to and from the bridge. The disadvantages are that it crosses the bay at its widest and most expensive point, that airplanes to and from both SFO and OAK would restrict the height of the bridge, there's still a couple of miles of housing and business subdivisions and wetlands it would have to pass through on the eastern side, and of course tremendous expense - estimated at $8 billion back in 2002 and who knows how much more now.
What is the comparison cost between putting up this bridge vs. widening the San Mateo Bridge. In my mind, it would be most useful to widen existing bridges than to put up this new bridge.
The San Mateo Bridge widening project in 2002 cost $189 million at the time. That project built a new 3-lane bridge and converted the old 4-lane, no shoulders bridge into a 3-lane bridge with shoulders. Adjusting the $189 million for today's construction costs is left as an exercise.
Seems remarkably cheap in any matter.
Yes, it does. I'm not sure that adding additional lanes would be as cheap though. There may be ROW acquisition costs if it were to be widened again.
Does anyone remember the little yellow "BACK THE BOSTON BYPASS" signs on telephone poles around Massachusetts in the 1990s?
I can't believe this proposal gained enough tenacity to lodge itself in Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Zarrilli#Boston_Bypass
In any case, proposed a lot by one man, never built.
The "New Peace Bridge," in Buffalo. It was cancelled partly due to the effects it could have on migratory birds, but I just think they couldn't come up with the money in the first place.
A long time ago I saved the articles in the Buffalo News that had the designs and proposals on them, but I don't know where they are now.
(https://paulbuckley14059.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/peace-bridge.jpg)
(https://voiceofniagara.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/new-peace-bridge-design.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldarchitecturenews.com%2Fnews_images%2F2212_1_Canada%2520Menn%2520main.jpg&hash=97d830eb4978fef8e8ab28d570e160b8412d2ddd)
Quote from: Buffaboy on February 04, 2016, 06:47:47 PM
The "New Peace Bridge," in Buffalo. It was cancelled partly due to the effects it could have on migratory birds, but I just think they couldn't come up with the money in the first place.
A long time ago I saved the articles in the Buffalo News that had the designs and proposals on them, but I don't know where they are now.
(https://paulbuckley14059.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/peace-bridge.jpg)
Very pretty!
Quote from: kkt on February 04, 2016, 07:52:02 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on February 04, 2016, 06:47:47 PM
The "New Peace Bridge," in Buffalo. It was cancelled partly due to the effects it could have on migratory birds, but I just think they couldn't come up with the money in the first place.
A long time ago I saved the articles in the Buffalo News that had the designs and proposals on them, but I don't know where they are now.
(https://paulbuckley14059.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/peace-bridge.jpg)
Very pretty!
Yes, it is a shame it wasn't constructed.
Quote from: kkt on January 16, 2016, 11:05:59 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on May 18, 2014, 12:11:06 AM
The "Southern Crossing" has been proposed almost since the Bay Bridge first opened. Most plans had originating from US-101 along the Cesar Chavez Street (nee Army Street) corridor, either crossing to Alameda:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4235799354/in/set-72157622139053795
or Bay Farm Island, by the Oakland Airport:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4231789143/in/set-72157622139053795
That proposal has evolved. More recently it's been studied as a crossing farther south, connecting I-238 to I-380. The advantage to crossing there is that 238 and 380 provide feeder routes farther inland than 880 and 101, so 880 and 101 wouldn't get as congested with traffic to and from the bridge. The disadvantages are that it crosses the bay at its widest and most expensive point, that airplanes to and from both SFO and OAK would restrict the height of the bridge, there's still a couple of miles of housing and business subdivisions and wetlands it would have to pass through on the eastern side, and of course tremendous expense - estimated at $8 billion back in 2002 and who knows how much more now.
A proposal for the second Transbay Tube (for BART) would place it roughly in the same area, crossing over to Alameda:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsf.streetsblog.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F3%2F2014%2F12%2Ftransbay-tube.jpg&hash=d037764813e8f84b66e605c6d1c081fd191931c4)
Quote from: Bruce on March 02, 2016, 03:03:48 PM
A proposal for the second Transbay Tube (for BART) would place it roughly in the same area, crossing over to Alameda:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsf.streetsblog.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F3%2F2014%2F12%2Ftransbay-tube.jpg&hash=d037764813e8f84b66e605c6d1c081fd191931c4)
When is that concept from? At some stages, they've talked about combining a road bridge with another BART tube.
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2016, 03:37:08 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 02, 2016, 03:03:48 PM
A proposal for the second Transbay Tube (for BART) would place it roughly in the same area, crossing over to Alameda:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsf.streetsblog.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F3%2F2014%2F12%2Ftransbay-tube.jpg&hash=d037764813e8f84b66e605c6d1c081fd191931c4)
When is that concept from? At some stages, they've talked about combining a road bridge with another BART tube.
December 2014 (http://sf.streetsblog.org/2014/12/01/bart-will-study-second-transbay-tube-west-side-extension/).
Hm. Sort of a surprising route. I would have thought they'd just add extra tracks from the Oakland Y to S.F. The upper deck of the Market St. subway was originally designed for BART, they could build another subway for the Muni Light Rail, say down Mission St., and then use the upper deck for BART.
They should also not make a big expansion of BART's unique rail technology. The track gauge used nowhere else except India makes every bit of track and every time they want to buy new cars cost much more. The Richmond District should get rail, but it should be light rail like the rest of S.F., and Alameda if rail service is built there.
When the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel was being proposed, Robert Moses pushed for a suspension bridge instead:
http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/brooklyn-battery/
Robert Moses once described a tunnel as "a tiled vehicular bathroom."
Quote from: roadman on March 11, 2016, 10:02:40 AM
When the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel was being proposed, Robert Moses pushed for a suspension bridge instead:
http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/brooklyn-battery/
Robert Moses once described a tunnel as "a tiled vehicular bathroom."
Yeah, this is also mentioned in
The Power Broker.
I wish they did build the Oyster Bay-Rye bridge or the other one further east that was supposed to connect to William Floyd Parkway.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on March 16, 2016, 12:50:30 PM
I wish they did build the Oyster Bay-Rye bridge or the other one further east that was supposed to connect to William Floyd Parkway.
Shhhh. Don't say that out loud. People around here will laugh at you.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on May 21, 2014, 06:55:30 PM
Also: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2328.htm
The Gustav Lindenthal Hudson River bridge
http://weirdnj.com/weird-news/hoboken-phantom-bridge/
Quote from: DTComposer on May 18, 2014, 12:11:06 AM
The "Southern Crossing" has been proposed almost since the Bay Bridge first opened. Most plans had originating from US-101 along the Cesar Chavez Street (nee Army Street) corridor, either crossing to Alameda:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4235799354/in/set-72157622139053795
or Bay Farm Island, by the Oakland Airport:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4231789143/in/set-72157622139053795
Yes, the Southern Crossing was the first that came to mind for me. I believe the proposals had it signed as CA 230, though more recent concepts had it as an extension of I-380?
On a related note, the exit from I-280N to Cesar Chavez (Army) is particularly large...
Quote from: catsynth on May 08, 2017, 09:54:40 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on May 18, 2014, 12:11:06 AM
The "Southern Crossing" has been proposed almost since the Bay Bridge first opened. Most plans had originating from US-101 along the Cesar Chavez Street (nee Army Street) corridor, either crossing to Alameda:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4235799354/in/set-72157622139053795
or Bay Farm Island, by the Oakland Airport:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4231789143/in/set-72157622139053795
Yes, the Southern Crossing was the first that came to mind for me. I believe the proposals had it signed as CA 230, though more recent concepts had it as an extension of I-380?
On a related note, the exit from I-280N to Cesar Chavez (Army) is particularly large...
CA 230 was not intended for a Southern Crossing designation; in the first and second iterations of the California Freeway & Expressway network (1959 & 1965) CA 87 was still shown as paralleling US 101 to the east along the western shores of SF Bay; it originally extended to I-480 (CA 480 after '65) just north of the Bay Bridge but was truncated back to the existing I-280 alignment when that route was relocated from its original planned N-S alignment along CA 1/19th Avenue to where it is today (which was originally CA 82 and ending at CA 87). 87 was to serve Hunters' Point and the Candlestick area before heading south on a causeway to skirt SFO to the east. 230 was originally a connector from the present I-380/US 101 interchange northeast to meet 87 north of the airport. When 87 was truncated back to San Jose, 230 took over its routing from the former junction point north to I-280. The Southern Crossing was to extend from 230 near Hunters' Point to somewhere along CA 61 near Oakland Airport. Although it was thought by some planners that I-380 would subsume the CA 230 routing as far as the Southern Crossing west end before turning east on the crossing itself, there was never -- even in the days when the crossing was being taken seriously -- any designation beyond such speculation. Given that the crossing traversed the bay at or near its widest point (and would have cost somewhere in excess of $5-10
billion, depending upon final configuration), it was always a pipedream to be revived whenever regional congestion seemed to reach a tipping point. I'm sure, despite the perennial objections of environmentalists and fiscal naysayers, that it will rear its head again from time to time as a "relief route" for the Bay and San Mateo bridges.
I'm surprised that the southern crossing might have cost as much as $10 billion. It's longer than the Bay Bridge, yes, but wouldn't have to be as high above the water; piers would be closer together and more frequent except for a short high-rise section over the channel, like the San Mateo Bridge. Also it probably would not be 10 lanes.
Baltimore's Fort McHenry Bridge became the Fort McHenry Tunnel.
Aside from the long-discussed (and ever-controversial) replacement for the I-5 twin drawbridges over the Columbia River, there have been proposals at times for a "west end" bridge across the Columbia from, most often, either the St. John's district of Portland or Sauvie Island near the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia rivers. Cost and environmental concerns have sunk these proposals regularly, although from time to time alternate proposals have been put forth for alignments as far downstream as the town of St. Helens with the idea that the farther away from Portland the less objections would be raised (so far, even that idea has proven fruitless). Since progress on a I-5 replacement for the present substandard facility at or near the present site has gotten nowhere, it's unlikely that a downstream bridge -- which would probably involve only surface/at-grade approaches, would garner much support in the near term, given regional politics and the inability to reach inter-state agreements.
If they put an I-5 bridge downstream around St. Helens, how would the right of way get south past Portland? You'd run into urbanized area around Hillsboro or Beaverton where there would be massive opposition and expense. Would be useful, though, reaching I-5 a little north of Salem and bypassing some frequent congestion.
Quote from: kkt on May 11, 2017, 06:34:30 PM
If they put an I-5 bridge downstream around St. Helens, how would the right of way get south past Portland? You'd run into urbanized area around Hillsboro or Beaverton where there would be massive opposition and expense. Would be useful, though, reaching I-5 a little north of Salem and bypassing some frequent congestion.
Actually, all the "west end" proposals I've seen just dealt with a bridge from I-5 to US 30. Any extension over the hill to the Beaverton/Hillsboro area wasn't part or parcel of such plans; the function of the bridge was as a I-5 reliever rather than the northern end of a larger-scale metro bypass concept. While I was living in Portland in the '90's several of these proposals were made with the limitations I cited; whether later versions featured more comprehensive regional plans isn't something of which I'm aware -- although at this time it's not surprising that such concepts were forwarded.
Robert Moses original bridge across the mouth of the East River that got foiled by the current Brooklyn- Battery Tunnel is worth noting. It was only amended to the tunnel because of National Defense due to the Brooklyn Navy Yard nearby and of course aesthetics as a bridge there would ruin the view of the New York Skyline.
Plus an interesting feat was made anyway, as the Brooklyn- Battery Tunnel is one of the longest underwater roadway tunnels around at over 9.000 feet its pretty impressive.