I found this powerpoint presentation that has examples of the ways to improve the 80 year old lift span, and some of them make sense, the others do not.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg13.imageshack.us%2Fimg13%2F1593%2Fpicture1rt.jpg&hash=63ae0351ff19a284a8e02b66b399071654019685)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg641.imageshack.us%2Fimg641%2F8093%2Fpicture2bc.jpg&hash=e246fc9df50ac105d6346b7114ac5677d8d1cb48)
Current conditions, 2 10 foot lanes, with a 4 foot 6 sidewalk that is not open
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg217.imageshack.us%2Fimg217%2F3091%2Fpicture3cm.jpg&hash=820d39cd8e87363c2bed9b94440ad9ef9228d5d1)
Proposal 1, remove the sidewalk giving two 12 foot lanes.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg43.imageshack.us%2Fimg43%2F4954%2Fpicture4gh.jpg&hash=d7a3407140853eda923ce1c38049ab2c666bbb5f)
Proposal 2 was to remove the sidewalk and install a concrete barrier, giving two 10'7 travel lanes, with a jersey barrier in the middle.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg194.imageshack.us%2Fimg194%2F3730%2Fpicture5cg.png&hash=d539010a271f83e3db4174653c62b7b0465c9758)
Proposal 3 is not very doable due to the span being a movable bridge, it would require redoing of the counterweights as well as new approaches for the outer lanes. also it would have 10 foot inner lanes with a barrier, and 10'6 outer lanes.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg808.imageshack.us%2Fimg808%2F1567%2Fpicture6ml.png&hash=dfeb5e828dcdc707bd88ef68a33ccd62725fca96)
Proposal 4 was someone thinking outside of the box imho, double decker bridge with 11'5 lower and 12 foot upper lanes.
Proposal 5 was a very simple proposal, not really needing a picture but it was to reuse the piers and pretty much make a new bridge that was four lanes wide instead of two. Problem is that it would close the bridge to all traffic and cost the bridge comission money in uncollected tolls
i think option 1 is the best one for the span, giving the widest lanes for the lowest cost, requiring the least modification to the span.
With the current traffic counts, proposal 1 will probably be the one that ends up getting funded; however, from the nerd side, proposals 3 and 4 get my juices going (someone must have been checking out the Huey P. Long widening when they did proposal 3).
Leave it as is, unless you'd prefer pedestrians walking in the traffic lane.
Also, a link to the Powerpoint presentation would be nice.
I forgot to link the presentation,
www.pages.drexel.edu/~mitcheje/Mitchell_Courses/SenDes/SD_AY07/Resources/StudentWork/FallPpt/25.ppt
That will immediately download it. Some interesting ideas from students there.
They're on crack if they think a median barrier is over 30" wide. I've never specced one out wider than 24 inches. Also, half-barriers are 18", not 20+ inches. Where the hell did these dimensions come from? I really like proposal 4 if it's feasible. However, keep in mind the approaches can't really accommodate enough traffic to warrant a 3-4 lane bridge as it currently stands. The BEST solution is to complete I-895. Short of that, may as well use Alternative 1. If you want to get pedestrians across, how about having THEM on the upper level on a suspended walkway? Requires no structural modifications, nice and cheap.
The bridge as it stands does not allow any pedestrians on it.
Why not?
More egregiously, it doesn't allow bikes, despite connecting to surface roads on both ends.
Safety, it is a unisolated sidewalk, that means that if someone were to fall on the approach they could slip into traffic. also it is a hefty walk on the PA side to the town. at least a mile.