AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Raising the Bayonne Bridge  (Read 18253 times)

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9094
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:53 AM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #25 on: January 24, 2017, 04:31:28 PM »

Yes, the bridge won't be the same once the new roadway is solely the bridge.  Even with the iconic arch still in place, the beauty of the bridge is altered now forever.

Also the arched piers on both sides supporting the approachways was a great feature of the bridge that the new modern piers can't hold a candle to those.  Only the Outerbridge Crossing will have those as even the Goethals will never have them once the old bridge is history.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

compdude787

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 457
  • Age: 24
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Last Login: May 23, 2019, 01:21:08 PM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #26 on: January 25, 2017, 02:52:34 AM »

Hey, at least it's not being replaced with yet another cable stayed bridge. In Vancouver, BC, they replaced the 50 year old Port Mann Bridge which was a beautiful arch bridge (and the inspiration for the design of Portland's Fremont Bridge) with an extremely ugly looking cable stayed bridge (and yes, it is ugly!) in 2012, and I am still very disappointed about this. They could have just twinned the bridge, but no. They gave some justification like "well, we're going to have to replace it in fifty years, so we're saving money in the long run" even though the original arch bridge was designed to last 100 years, but frankly, I was sad to see it go. :(

So, it could be worse, guys...

Pete from Boston

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5261
  • Location: Massachusetts, and all the roads radiating out of it
  • Last Login: May 20, 2019, 12:58:41 PM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #27 on: January 25, 2017, 08:26:32 AM »

Hey, at least it's not being replaced with yet another cable stayed bridge. In Vancouver, BC, they replaced the 50 year old Port Mann Bridge which was a beautiful arch bridge (and the inspiration for the design of Portland's Fremont Bridge) with an extremely ugly looking cable stayed bridge (and yes, it is ugly!) in 2012, and I am still very disappointed about this. They could have just twinned the bridge, but no. They gave some justification like "well, we're going to have to replace it in fifty years, so we're saving money in the long run" even though the original arch bridge was designed to last 100 years, but frankly, I was sad to see it go. :(

So, it could be worse, guys...

I agree, but mostly because I come from the time before cable-stayed bridges were common in the US.  I like lots of steel.

That said, the design variety of the several very large cable-stayeds in New York is a little blah.  The Goethals, Tappan Zee, and Kosziusco are all very similar.  Yes, the same could be said of the Whitestone, Throgs Neck, and Verrazano, but I think they could have made these new three a little more distinctive.
Logged

compdude787

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 457
  • Age: 24
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Last Login: May 23, 2019, 01:21:08 PM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #28 on: January 25, 2017, 09:12:04 PM »

I may be younger than you, but I still think cable stayed bridges get a bit monotonous once you have more than 2 or three in a city. At first, yeah, they're cool and all, but eventually they get to be boring.

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9960
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: May 24, 2019, 05:41:13 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #29 on: January 25, 2017, 09:45:36 PM »

I don't get the attraction of cable stayed bridges.  They definitely don't have the graceful curves of arch bridges and suspension bridges, nor the classic charm of cantilever and truss bridges (or covered bridges).  They're just one step above a simple beam bridge.  Plus they're so overused these days that they're practically a cliche!
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

compdude787

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 457
  • Age: 24
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Last Login: May 23, 2019, 01:21:08 PM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #30 on: January 26, 2017, 02:52:50 AM »

I don't get the attraction of cable stayed bridges.  They definitely don't have the graceful curves of arch bridges and suspension bridges, nor the classic charm of cantilever and truss bridges (or covered bridges).  They're just one step above a simple beam bridge.  Plus they're so overused these days that they're practically a cliche!

Agreed 100%.

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9094
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:53 AM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #31 on: January 26, 2017, 12:42:23 PM »

I like to know why DelDOT used one on DE 1 in Sussex County, DE to replace a Bascule Span Bridge instead of your typical high rise that usually replaces an inlet crossing.

I know in Brunswick, GA they redid the Sidney Lanier Bridge that was a vertical lift span with the current cable stayed crossing because the Port Authority wanted big ships that would not pass beneath a regular high rise.  However, this channel along Delaware's coast is not a major port for commerce and mainly for pleasure boats.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9785
  • Age: 44
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 02:16:03 PM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #32 on: January 26, 2017, 01:19:36 PM »

I like to know why DelDOT used one on DE 1 in Sussex County, DE to replace a Bascule Span Bridge instead of your typical high rise that usually replaces an inlet crossing.

I know in Brunswick, GA they redid the Sidney Lanier Bridge that was a vertical lift span with the current cable stayed crossing because the Port Authority wanted big ships that would not pass beneath a regular high rise.  However, this channel along Delaware's coast is not a major port for commerce and mainly for pleasure boats.

Using Wikipedia, for what that's worth, it sounds like a history of scouring has undone many bridges there.  Thru just 80 years, 5 bridges have been built on this site; with the other 4 either collapsing or in danger of collapsing.  Almost sounds like a long history of bad engineering. 

The current bridge was built, it appears, to withstand changes in the ocean and inlet currents for decades to come.  It certainly does seem overbuilt for what it needs to cross though!
Logged

NJRoadfan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1339
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: May 24, 2019, 09:21:53 PM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #33 on: January 26, 2017, 04:28:19 PM »

They specifically didn't want piers in the canal as they posed a navigation hazard.
Logged

davewiecking

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 457
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Bethesda, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 07:21:35 AM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #34 on: January 26, 2017, 05:12:06 PM »

I like to know why DelDOT used one on DE 1 in Sussex County, DE to replace a Bascule Span Bridge instead of your typical high rise that usually replaces an inlet crossing.

Using Wikipedia, for what that's worth, it sounds like a history of scouring has undone many bridges there.  Thru just 80 years, 5 bridges have been built on this site; with the other 4 either collapsing or in danger of collapsing.  Almost sounds like a long history of bad engineering. 

The current bridge was built, it appears, to withstand changes in the ocean and inlet currents for decades to come.  It certainly does seem overbuilt for what it needs to cross though!

Scouring was indeed a big problem with at least the 1965 Indian River bridge-it underwent frequent underwater checks in its last years after one inspection revealed that the narrow channel was about 90' deep and there wasn't really much holding up the bridge. Large boulders were routinely dumped into the channel. (Fun fact: highest point in Sussex Co is only about 75'.) I'm too lazy to see if Wikipedia covers it adequately, but the first attempt at building the newest bridge was halted after it was noticed that all the fill (and the ground it was sitting on, namely wet sand) had sunk several feet. Supposedly the tidal flow would be enough to generate serious electricity, if anybody could figure out how to keep the turbines from washing away.

Back to Bayonne...
Logged

ixnay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 807
  • Location: U.S. East Coast
  • Last Login: May 24, 2019, 08:09:47 PM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #35 on: January 26, 2017, 07:55:02 PM »

I like to know why DelDOT used one on DE 1 in Sussex County, DE to replace a Bascule Span Bridge instead of your typical high rise that usually replaces an inlet crossing.

Using Wikipedia, for what that's worth, it sounds like a history of scouring has undone many bridges there.  Thru just 80 years, 5 bridges have been built on this site; with the other 4 either collapsing or in danger of collapsing.  Almost sounds like a long history of bad engineering. 

The current bridge was built, it appears, to withstand changes in the ocean and inlet currents for decades to come.  It certainly does seem overbuilt for what it needs to cross though!

Scouring was indeed a big problem with at least the 1965 Indian River bridge-it underwent frequent underwater checks in its last years after one inspection revealed that the narrow channel was about 90' deep and there wasn't really much holding up the bridge. Large boulders were routinely dumped into the channel. (Fun fact: highest point in Sussex Co is only about 75'.) I'm too lazy to see if Wikipedia covers it adequately, but the first attempt at building the newest bridge was halted after it was noticed that all the fill (and the ground it was sitting on, namely wet sand) had sunk several feet. Supposedly the tidal flow would be enough to generate serious electricity, if anybody could figure out how to keep the turbines from washing away.

The pre-1965 Indian River bridge was indeed a bascule bridge that was undermined in the March 1962 nor'easter and closed well into that summer.

Although he was just an R&D tech, my late stepdad would probably say about the current bridge, "That bridge was 200% overdesigned!"

ixnay
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9094
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:53 AM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #36 on: January 27, 2017, 11:56:12 AM »

Yeah they could have came up with another design for sure.

Lets try to move this over to the Delaware thread, as we derailed.  And I mean "We" meaning yours truly included.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

ixnay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 807
  • Location: U.S. East Coast
  • Last Login: May 24, 2019, 08:09:47 PM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #37 on: January 27, 2017, 08:52:19 PM »

Yeah they could have came up with another design for sure.

Lets try to move this over to the Delaware thread, as we derailed.  And I mean "We" meaning yours truly included.

I just did my part to this end by copying and pasting my previous post and the quotes therein to said DE thread.  See you over there!

ixnay
Logged

SteveG1988

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2437
  • Age: 30
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: May 23, 2019, 11:54:24 PM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #38 on: April 02, 2017, 04:24:13 PM »

Update to the Project.

Upper deck is now the only deck, lower deck removal being done, and is now Cashless.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2017/02/bayonne_bridge_opens_to_drivers_but_construction_f.html

Logged

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5189
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Queens, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 01:09:12 AM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #39 on: April 02, 2017, 10:06:35 PM »

I don't get the attraction of cable stayed bridges.  They definitely don't have the graceful curves of arch bridges and suspension bridges, nor the classic charm of cantilever and truss bridges (or covered bridges).  They're just one step above a simple beam bridge.  Plus they're so overused these days that they're practically a cliche!

Cable stayed bridges can, with modern construction techniques, be built faster than suspension bridges. Because of this, and because they use less material (they don't need anchorages), they are also less expensive. So the attraction of them is that they're cost effective. It doesn't really make economic sense to build a suspension bridge unless you need to span a fairly wide distance (>3,000 feet or so) in one go - the reason for this being that a suspension bridge can span the same distance with shorter towers than a cable stayed bridge can, so there comes a point where the cost saved by building shorter towers exceeds the extra cost of anchorages.

It's unfortunate since I, like you, prefer suspension bridges aesthetically. But practical considerations have made them outmoded in most circumstances. We will therefore continue seeing more cable stayed bridges until changing circumstances make a different (possibly newer) design cheaper.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

ixnay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 807
  • Location: U.S. East Coast
  • Last Login: May 24, 2019, 08:09:47 PM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #40 on: April 03, 2017, 07:23:30 AM »

Watching SteveG's video, the view reminds me of the few times I've crossed the Reedy Point Bridge on DE 9.

When the other two lanes reopen, it'll look from the dashboard like a mishmash of the Reedy Point and Summit (DE 896) Bridges.  Both of those bridges cross the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal.

ixnay
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10222
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: May 15, 2019, 09:41:46 PM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #41 on: April 05, 2017, 02:06:18 AM »

I don't get the attraction of cable stayed bridges.  They definitely don't have the graceful curves of arch bridges and suspension bridges, nor the classic charm of cantilever and truss bridges (or covered bridges).  They're just one step above a simple beam bridge.  Plus they're so overused these days that they're practically a cliche!

Cable stayed bridges can, with modern construction techniques, be built faster than suspension bridges. Because of this, and because they use less material (they don't need anchorages), they are also less expensive.

Also, if four stay cable towers are used (instead of two), the resulting bridge is stiff enough to carry railroad tracks if desired.  Suspension bridges do not generally carry railroads because by their nature, they are rather flexible.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

MrDisco99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 221
  • Last Login: April 18, 2017, 09:42:38 AM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #42 on: April 05, 2017, 01:29:02 PM »

Also, if four stay cable towers are used (instead of two), the resulting bridge is stiff enough to carry railroad tracks if desired.  Suspension bridges do not generally carry railroads because by their nature, they are rather flexible.

The Manhattan, Williamsburg, and Ben Franklin bridges would beg to differ.  Other countries have even bigger bridges that carry tracks like the Tsing Ma Bridge in Hong Kong and the ěresund Bridge between Denmark and Sweden
Logged

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5189
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Queens, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 01:09:12 AM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #43 on: April 05, 2017, 08:15:49 PM »

Also, if four stay cable towers are used (instead of two), the resulting bridge is stiff enough to carry railroad tracks if desired.  Suspension bridges do not generally carry railroads because by their nature, they are rather flexible.

The Manhattan, Williamsburg, and Ben Franklin bridges would beg to differ.  Other countries have even bigger bridges that carry tracks like the Tsing Ma Bridge in Hong Kong and the ěresund Bridge between Denmark and Sweden

Not without problems, though. The Manhattan Bridge flexes visibly when trains cross it:

It's perfectly safe, but all that flexing accelerates the aging of the bridge and makes it more expensive to maintain. Each pair of tracks on that bridge was closed for several years back in the 90s for repair/retrofitting work to try and address this. And because for the first five decades of the bridge's history it had trains going over its north side far more often than its south side, it to this day has a slight permanent northward lean.

So yes, you can run trains across a suspension bridge, but it is generally not a desirable design for railroad bridges because of how flexible it is. Suspension bridges are great for evenly distributed loads. Concentrated loans make them do what you see in the video above.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

SteveG1988

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2437
  • Age: 30
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: May 23, 2019, 11:54:24 PM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #44 on: April 09, 2017, 06:30:06 PM »

Also, if four stay cable towers are used (instead of two), the resulting bridge is stiff enough to carry railroad tracks if desired.  Suspension bridges do not generally carry railroads because by their nature, they are rather flexible.

The Manhattan, Williamsburg, and Ben Franklin bridges would beg to differ.  Other countries have even bigger bridges that carry tracks like the Tsing Ma Bridge in Hong Kong and the ěresund Bridge between Denmark and Sweden

Not without problems, though. The Manhattan Bridge flexes visibly when trains cross it:

It's perfectly safe, but all that flexing accelerates the aging of the bridge and makes it more expensive to maintain. Each pair of tracks on that bridge was closed for several years back in the 90s for repair/retrofitting work to try and address this. And because for the first five decades of the bridge's history it had trains going over its north side far more often than its south side, it to this day has a slight permanent northward lean.

So yes, you can run trains across a suspension bridge, but it is generally not a desirable design for railroad bridges because of how flexible it is. Suspension bridges are great for evenly distributed loads. Concentrated loans make them do what you see in the video above.

I wonder how much the ben franklin bridge flexes
Logged

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9785
  • Age: 44
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 02:16:03 PM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #45 on: April 09, 2017, 10:02:05 PM »

I can't recall ever seeing it flex watching a train go by.
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12374
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: May 24, 2019, 01:40:33 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #46 on: April 09, 2017, 11:21:38 PM »

I can't recall ever seeing it flex watching a train go by.
Oh, it does. I was watching it when we had an office in the building just to the south and you could definitely notice the train passing. I'd have to see a similar video to compare, though. But seeing a suspension bridge flex within its design tolerance doesn't squick me out. What do I know, I'm just a civil engineer.

davewiecking

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 457
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Bethesda, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 07:21:35 AM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #47 on: April 09, 2017, 11:48:21 PM »

But seeing a suspension bridge flex within its design tolerance doesn't squick me out. What do I know, I'm just a civil engineer.
"Squick"? A civil engineering term?

Wikipedia article on the Manhattan Bridge is an interesting read about the effects of a series of train tracks on the structure, and what eventually happens if politicians overrule engineers' concerns about the need for repairs. Apparently loading the bridge such that one side dropped to 3 feet lower than the other side severely damaged the structure.

And now back to Bayonne...
Logged

1

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6774
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 02:59:59 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #48 on: April 10, 2017, 05:19:54 AM »

But seeing a suspension bridge flex within its design tolerance doesn't squick me out. What do I know, I'm just a civil engineer.
"Squick"? A civil engineering term?
No, it's just a word that's rarely used unless you read TV Tropes, in which case it's used all the time.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus:
US ⒉⒔50
MA ⒐22.40.99.10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚127.141.159
NH 27,111A; NY 366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT 32

Flickr

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9785
  • Age: 44
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 02:16:03 PM
Re: Raising the Bayonne Bridge
« Reply #49 on: April 10, 2017, 06:19:07 AM »

I can't recall ever seeing it flex watching a train go by.
Oh, it does. I was watching it when we had an office in the building just to the south and you could definitely notice the train passing. I'd have to see a similar video to compare, though. But seeing a suspension bridge flex within its design tolerance doesn't squick me out. What do I know, I'm just a civil engineer.

I'm thinking of when I would go to the Camden Riversharks games and watching the train go by...and the traffic (and occasionally, I'd watch the game).  I'm trying to recall any movement on the bridge, which I never recall seeing.

Taking a walk on the Walt Whitman one time when we were stuck in traffic due to an accident, that one I felt shake as the opposing traffic flew by.  There was no mistaking that movement.  But to the naked eye, I couldn't see the bridge itself move.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.