Scariest bridge you've ever driven across

[cpzilliacus]

For whatever irrational reason, I never liked the I-95 bridge over the Susquehanna River in Maryland.  Always seemed dangerous somehow.  I never drove in the outermost lane of it due to my paranoia!

The Millard Tydings Bridge is high over the surface of the Susquehanna River, and because the river is wide and in a pretty deep (and wide) gorge, the bridge had to be high, even though there's little or no navigation (the river is not navigable much north of Port Deposit, Maryland, just north of this bridge). Because of the gorge, the bridge is subject to cross-winds (and there are signs warning of cross-winds).

[NYYPhil777]

Back when it existed, my mom told me about the old St. Charles Rock Road Bridge (Missouri Route 115). She would boast about how she crossed into St. Charles County from St. Louis County going home from work doing at least over 90 mph! It has since been replaced by MO-370, which at first was planned to be an extension of MO-115. The demolition of the old bridge led to the creation of MO-180. MO-115 is now limited to the areas of Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and Bridgeton.

My vote goes to the westbound I-64 Daniel Boone Bridge. Everytime I drive the three-lane bridge, I use the middle lane. It's set to be replaced in 2014-15.

[Some_Person]

One bridge that scared me, in a way, at first was the Alfred E. Driscoll Bridge, in New Jersey:

What scared me was how wide it was, and how many cars were on it, because I was surprised at how it could support so many. The southbound span(all the way to the left in the picture) has 7 lanes all on the same roadway, and the width combined with how high up it feels makes it a good adrenaline rush.

If it makes you feel better, its even wider now (then that picture). Widest bridge in the world by number of lanes to be exact. Southbound is 7 lanes, and norhtbound is 8 lanes in a 4+4 configuration.

Being a roadgeek, I'm well aware  It's pretty amazing how wide it is. From what I've looked into, the only other roadway thats wider than 8 lanes on a single stretch (as in, not divided into express/local or anything like that) is I-75 northwest of Atlanta, http://goo.gl/maps/OrTK4

[doorknob60]

For me, probably the Hood River Bridge between Hood River, OR and Bingen, WA. It's structurally fine as far as I know, but it's very narrow, fairly long (~4400 ft), and quite high above the Columbia, plus it's a steel grid deck. It gets quite a bit of traffic for its two lanes and no divider, so it's pretty nerve racking when there's a semi in the oncoming lane, and the edge of the bridge on the other side, it feels like there's barely any room to squeeze through. I have family in Trout Lake, WA, so we cross that bridge many times a year. It's not too bad after the first few times, but I was a little worried the first time I drove it myself (even though I'd been over it with someone else driving dozens of times)

Here's a pic so you get the general idea of it:


EDIT: Oh yeah, it can get real windy through there too

[BrianP]

The scariest bridge for me growing up was the old wooden decked Beach Creek Bridge going into North Wildwood on whats now NJ-147. We went over it twice in its final days as NJDOT had a new bridge deck on site, I think it was around 1993-94 or so. Today it has been all bypassed by a modern 4 lane divided highway.

This bridge gets my vote too.  I seem to recall that the wood planks of the deck used to move when you drove on it.  Also seem to remember the side rails being scary too.  I recall the feeling that it looked possible for a car to go through the side rail into the water.

By new bridge deck do you mean a new wooden deck or the new 4-lane bridge?

I don't recall when in the 90's it was but I recall crossing this bridge when the new 4-lane bridge and roadway was under construction.  That was an unexpected roadgeek joy. 

[SteveG1988]

7 Undivided Lanes on most philly to nj spans.

[agentsteel53]

no behemoth SUVs.  fuck yeah.

[StogieGuy7]

no behemoth SUVs.  fuck yeah.

No, but the majority of cars are about the size of the average cabin cruiser that you'd see at your local yacht club!  They handled about the same too. 

Seriously, the areal footprint of the average sedan from 1973 or so was greater than the footprint of the vast majority of today's SUVs. 

[agentsteel53]

No, but the majority of cars are about the size of the average cabin cruiser that you'd see at your local yacht club!  They handled about the same too. 

Seriously, the areal footprint of the average sedan from 1973 or so was greater than the footprint of the vast majority of today's SUVs.

I can still see through their windows at other traffic, as opposed to looking at the latest "tribute to America's growing obesity problem" monolithic tailgate.

[1995hoo]

no behemoth SUVs.  fuck yeah.

No, but the majority of cars are about the size of the average cabin cruiser that you'd see at your local yacht club!  They handled about the same too. 

....

Getting off-topic, I suppose, but the point you make is one of the reasons why I shake my head when people argue that speed limits similar to those we had in 1973 (prior to the NMSL) are too high or inherently unsafe. Compare how much better today's cars handle and stop to what was normal back then and then consider the vastly-improved safety equipment on even the cheapest of today's cars. There's really no reason, aside from politics, why as a general matter speed limits cannot or should not creep up over time as cars improve. (I say "as a general matter" because there will always be things like school zones, poorly-designed roads, or other special considerations. I'm talking about the highway system in general, though.)

[cpzilliacus]

no behemoth SUVs.  fuck yeah.

No, but the majority of cars are about the size of the average cabin cruiser that you'd see at your local yacht club!  They handled about the same too. 

....

Getting off-topic, I suppose, but the point you make is one of the reasons why I shake my head when people argue that speed limits similar to those we had in 1973 (prior to the NMSL) are too high or inherently unsafe. Compare how much better today's cars handle and stop to what was normal back then and then consider the vastly-improved safety equipment on even the cheapest of today's cars. There's really no reason, aside from politics, why as a general matter speed limits cannot or should not creep up over time as cars improve. (I say "as a general matter" because there will always be things like school zones, poorly-designed roads, or other special considerations. I'm talking about the highway system in general, though.)

Much of the Capital Beltway in Prince George's County, Maryland had a posted speed limit of 70 MPH prior to the NMSL.  And I suspect that the observed 85th percentile speed is about 70 MPH now, even though the posted limit is still 55 MPH.

[kkt]

Getting off-topic, I suppose, but the point you make is one of the reasons why I shake my head when people argue that speed limits similar to those we had in 1973 (prior to the NMSL) are too high or inherently unsafe. Compare how much better today's cars handle and stop to what was normal back then and then consider the vastly-improved safety equipment on even the cheapest of today's cars. There's really no reason, aside from politics, why as a general matter speed limits cannot or should not creep up over time as cars improve. (I say "as a general matter" because there will always be things like school zones, poorly-designed roads, or other special considerations. I'm talking about the highway system in general, though.)

There's still a substantial death rate due to car accidents.  We have chosen to use the improved safety of newer cars to bring the death rate down a bit, rather than to raise speed limits.  I see that as a good choice.

[cpzilliacus]

I don't know that  it is scary per se, but it is long (over 4 miles end-to-end) and has no shoulders.

That's the William Preston Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, a/k/a the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (U.S. 50/U.S. 301).

The height and length of the spans don't bother me, but I don't like to drive it when the MdTA is running two-way operation, as it usually does on weekday afternoons.   The original (1952) span is only two lanes, and normally carries all eastbound traffic.  The "new" (1972) span is three lanes wide, and normally carries westbound traffic. 

But on most weekday afternoons, the left lane of the westbound span becomes an eastbound lane, and I don't especially like that.  When the crossing is running in that configuration, I always bear to the right at the toll plaza (all toll collection is eastbound only), so I am on the eastbound span and don't have to deal with oncoming traffic.   

I have also driven across when the westbound span was shut-down for some reason, which means all traffic must run one lane each way on the normally eastbound span.  Not much fun either.

[SteveG1988]

no behemoth SUVs.  fuck yeah.

No, but the majority of cars are about the size of the average cabin cruiser that you'd see at your local yacht club!  They handled about the same too. 

Seriously, the areal footprint of the average sedan from 1973 or so was greater than the footprint of the vast majority of today's SUVs. 

The bridge was like that 1957-1999/2000/2001 (i don't have the exact year handy) so there were suvs on the span without division.

[bugo]

SUVs have existed for many decades.

[kphoger]

SUVs have existed for many decades.

Indeed.

[J N Winkler]

There's still a substantial death rate due to car accidents.  We have chosen to use the improved safety of newer cars to bring the death rate down a bit, rather than to raise speed limits.  I see that as a good choice.

Another reason it is a good choice is that, in most jurisdictions, post-1996 speed limits have already caught up to the actual design speeds of the roads involved.  I am not comfortable with raising the speed limit on a road beyond the title-sheet design speed because that introduces conservatism of design as a factor.  For a given design speed, a conservatively designed road will tolerate an additional increase in speed limit much more readily than a less conservatively designed one.

[silverback1065]

This one is pretty messed up;

That's a scary bridge! Looking on Google maps, it looks to be still there!

[bugo]

SUVs have existed for many decades.

Indeed.

I was thinking more along these lines:

[1995hoo]

There's still a substantial death rate due to car accidents.  We have chosen to use the improved safety of newer cars to bring the death rate down a bit, rather than to raise speed limits.  I see that as a good choice.

Another reason it is a good choice is that, in most jurisdictions, post-1996 speed limits have already caught up to the actual design speeds of the roads involved.  I am not comfortable with raising the speed limit on a road beyond the title-sheet design speed because that introduces conservatism of design as a factor.  For a given design speed, a conservatively designed road will tolerate an additional increase in speed limit much more readily than a less conservatively designed one.

I'm not necessarily convinced that it must be true that the design speed that was valid using 1940s or 1960s engineering principles is inherently still the valid design speed today given all the advances in automotive technology. But I definitely agree that it's eminently sensible for the people setting the speed limits to err on the side of caution.

[Duke87]

I'm not necessarily convinced that it must be true that the design speed that was valid using 1940s or 1960s engineering principles is inherently still the valid design speed today given all the advances in automotive technology.

Advances in automotive technology or not, the laws of physics have not changed. Nor has drivers' perception and reaction time.

[bugo]

I will gladly take the risk of injury in a collision to be able to drive faster.  On a road with little traffic, the risk is very small.  My time is worth more to me, and the less time I have to spend on the road, the more time I have to do whatever else I want to do.  That's why I take interstates and turnpikes instead of dragging ass through small towns on 2 lane highways.

[JMoses24]

The Brent Spence (I-75/71) Bridge between Cincinnati, Ohio and Covington, Kentucky. No shoulders, 3-4 lanes each way. If you break down and someone driving 65 doesn't see you, you are SCREWED. People have actually DIED getting knocked off the Brent Spence! 

[Compulov]

I will gladly take the risk of injury in a collision to be able to drive faster.  On a road with little traffic, the risk is very small.  My time is worth more to me, and the less time I have to spend on the road, the more time I have to do whatever else I want to do.  That's why I take interstates and turnpikes instead of dragging ass through small towns on 2 lane highways.

I'd rather see more variable speed limits for this reason. This way you can get the benefit of a higher speed limit when traffic is light and the benefits (?) of a lower speed limit when conditions aren't ideal. Going way off topic, though, I wonder... other than slowing down traffic entering an area of congestion (to keep them from slamming into cars which are suddenly going much slower than them), does a lower speed limit in a congested area really have a safety benefit? It seems like by lowering the speed limit, you're effectively reducing the capacity of the highway, which only serves to make the road even more congested. This is only my observation as someone who drives, not as someone who has any knowledge of the engineering work (if any) that goes into determining the speed limit for an area. Design speed doesn't always seem like it's the primary reason, though. Compare US-1 and I-95 through Bucks County, PA... both are speed limit 55, but 1 has a much lower design standard than 95 (it has sharper curves and no shoulders or even proper merge lanes in sections). Thankfully it seems like even the PA troopers agree, and enforce 95 as if it were a 65 zone.

[1995hoo]

I will gladly take the risk of injury in a collision to be able to drive faster.  On a road with little traffic, the risk is very small.  My time is worth more to me, and the less time I have to spend on the road, the more time I have to do whatever else I want to do.  That's why I take interstates and turnpikes instead of dragging ass through small towns on 2 lane highways.

I'd rather see more variable speed limits for this reason. This way you can get the benefit of a higher speed limit when traffic is light and the benefits (?) of a lower speed limit when conditions aren't ideal. Going way off topic, though, I wonder... other than slowing down traffic entering an area of congestion (to keep them from slamming into cars which are suddenly going much slower than them), does a lower speed limit in a congested area really have a safety benefit? It seems like by lowering the speed limit, you're effectively reducing the capacity of the highway, which only serves to make the road even more congested. This is only my observation as someone who drives, not as someone who has any knowledge of the engineering work (if any) that goes into determining the speed limit for an area. Design speed doesn't always seem like it's the primary reason, though. Compare US-1 and I-95 through Bucks County, PA... both are speed limit 55, but 1 has a much lower design standard than 95 (it has sharper curves and no shoulders or even proper merge lanes in sections). Thankfully it seems like even the PA troopers agree, and enforce 95 as if it were a 65 zone.

You know, I was thinking about this on Saturday on our way back from a trip out to one of the wineries. We were on I-66 and the speed limit is 70 mph for the whole portion west of US-15, then it goes to 65 mph and about three miles later the road widens from two lanes per side to four lanes per side, then four miles later the speed limit drops to 60 mph (road remains four lanes per side), then five miles later at the next interchange it drops to 55 mph (remains four lanes per side). I've always found it somewhat amusing and somewhat silly that so often when the speed limit drops due to reaching a more "congested" area, or simply a more populated area, the road also frequently widens out and becomes arguably a better road (likely with a design speed as high or higher than the rural stretch) than it was in the stretch with the higher speed limit. Virginia's rationale for the 60-mph zone on certain Interstates is that it "helps drivers transition from the higher rural speed limit to the urban 55-mph speed limit," though we all know that's a load of bullshit.

I think most drivers, when they see an eight-lane interstate with a wide, smooth surface and good visibility for a good distance that has the same 55-mph speed limit posted that prevails on the majority of two-lane roads where you pass over the center line and have a lot of blind curves and hills and such, quite understandably conclude that the posted speed limit has nothing to do with engineering or safety. Can anyone really blame most people for feeling that way?

As for variable speed limits, the problem those is that when they're coupled with roads that drivers feel are underposted anyway, they don't seem to do much good. We had a variable speed limit on the Capital Beltway near where I live for a few years during the Woodrow Wilson Bridge construction. The normal limit is 55 mph, but when traffic's flowing freely most people seem to do between about 65 and about 80 (with some people beyond either of those extremes). So when they posted lower numbers on the variable speed limit signs absolutely nobody paid any attention to them–which was probably wise, because when the speed limit was posted at 35 mph it would have been suicidal to go that slowly when everyone else was going close to 70 mph (VDOT began the lower speed limit well to the west of the area where the work was and so most drivers saw no reason to comply). The theory was that if people had obeyed the lower limits it would have worked like a funnel that clogs up or overflows if you dump in too much stuff at once but that works smoothly if you feed it at a slower pace. But nobody knows if it would have worked because everybody ignored it. I kind of think that if a variable speed limit were used in conjunction with setting a speed limit that most drivers think is reasonable, perhaps more people might take notice when the limit is reduced and conclude that there's something unusual up ahead.