UC Engineering Prof thinks Bay Bridge should be shut down
lyon_wonder
November 9, 2009
BERKELEY, Calif. -- Caltrans has weathered no shortage controversy
since the September 8 opening of the S-curve section of the problem
plagued eastern span. But on Monday a UC Berkeley structural engineer
issued scathing criticism against the agency, calling the reopening of
the Bay Bridge “criminally negligent.”
Professor Abolhassan Astaneh said ever since the crack in the eyebar
was discovered during the Labor Day inspection, the eastern span of
the Bay Bridge has been unsafe.
“You have to shut down this bridge immediately,” said Professor
Astaneh.”There's no doubt about it.”
The S-curve controversy aside, the professor said the bigger danger is
the eyebar fix.
He said the repair means the bridge is vulnerable and that it cannot
withstand 85 mph winds or a 7.3 magnitude earthquake as required under
federal transportation guidelines.
“If Caltrans lets the public go on that bridge, they are committing a
violation of this national standard that is criminally negligent,”
insisted Astaneh.
The professor created a computer animation which he said illustrates
the possible failure of Caltrans' eyebar fix during a 7.3 earthquake.
Add to that the sharp S-curve and he said the bridge has become even
more dangerous.
“This is the most...how do I put it? The most criminally negligent
thing that any engineer can do; to put sharp curves in the middle of a
straight bridge,” said Astaneh.
During a Monday afternoon press conference, Caltrans defended its
work.
We absolutely have not lost control of the Bay Bridge,” said Caltrans
spokesman Bart Ney during a press conference. “The bridge is safe.”
There have been more than 40 crashes on the Bay Bridge in the two
months since the S-curve was installed.
Ralph Herman
(in article <odmkf5piumr600std...@4ax.com>):
> http://www.ktvu.com/news/21568061/detail.html
>
> November 9, 2009
> BERKELEY, Calif. -- Caltrans has weathered no shortage controversy
> since the September 8 opening of the S-curve section of the problem
> plagued eastern span. But on Monday a UC Berkeley structural engineer
> issued scathing criticism against the agency, calling the reopening of
> the Bay Bridge â criminally negligent.â
>
> Professor Abolhassan Astaneh said ever since the crack in the eyebar
> was discovered during the Labor Day inspection, the eastern span of
> the Bay Bridge has been unsafe.
>
> â You have to shut down this bridge immediately,â said Professor
> Astaneh.â There's no doubt about it.â
>
> The S-curve controversy aside, the professor said the bigger danger is
> the eyebar fix.
>
> He said the repair means the bridge is vulnerable and that it cannot
> withstand 85 mph winds or a 7.3 magnitude earthquake as required under
> federal transportation guidelines.
>
> â If Caltrans lets the public go on that bridge, they are committing a
> violation of this national standard that is criminally negligent,â
> insisted Astaneh.
>
> The professor created a computer animation which he said illustrates
> the possible failure of Caltrans' eyebar fix during a 7.3 earthquake.
>
> Add to that the sharp S-curve and he said the bridge has become even
> more dangerous.
>
> â This is the most...how do I put it? The most criminally negligent
> thing that any engineer can do; to put sharp curves in the middle of a
> straight bridge,â said Astaneh.
>
> During a Monday afternoon press conference, Caltrans defended its
> work.
>
> We absolutely have not lost control of the Bay Bridge,â said Caltrans
> spokesman Bart Ney during a press conference. â The bridge is safe.â
>
> There have been more than 40 crashes on the Bay Bridge in the two
> months since the S-curve was installed.
>
I am not a regular user of the Bay Bridge, but me thinks the issue of the
trucks (and some cars ) not being able to negotiate the 40 MPH S curve might
be because the road deck is not banked.
From 500 miles away, I might suggest that a supplemental warning sign panel
be placed with the curve waning signs with the text "CURVES NOT BANKED". I
would assume Caltrans is already using the "leaning truck" warning sign with
a "40" and S curve arrow.
Lets remember the old eastern span is not under construction, and I think
this gives a sense to many drivers that they are not within an active work
zone.
Any thoughts from any regular Bay Bridge users?
Brent Jonas
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:33:35 -0800, lyon_wonder wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.ktvu.com/news/21568061/detail.html
>
> > November 9, 2009
> > BERKELEY, Calif. -- Caltrans has weathered no shortage controversy
> > since the September 8 opening of the S-curve section of the problem
> > plagued eastern span. But on Monday a UC Berkeley structural engineer
> > issued scathing criticism against the agency, calling the reopening of
>
> > Professor Abolhassan Astaneh said ever since the crack in the eyebar
> > was discovered during the Labor Day inspection, the eastern span of
> > the Bay Bridge has been unsafe.
>
> > Astaneh.”There's no doubt about it.”
>
> > The S-curve controversy aside, the professor said the bigger danger is
> > the eyebar fix.
>
> > He said the repair means the bridge is vulnerable and that it cannot
> > withstand 85 mph winds or a 7.3 magnitude earthquake as required under
> > federal transportation guidelines.
>
> > violation of this national standard that is criminally negligent,”
> > insisted Astaneh.
>
> > The professor created a computer animation which he said illustrates
> > the possible failure of Caltrans' eyebar fix during a 7.3 earthquake.
>
> > Add to that the sharp S-curve and he said the bridge has become even
> > more dangerous.
>
> > thing that any engineer can do; to put sharp curves in the middle of a
>
> > During a Monday afternoon press conference, Caltrans defended its
> > work.
>
> > spokesman Bart Ney during a press conference. “The bridge is safe.”
>
> > There have been more than 40 crashes on the Bay Bridge in the two
> > months since the S-curve was installed.
>
> I am not a regular user of the Bay Bridge, but me thinks the issue of the
> trucks (and some cars ) not being able to negotiate the 40 MPH S curve might
> be because the road deck is not banked.
>
> From 500 miles away, I might suggest that a supplemental warning sign panel
> be placed with the curve waning signs with the text "CURVES NOT BANKED". I
> would assume Caltrans is already using the "leaning truck" warning sign with
> a "40" and S curve arrow.
>
> Lets remember the old eastern span is not under construction, and I think
> this gives a sense to many drivers that they are not within an active work
> zone.
>
> Any thoughts from any regular Bay Bridge users?
I drove the Bay Bridge going westbound today, and I honestly don't see
what all the fuss is about, concerning the newly installed S-curve. I
drove it at 40 MPH, the speed limit thru there, and I didn't have any
issues. Fortunately, everyone else was also driving between 38 and 45
MPH through the curve at the same time, so we all got through with no
problems at all. The CHP has said that every single accident, thus
far, has been due to speeding.
My main issue is the relative lack of signs, warning of the impending
S-curve. First-timers, or those from other parts of California (or
the US) that rarely ever drive the Bay Bridge may not be aware of the
changes. Sure, the speed limit drops to 40 MPH, about a half mile
before the curve, but there needs to be more signs, perhaps flashing
radar, even rumble strips and bot-dots installed. I think maybe they
should also install 5, huge, red overhead warning signs with flashing
yellow lights, with the first being placed at the beginning of the
bridge, and then one about 1 mile before, 3/4 a mile before, 1/2 a
mile before, and finally 1/4 a mile before, warning of such a sharp
curve up ahead.
Like I said, if one drives the speed limit, one shouldn't have a
problem negotiating the curves. I've honestly seen tighter curves on
some individual stretches of the Interstate Highway System.
-Brent
Honorable Mention
>
> - Show quoted text -
More warning signs needed...definitely! Signs are supposed to be for
unfamiliar drivers pointedly anyway. That is especially true since
inadequate warning could be a deadly surprise in slick conditions or
to an unfamiliar driver in light or unusually brisk traffic on the
bridge. As to the condition of the bridge...I think California thinks
that anything that might collapse in an earthquake should be closed
and demolished immediately, which is good planning but unrealistic.
If it can stand on its own legs while the earth is not moving
violentely, then it is sound until then. Everything standing and open
to the public cannot be to seismic code since money is limited
(especially now). Back east, we'd lose most of our structures in a
less intense earthquake event than those you've come to expect out
there. In that line of thinking, all of the Mississippi River bridges
in Memphis should be closed immediately because they are old, rickety
and will definitely collapse in a major earthquake.
In contrast, most of your modern structures out there are built to
pretty high standards (tell me if I'm wrong). I think the risks out
there must just be realized, and it is good that something is being
done and now to that bridge. I mean, think about it, earthquake
planning even in California was not a priority until 1973 or the
double-decker fiasco in SFC would never have made it off the drawing
board. That means pretty much everything out there built prior to
1973 was unsafe, yet people thought it was worth the calculated risk
to live there and utilize its infrastructure anyway. Unless you have
the BIG one, you're probably still more safe than we are here with a
much smaller freak big one. Imagine even a 6.0 striking the heart of
NYC, Miami, Memphis or Atlanta (shudder).
Josh
This is the same professor who was on the radio a few weeks ago in
Sacramento -- listening to him speak, he has a very clear agenda, and
comes off sounding pretty silly.
If there were another option (the Southern Crossing should have been
built to take the load during this rebuild), it might make sense, but
there simply isn't. The economic impact would be devastating, and
many more people will lose their lives on an 80 mile detour than on
this bridge.
Since they were the ones needlessly delaying this, the cities (and
residents) of San Francisco and Oakland should pony up any funds
needed to accelerate the opening of the new span as quickly as
possible.
Josh
Larry Sheldon
> This is the same professor who was on the radio a few weeks ago in
> Sacramento -- listening to him speak, he has a very clear agenda, and
> comes off sounding pretty silly.
As soon as I saw that he was from the University of the PRB, I knew that
reading farther was a waste of photons.
> If there were another option (the Southern Crossing should have been
> built to take the load during this rebuild), it might make sense, but
> there simply isn't. The economic impact would be devastating, and
> many more people will lose their lives on an 80 mile detour than on
> this bridge.
Seems like the Southern Crossing was an old subject when I moved to the
Bay Area in the 60's--by which time the I280 stuff had already been
stopped north of Army Street.
I wonder what the the accident rate is on that S curve thing is as
compared to, say Doyle Drive. Or the Bay bridge before the kink was
installed.
(The western approaches eastbound used to scare me sh*tless in the
afternoons.)
> Since they were the ones needlessly delaying this, the cities (and
> residents) of San Francisco and Oakland should pony up any funds
> needed to accelerate the opening of the new span as quickly as
> possible.
You are joking, right. They don't "do". They whine.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Guy Olsen
I would add the radical suggestion that warning signs and other
attention-getting devices -- and not a reduced speed limit -- should
be suffiicent. The problem is not a legal one, as much as a violation
of driver expectancies. Since the violation is unavoidable, the only
way to address it is by giving drivers ample, conspicuous notice that
something unusual is ahead.
I also think extra-high side barriers on the curved sections should be
considered in order to help prevent vehicle departures.
Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE