Bay Bridge question
spamtrap1888
service, I was wondering if it would have been physically possible to
use one deck for traffic, reserving it for westbounds in the morning
and eastbounds in the afternoon. I'm not asking if it would have been
a smart move considering the actual failure Caltrans was trying to
solve, just if it was physically possible.
Keith Keller
You mean, could the bridge carry cars? Dunno.
You mean, would traffic patterns be completely messed up as a result?
Probably. Consider westbound traffic on the lower deck: where would
that traffic exit the span? They would need to take either the First
St. or Esses St. on-ramps, and either the city or CHP would need someone
at the intersection(s) to direct traffic, since there are no traffic
lights facing the traffic that would be coming off of the on-ramp. I
think this would cause huge traffic backups on the bridge. Is that
better than no traffic at all? I don't know. I take BART every day, so
I have no interest in the bridge opening again. :)
All this is moot now, since the bridge is back open. But food for
thought if something else goes wrong.
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Don Freeman
> I take BART every day, so
> I have no interest in the bridge opening again. :)
I take BART every day too and I DO have an interest in the Bridge
opening again. I want to be able to sit down again.
>
> All this is moot now, since the bridge is back open. But food for
> thought if something else goes wrong.
Anyone taking bets as to how long it stays open this time?
--
-Don
David Nebenzahl
This question came up a lot in the comments on the articles on the
bridge repair on the SF Gate (SF Chronicle) site. Although there were no
definitive answers that I read, it seems to me that apart from the
logistical problems getting bidirectional traffic onto and off of the
bridge, another problem would have been that Caltrans would presumably
have wanted to be able to control the loading of the bridge during
certain repair phases (especially testing, where they applied stresses
to the repaired parts). Having large volumes of traffic on the lower
deck might have messed that up.
Another question that came up frequently was: given the failure of the
earlier repair, and the length of time this one was taking, why didn't
Caltrans just replace the entire eyebolt, instead of patching it? While
it turns out that this would have taken a lot more time (and cost more),
lots of people suggested that this might have been a better way to go.
Not being an engineer myself, I can't say for sure. But I wonder.
--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?
- harvested from Usenet
Peter Lawrence
Maybe the prudent solution would be now, that new patch has been installed
and the traffic again is flowing, to order the replacement of the entire
eyebolt and have it ready to replace the defective one once the bridge is
again shut down for its next *scheduled* downtime (I presume next year's
Memorial Day or Labor Day weekend).
Of course they will probably just roll the dice and cross their fingers that
the new patch will hold up until the new bridge goes in service.
- Peter
Keith Keller
>
> Maybe the prudent solution would be now, that new patch has been installed
> and the traffic again is flowing, to order the replacement of the entire
> eyebolt and have it ready to replace the defective one once the bridge is
> again shut down for its next *scheduled* downtime (I presume next year's
> Memorial Day or Labor Day weekend).
As far as I know no such closure is currently planned. These planned
closures have not typically been announced till 6-9 months or so
beforehand, though that may be partly to avoid confusion as to which
holiday weekend the bridge will be closed, this one or the next.
I also do not believe the bridge has had a scheduled closure over
Memorial Day weekend. All the recent closures have been over Labor Day.
AFAIK there have been three: the most recent one, and IIRC one in 2006
and another in 2007. All of these closures have been related to the new
span construction in one way or another, and I believe the next closure
needed is to actually move traffic to the new span (please don't quote
me on that). If true, then replacing the eyebar then would be pretty
pointless.
Something I'd love to see, though I doubt it'll happen, is for the
bridge to be closed regularly, either yearly or biannually. Those
weekends are great for driving around San Francisco without all the
traffic from East Bay clogging the local streets. :)
David Nebenzahl
> Something I'd love to see, though I doubt it'll happen, is for the
> bridge to be closed regularly, either yearly or biannually. Those
> weekends are great for driving around San Francisco without all the
> traffic from East Bay clogging the local streets. :)
While you're fantasizing, how about letting bicyclists ride over the
closed bridge during this no-car fest? I'd love to do that myself.
David Kaye
>Of course they will probably just roll the dice and cross their fingers that
>the new patch will hold up until the new bridge goes in service.
Well, yeah, that's exactly it. The new bridge is just a couple years away and
fingers crossed, there shouldn't be any further mishaps.
What's most distrubing is that they didn't see the corroded, broken eye-bars
until the bridge was shut down for the S-curve diversion. I'd always thought
that there were regular inspections of the Bay Bridge. Are they telling us
that they don't inspect it at all and just wait until something bad happens or
is about to happen? This does not give me any confidence in Caltrans.
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
David Nebenzahl
> Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course they will probably just roll the dice and cross their
>> fingers that the new patch will hold up until the new bridge goes
>> in service.
>
> Well, yeah, that's exactly it. The new bridge is just a couple years away and
> fingers crossed, there shouldn't be any further mishaps.
According to the teevee news this evening, Caltrans is planning on doing
a more extensive repair job on the repair job sometime in the near
future, with a planned shutdown of the bridge.
larry_scholnick
I'd have rather seen it split, with some lanes eastbound and some
lanes westbound. This would be similar to the configuration on the
Golden Gate Bridge where the 6 lanes are allocated 2 NB/4 SB, 3/3, or
4/2, depending on the time of day.
Keith Keller
>
> I'd have rather seen it split, with some lanes eastbound and some
> lanes westbound. This would be similar to the configuration on the
> Golden Gate Bridge where the 6 lanes are allocated 2 NB/4 SB, 3/3, or
> 4/2, depending on the time of day.
I think this would be even less feasible than opening the lower deck for
one-way westbound traffic in the morning and eastbound in the evening.
Caltrans would need to do a major reconfiguration in San Francisco
to support either option. (I'm guessing that the Oakland side would be
a relatively straightforward reconfiguration, but that's just a guess.)
David Kaye
>I'd have rather seen it split, with some lanes eastbound and some
>lanes westbound. This would be similar to the configuration on the
>Golden Gate Bridge where the 6 lanes are allocated 2 NB/4 SB, 3/3, or
>4/2, depending on the time of day.
Given the fact that there was concern about the stress of trucks on the bridge
and the wind and whatnot, I'd say that they probably didn't want to take the
chance of having any traffic on the lower deck, either. The whole bridge is
supported by the cantilever span, not just the upper deck!
Hatunen
<kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
>On 2009-11-05, larry_scholnick <larry_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'd have rather seen it split, with some lanes eastbound and some
>> lanes westbound. This would be similar to the configuration on the
>> Golden Gate Bridge where the 6 lanes are allocated 2 NB/4 SB, 3/3, or
>> 4/2, depending on the time of day.
>
>I think this would be even less feasible than opening the lower deck for
>one-way westbound traffic in the morning and eastbound in the evening.
>Caltrans would need to do a major reconfiguration in San Francisco
>to support either option. (I'm guessing that the Oakland side would be
>a relatively straightforward reconfiguration, but that's just a guess.)
It's all a bit ironic since the Bay Bridge once carried two-way
traffic on both decks.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Patrick Scheible
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:54:59 -0800, Keith Keller
> <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
>
> >On 2009-11-05, larry_scholnick <larry_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd have rather seen it split, with some lanes eastbound and some
> >> lanes westbound. This would be similar to the configuration on the
> >> Golden Gate Bridge where the 6 lanes are allocated 2 NB/4 SB, 3/3, or
> >> 4/2, depending on the time of day.
> >
> >I think this would be even less feasible than opening the lower deck for
> >one-way westbound traffic in the morning and eastbound in the evening.
> >Caltrans would need to do a major reconfiguration in San Francisco
> >to support either option. (I'm guessing that the Oakland side would be
> >a relatively straightforward reconfiguration, but that's just a guess.)
>
> It's all a bit ironic since the Bay Bridge once carried two-way
> traffic on both decks.
A long time ago, and they had lots of head-ons on the lower deck
suicide lane.
-- Patrick
Hatunen
wrote:
Really? How long was it rom the removal of the Key System tracks
from the middle of the lower deck until making the lower deck
one-way? I think the Key System tracks were there until about
1960.
Patrick Scheible
> On 05 Nov 2009 16:12:05 -0800, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> writes:
> >
> >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:54:59 -0800, Keith Keller
> >> <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 2009-11-05, larry_scholnick <larry_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd have rather seen it split, with some lanes eastbound and some
> >> >> lanes westbound. This would be similar to the configuration on the
> >> >> Golden Gate Bridge where the 6 lanes are allocated 2 NB/4 SB, 3/3, or
> >> >> 4/2, depending on the time of day.
> >> >
> >> >I think this would be even less feasible than opening the lower deck for
> >> >one-way westbound traffic in the morning and eastbound in the evening.
> >> >Caltrans would need to do a major reconfiguration in San Francisco
> >> >to support either option. (I'm guessing that the Oakland side would be
> >> >a relatively straightforward reconfiguration, but that's just a guess.)
> >>
> >> It's all a bit ironic since the Bay Bridge once carried two-way
> >> traffic on both decks.
> >
> >A long time ago, and they had lots of head-ons on the lower deck
> >suicide lane.
>
> Really? How long was it rom the removal of the Key System tracks
> from the middle of the lower deck until making the lower deck
> one-way? I think the Key System tracks were there until about
> 1960.
As far as I know, making each deck one-way immediately followed
removal of the Key System tracks. When the Key tracks were on part of
the lower deck, the other part of the lower deck was for trucks and
busses, one lane each way with a reversable "suicide" lane in the
middle.
-- Patrick
Hatunen
wrote:
Now I'm lost. My understanding is that the Key tracks were the
middle lane of the lower deck and that they had some sort of
curbing to prevent driving there, so how could it be an
automobile suicide lane?
Oh. Never mind. I found a 1955 photo of the tracks in the bridge,
and the tracks were to one side:
but I'm only seing two auto traffic lanes.
Ah.... never mind again. I found another photo showing three
traffic lanes:
and one that actually includes traffic...
cool....
David Kaye
>Oh. Never mind. I found a 1955 photo of the tracks in the bridge,
>and the tracks were to one side:
Thanks for a really good link! I'm too young to remember the Key System
trains, though I do remember the last few months of Key buses. Fascinating
photos.
Keith Keller
>
> Oh. Never mind. I found a 1955 photo of the tracks in the bridge,
> and the tracks were to one side:
>
> http://www.keyrailpix.org/gallery2/d/599-2/Key179_Bridge.jpg?g2_GALLERYSID=026b45b9706f684996864175ecef2473
>
> but I'm only seing two auto traffic lanes.
>
> Ah.... never mind again. I found another photo showing three
> traffic lanes:
>
> http://www.keyrailpix.org/gallery2/d/21494-2/OnBridge.jpg?g2_GALLERYSID=72f899dc6861c70f555b6b7e82d2719a
>
> and one that actually includes traffic...
>
> http://www.keyrailpix.org/gallery2/d/21497-2/sfobb.jpg?g2_GALLERYSID=d3f7c885094ec5ef7f9a599a9e7aab25
>
> cool....
Those are indeed great picutres; thanks for digging them up.
cph
> Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
> >Oh. Never mind. I found a 1955 photo of the tracks in the bridge,
> >and the tracks were to one side:
>
> Thanks for a really good link! I'm too young to remember the Key System
> trains, though I do remember the last few months of Key buses. Fascinating
> photos.
>
I remember studying California History in 4th Grade (this was 1975 or
so). I remember the
textbook saying that the Bay Bridge had trains on it. Must have been
one old book....
David Nebenzahl
Intersting photos, and they do show the tracks to one side. But I could
swear that I've seen pictures of trains parading down the center of the
lower deck; were they always on the side?
Patrick Scheible
Nice pictures, I hadn't seen those before. I just saw a
cross-sectional diagram.
-- Patrick