|
|
| Re: The Manhattan Bridge (812580) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
|
| (814102) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jul 28 13:31:47 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Q4 on Tue Jul 28 13:27:46 2009. IIRC, it was "stiffened" with additional steel wire supports. I actually agree with Moses on this, if it had collapsed, it would be on HIS head and the bridge soon carried far more traffic than initially it was designed for. |
|
|
| (814104) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Tue Jul 28 13:32:29 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Q4 on Tue Jul 28 13:27:46 2009. Well, in this particular case, Moses was actually right. I can and do despise him for killing off the Second System IND and tearing the heart out of Tremont.But once the BWB (which didn't hurt public transit much, if at all) was built, it'd have been silly and a waste to have it stand essentially idle. If a retrofit was necessary to inspire public confidence, then it was, by definition, necessary. |
|
|
| (814110) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 13:39:49 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 13:26:35 2009. Which is ok. It was just my opinion. Doesn't make it a fact. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (814111) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 13:41:26 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jul 28 10:30:49 2009. My mistake. It looks like you do understand then. |
|
|
| (814112) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 13:42:21 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 28 11:21:19 2009. Yes, of course. But some people in here are claiming that any and all of the flex seen in the video is bad. |
|
|
| (814115) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 13:44:47 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 28 11:22:09 2009. No, it still might not be a great idea, for a ton of reasons. |
|
|
| (814116) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 13:45:23 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 13:39:49 2009. Never said anything was a fact. |
|
|
| (814119) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 13:54:39 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 13:45:23 2009. Ok |
|
|
| (814123) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Tue Jul 28 13:56:43 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by MainR3664 on Tue Jul 28 13:32:29 2009. I heard, one day there was heavy traffic, and people felt the bridge moving, so they got out of their cars and ran for to land LOL.Wait, I just found where I read the info : nycroads.com: Whitestone Bridge Page The stiffening trusses provided an additional level of stability, albeit at a price of aesthetics. Nevertheless, the deck of the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge tended to sway more than most suspension bridges. On November 12, 1968, the bridge swayed vertically by as much as ten inches during a Nor'easter in which winds gusted as much as 70 miles per hour. The incident closed the span for five hours during the morning rush. Even today, if you're on that bridge in heavy traffic, you can feel the bridge moving, especially when trucks are going by on the other side. |
|
|
| (814125) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Tue Jul 28 13:58:32 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jul 25 23:06:52 2009. It already did -- to the Queensboro in 1978, due to the Rheingold Marathon. "the Queensboro Bridge had collapsed under the weight of 10,000 runners in the “Rheingold Marathon.” The organizer of the race, Fred Lebow, said it was not his fault, but that of the runners. “I’ve never seen so many fat people in my life,” said the story’s Mr. Lebow. “You will remember that 5,026 runners in the field held graduate degrees. You sit around at a college for all those years, drinking beer and eating fruit pies, and you end up looking like a pig.” --Mark |
|
|
| (814127) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Jul 28 13:58:51 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by N6 Limited on Tue Jul 28 13:56:43 2009. Having walked across the Verrazzano, that sway and bounce can be scary. But it's perfectly normal. Even non-suspension spans have a bit of give in them. |
|
|
| (814129) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by TransitChuckG on Tue Jul 28 14:03:32 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jul 25 12:22:35 2009. I assume that the right question to ask is whether such a flex is within design parameters or not. I would tend to think - and pray! - that it is.That is the Number One question and until someone who is "qualified" can answer that, it would be best if we all stopped showing how smart we we think we are! This chat board amazes me, most days. My 2 cents. |
|
|
| (814131) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Tue Jul 28 14:04:55 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 27 13:22:53 2009. No, piegons ravaged the structure :)--Mark |
|
|
| (814142) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 28 14:26:24 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 13:42:21 2009. A feel like Adam, I put however in my post, totally inadvertently. |
|
|
| (814256) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Jul 28 18:36:38 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Jul 28 08:46:58 2009. True. But I'd still would've preferred a new bridge even if it meant no bridge for a certain amount of years till the new one can be completed.The roadways need to be wider. One time the inner roadway had a bunch of cones on one line making the inner roadway one lane only. It probably would be better off so. [Granted this was on a weekend I was on the bridge]. |
|
|
| (814261) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 18:42:25 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Jul 28 18:36:38 2009. Actually, they could construct the new bridge next to the old one, and when the new one is ready then they can tie it in. Much in the same way they are doing the SF Bay Bridge |
|
|
| (814272) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Jul 28 19:12:17 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jul 28 13:31:47 2009. IIRC, it was "stiffened" with additional steel wire supports.They added a stiffening truss above the road deck: Before, note plate girder without a stiffening truss:  After, note truss above road deck:  And today with the composite aerodynamic fairing replacing the truss: 
|
|
|
| (814326) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jul 28 21:54:00 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Jul 28 18:36:38 2009. The roadways DO NOPT need to be wider. They need to be GONE, and all unnecessary automobiles with them. Tale over some of the lanes with LRV tracks.ROAR |
|
|
| (814334) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jul 28 22:02:43 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 18:42:25 2009. This is what they did with the Memorial Bridge in Bismarck. And once traffic was moving about on it, the blew up the old bridge.If you want to see the videos again, They are here. ROAR |
|
|
| (814338) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jul 28 22:06:21 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by WillD on Tue Jul 28 19:12:17 2009. My grandfather used to have a truss.ROAR |
|
|
| (814343) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 22:09:44 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jul 28 22:02:43 2009. Cool video. Sadly IMHO the old bridge looked nicer than the new one |
|
|
| (814350) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Jul 28 22:16:05 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 27 12:32:14 2009. Fair enough, but I still hope that service pattern never has to come back. |
|
|
| (814354) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Jul 28 22:30:42 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 13:44:47 2009. What does it matter? There are no trains with a viewable RFW running over the bridge anymore. Only if they ran fan trips would that be possible. |
|
|
| (814355) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Jul 28 22:31:14 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 06:26:43 2009. Why not? You keep saying how much "cars rule". |
|
|
| (814358) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jul 28 22:42:44 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 22:09:44 2009. Believe me, the new one is nice to both drive on and walk on. It is four lanes instead of two.Wanna know what did it in? IT COULDN'T FLEX CORRECTLY. Well not the bridge itself but those hinge like saddles where the bridge meets the piers. Apparently through years, ice, snow and salt they froze and so instead of removing the torsion from the piers, they passed it down into the piers. Inspections showed that those concrete piers were turning to gravel on the inside. A temporary patch was effected by putting a metal sleeve around the pier, and then pouring new concrete into the pier to fill the voids. But doing that also voided the warranty. Well the bridge was built at the same time as the Manhattan Bridge, and while it crosses a much LONGER waterway, the bridge itself is not all that long. The Manhattan bridge was the much bigger bridge in all dimensions. Just north of this bridge site the BNSF (nee NP) runs across a three arched bridge with mile long coal drags. Not much faster than a (D) train but easily 10x longer. (Heavier too, I'd say). BNSF reports no problems with its bridge and has no plans to replace it. Of course nobody has ever poured salt on that bridge. ROAR |
|
|
| (814363) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by DCmetrogreen on Tue Jul 28 23:02:22 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jul 28 22:02:43 2009. They did the same thing with the old PA Turnpike bridge over the Susquehanna. They replaced an old 4 lane bridge with a 6 lane one (actually one 3 lane bridge for each direction) and blew up the old one two years ago.New Susquehanna River Bridge |
|
|
| (814368) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 23:11:05 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Jul 28 22:30:42 2009. Seriously? Are you seriously asking this? Wow. |
|
|
| (814369) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 23:11:50 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Jul 28 22:31:14 2009. You really don't know why that might not be a good idea? Don't play dumb. |
|
|
| (814390) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Mr Mabstoa on Tue Jul 28 23:54:00 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Jul 28 22:31:14 2009. He keeps saying buses suck too like in the Metrocard thread in BusChat but he's still wants to go to the BUS rodeo! |
|
|
| (814394) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 29 00:10:48 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Mr Mabstoa on Tue Jul 28 23:54:00 2009. And at like 8am. What's up with that? Some 'bus hater' he is.I also see how he won't let go about saying other people were wrong about the actual time the event started. All I wanted was an estimate and 10-11am suited me just fine. |
|
|
| (814400) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by d_mind on Wed Jul 29 00:23:49 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 29 00:10:48 2009. Penis envy. |
|
|
| (814442) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Wed Jul 29 06:53:41 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jul 28 22:42:44 2009. Salt is an eater. Yeah it does sound like that bridge needed to replaced. I am still of the opinion that the MB should be replaced, but we will see what happens. I guess I will trust NYCDOT to do what is right (when the MB has a problem to admit it at that time vs withholding the info) or some watchdog group to expose them we will see what happens first. |
|
|
| (814443) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jul 29 06:56:09 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Wed Jul 29 06:53:41 2009. Everyone already knows the MB has issues. That's why they just repaired it!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| (814445) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Wed Jul 29 07:08:33 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jul 29 06:56:09 2009. Yeah I know that that is why I said that it is my Opinion that it should be replaced. I am not saying that it will be, just saying my thoughts and there is nothing wrong with that. |
|
|
| (814446) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Ken S. on Wed Jul 29 07:20:51 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Wed Jul 29 07:08:33 2009. According to Brian and his lapdogs, that's not allowed. |
|
|
| (814451) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jul 29 08:09:46 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Wed Jul 29 07:08:33 2009. Are you willing to pay higher taxes to replace it, even if replacement is not really needed? |
|
|
| (814463) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Wed Jul 29 08:32:08 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Ken S. on Wed Jul 29 07:20:51 2009. I'm beginnning to see that |
|
|
| (814464) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Q4 on Wed Jul 29 08:33:16 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jul 28 22:06:21 2009. They also added a mass damper system in the mid 80s. I too have to agree with Moses on this one. |
|
|
| (814468) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Wed Jul 29 08:36:39 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jul 29 08:09:46 2009. Actually, yes I would. But, that is besides the point. All I said/did was give an opinion and specified it was my opinion. |
|
|
| (814469) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by terrapin station on Wed Jul 29 08:42:41 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Wed Jul 29 08:36:39 2009. Don't know why you keep bringing that up since I haven't. We're having a discussion about replacing the bridge. Are my questions not related to that? |
|
|
| (814472) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by terrapin station on Wed Jul 29 08:43:48 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Wed Jul 29 08:36:39 2009. FYI: I'm not willing to pay more taxes to replace a bridge that doesn't need to be replaced, and I think the vast majority of NYC residents would feel the same way. |
|
|
| (814478) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Wed Jul 29 09:01:34 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by terrapin station on Wed Jul 29 08:43:48 2009. Ok, that is fine. Neither one of knows really if the bridge needs to be replaced or not. We both to my knowledge have looked at NYCDOT inspection records/reports. I have heard IIRC that the NYCDOT has wanted in the past replace both MB & WillyB. But, I do not know if there is that want b/c of age or condition. I agree with you that it must still be within acceptable parametere as it is still open. But, that does not mean they shouldn't be replaced. Now, b/c I say it should be replaced does not mean they will be.Now, in a convo I had w/Broadway Lion I agreed that they needed to replace the bridge in Bismark. Then in talking about the MB I said "I am still of the opinion that the MB should be replaced..." Which drew out this comment from you: "Everyone already knows the MB has issues. That's why they just repaired it!!!!!!!!!!" Now, the way I took it was that you were saying my opinion was wrong, and that really has not been proven as just b/c they repaired the bridge does not mean it is better it can be just a band aid to hold it over to yet another repar or even maybe replacement. |
|
|
| (814489) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jul 29 09:39:05 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Wed Jul 29 09:01:34 2009. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm just saying it's not supported by the available evidence. |
|
|
| (814534) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jul 29 11:07:56 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jul 29 09:39:05 2009. I'm just saying it's not supported by the available evidence.You mean like hear-say evidence? ROAR |
|
|
| (814559) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Wed Jul 29 12:24:24 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jul 29 09:39:05 2009. Ok |
|
|
| (814566) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jul 29 12:37:26 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jul 29 11:07:56 2009. No. |
|
|
| (814877) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Thu Jul 30 12:52:08 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by WillD on Tue Jul 28 19:12:17 2009. There were like no high rises in the Bronx back then. You can also see the GWB. |
|
|
| (814994) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Think twice on Thu Jul 30 20:20:42 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Grand Concourse on Mon Jul 27 17:53:48 2009. Then you probably remember seeing these from the late 1980's plans to replace the Williamsburg Bridge. If the Manny B were to be replaced maybe it would be along these lines as well. 
|
|
|
| (815000) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jul 30 20:29:04 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Think twice on Thu Jul 30 20:20:42 2009. Wow, I don't remember the pics of the proposed replacements, but a cable-stayed bridge looks nice. |
|
|
| (815170) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Doctor B on Fri Jul 31 07:35:12 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. We're hosting a whole week of tours and lectures in October celebrating the MB's centennial. Details to follow in a few weeks. Nostalgia train run over the bridge is in negotiations.NYC Bridge Centennial Commission |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
