Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And then what would happen when all those lanes got to the end of the bridge?
A lot of very smart "morons" worked on the EIS and the conceptual design to work out the constraints under which the bridge could be built before having some of the country's best engineering firms compete for the project.
If you're so much smarter than all those people, why didn't you join one of the developer teams? Or speak up during the years when the EIS was being conducted or when the preliminary documents were published for the public to view?
As a matter of policy even if the capacity isn't currently there for more than 3 lanes on the approaches and exits, you have to build it into the project when you have such an opportunity. This is what all new overpass projects do, the span between supports is long enough to account for extra lane should they ever be needed instead of becoming a bottleneck and requiring demolition and reconstruction.
The existing Westbound branch of 278 is actually 4 lanes wide before the last exit on SI. On the SI bound direction you have a 2-lane offramp from the Turnpike merging with a 2-lane approach coming from highway 9. The EXISTING capacity is already there for 4 lanes of traffic, especially once you get onto SI and have a split between 440/278
Three lanes makes absolutely no sense and is incredibly short sighted. Four is appropriate and actually five could be used today when you consider the turnpike + highway 9 and 440 + 278 which can easily take the flow
^I really believe it was environmental. A much wider bridge would throw longer shadows for greater periods of time, which affects fish life (and yes, there are fiddler crabs and other living things in the Arthur Kill, believe it or not) and the protected wetlands on the NY side, plus additional noise. (They relocated the fish by using an electric shock to stun but not kill when they built the piers, which I found interesting.) They had to keep the center of the bridge available for future mass transit, and that also was likely some of the thinking--moving from vehicular traffic to mass transit in the future. The mass transit lane can be either rail or buses.
The design constraints with which the competing developer teams had to comply were pretty prescriptive per the bridge permit, which was issued by the USCG. The towers could only be a certain height because of the FAA restrictions, for example. They had to worry about "light spill" into the water at night. It's all in the EIS, which could make for some interesting reading some night if you can't sleep.
I get what you are saying, but usually there is more to design decisions made that the public doesn't understand than just labeling scores of professional engineers "morons" because you personally think they should have done something different.
Reality is that there is just so much traffic capacity the region is going to be able to bear as the population continues to grow. Just read the capacity study re the Bus Terminal. Buses are 22 percent of Lincoln Tunnel traffic at peak rush but are carrying 89 percent of the passengers. The other 78 percent are vehicles that likely only have one or two people in them. It's going to have to change at some point.
(And no, I am not an engineer myself. I just work in that world.)
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 06-12-2017 at 02:03 PM..
I get what you are saying, but usually there is more to design decisions made that the public doesn't understand than just labeling scores of professional engineers "morons" because you personally think they should have done something different.
In all fields there are executives and there are the actual workers. The execs establish what we call the "Business Rules". The Engineers (the workers) are no morons, but the politicians who set the business rules (the design requirements) are straight up morons for for not insisting on increased capacity. We need less bottlenecks, just reducing capacity doesn't reduce the traffic demand even if it's been shown that bigger roads just leads to more usage. Capacity should be constant across all paths, the bottleneck problems happen when there are large merges and changes in grade. Bridges & tunnels should always be built over capacity because you have to get it right the first time and you can't just pave another lane over thin air or into bedrock
In all fields there are executives and there are the actual workers. The execs establish what we call the "Business Rules". The Engineers (the workers) are no morons, but the politicians who set the business rules (the design requirements) are straight up morons for for not insisting on increased capacity. We need less bottlenecks, just reducing capacity doesn't reduce the traffic demand even if it's been shown that bigger roads just leads to more usage. Capacity should be constant across all paths, the bottleneck problems happen when there are large merges and changes in grade. Bridges & tunnels should always be built over capacity because you have to get it right the first time and you can't just pave another lane over thin air or into bedrock
Oh, well, now you're talking politicians, that's a different story. Kick the can down the road for the next guy to worry about.
An engineer I know did a paper on replacing the Goethals back in 1985. His boss said, "This is great, but it will take them 25 years to decide to move forward with it. It was right on the money. There was preliminary design and then the idea to do it as a P3, but the go-ahead to start procurement came in 2010, IIRC.
On the other hand, when like now your governor thinks he has a shot at the White House, all sorts of projects get the green light. As you say, they might not be exactly what should be built.
^I really believe it was environmental. A much wider bridge would throw longer shadows for greater periods of time, which affects fish life (and yes, there are fiddler crabs and other living things in the Arthur Kill, believe it or not) and the protected wetlands on the NY side, plus additional noise. (They relocated the fish by using an electric shock to stun but not kill when they built the piers, which I found interesting.
^ This is completely nutty by the way
Is the city for the humans or for the wildlife? We've really gone too far
Is the city for the humans or for the wildlife? We've really gone too far
Both, maybe. Are we somehow separate from other living creatures? (Heh, tossing some philosophical questions into a bridge thread.) I guess because so much of it has already been destroyed, there's an effort to save what remains.
The whole area was once loaded with oysters, which filtered the water. They're all gone. But they are being reintroduced to improve the health of the water.
Remember, Jacque C. said that people better understand that the future of the ocean is the future of the human race before it's too late
The Arthur Kill is not the ocean, but it's a start.
For what it is worth, according to the design, there is extra room for additional lanes and/or transit options in the future. IIRCC, the inner shoulder is 5' and the outer is 12'. That's a lot of extra space.
For what it is worth, according to the design, there is extra room for additional lanes and/or transit options in the future. IIRCC, the inner shoulder is 5' and the outer is 12'. That's a lot of extra space.
There has been talk for years of reactivating the old North Shore ROW in whole or part, then somehow making a connection into New Jersey.
IIRC one plan was to have something going over the Bayonne bridge then either connect there to light rail into Manhattan, and or just run the thing all the way. Now with the BB raised however don't think the new grade would allow.
The Goethals bridge is closer to the reactivated Arlington Yard, but still don't see how to link anything from there to that bridge.
For what it is worth, according to the design, there is extra room for additional lanes and/or transit options in the future. IIRCC, the inner shoulder is 5' and the outer is 12'. That's a lot of extra space.
The competing teams were required to incorporate a mass transit option into their design. In this case, it would go in the center of the twin spans and connect them.
I drove over it tonight on my way back from Brooklyn.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
