Can we use the overpass collapse in San Francisco to direct attention to the infrastructure nation-wide that needs to be replaced? Sure, age and maintenance neglect didn't cause the failure, but it shows what happens when highways are unexpectedly out of commission.
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
San Francisco Overpass Failure- Opportunity for Attention? 2
- Thread starter Grubbyky
- Start date
casseopeia
Structural
Thankfully the failure doesn't directly affect my commute, but it will surely add load to all but the most remote freeways in the Bay area. I think it will be easy at first because people will stay off the roads. It will get worse as more people find the alternate routes and go back to driving. The big problem here is the incredible bureaucracy involved with getting any new road project approved. The Novato narrows just north of where I live has been a problem spot for 20 years and just now they have approval for some minor improvements to relieve the congestion. Many voters it seems are of the opinion that stopping road construction will stop population growth.
In a way the failure is a good thing. There are some improvements that can be made to the maze and now with the governor declaring this an emergency, all the red tape is cut and the project can proceed.
"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"
In a way the failure is a good thing. There are some improvements that can be made to the maze and now with the governor declaring this an emergency, all the red tape is cut and the project can proceed.
"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"
casseopeia
Structural
I don't know if tankers are allowed to cross bridges here and I don't recall ever seeing one, but I travel the Golden Gate mostly. There are a lot of restrictions on that bridge.
This guy wasn't on the Bay bridge. It looks like he was headed south on I80 at the I880 SB interchange on his way from Benicia going to a location in Oakland. He was on a lower roadway when he turned over destroying the upper ramp that goes to the Bay Bridge. It's in an area called the MacArthur Maze and I'm not sure I have a clear picture of the exact piece of roadway that was destroyed. Efforts to log onto many of the local traffic sites has been fruitless today. Lots of people checking routes.
"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"
casseopeia
Structural
Here's a good visual. You will need Google Earth:
"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"
"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"
Maybe this will be an incentive to improve Public Tranit. We cannot keep building more roads to more sprawl as solutions. I hope the BART system has some spare cars to tack onto the trains to and from Oakland to deal with this. The age of roads will diminish and fall aside sooner than later, even though the dreamers who want to keep on happy motoring with bio-gas fail to realize that the amount of land it would take to keep up even the current level of happy motoring is a heck of a lot more than the lands it takes to grow food. Take the choice- happy motoring with bio-fuels and food shortages, or spend the $$ on better and more public transit and trains/trams and have some corn chips to eat during Monday night football.
-
2
- #7
short answer to the original question: no.
but other opportunities can be realized as a result of the accident. The 6 mos closure of the highway will force many people to take mass transit or carpool or relocate- the event can be viewed as a step-change reduction in road access to the public, and accurate data on its impact to the traffic patterns for the associated highways and cities can be used by traffic planners .
A similar event occurred in London 10 yrs ago- they deliberately ( and permanently) closed down bridges and roads in order to reduce traffic flow and force commuters to use other means of getting to work- and the traffic behaved exactly as planned- and they reduced traffic thru London. Exactly the reverse of teh usuall mens of doing business / politics in high growth areas of the US.
The normal procedure is for politically connected persons to buy inacessible land, influence politicians to build a highway to or thru the land , develop the land and then reap a profit. As soon as the traffic on the highway is heavy enough to generate public complaints, then further expand the highway. This expansion leads to more traffic , as well as jobs for those that build and maintain the highway. So the decision to expand or build highways is normally tied to development of the land ( and highway jobs) and accomodating more car traffic, IN THE CASE WHERE UNCONSTRAINED GROWTH OF CAR TRAFFIC IS OK. For the case where one desires a rerduction in car trafic, the same logic can be used in reverse, as shown in London. But one would still need to face the music of angry commuters , landowners, and the roadway industry.
but other opportunities can be realized as a result of the accident. The 6 mos closure of the highway will force many people to take mass transit or carpool or relocate- the event can be viewed as a step-change reduction in road access to the public, and accurate data on its impact to the traffic patterns for the associated highways and cities can be used by traffic planners .
A similar event occurred in London 10 yrs ago- they deliberately ( and permanently) closed down bridges and roads in order to reduce traffic flow and force commuters to use other means of getting to work- and the traffic behaved exactly as planned- and they reduced traffic thru London. Exactly the reverse of teh usuall mens of doing business / politics in high growth areas of the US.
The normal procedure is for politically connected persons to buy inacessible land, influence politicians to build a highway to or thru the land , develop the land and then reap a profit. As soon as the traffic on the highway is heavy enough to generate public complaints, then further expand the highway. This expansion leads to more traffic , as well as jobs for those that build and maintain the highway. So the decision to expand or build highways is normally tied to development of the land ( and highway jobs) and accomodating more car traffic, IN THE CASE WHERE UNCONSTRAINED GROWTH OF CAR TRAFFIC IS OK. For the case where one desires a rerduction in car trafic, the same logic can be used in reverse, as shown in London. But one would still need to face the music of angry commuters , landowners, and the roadway industry.
civilperson
Structural
We need parallel systems of roads rather than expansion of existing routes to 6, 8, or 10 lanes!
I'm tempted to say that in the States, at least the parts I've been in, part of the problem is perhaps that the 'highways' are used for local not just long distance travel.
For example, the town I grew up in in the UK had a population of around 150,000 but only 2 junctions onto the highway that run next to it. One a few miles to the south of town and one a few miles to the north. To get from one side of the town to the other you didn't get on the highway. It had a completely separate 4 lane internal 'ring road' for getting around the town itself.
Compare this to say Santa Barbara where the 101 has something like 12 junctions for Santa Barbara + some for Goleta & Motecito on either side. It doubles as the main cross town route.
I always wondered if separating these flows of traffic would help, I guess relevant Civil Engineers would know best though.
For example, the town I grew up in in the UK had a population of around 150,000 but only 2 junctions onto the highway that run next to it. One a few miles to the south of town and one a few miles to the north. To get from one side of the town to the other you didn't get on the highway. It had a completely separate 4 lane internal 'ring road' for getting around the town itself.
Compare this to say Santa Barbara where the 101 has something like 12 junctions for Santa Barbara + some for Goleta & Motecito on either side. It doubles as the main cross town route.
I always wondered if separating these flows of traffic would help, I guess relevant Civil Engineers would know best though.
That sounds like a very good idea, KENAT, but I think it's too late for most of the states. Most of the large (and smaller) cities I am familiar with use the interstates as they do in Santa Barbara, since they usually go through near the center of town or have many interchanges along the edges of town. If they had been built with a sufficient buffer and more limited access, traffic would probable flow much better, but people would argue "what's the point of that if I can't get to where I want to go?".
Grubbyky,
The problem isnt awareness as much as it is how do we pay for it. Americans want better roads but are not willing to pay for it!
Taxes on gasoline in the US are some of the lowest in the western world and the at pump prices are some of the lowest outside the middle east. You think that $3 a gallon is a big amount, but in the UK they pay abot $2 per liter which equates to about $7.50 a gallon.
I dont think the they should raise the taxes to anything like the UK, but my point is that if the consumer wants better maintenance of roads then they will have to pay for it.
The problem isnt awareness as much as it is how do we pay for it. Americans want better roads but are not willing to pay for it!
Taxes on gasoline in the US are some of the lowest in the western world and the at pump prices are some of the lowest outside the middle east. You think that $3 a gallon is a big amount, but in the UK they pay abot $2 per liter which equates to about $7.50 a gallon.
I dont think the they should raise the taxes to anything like the UK, but my point is that if the consumer wants better maintenance of roads then they will have to pay for it.
Much as Brit drivers wish it was, not all the tax on gas goes to the roads, I'm not sure most of it even goes to transport in general.
Much of it's considered a 'sin' tax and just goes in the general tax fund.
As to the the separate roads, in the UK they went through a stage of building by-passes around towns in cases where the major route already went through town and was used for local traffic. The 'old road' typically continued to be used by local traffic while the by-pass just had one or two junctions to the city and was used mainly by long distance traffic. The 2 I can think of definitely improved traffic flow although environmentalists got upset by the trees etc that got cut down. Weren't cheap either and the roadworks while they built them were miserable.
Much of it's considered a 'sin' tax and just goes in the general tax fund.
As to the the separate roads, in the UK they went through a stage of building by-passes around towns in cases where the major route already went through town and was used for local traffic. The 'old road' typically continued to be used by local traffic while the by-pass just had one or two junctions to the city and was used mainly by long distance traffic. The 2 I can think of definitely improved traffic flow although environmentalists got upset by the trees etc that got cut down. Weren't cheap either and the roadworks while they built them were miserable.
A star for you davefitz. Here in the NYC area all major roads are maxed out during rush hour, and many people use mass transit. Studies are currently under way to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge, which carries east/west traffic north of the city. This bridge has three lanes in each direction plus a reversable 7th lane. Environmental and community activists are fighting to make sure the new bridge has a maximum of 4 lanes in each direction, plus some type of public transit. They are even trying to keep the shoulders narrow, so shoulders can't later be converted into lanes. I support them 100%. I also think the gas tas should be increased in the US. While we are at it, how about some congestion toll pricing? All this from a bridge engineer!
regarding the bridge fix for NYC, I think the best fix would be to vary the bridge toll based on both time of day and also number of passengers per car- a car with a single occupant should pay twice the rate of a 3 occupant car.
The current proposal to charge a huge bridge toll at all hours is anti blue collar- it has not effect on hi earners and does not encourage carpooling.
The current proposal to charge a huge bridge toll at all hours is anti blue collar- it has not effect on hi earners and does not encourage carpooling.
davefitz - Currently, the toll price structure is the opposite of what you suggest. People who use Tappan Zee Bridge every day, i.e. commuters, get a half price discount. Meanwhile rail commuters pay a premium to travel during peak rush hours. Go figure.
- Thread starter
- #17
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question