Jump to content

Talk:Bayonne Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

"The Bayonne Bridge is the second longest steel arch bridge in the world."

This is actually incorrect.

The longest steel arch bridge in the world is the Lupu Bridge in Shanghai, China. Lupu bridge has a 550 meter long steel arch. (Some entries spell it Lu Pu).

The second longest steel arch bridge is the New River Gorge bridge.

Length?

[edit]

Is the total length of the bridge quoted in the article (8640 ft) correct?

Several other sources suggest a different length:

1) http://bridgepros.com/projects/BayonneBridge/Bayonne.htm

2) http://www.panynj.gov/tbt/bbmain.HTM

Both sources have 5780 ft listed.

Hmmm... Altec-biol 04:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being a resident I can tell you it isn't a mile and a half (8640) and I would say a little more than a mile. Go with those sources.
For some years, there was the contradiction between the text and the infobox. Looking into GoogleEarth, only 5780 ft can be correct - and that includes all the access ramps leading up to the bridge. I changed the text to 5780 ft. --AHert (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions without cites...

[edit]

A couple of sentences jump out as not having any solid cite:

  • "The design of the steel arch is based on the Hell Gate Bridge designed by Ammann's mentor, Gustav Lindenthal." - while they are both steel arch bridges, and the relationship between the designers is well documented, the designs are actually significantly different. It'd probably be reasonable to assume there was some inspiration there, but I don't think I've seen any documented evidence of it.
  • "It was deliberately built seven meters longer than the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which opened the year after." - this may well be true, but I don't believe I've ever seen any evidence to that.

I've added fact templates. RoscoHead (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in reconstruction section

[edit]

There is no information that I can find that shows the INCREASE in height, in feet, from the original span for the reconstruction effort. I believe it is 60 feet but that may be incorrect. It states 40%, 215 total but what is the change? FlyZone (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Roadbed-raising project needs some attention:

The first sentence says the PA "started planning to raise the roadbed within the existing arch" in the 2000s. That is not true. They started planning on how to solve the large ship navigation problem the bridge presented.

Then under specifications, it says that jacking up the existing bridge was the option chosen.

Actually, the options considered were:

  • tunnel (mentioned)
  • jack up existing bridge (mentioned, but not chosen)
  • vertical lift bridge (not mentioned)
  • raising the roadway within the existing arch (not mentioned)

Then a few paragraphs later, it just starts talking about the "raise the roadway" project (which was picked) - although it was never even mentioned as on option before.

This should all be straightened out. MB 03:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: I understand your points, but don't understand how it warrants a {{disputed}} tag. Anyway:
The first sentence says the PA "started planning to raise the roadbed within the existing arch" in the 2000s. That is not true. They started planning on how to solve the large ship navigation problem the bridge presented. Fixed.
Actually, the options considered were:
  • vertical lift bridge (not mentioned) Unsourced. Not only was it not part of the "Bayonne Bridge Air Draft Analysis," but a vertical-lift bridge, like the Arthur Kill Vertical Lift Bridge, seems implausible anyway given the large amount of vehicular traffic. If I'm wrong, let me know.
  • raising the roadway within the existing arch (not mentioned) It was mentioned - this option was just awkwardly worded, as the "jack up" option.
  • Then a few paragraphs later, it just starts talking about the "raise the roadway" project (which was picked) - although it was never even mentioned as on option before. Yes, it was mentioned.
I've fixed all the above issues except the one about the vertical lift bridge option. epicgenius (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius:The bridge project is the cover story of the March 13, 2017 issue of Engineering News-Record. I have a hard copy, and I think it is online as well. It has a lot of info on the construction process. As far as the options, it says "designers considered":
  • tunnel - prohibitive in cost and community impacts
  • movable (lift) bridge - operations and maintenance implications
  • jacking up the arch - load and geotechnical risks
  • raising roadway within original arch - most feasible (no additional land needed)
  • new cable-stayed bridge is not mentioned
The article currently says the Army COE looked at three options:
  • tunnel
  • new cable-stayed bridge
  • raising the roadway
I'm not sure which "designers" considered all these options. Perhaps the COE only seriously looked at the three mentioned in the article. I think the biggest problem before was confusion over the term jacking. The jacking option was to jack the entire arch, with the suspended roadway, up the 65 feet. the "raise the roadway" option was to build a new roadway suspended from the arch on shorter cables and demolish the existing roadway (no jacking involved). MB 03:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MB: Thank you for providing the source. I will add it soon. As far as I know, the Army COE considered four options, though I could be wrong. There was a suspension option too, I believe. Also a no build option , so there are theoretically 5 options. Six with the lift options. There are different options considered in both sources so I will notes that too. @Flyzone100: I will find sources for the change in height and add it in. Thank you both, epicgenius (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius:The ENR article says in one place the old deck was 155-ft above water and the new deck is 215-ft, which is an additional 60 feet of clearance. In another place, it says the reconstructed bridge has a 215-ft clearance and the new deck is 64 ft higher than the old one. I've not sure where the 64-ft comes from, maybe it is comparing the tops of the decks. But since the important point is clearance for passing ships, perhaps just using 155/215 is best. MB 02:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MB: I tried to read this article to confirm the details about the options, but unfortunately it's paywalled. Thanks for explaining the height discrepancy, though. epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)  Done changes. epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bayonne Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bayonne Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cashless tolls

[edit]

Please update the toll section of the chart at the beginning to reflect the fact that cash isn’t accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needforspeed888 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium

[edit]

There the uranium was put on Pan American airplanes or on ships, both bound for New York, where it was unloaded and stored on the New York City borough of Staten Island. There the uranium remained until it was ready to be used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (The New York site under the Bayonne Bridge still registers radiation levels today high enough for the US government to order a clean-up.--87.170.203.145 (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone wants to incorporate this uranium storage site chronologically into the History section, reliably sourced details are here. —72.68.80.218 (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I trust the Advance so I'll put that detail in. epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bayonne_Bridge&oldid=1206201749"