I-95 Bridge Repair

[Ken]

It’s phenomenal. Prayers quality is right-there with speed.

It only needs to last as long as for the current contractor's owners to retire and move on to other jobs.

When we visited Switzerland, we noticed a pretty fabulous bridge under construction. It wasn’t huge. But gorgeous.
Our friends sighed and remarked HOW LONG construction projects would take, BUT - the quality was comparable to Ancient Rome, they built to last hundreds of years .. as opposed to the U.S., which seems to build for planned obsolescence. Tear down/rebuild.

i have no idea how accurate. oj knows.

local roads/state highways sure don’t have much shelf-life. it’s pretty shocking (to me). i wonder why they bother to repave, when in a year or two, who could tell?

Prayers for the bridge.

American bridges are "designed" by highway engineers who basically just apply the same existing off-the-shelf highway engineering code to every situation. There is no artistry anymore.

European bridges are designed by architects. And they apparently aren't constrained by the same generic universal highway engineering codes that are mandated in the US. That is why they look so much prettier and more elegant.

Here in the country we used to have world-class bridge architects, but for some reason we don't use them anymore. Or don't give them the freedom to design. Anyone driving along US-101 on the Oregon Coast can see how we used to design bridges 90 years ago. Or probably any older US highway passing through rugged terrain. Bridges that are not only beautiful, they are still working well today 90 years later.

[ohio jones]

American bridges are "designed" by highway engineers who basically just apply the same existing off-the-shelf highway engineering code to every situation. There is no artistry anymore.

European bridges are designed by architects. And they apparently aren't constrained by the same generic universal highway engineering codes that are mandated in the US. That is why they look so much prettier and more elegant.

Here in the country we used to have world-class bridge architects, but for some reason we don't use them anymore. Or don't give them the freedom to design.

Oh, I assure you there are generic bridges in Europe and creatively designed bridges in the US. And that engineers (or interdisciplinary architects/engineers like Calatrava) design European bridges and are constrained by laws and codes. But not every bridge needs to be a Tilikum Crossing or a Margaret Hunt Hill bridge or a Poya bridge. Some can simply be utilitarian and efficient to build. Or would you rather have I-95 closed for 5 years or more while a visually stunning replacement is designed and constructed?

[Ken]

American bridges are "designed" by highway engineers who basically just apply the same existing off-the-shelf highway engineering code to every situation. There is no artistry anymore.

European bridges are designed by architects. And they apparently aren't constrained by the same generic universal highway engineering codes that are mandated in the US. That is why they look so much prettier and more elegant.

Here in the country we used to have world-class bridge architects, but for some reason we don't use them anymore. Or don't give them the freedom to design.

Oh, I assure you there are generic bridges in Europe and creatively designed bridges in the US. And that engineers (or interdisciplinary architects/engineers like Calatrava) design European bridges and are constrained by laws and codes. But not every bridge needs to be a Tilikum Crossing or a Margaret Hunt Hill bridge or a Poya bridge. Some can simply be utilitarian and efficient to build. Or would you rather have I-95 closed for 5 years or more while a visually stunning replacement is designed and constructed?

The I-95 bridge that is the subject of this thread just looks like a generic freeway overpass to me.

But yes, I would like to see more elegance and beauty in all the built environment around us rather than just endless concrete. Whether it is bridges, buildings or streets. Especially things that are going to last for a century or more. I think in decades and centuries past we were much better at it than we are today. But maybe I'm just an anti-modernist curmudgeon.

[MaxPC]

Oh, I assure you there are generic bridges in Europe and creatively designed bridges in the US. And that engineers (or interdisciplinary architects/engineers like Calatrava) design European bridges and are constrained by laws and codes. But not every bridge needs to be a Tilikum Crossing or a Margaret Hunt Hill bridge or a Poya bridge. Some can simply be utilitarian and efficient to build. Or would you rather have I-95 closed for 5 years or more while a visually stunning replacement is designed and constructed?

Absolutely spot on. In our travels across the USA, we encountered quite a few bridges and "junctions" of interstates. All had their strengths and weaknesses.

[Szdfan]

The bridge in question:



We're not talking about some sort of majestic span like the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge in DC that was finished in 2021. That bridge (which replaced a swing bridge built in 1950) took 15 years and $144 million to build.



I think in most cases, bridges like the I-95 bridge would be a utilitarian construction (even in Europe). Interstate highways are generally rather hideous (even in Europe) and I'm all for less new highway construction.

[Josh]

Perhaps the problem is allowing ugliness to be created in the first place.

[Ken]

Here in the Portland metro they are planning a new I-5 bridge across the Columbia between OR and WA to replace two near 100-year old spans that are not seismically sound and don't have the capacity they want. These are the two old bridges. The one on the right was built in 1917, the one on the left was built in 1958 to nearly identical plans. Apparently they both eventually need to go



The replacement options are less than inspiring. You can see all 6 options here: https://www.interstatebridge.org/update ... ext-steps/ and this is the one I would pick for esthetic reasons.

But they do have a lot of design constraints. Namely:

• There are overall height limits imposed by the FAA because there are airports nearby on both sides of the river so you can't build too high.
• There are minimum clearance limits imposed by the Coast Guard to make sure that a new bridge doesn't impede commercial barge traffic so you can't build too low.
• The state DOTs and the DOT have a policy against new drawbridges or swing bridges on major interstate highways so replacing them with lift bridges to gain clearance is not so much of an option, even though they are considering one lift option. The new Woodrow Wilson bridge in Washington DC is apparently the only recent exception to that rule: https://www.hardestyhanover.com/project ... le-design/
• There are maximum grade restrictions because they are building it for both cars and light rail and there are exits at each end so they can't make the grade too steep.
• The main shipping channel that gets dredged is on the north end so the highest part has to be there, right next to downtown Vancouver where people will also need to exit onto surface streets.
• There is lots of new development on each side of the right of way so they can't go super wide or put it in some new place.
• They can't tear down the old bridges and go 5 years with no bridge while they build in the footprint of the old bridges so they have to figure out how to shoehorn in a new bridge while the old ones are still in place.

So sometimes you really can't build a new Golden Gate bridge or the equivalent. You have to squeeze something into existing constraints as best as you can. Apparently according to the people who know about this sort of thing, this is the one we are most likely to get. A double deck truss bridge so it can be narrower and fit into the existing space more easily without first tearing down the old bridges. Whatever they pick, we will be living with it for the next 100+ years.

[HondurasKeiser]

Here in the Portland metro they are planning a new I-5 bridge across the Columbia between OR and WA to replace two near 100-year old spans that are not seismically sound and don't have the capacity they want. These are the two old bridges. The one on the right was built in 1917, the one on the left was built in 1958 to nearly identical plans. Apparently they both eventually need to go



The replacement options are less than inspiring. You can see all 6 options here: https://www.interstatebridge.org/update ... ext-steps/ and this is the one I would pick for esthetic reasons.

But they do have a lot of design constraints. Namely:

• There are overall height limits imposed by the FAA because there are airports nearby on both sides of the river so you can't build too high.
• There are minimum clearance limits imposed by the Coast Guard to make sure that a new bridge doesn't impede commercial barge traffic so you can't build too low.
• The state DOTs and the DOT have a policy against new drawbridges or swing bridges on major interstate highways so replacing them with lift bridges to gain clearance is not so much of an option, even though they are considering one lift option. The new Woodrow Wilson bridge in Washington DC is apparently the only recent exception to that rule: https://www.hardestyhanover.com/project ... le-design/
• There are maximum grade restrictions because they are building it for both cars and light rail and there are exits at each end so they can't make the grade too steep.
• The main shipping channel that gets dredged is on the north end so the highest part has to be there, right next to downtown Vancouver where people will also need to exit onto surface streets.
• There is lots of new development on each side of the right of way so they can't go super wide or put it in some new place.
• They can't tear down the old bridges and go 5 years with no bridge while they build in the footprint of the old bridges so they have to figure out how to shoehorn in a new bridge while the old ones are still in place.

So sometimes you really can't build a new Golden Gate bridge or the equivalent. You have to squeeze something into existing constraints as best as you can. Apparently according to the people who know about this sort of thing, this is the one we are most likely to get. A double deck truss bridge so it can be narrower and fit into the existing space more easily without first tearing down the old bridges. Whatever they pick, we will be living with it for the next 100+ years.

A side query: Ken are the tower structures on the old bridges simply decorative or do they serve a purpose?

[Ken]

A side query: Ken are the tower structures on the old bridges simply decorative or do they serve a purpose?

It is a lift bridge so the center section lifts to allow barge and ship traffic to pass under. Those towers hold the massive counterweights that allow the bridge to lift without massive motors. Every time a barge or tall sailboat goes by it closes down all traffic on I-5 for about 10 minutes. So that is what the state DOTs and hundreds of thousands of daily commuters want to avoid in a new bridge. Every lift creates massive traffic snarls. The bridges (at least the old one) were built long before I-5 existed when it was still old US99 when the metro area was a fraction of its current size.

[Ernie]

This really was phenomenal.

It’s phenomenal. Prayers quality is right-there with speed.

It only needs to last as long as for the current contractor's owners to retire and move on to other jobs.

The new bridge is supposed to be in place within one year.