Talk:San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 14, 2005.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Bridges (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article is considered to fall outside the scope of the Version 0.5 test release, which is of limited size. It is now being held ready for a later version.
 
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

Bay Bridge Troll[edit]

I've been given an image of the troll that was welded onto the bridge after the Loma Preita earthquake. I'm currently in the process of verifying when and by whom the image was taken, and should also have some more information on who actually built and/or welded the troll to the bridge (apparently it was done in secret so it will take some tracking down). In the next several weeks I hope to have some verifiable information about the troll, and to add it to the Bay Bridge page. In the meantime, this page seems to have some passionate editors so I thought I'd post the image here to see if this was of interest to the community. My source for the image is a boatworker on the San Francisco Bay and is a font of information about the Bridge, the Bay in general, and a host of other topics :) so I hope it will be of interest to you all. EricRodenbeck—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericrodenbeck (talkcontribs) 17:22, December 15, 2005

File:Bay bridge troll.jpg
Bay Bridge Troll
  • Sounds like an authentic part of history to me. --Treekids (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Bridge toll[edit]

Obviously, 65 cents isn't modern day cash. Could someone add the 1936 tolls accounting for inflation? Thanks! Jm51 04:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Bay crossings nav box[edit]

This navbox has upstream and downstream. This does not work for the Bay Bridge as both crossings are "upstream", one to the north and one to the south. -- Samuel Wantman 07:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Um. East and West you mean, surely. But yes, you have a point. --Treekids (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Earthquake error[edit]

The 'Richter scale' is obsolete terminology. This needs to be fixed, with a reference to the appropriate authority (probably United States Geological Survey).MWS 13:52, May 22, 2006

New Bay Bridge[edit]

Info is needed on the new east span of the bay bridge. See http://www.newbaybridge.org/.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andys627 (talkcontribs) 22:51, July 1, 2006

I have taken quite a few pictures from the water of the new Bay Bridge and the old, some are available here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/diversionmary/tags/bridge/ I have dozens more I can make available if anyone is interested. Please feel free to use these CC by-nc-sa eric@diversionmary.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.206.19 (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Held nomination from Version 0.5[edit]

This bridge is very notable, but it's not one of the top 5 or so super-famous bridges of the world. We'll renominate it for later versions, and it is likely to be included in those later releases. Walkerma 05:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Link after toll[edit]

Should the link after the toll in the sidebar point to the DOT web page http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/tolls.htm (which gives specific tolls for a wider variety of times and vehicles) rather than to the FastTrac article that is pretty irrelevant to visitors? --Yonran 23:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Other missing retrofit items[edit]

The West Span now has dampers to reduce movement.

The West Approach is being rebuilt. Temporary westbound lanes are now open, as of 9/1/06.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 12:29, September 7, 2006

Why does the separate Eastern Span Replacement entry exist?[edit]

I asked this over on the Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge talk page too. Out of curiosity, why does that page exist? Much of the is here on the Bay Bridge page, which could certainly be expanded to include anything that is uniquely on the separate page.--Fizbin 13:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The article dates to the time that Leonard G and I were working on bringing this article to feature level. There was an objection to quantity of information about the eastern span replacement, so we decided to make a sub-article and just have a summary in the main article. Over time, people have tended to put more and more of the detailed information back into the main article, and not put it into the sub article. If all the information is combined into this article it would make this article much longer, with too much weight on the bridge replacement. A better tact would be to remove more of the details from this article and put them into the sub article.-- Samuel Wantman 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed duplicated text, copied unduplicated text to sub-article. The removed text is currently commented out for easy comparison with sub-article and review in its original context, I will remove comments next week. - Leonard G. (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Container Ship Accident[edit]

Any thoughts on splitting this out into its own article? It looks as if this will be a major news story for some time, given the extent of the oil spill. Alternately, we could wait a few days/weeks to see if it dies down quicker than I expect. JavaTenor 20:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Train tracks[edit]

The article states that the train tracks were on the south side of the western span. I remember them being on the northwest side of the span, as I remember looking out the windows of the trains when we went from Oakland to San Francisco. Of course, my memory could be faulty after 50 years, but in the interest of accuracy, someone in the Bay Area might want to check in more detail (I'd do it myself, but I don't live in California anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someonesdad363616 (talkcontribs) 00:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I rode those trains fairly frequently, and also rode once as passenger in a light truck on the two-way three-lane side. The trains were (in my very firm recollection) on the south (or south-east) side. One modern clue to this was the bus off-ramps to the Transbay Terminal (facing Bryant, off of second street), on the south side of the bridge, which are repavings of the old tracks, but the terminal now also gone (according to google maps).- Leonard G. (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Many photos of the trains on the bridge railway exist and are online. The tracks were definitely on the south side. The deadman's holes in the Yerba Buena Tunnel can still be seen on the south side of the tunnel. Further confirmation can be found in Harry Demoro's definitive work on the Key System (2 vols.). Tmangray (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Silver Dream[edit]

Can anyone site a source in which the Bay Bridge is called the "Silver Dream." I've lived in the Bay Area my entire life and have never heard that phrase used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.122.94 (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Who has designed this bridge?[edit]

Hi there, it appears the bridge's designer has been changed from Ralph Modjeski to Charles H. Purcell, but Ralph Modjeski is mentioned as this bridgde's designer in his own article. So what's right? I'm currently updating the German version of the Bay Bridge article and would like to get it right there. Cheers, Wolfgang K (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Modjeski was the chairman of the board of consulting engineers for the San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge. He was old by then, but not quite ready to retire. He died four years after the bridge opened. These sources don't credit Modjeski with the actual design work, they credit Purcell:
Likewise, Timothy L. Pflueger isn't credited with the bridge design, he's just one of a number of architectural consultants who had some influence. Purcell is the chief engineer and designer. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow that was quick! Thanks for that!! Cheers, Wolfgang K (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Too many maps?[edit]

I've been on an "insert {{Location map}}" kick. When I got to this article, it was even more mapped than Golden Gate Bridge, which threw me for a bit. But the existing maps describe the local area only, they don't place the Bay where it goes. Is this third map too much, or a good idea? - Denimadept (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to just put one map in the infobox. The overall location map is not as crucial for this bridge as it connects a well known place. For people unfamiliar with the place, they can simply click on the San Franciso Bay Area link in the first sentence to see where the bridge is. The first map is probably the one I'd choose for the infobox and I would place the second one somewhere else in the main body (history section maybe?). --Polaron | Talk 19:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Emperor Norton Plaque image[edit]

I have an cc image of the plaque at the transbay terminal here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cronins/3752462343/ It looks like I am unable to add this image to this entry, so if anyone wants to add it, please do. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.166.73 (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

trivia in lead[edit]

[1] is trivia and not only doesn't belong in the lead, it doesn't belong in the article. See Golden gate bridge#In popular culture for the way this issue was handled elsewhere. - Denimadept (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree and will move the trivia to a lower section in the article. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

bridge repair and criticism[edit]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5haVUKEctcZ2vga98Vq6VQv9S5GFAD9BK5GV80

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a civil engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who has spent 20 years studying the Bay Bridge, called the initial crack a "warning sign" of potentially bigger safety issues with the bridge.

"The repair they were doing was really a Band-Aid," said Astaneh-Asl, who criticized Caltrans at the time for rushing to reopen the bridge.

Astaneh-Asl said the failure of the repair job demonstrates the need for a longer-term solution. The bridge's age and design make it susceptible to collapse, especially if commercial tractor-trailers are allowed to continue using it, he said.

"I think Caltrans is putting public relations ahead of public safety," he said.

The bridge is out of service right now, causing significant commuting hassles. Prof. Astaneh also discussed the bridge repair in Sept. 2009 here: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/blog/computing/it/riskfactor/caltrans-san-francisco-bay-bridge-website-glitch

I think there should be some mention in the article about current age and safety concerns, preferably with better sourcing than newspaper articles. I won't attempt to add it myself, but the above links may be useful to editors already involved with the subject. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

NPR did an interview with a structural engineer on 10/30/09 who estimated the lifespan of toll bridges designed around the time of the Bay Bridge at 75 years. According to this, given that this bridge is now at 73 years old (in 2009), it would be nearing the end of it's expected lifespan. Note that this is just one engineer's opinion, however. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

October 29 incident[edit]

I think the rapid updates in the article aren't so useful any more, at least til the bridge is operating again (or there is a firm estimate). The following link(s) are informative for possible future editing but I think are not worth adding to the article til after things have quieted down. Feel free to add more:

69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Actally, I haven't run across a good description of the parts that broke. But there are a couple good images here http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_13659713. Image 22 shows the broken part that fell to the deck, while image #6 shows a similar part still in place. Andyvphil (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Caltrans now says bridge might reopen tonight or tomorrow.[2] 69.228.171.150 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Might open friday morning.[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.171.150 (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Closed through Friday, might or might not open during the weekend. Next briefing is in 1/2 hour (5:30 pm pacific). BART will have 24h service to selected stations during the weekend if the bridge stays shut.[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.171.150 (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • May stay closed through Monday morning.[5] 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Tony Alfrey has compiled a pretty good collection of engineering images and analysis coupled with photos of the repairs at various stages. Here's his page updated fairly quickly when new information arrives. Slashdot linked to his page and this one as explanations for what went wrong. Binksternet (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Another issue is the duplicated effort happening both here and here. Perhaps once things settle down a bit we can consolidate these. I would propose having the Eastern span page be the main location for this info, and putting a single sentence with a page link to that page here. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess the merge is still ongoing, but the new material is very nice! The bridge is reopened now, of course.[6] 69.228.171.150 (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo of the bridge opening day[edit]

I have a scan of a photo from the opening day of the bridge- I believe it was taken by the SF Chronicle- but attribution is unknown as is copyright- but it's been many years, is it public domain due to age? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.215.117 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Such a picture would still be in copyright. Note the date of opening. - Denimadept (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Non-free fair use is an option. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Western Crossing[edit]

The western crossing is in fact one suspension bridge with 2 large spans, connected end to end with other smaller spans, but still they're not really a pair of suspension bridges. A bridge is considered one whole bridge if both endings of the span contains trusses in which the western crossing of the suspension bridges of the Bay Bridge does not have. We San Franciscans also determine it this way, the western and eastern crossings combines it into two bridges in one, not 3 in one. The Seto-Ohashi Bridge in Japan is the same case, like the bay bridge, is one suspension bridge that consists of 2 large spans connected with smaller spans. Wfrmsf (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's just semantics, and I bet it's going to be impossible to prove that "one bridge" is somehow more correct than "an end-to-end pair of suspension bridges". Does the term "suspension bridge" imply two and only two towers, or not? Tim Zukas (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The term "suspension bridge" is any bridge that is suspended from towers. For the Bay Bridge's case, the bridge happens to be suspended with four towers on cables. Wfrmsf (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it also includes the cable terminations for bridge which isn't self-anchored. A suspension bridge, so far, has two towers and an anchor on each end. There are four towers and three anchors, meaning it consists of two bridges joined at the middle in an anchorage which serves both. But this really doesn't matter much. - Denimadept (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no problem describing the western crossing as a pair of suspension bridges, but it will not work well with "two central spans". Both statements were included in the same sentence before the revert, so you have to remove the central span part before putting the description of a pair of suspension bridges down again. Wfrmsf (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I simplified everything to reduce the risk of confusion. Wfrmsf (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I like what you've done. - Denimadept (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

how many articles?[edit]

Piggybacking on some concerns expressed by Wfrmsf, i think that each bridge needs its own article, San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge, western span, San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge, first eastern span, and San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge, second eastern span, with this article being sort of a container for the 3. My naming ideas may not be great, but i think Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge as the permanent name for the new span is really odd. over time, its simply going to be the eastern span, and that name will seem odder and odder as time goes on (its been a great name so far, though)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Surfeit of Originally[edit]

In the third paragraph, I see

"Originally, the largest span of the original eastern half was..."

Does anyone object to

"The largest span of the original eastern half was..."?

Rt3368 (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

expand "Finance" section[edit]

This Bloomberg article outlines some of the debt incurred while building this bridge and that repaying that debt will last until 2049 as far as I gather. I think it should be added to the "Finance" section of this article. I'm not so good at writing about financial things as it is not my main interest. AadaamS (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The world's widest bridge?[edit]

Sorry if I'm in a "bit" of disbelief about the new section of the SanFran/Oakland bridge being stated as the "world's widest bridge"...is it "wider" than the listed 56 meters (183 feet) width figure listed for the Leonard Zakim Bridge in nearby-to-me Boston, by any chance?

It COULD be the Zakim Bridge's split legs for each cable-stay tower straddling the twin roadbeds of Interstate 93 passing through them, accounting for the 56 meter total width figure...I'm just trying to figure out how the two stack up against each other in regards to the "width" figure, that's all.

The PIPE (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

According to the Guinness site, the bridge "features a total deck width of 78.740 m (258.33 ft), including 10 lanes of roadway, a 4.724-m-wide (15.5-ft) bike path and a gap where the central pylon supports the two bridge deck sections." -- SamuelWantman 07:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Re-directs from "Emperor Norton Bridge" and "Willie Brown Bridge"[edit]

Can anyone shed light on the histories and rationales of the re-directs by which searches on "Emperor Norton Bridge" and "Willie Brown Bridge" direct to the page for the "San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge"?

Were both of these pages failed attempts to start dedicated entries? If so, when? And what were the reasons given for the re-directs?

"Emperor Norton Bridge" makes a certain amount of sense, since it's a documentable fact that, in late 2004, (1) a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors introduced a resolution to name the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge the "Emperor Norton Bridge," and (2) the Supervisors adopted a resolution to name the East Bay Crossing of the bridge the "Emperor Norton Bridge."

But the name "Willie Brown Bridge" has no status at all, except as an informal media/blog shorthand for "Willie L. Brown, Jr., Bridge," the formal subtitle that the California state legislature recently gave to the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge, by way of naming the bridge's West Bay Crossing for Mr. Brown. 71.202.103.153 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Any thoughts on this?Johnlumea (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)