Hey, it's a bridge!

[owlmoose]

The new eastern span of the Bay Bridge opened around 10pm last night, about 7 hours ahead of schedule. (Or 20 years behind schedule, depending on how you count it.) We drove over it and back about half an hour after it opened because, well, how could we not? After 24 years -- the first talk of rebuilding the new span began in 1988, even before the old eastern span was damaged in the 1989 earthquake -- numerous delays, and 6.4 billion dollars, you better believe I wanted a look at that thing as soon as I could. Next stop: driving over it in daylight, for some of those views they keep talking up.

Comments

[sarasa_cat]

Yay! 7 hours ahead of schedule after a 20 year wait. ;D

Oh, public works and transportation projects... why must they end up slower than molasses far too often?

I didn't realize that the Bay Area had to engage in a massive bridge rebuild after the '89 earthquake. What was the state of the Bay Bridge over the past 20+ years? Was it partly open for reduced traffic, or completely closed, or open while structurally unsound?

[owlmoose]

Completely open, except for a few planned closures related to construction of the new span and two closures for emergency repairs, one after the 1989 earthquake and one in 2009. It's a major commute artery, so there's no way it could have been fully or even partially closed for that long -- all the planned closures were over holiday weekends.

It's kind of a long story, but the short version: the state was already looking at doing a seismic retrofit of the Bay Bridge (which is actually two separate bridges connected by an island) before the 1989 earthquake, and they decided it would be better to tear down the eastern span and rebuild. (The western span was retrofitted, a job that took several years but has been complete for awhile.) Then, in 1989, a portion of the eastern span's upper deck fell down onto the lower deck, which in theory pushed the timeline up, but bickering over the bridges placement and design and cost delayed construction so many times that it didn't even start until 2002 (with an estimated 2007 opening), and then was shut down in 2004 while they got back to arguing. The new bridge is really lovely, but imho it's not worth the extra time, cost, and years of putting trust in a safety hazard. (And that's not hindsight talking; I've always felt that way.) We are damn lucky that there wasn't another major quake during that time.

[sarasa_cat]

Wow. O_o That's quite creepy from a structural standpoint. At least it is done and luck held out the entire time.

Same sad story here: many highly unsound structures that would be condemned as unsound if they were buildings, but as bridges, viaducts, and seawalls, they limp along while time, money, and patience are wasted. As an outsider, I've been baffled by the local-level political gridlock I've seen over the past decade because it won't take much of a quake to bring cause disasters and, you know, infrastructure creates jobs. At least two necessary (long overdue) arterial projects are moving forward. Neither look anywhere near as pretty as that new span on your Bay Bridge, but they're both equally critical for safety.

[owlmoose]

The crumbling infrastructure of the United States and our total unwillingness to do anything about it, despite the life-safety and job creation issues involved, is one of my biggest frustrations with this country right now.