Naviguessor Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 HCTRA is planning to replace the Beltway 8 Ship Channel Bridge with two Cable-stayed suspension bridges. Public Notice attached from the Coast Guard is attached. Has this been mentioned already? Couldn't find an ongoing topic. Public notice - bridge application - 091815.pdf 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intencity77 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 But the current bridge isn't even that old?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emanthehouseboy Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 @intencity77, The bridge was built in 1982--it's 33 years old. Although it did hold up well, isn't it time for an upgrade? Here's a pic I found: SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/DeerParkTX.ED 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intencity77 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I'm aware of the age of the bridge, as I grew up in this part of town. I just assumed the 610 Ship Channel Bridge would have taken precedence over this, as it is much older and need of replacement. While the new bridge rendering looks great it sounds like an unnecessary waste of money. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I was forwarded this in an e-mail from an exclusive source. They could easily built an identical bridge right next to it to double capacity, but my source was concerned about lack of shoulders. I guess they'll be doing an interchange at 225? @intencity77, The bridge was built in 1982--it's 33 years old. Although it did hold up well, isn't it time for an upgrade? Here's a pic I found: SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/DeerParkTX.ED LOL Fred Hartmann 1.5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADCS Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I wonder if the interior of the box girders is starting to degrade, given the relatively harsh environment surrounding the bridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Yeah I like it, but it would be cool if they didn't copy+paste Fred Hartman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 can we get it built with Carnegie Steel this time? The Eads bridge was built in 1874, carried at least one elephant and is still in use today. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADCS Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 can we get it built with Carnegie Steel this time? The Eads bridge was built in 1874, carried at least one elephant and is still in use today. They tended to overengineer bridges quite a bit in those days, for a variety of reasons - labor was much cheaper, math was still done on paper, material strength coefficients weren't well known, etc. Thirty years ago, engineering would have been done to a fairly precise estimation of loads. That's what leads me to believe that there's structural degradation - otherwise, what's the point of spending that much more on a double replacement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 33 years (OK, 40 or so by the time the replacement is there) is likely less than what the specified design life was when built. On the other hand, that bridge isn't quite the thrill that the Huey P. Long outside of New Orleans was before it was widened, but it's close. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNAguy Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I heard that the reason why the bridge is being replaced isn't neccessarily that its past its life, but that it limits the flow of ship channel traffic to between the bridge pillons.IDK if that's completely. However, when you consider the potential catastophree of a significant ship hitting them (considering the ship AND car traffic) there is no reason to keep this bridge in service IMO.A suspension bridge is a far better dresign from a safety aspect. It should be a far better design from a traffic flow aspect as well when you consider the increased lanes AND what should be a less steep grade. Lots of congestion is created at the current bridge becasue the climb is so steep and traffic slows down considerably because of that. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADCS Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I heard that the reason why the bridge is being replaced isn't neccessarily that its past its life, but that it limits the flow of ship channel traffic to between the bridge pillons.IDK if that's completely. However, when you consider the potential catastophree of a significant ship hitting them (considering the ship AND car traffic) there is no reason to keep this bridge in service IMO.A suspension bridge is a far better dresign from a safety aspect. It should be a far better design from a traffic flow aspect as well when you consider the increased lanes AND what should be a less steep grade.Lots of congestion is created at the current bridge becasue the climb is so steep and traffic slows down considerably because of that. I'm guessing this has to do with New Panamax traffic. Are there any Ship Channel dredging projects in the near future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 The new Panamax ships can't fit into the ship channel fully loaded. It would take an enormous amount of money to fully dredge out the ship channel enough to let them in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naviguessor Posted October 2, 2015 Author Share Posted October 2, 2015 ADCS - The Port of Houston does not have a specific timeline on widening or increasing the depth of the Ship Channel, in this location, at the moment. But, widening is part of the long term plan. The Ship Channel is generally quite narrow and relatively treacherous. But, I believe that you are correct about New Panamax Traffic. There is expected to be a very large increase in Container traffic in the port and, in turn, on the roads. This bridge does serve as a direct link to I-10 West from Barbours Cut and Bayport Container Terminals. For heavy traffic, and trucks, the bridge does seem to be less than optimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADCS Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 ADCS - The Port of Houston does not have a specific timeline on widening or increasing the depth of the Ship Channel, in this location, at the moment. But, widening is part of the long term plan. The Ship Channel is generally quite narrow and relatively treacherous. But, I believe that you are correct about New Panamax Traffic. There is expected to be a very large increase in Container traffic in the port and, in turn, on the roads. This bridge does serve as a direct link to I-10 West from Barbours Cut and Bayport Container Terminals. For heavy traffic, and trucks, the bridge does seem to be less than optimal. I can't imagine they'll put a container port inland of Barbours Cut/Bayport, but I can easily imagine larger petroleum tankers going to the West Coast that would take advantage of a wider and deeper channel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Huge Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) The Panamax ships don't have to come inland through the ship channel, they all offload at Barbours Cut/Morgans Point.Also, being in the industry, and as someone who frequently drives 18 wheelers fully loaded with up to 70,000 lbs of crane counterweights up and down this bridge, I am in FULL support of replacing it with a wider, Fred Hartman style bridge.That thing is a death trap and a nightmare to drive over in a haul truck, with all the little four wheelers constantly cutting in and around you because you're going too slow. The grade is so steep I almost come to a stop trying to get to the peak.My worst nightmare is that one day my brakes will give, or a tranny will blow right before I hit the peak, and I will come flyin down the ramp in reverse, plowing through anything and everyone in my path. Edited October 2, 2015 by Howard Huge 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I didn't know Porsche made trucks... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLWM8609 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) ADCS - The Port of Houston does not have a specific timeline on widening or increasing the depth of the Ship Channel, in this location, at the moment. But, widening is part of the long term plan. The Ship Channel is generally quite narrow and relatively treacherous. But, I believe that you are correct about New Panamax Traffic. There is expected to be a very large increase in Container traffic in the port and, in turn, on the roads. This bridge does serve as a direct link to I-10 West from Barbours Cut and Bayport Container Terminals. For heavy traffic, and trucks, the bridge does seem to be less than optimal. That bridge is seemingly narrow for 1982 standards. I've seen bridges from the 70s that are wider and have full shoulders (cough cough, 610, cough cough), but Interstate design standards are different. I think I read somewhere that the current bridge is so narrow because it was originally planned to be a NB or SB only structure, but it would serve both NB and SB traffic until a twin structure could be built. Edited October 2, 2015 by JLWM8609 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 That bridge is seemingly narrow for 1982 standards. I've seen bridges from the 70s that are wider and have full shoulders (cough cough, 610, cough cough), but Interstate design standards are different. I think I read somewhere that the current bridge is so narrow because it was originally planned to be a NB or SB only structure, but it would serve both NB and SB traffic until a twin structure could be built.North of Jacintoport, the freeway pavement ends and squeezes into the right side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryDierker Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 The Panamax ships don't have to come inland through the ship channel, they all offload at Barbours Cut/Morgans Point.Also, being in the industry, and as someone who frequently drives 18 wheelers fully loaded with up to 70,000 lbs of crane counterweights up and down this bridge, I am in FULL support of replacing it with a wider, Fred Hartman style bridge.That thing is a death trap and a nightmare to drive over in a haul truck, with all the little four wheelers constantly cutting in and around you because you're going too slow. The grade is so steep I almost come to a stop trying to get to the peak.My worst nightmare is that one day my brakes will give, or a tranny will blow right before I hit the peak, and I will come flyin down the ramp in reverse, plowing through anything and everyone in my path. I couldn't imagine. I pulled a double axle trailer over this bridge in a pick-up truck one rainy night and thought I was surely gonna die. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) CHARACTER OF WORK: The HCTRA proposes a replacement bridge project along Beltway 8 to improve the north-south transportation link between Interstate Highway 10 (IH 10) and State Highway 225 (SH 225) in Houston, Harris County, Texas and remove the existing bridge. By removing the existing bridge and constructing new a bridge along this segment of the Sam Houston Tollway East (SHTE) corridor, the HCTRA aims to improve safety by upgrading roadway design to current Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design standards, improving mobility within the corridor to accommodate current and future traffic demands, and completing the SHTE system initiative. The SHTE system initiative involves construction of a corridor that is consistent with other segments of the SHTE system to the north and south of the project areas. Man, I know the name fits for the area, but the acronym for Sam Houston Tollway East could use a bit of work. I did laugh like a 12 year-old reading every mention of the SHT-E system. Edited October 3, 2015 by BigFootsSocks 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkultra25 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 I didn't know Porsche made trucks... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Aye, but that's a Scania* lion on the side *what survives of SAAB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Booo, not the same thing!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkultra25 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Aye, but that's a Scania* lion on the side *what survives of SAAB Yeah, several years ago when Porsche was buying up VW shares as part of its abortive takeover attempt, it had to also make an offer to buy Scania as a result of its increased stake in VW, who was (and still is) the majority stakeholder in Scania. Someone obviously decided to have some fun with Photoshop as a result, but I like to think of it as a natural outgrowth of the Cayenne Turbo, only bigger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtterlyUrban Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Are bridges designed to last 35 years? If so, I am surprised and scare to death to drive around much of the rest of the country (and the metroplex) that has bridges much older than this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLWM8609 Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Are bridges designed to last 35 years?If so, I am surprised and scare to death to drive around much of the rest of the country (and the metroplex) that has bridges much older than this. There's no reason to be scared of a bridge based by age alone. An old, but well-maintained bridge is safer than a new but shoddily built bridge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADCS Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) There's no reason to be scared of a bridge based by age alone. An old, but well-maintained bridge is safer than a new but shoddily built bridge Looking at it a little more closely, it's more of a capacity issue than anything. The current bridge is 48 feet wide, which means you'd only be able to fit in three 12 foot lanes with six foot shoulders for one-way traffic. The new bridges will be 70 feet wide, meeting interstate standards with 12 foot travel lanes and 10 foot shoulders. Edited October 5, 2015 by ADCS 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxConcrete Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 http://www.traylor.com/nhcd-project-win-houston-ship-channel-bridge/ In the HCTRA contract document (https://www.hctra.org/-/media/3FE15A08139B437A991C1042337C68FD.ashx), the cost is listed at $567,911,750.40, well below the cost estimate of $612 million. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkylineView Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 Wow, I thought I'd read it would be a copy of the existing bridge. This looks great, and it gets the supports out of the water. Good compliment to Fred Hartman. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.