Just looking over your sections and they look great. I walk by there everyday and have been thinking about your proposal.
I was wondering if you have looked into an underpass, somewhere around section A would be my first instinct and the feasibility of such. It would contradict some of the CPTED concepts I imagine. Nevertheless, it looks as though a good chunk of Summit in that area is fill anyways so that might play a role. The span would be less than a bridge and it would make use of the natural terrain (albeit more so the current existing terrain).
Not sure if that helps or just piles on more work...
Thanks for the insight Wazza. I can definitely see the potential benefits of a tunnel, particularily if it could reduce the overall costs of the project. However, I beleive a bridge with all the benefits that go along with it (aesthetic appeal, suitability to the site, views of the city, potential to create a landmark, safety etc...) outweigh the benefits of a tunnel. I appreciate the input and am looking forward to your further contributions to the discussion on this site.
The grading appears to favour a bridge. Section B looks to be the most practical. I would suggest sketching in a bridge that provides a reasonable amount of room under it for traffic and see what kind of grades you would need. Then look in the Code and see if they are accessible.
Wow, this blog has come a long way Jezza. Great stuff. While searching for information on sustainable parking and roadways I stumbled on this site for sustainable bridges. It has a lot of info, images, and graphs that might help you out with your designs. Stay green! http://www.sustainablebridges.net/
Thanks Bryan. Theres some good information there about key maintenance issues for specific use bridges. Hopefully Ill be able to "design in" low maintenance.
Hey Jezza,
ReplyDeleteJust looking over your sections and they look great. I walk by there everyday and have been thinking about your proposal.
I was wondering if you have looked into an underpass, somewhere around section A would be my first instinct and the feasibility of such. It would contradict some of the CPTED concepts I imagine. Nevertheless, it looks as though a good chunk of Summit in that area is fill anyways so that might play a role. The span would be less than a bridge and it would make use of the natural terrain (albeit more so the current existing terrain).
Not sure if that helps or just piles on more work...
W
Thanks for the insight Wazza. I can definitely see the potential benefits of a tunnel, particularily if it could reduce the overall costs of the project. However, I beleive a bridge with all the benefits that go along with it (aesthetic appeal, suitability to the site, views of the city, potential to create a landmark, safety etc...) outweigh the benefits of a tunnel. I appreciate the input and am looking forward to your further contributions to the discussion on this site.
ReplyDeleteThe grading appears to favour a bridge. Section B looks to be the most practical. I would suggest sketching in a bridge that provides a reasonable amount of room under it for traffic and see what kind of grades you would need. Then look in the Code and see if they are accessible.
ReplyDeleteWow, this blog has come a long way Jezza. Great stuff. While searching for information on sustainable parking and roadways I stumbled on this site for sustainable bridges. It has a lot of info, images, and graphs that might help you out with your designs. Stay green! http://www.sustainablebridges.net/
ReplyDeleteThanks Bryan. Theres some good information there about key maintenance issues for specific use bridges. Hopefully Ill be able to "design in" low maintenance.
ReplyDelete