6 ms·
As a reminder, The Golden Gate Bridge, built in 1933, cost $1.5 billion in todays dollars, is 8,980 feet long (to the 11,616 feet of the eastern span) is 746 fe
by carsongross 11y ago
As a reminder, The Golden Gate Bridge, built in 1933, cost $1.5 billion in todays dollars, is 8,980 feet long (to the 11,616 feet of the eastern span) is 746 feet tall (to the 525 feet of the eastern span) and is tremendously architecturally significant, rather than looking like a highway onramp with a small sail plopped on one end of it.
Please stop this ride.
- jacobreg 11y agoNot only that, the project had an unprecedented safety record, with many safety measures put in place that went far beyond legal workplace requirements at the time. Also it was completed $1.3 million under budget.
- ck2 11y agoWould you want to be standing on it when an earthquake hits? BTW the golden gate was built mostly with private funds from bonds ($35M in 1930's dollars) Also a record of "only" 11 people killed building it.
- khuey 11y agoI would be more comfortable standing on the Golden Gate Bridge than the new Bay Bridge during an earthquake.
- mikeyouse 11y agoThat seems foolhardy; Immediately following the Loma Prieta quake, the GGBHTD engaged a team of consultants to conduct a vulnerability study. The conclusion of the study was that under a Richter magnitude 7.0 or greater earthquake with an epicenter near the Bridge, it would experience severe damage that could close this important transportation link for an extended period. If a Richter magnitude 8.0 or greater earthquake centered near the Bridge, there would be a substantial risk of impending collapse of the San Francisco and Marin Approach Viaducts and the Fort Point Arch, and extensive damage to the remaining Bridge structures, including the Main Suspension Bridge. They've spent or authorized nearly $1 billion in additional funds to seismically retrofit the Golden Gate, and the work isn't finished yet. http://goldengatebridge.org/projects/retrofit.php http://goldengatebridge.org/projects/retrofit.php
- sliverstorm 11y agoThat means little without comparison to other bridges. Standing in an open wheat field is probably safer than a bridge, but how does the GGB compare to other bridges? Also, a Richter 8.0 is a pretty damn hefty quake.
- mikeyouse 11y agoSo the GGB would be substantially damaged in an 8.0 quake, but the Bay Bridge is designed to survive and be immediately accessible to emergency vehicles in an 8.5 quake. Those seem like relatively minor differences, but (assuming the new span actually performs like designed) the Bay Bridge should easily survive an earthquake that is 3.1x larger and releases over 5x more energy than one that will "extensively damage" the Golden Gate Bridge. http://i.imgur.com/07u65bj.png http://i.imgur.com/07u65bj.png
- sliverstorm 11y agoI'm familiar with the logarithmic nature of the Richter scale. I was not sure whether the Bay Bridge was indeed designed to survive a larger quake.
- hugh4 11y agoSeems an important distinction given that the largest quake recorded in California was a 7.9 and the largest in San Francisco a 7.8. So presumably an 8.0 is plausible but an 8.5 may not be.
- mikeyouse 11y agoApparently the maximum 'plausible' (which is a generous modifier) earthquake on the San Andreas is about an 8.3, but the entire fault line from Mexico to Northern California would have to rupture simultaneously. You're right that we're unlikely to see an 8.5. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-will-really-happen-california-when-san-andreas-unleashes-big-one-180955432/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-will-reall...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- smackfu 11y agoConstruction in 1933 didn't have to care about the environment or the workers, and those add tremendous expense.