This Bridge in danger or destruction.
Looks like Anonymous is going crazy and arguing with him(her)self...
Why shouldn't it be added? It is a beautiful bridge. This bridge runs south from Howard Beach across the Grassy Bay portion of Jamaica Bay to Broad Channel.
Why was this bridge even added?
Wow. If they named that monstrosity in my honor, I'd be rolling over in my grave. UCEBish is mostly correct, you just need a space between the B and the i. UCEB. Ish. That is a more apt description!
That's why I used the "gloat plate" comparison in the first place.
As to why, your guess is as good as mine, as John's found bridges in the middle-of-nowhere that are completely over-built and over-engineered for being in the middle-of-nowhere.
As for the " Nor did the highway Dept. "design" bridges" quip, that depends entirely on the DOT. I know Iowa designed their own, led by Marston and briefly by McCollough, and their subordinates who are unmentioned by name. Nonetheless, the designs were in-house designs by already-hired staff, not outside contractors.
And there /are/ railroads who have in-house designs, but 1) There's no clear proof of that with this plaque, much less the railroad from the scant research I've done. 2) Those departments had specific names, like "Mont Claire Shops" in the case of the B&O or "Oakland Shipyard" in the case of SP's transbay ferries, not just the railroad tossed in the builder box.
Thinking about this a little more a I am wondering, how is listing the RR really "gloating" seems listing the president or chief Eng. might actually be gloating as well, why would you post it on a bridge, at the time of completion, when there is zero expectation it will ever be seen by anyone other than a few RR employees who already know the RR built it? Gloat plate just does not ring true.
1. I "demanded" proof builders and gloat plates on RR builders plates. Which you have failed to provide, one of your arguments being there would be way to many new
entries into the builders category.
2. If that is your argument why are we listing State highway depts.? And why are there not more builders plates from this RR if indeed it is nothing more than a gloat plate? They only wanted to gloat on this bridge? State departments do not have iron works or concrete companies, they contract to private companies just as this builders plate shows the RR contracted to the designer. Nor did the highway Dept. "design" bridges, they contracted or employed individuals to design them, it is the same argument. Thomas Ellis Brown worked for a RR when he upgraded designs to bascules, why does the RR not get credit but State Highway Dept. do? William Douglas was the inventor of the lenticular, he isn't even in a category, only his company. Santiago Calatrava? Point being there is no hard and fast in this site and the builders plate lists the RR unlike any other RR builders plate you have been able to produce.
1) You demanded I post proof of builders and gloat plates using the same plaque shape.
2) My argument was, and still is, that the NYC&HR on that plaque is nothing more than the "County Name" on a dedication/gloat plate.
It's a giant "Hello! My name is:" sticker.
IF they'd built it, they'd have mentioned their own iron/steel works, a la B&O and their Mont Claire Shop, but they don't, they explicitly mention A&P Roberts Co./Pencoyd.
https://bridgehunter.com/photos/13/57/135796-L.jpg These are politicians no builders. Again I would direct you to your concern that so many RR would be listed from Builders Plates. Please post a couple of examples of this.
https://bridgehunter.com/nc/haywood/870079/ This is a builders plate listing the builder not a gloat plate.
One of several bridges (I never specified railroad.) you can find across the site where the "dedication plates" and builder's plates are the same.
2) Warrens with verts handle loads differently than those without verts
Same with Camelback, which is a derivation of the Parker type with a polygonal top chord of exactly five slopes.
Denoting subtypes that are functionally different from the original type isn't a redundancy.
Arches have been made from: Stone, brick, iron, steel, concrete, and even plastics (Though those currently stay in test labs.)
Specifying which type of arch (Concrete arch, Brick arch, Stone-and-brick arch, etc.) it is, isn't a redundancy. It's specificity.
If you're referring to the "Concrete" category Amanda created, it's pointless.
"Railroad" as a genericism exists in case James wants to install a filter people can use to filter all railroad bridges out.
Well said Ed. The Free Market is exactly what the name implies, free from interference. Interference comes in many forms, regulations, law, rules, mandates, subsides etc. but it only comes from one entity, government. When people are free to enter into voluntary arrangements with each other, without any restrictions imposed by the government this is the Free Market. And back to the earlier conversation, this is the very reason monopolies can only be sustained by government, a government has the monopoly on force and use it to prevent competition, as Ed, suggested. In a Free Market, monopolies can not be sustained, consumers simply choose to spend their money else where if prices increase. Walmart and some other corporations uses a type of socialistic economy referred to today as Corporatism or Crony Capitalism, where a corporation, lobbies a Politician to garner favor in regulation that prevents competition in their particular Industry, for instance expensive EPA restrictions, minimum wage increases etc. again as Ed suggested. This is also what is going on in the State Highway dept. argument, the County, State, City...want the ability to get their payoffs and direct funds to their interests.
Nice review in today's New York Times of a graphic novel/comic book entitled ďThe Bridge: How the Roeblings Connected Brooklyn to New York.Ē which is about to be published. I look forward to buying a copy.
Here's the book review in NYT: "Building the Brooklyn Bridge, in Graphic Detail" https://nyti.ms/2H1pCLp
"6) The "free market economy" cannot exist without governmental regulation. The moment you strip that away, the moment the free market ceases to exist and we veer further towards an oligarchy."
Wow, do you have the name of the laundry which did your brain washing? Oligarchy only exists when the government supports it. The main function of a just government is to prevent stealing and to make sure no one is forced to do things against their interest or wishes. Oligarchs generally use governments to enforce policies in their interest. If the oligarchs did not have government policy on their side they would cease to exist.
Take Walmart for example. They have been, since at least the Clinton administration, working to make politics work in their favor. Tax abatements, zoning, etc. If Walmart isn't benefiting directly they work to prevent competition from springing up through regulation which act as a barrier to entry for competition.
Do you suppose Carlos Slim, the Mexican telecom billionaire has to think very long about who would be his friend in the government?
The way to make a fortune into a massive fortune is to make the government your business partner, and limit your competition.
Please provide a couple of those numerous examples of gloat plates (listing politicians or executives that look like RR builder plates).
Provide the builder plates for the RR in question.
I added it as shown on the BUILDERS PLATE, Unlike others I did not edit it to my personal specifications, to appease my sense of...?
Yes Warren is a subtype, so? It is still redundant, it is not needed, it is simply a way to further describe what you have already described. "Concrete arch" and "concrete" categories. It is made of concrete? DUH it is a concrete arch. "Norfolk Southern Railway" is a "Railroad"? Dude, I am now laughing so hard I am almost crying, are you actually defending these as not redundant?
Free Market can only be regulated? You obviously do not understand either concept. Free Market=voluntary interactions=Moral. Regulated=supported by force (ultimately death as every single law is)=Immoral. It is shocking that an adult educated person in America could confuse the two.
Yes there are shades of grey in life. However, you are mistaken if you believe every government is not "evil". All governments are run on the bases of a monopoly of force and support of laws through aggression, intimidation and coercion (immoral). The very definition of tyranny is a government the prohibits actions to its people while it, itself, retains those actions. Ask yourself this-Do you have the Right to take your neighbors money without his permission? Do you have the Right to instigate aggression against your neighbor? If you do not, which I believe any reasonable person would agree, then how can you properly delegate a Right, you do not have, to the government. The founding Fathers were very aware of this, this is why the were insistent that if we allowed a government to use force over us that we would severely limit their authority but like all governments, they simply ignored the constraints and do as they please.
With that said, the plaque is pictured in the thread, do you think it is a builders plate, intended to show NYC&HR as the builders of the bridge?
Please remember that the world consists of shades of grey. No system is perfect. Not all governments are evil, not everyone who works within a bad organization is bad.
I've seen lots of well intentioned people/organizations do horrible things for the 'right' reasons and I've seen evil/bad people do really good things (not necessarily for the right reason...).
On old truss bridges there are often two plaques installed by the builder: 1. the builder's plaque. 2. the plaque listing the freeholders who gave the builder the job.
Actually, on Carlton Bridge it was the freeholders plaque that allowed the build date to be corrected as there was only a narrow window when the three served together!
Just my two cents.
1) Again, dogwhistles.
2) There are numerous examples of political gloat plates being the same pattern plaque as the manufacturers.
3) It is a redundancy, as the way you've added it, it's the same name as the railroad category, just in the oh-so-ironic reporting mark format.
4) It's a proposal for when we have actual proof of a "Railroad Bridge Department" designing/building/erecting the bridge.
We have Railway Age articles saying that MILW built their own concrete bridges.
John has made the supposition that Northern Pacific designed all their bridges, and has made cited arguments to support.
No such citation has been made here.
5) Warren w/ all verts is a subtype. Arches have been built in multiple mediums, so concrete is a valid identifier for categorization, as is "railroad".
6) The "free market economy" cannot exist without governmental regulation. The moment you strip that away, the moment the free market ceases to exist and we veer further towards an oligarchy.
1. It matters not what level of government you are dealing with, the fed is just as corrupt as the State as corrupt as the county as corrupt as the city as corrupt as the district. You argument that one mafia is better than another is silly.
2. You are disingenuous again as a builder's plate is produced by the builder, the plaques are produced by the Politicians, they may include build dates but they are not builders plates, as I reason anyway.
3. It is not a redundant category. It is a sub category of Builders, because it is listed under another category does not make it redundant as the other category does not reflect that the company built something. You can argue that a polygonal warren pony truss with all verticals is a redundant category, it is a warren, the rest is redundant. You can argue that "concrete" is redundant on a concrete arch. You can argue "railroad" is redundant a railway page. And while "give a mouse a cookie" was a wonderful book, an argument based on the "slippery slope" premise is lost before is has begun.
Your category "railroad forces " seems to be supporting my argument the RR co built the bridge, no? And if there is only one bridge in that category, it also defeats the "slippery slope" argument, you previously lost.
I am at an end here, I will again leave it as, please quit deleting the category and in an economy, government is always the worst choice, always.
1) The states did not choose the contracts, the counties did. And therein lies the source of the problem: Counties got bribed by companies to give them their lucrative annual bridge contracts (e.g. Webster County gave N.M. Stark the contract for all their concrete bridges in 1911.), and no state-level oversight led to those contracts going unchallenged.
The ISHC only mandated that bridges and roads be built to their standardized plans, and that bidding be open to all on a bridge-by-bridge/road-by-road basis instead an annual basis.
Creating an open, level bidding field is not "socialism", as you keep dogwhistling about.
2) We don't treat every builder plate the same. Hence why we omit politician names and only list the contractor and engineer/design firm from plates that feature both.
3) Redundant categories is not a deflection. It is a valid concern. You believe that the railroad should be listed as the designer. I know this won't end up being limited this to this bridge (Think "If you give a mouse a cookie."), and then we'll (Yet again.) have multiple categories for the same things.
Hence why I pitched using a singular generic "Railroad Forces/Railroad Bridge Department category (Also not a deflection. Pitching a plausible solution != deflection.) in which one can specify the railroad within parenthesis, like I went in and did with Mr. Wilgus as the chief engineer of the NYC&HR.
Luke, your argument is unsound. Is it your contention, the States did not chose who built their bridges? That the bridge companies came and told the state what and where to build and how much to pay them? No, the State allowed (probably encouraged through corruption, bribes and pay offs) the bridge companies to operate as they were. Now you are under the impression that the State now mandating local companies get the jobs or minority companies get the job is some how an improvement. The only thing this does is make the local Politicians richer (Billy bobs brothers construction company and your wife's brother in law concrete co.) and the tax payer poorer. This is an unfavorable result, for the only person that matters, the tax payer. This type of regulation is a Socialistic economy, it is controlled by the government to produce the result the State wants (money in Politicians and cronies pockets), it is not fair and free competition.
"And my point still stands that the "NYC&HR" on the plaque doesn't actually mean anything related to the builder, and that your statement that "the railroad built the bridge" is false.
The plaque states that NYC&HR's then-chief engineer (Un-fun fact: He was ousted after an electric locomotive designed by him had a fatal derailment.) designed it, and that A&P Roberts fabricated/built it."
This argument can be just as easily applied to State highway depts. except we know the State rarely actually builds anything. It is also applicable to Bridge Companies, in both instances we do not now whether they used contract labor, local labor, their own company labor, state provided labor (because politicians gots to make their money).
My argument was that the Name is listed on the builders plate, not a plaque put up by politicians. We treat every other builder plate a certain way but not this one? Well I disagree, I believe it is indeed notable and the rarity of it, I believe, speaks to this point. The deflection I spoke of is apparent when you read the thread, every time I refuted your argument you just went to another argument.
These were the deflections, your first argument- "redundant categories for every railroad" Your second argument-"especially since the railroad's mention on the plaque serves nothing more than being the railroad equivalent of the County Gloat Plate" (if I can not know how can you?) Third argument-"I believe this preexisting "generic" category suffices for all those entries, without having to create multiple categories with the same railroad name:" (use this not that). Fourth argument-"That counterargument would work if and only if most state DOTs hadn't have designed their own standardized bridges in order to bust monopolies." (yet your logic works the exact same against highway dept. and bridge co. it is the specific people not the company that counts).
And to reply to your comment of "Thank you, however, for your valuable opinions, you are spot on, on many subjects.":
Thank you for actually doing fieldwork and taking numerous photographs of structures, especially remains.
John and yourself do a lot of legwork taking multiple hi-res detail shots of bridges some users wouldn't even bother visiting.
So while we may disagree a LOT, I can still appreciate your contributions as much as you seem to appreciate mine.
Not really, as those are still monopolies. Single companies still had exclusive control within those districts, making it impossible for local builders to flourish, or for another competitor to make a dent.
And the state didn't cause these monopolies to form. The problem was that prior to formation of the ISHC, the was little to no uniformity between the counties, and even less oversight. (Which I'm sure you'll somehow argue isn't a bad thing, based on the reply you posted while I was typing this up. I mean, it's not like a complete lack of oversight caused the banking crisis and fucked the world economy... ...Or unchecked lobbying (AKA legalized bribery) in our own government resulted in a government that listens to corporations more than their own constituencies or anything like that...)
And it's not deflection to correct you on your own historically inaccurate rebuttal to my point.
And my point still stands that the "NYC&HR" on the plaque doesn't actually mean anything related to the builder, and that your statement that "the railroad built the bridge" is false.
The plaque states that NYC&HR's then-chief engineer (Un-fun fact: He was ousted after an electric locomotive designed by him had a fatal derailment.) designed it, and that A&P Roberts fabricated/built it.
What the plaque doesn't actually tell us, is if railroad forces, day laborers, convict labor, or A&P Roberts themselves erected the bridge. You're purely guesstimating that they're the ones who erected it.
One of your biggest mistakes is believing more bridge builders equates to a better result. In economics, it is the most efficient and productive business that should succeed. Small bridge companies can not compete with larger companies in a fair market, this is not bad, this is good. This means the tax payer is getting the best deal they can. Only in a government controlled market can the smaller companies compete on level with the big companies and this most always creates a higher price for taxpayers.
A few points. First, you just refuted your own argument that the State broke up a monopoly, as there was more than one Company competing in the State. Second, you completely fail to understand how the problem you describe was created, it was completely created through the States being the sole arbiter and awarding contracts (in a corrupt manner) creating the very situation you describe. The State was responsible for the "monopoly". Even a basic understanding of economics will support the Free Market can not sustain a monopoly (certainly they can happen, but there are short lived because competition thrives in the Free Market). Only the government can sustain monopolies, they do so using law, regulation, rules and policies to thwart competition. Third, you seem to totally miss the point the States just adjusted their monopoly, they are still the sole arbiter of who builds bridges in those counties, yet again restricting the Free Market by limiting those that contend for a contract (even though it may be a larger group). Fourth, the government creates monopolies by issuing patents, which further prevents Free Market interactions. Lastly, you have deflected and deflected on the original contention, which is a strong indicator your original argument was and remains unsupportable.
And your challenge is incorrect, as prior to DOTs (Then-called Highway Commissions) standardizing designs, only a few companies built bridges in a given region, snuffing out local competition.
In Iowa, the case was that the bridge companies had divided the state into districts, with certain companies having monopolies over their district.
e.g. Clinton Bridge & Iron Works in northeastern Iowa, J.E. Jayne & Sons (Re-badged Stupp Bros.) in Johnson County, the King & WIBCO duopoly in western Iowa, etc..
It wasn't until the ISHC standardized bridge designs (With multiple uncredited "underling" engineers beneath Conde McCullough and Anson Marston.) that those districts were really busted and small local contractors flourished.
The specific highway depts. creations are besides the point. I challenged your unsubstantiated assertion that State Highways Depts. started building bridges to bust monopolies. That idea is false both in inception and practice. As well, if we were to follow your own flawed logic, only the designers and engineers that created those specific designs should be listed, not the state highway dept.. This would apply the bridge companies as well. Your entire line of reasoning is flawed and not well thought out. Thank you, however, for your valuable opinions, you are spot on, on many subjects.
It's already listed, you've just created a duplicate, superfluous category in a different box.
As for the rest of your drivel, I suggest you actually read up on the Iowa Stat Highway Commission's standardized designs and the Michigan Standardized Bridge Designs before bloviating.
It was not a counter argument, my counter arguments were previous to your ever changing reasoning to why there should not be a category for a company listed on a RR builder plate.
As for the Highway depts. the government rarely builds or makes anything, they use tax payer money to pay private companies to build. This is exactly how monopolies are created, through crony business tactics that have Politicians shift bids to their cronies. Pay offs ensure that a few companies get the governments business. And by definition, if by law only the Highway Dept. can build, you have created a monopoly. Monopolies are actually what government does best, it is evidenced by the 100, 000's of laws and regulations that prevent competition in the market place.
The Free Market can not maintain a monopoly. Only through the introduction of government control (Socialistic economy) can a monopoly be maintained.
That counterargument would work if and only if most state DOTs hadn't have designed their own standardized bridges in order to bust monopolies. (Iowa, Michigan, etc.)
You could make a better argument State Highway Depts should not be included there are almost 1000 entries for that.
As to the gloat plate theory, that of course is not the case. You are being disingenuous in your comparison. The RR actually built the bridge (to what part we might never know)and if that were the case, all their bridges would have builders plates with the RR name on it. We both know that is not the case, evidenced by the almost complete lack of RR names on builders plate. As well you are being disingenuous about the category comparison. We list Baltimore trusses when Pratt would do. Your case is very weak and unconvincing. Please do not remove the category from the page
So there is one bridge in that category, a testament, I would think that it is indeed not an avalanche of new entries in the builder category. Since most rail lines have changed hands, that might make it appear the current company built the bridge, without proper credit to the actual builders. Again not valid reasons to preclude RR builders from their rightful mention. The more I look, the more it seems that this is a rare instance (builder plate with RR on it) lending credence to the fact it should indeed be documented correctly.
Now, in cases of timber trestles, and in certain railroad-specific cases (The Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, & Pacific is a glaring example of this), railroad's own bridge departments fabricated (In the cases of concrete and timber structures) and erected (In the case of pre-fabricated steel structures) bridges
I believe this preexisting "generic" category suffices for all those entries, without having to create multiple categories with the same railroad name: https://bridgehunter.com/category/builder/railroad-company-f...
Except the category for New York Central & Hudson River Railroad already exists
Having a duplicate category adds nothing, especially since the railroad's mention on the plaque serves nothing more than being the railroad equivalent of the County Gloat Plate*.
William J. Wilgus, the man who was also the architect of Grand Central Station, and A&P Roberts are the relevant builders.
(*For the reference of others, "County Gloat Plate" refers to a "builder plate" that carries the names of County XYZ commissioners and selectmen, +/- any actual mention of the engineers or contractors who actually built the structure.
The similarity here is that the "New York Central & Hudson River Railroad" serves the same function on this plate as "County XYZ" does on those plates.)
It would seem the vast majority of railroads are not listed on builder plates, in fact, I have found it to be quite rare. I do not know how many bridges I have photographed but it is well into the hundreds and I can only think of one other bridge with a RR on the builders plate. It would seem to me that the info on the builders plate is valuable enough that we take the time to list it, as well I believe James has set forward a mechanism to accommodate the large amount of builders on the site, so I do not see that as a valid argument. We also list bridge companies together with engineers and cont. co when appropriate so that does not seem to be a valid argument. I am going to again list the RR as a builder, unless there is a more valid argument.
The railroad name on that plaque seems to be more of a title than anything.
In any case, I feel we should list the actual railroad company bridge engineers as such instead of making a bunch of redundant categories for every railroad.
I think its a situation where the railroad actually engineered the structure, and then contracted with A&P Roberts to actually built the structure. Assuming this is the case, they would be both a railroad and builder/engineer.
Question here, twice someone has removed "NYC&HR Railroad" as builders on this page. Should they not be listed per the Builder's plate?
I made a webmaster request about that...
...a few years ago.
Photos 1 and 2 of 8 for this listing are actually of the current i.e.new Green Island Bridge and should be moved to the separate listing which now extists for that span and deleted from this one.
Seems like a Baltimore?
Fair enough, I only mentioned it because I brought up the same question a couple of years ago when I listed it as the Robert F Kennedy Bridge and the thought at the time was, It was an approach. Things change, I understand, just trying to be consistent.
The Harlem River Lift Bridge already had a separate page from the suspension bridge, so I didnít see why separating the Bronx Kill Truss Bridge would be any different.
In truth, this probably is a separate structure that should be listed separately. I was on the fence about it for a while. But, listing it separately does go against the historical precedent on this website. Thus, if somebody wants to separate a couple of bridges They should probably signal their intention to head of time. Doing so would likely prevent some backlash.
I also agree with Matt and Amanda. Looking at bridges such as the MacArthur Bridge in Saint Louis, it consists of a number of different approaches which were built at different times. Most of these viaducts include trusses of all types and sizes. These networks of bridges are some very interesting structures.
Although I know it's not the protocol that's typically followed on this website, I wholeheartedly agree with Amanda, especially with these long bridges where there are more than one significant bridge type with long distances of non-significant concrete in between them. The reason for this is that when these are all placed into a single entry, it's easy to overlook one significant part of a bridge when a different significant part is what is shown on the front page. I think that each portion deserves its own page so that the page can focus on the details of its own type. It's very easy for bridge pages to get cluttered up with confusing information when they are all placed together. The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is entered as one whole bridge, but I think it would be much more effective to have the eastern truss portion and the western suspension portion entered separately, simply because they are each their own significant types that are worthy of their own entries, single bridge or not. Now the new eastern China-made span is one I couldn't care less about, but the old truss bridge was definitely significant and noteworthy on its own.
So why is the Harlem river lift bridge a separate page? It never touches the ground except for like 100 feet for a toll booth...
There are steel stringer spans connecting the suspension and truss bridges with the lift bridge that again only end for like 100 feet at the toll plaza.
Regardless, the bridges should be considered as three separate bridges, not one suspension bridges and two truss approaches to said suspension bridge. These are three very clearly distinct bridges and therefore should be featured as three separate bridges. If Mr. Baughn disagrees with me he can revert/delete everything, but this is one of the times when I will not self-revert my own work just because someone disagrees with me.
I am with the Haleys. This page should not have been created.
Pretty clear if you actually look at the bridge you will see it continues as concrete stringers to the suspension bridge, never abutting to ground, hence an approach. This is the reason I did not list it separately and posted The pics of the truss on the http://bridgehunter.com/ny/queens/triborough/ page.
Lumpers and Splitters - one man's separate bridge is another man's approach span.
It lines/lined up with Livingston Avenue. First use of the name was during construction in 1901: https://books.google.com/books?id=q3mcAAAAMAAJ&dq=editions%3...
Very creative, I know, but there are several examples of such creative naming over the years, such as Monon's Hohman Avenue Bridge in the Chicagoland area.
Livingston Avenue bridge? Not seeing the significance here.
No it is not. It is a completely separate bridge from the suspension bridge, just like the Harlem River lift bridge.
This is a duplicate of http://bridgehunter.com/ny/queens/triborough/
this bridge is part of the approach.
Given a choice between the two, I'll take a MOB over a UCEB just because there's some semblance of an aesthetic.
But what do I know?
Only added today? I am surprised that this bridge was not on here already.
Whoever removed ďTrussĒ from the bridgeís name, the other parts have ďsuspensionĒ and ďliftĒ in the names to distinguish the three separate bridges.
Also, when editing my bridges, PLEASE log your change in the update log so I know who edited and what they edited. Thanks.
Hi Amanda, Iím certainly not trying to create schism on this website, and to the bridgeís credit it is a truss, but the positives end there....this is a common, bland, Wal-mart inspired, mail-order bridge that is found in many, many parks across the country. They have used this bridge type in at least one location in my state of Wisconsin to replace an actual historic (and beautiful) truss bridge that was not in the way of anything and was in great shape, which is senseless and destructive. In this case, thankfully, they didnít replace an historic bridge, but they could have used an actual historic bridge here instead of this, which would have enhanced this area and preserved a piece of history. With New York Cityís commendable preservation record, Iím actually surprised that they went this route here.
I honestly donít care that itís a ďMOBĒ - I care that itís NOT a UCEB.
At least itís a truss bridge that has some decoration to the trail.
Hi Amanda. You are going to find that these prefabricated mail-order bridges are very much of a sore point on this website. A lot of times, these bridges are installed on a trail where a historic bridge could have been used instead. In some instances, these bridges even replace historic bridges on trails.
Whoa whoa whoa...
Itís NOT THAT UGLY!!! Sure, itís not as rare as the railroad inverted bowstring bridge, but at least itís not a UCEB and it still adds some different appearance to the walking path and parks that surround it.
I think they gave it that name because itís so painfully ugly that when you walk across it youíd swear you were walking into hell.
They call THIS modern, prefabricated, mass-produced welded MOB the "Little Hell Gate Bridge?!" That's sad. The REAL Little Hell Gate Bridge is one of the most unique bridges in the entire country, a rare inverted bowstring truss custom-designed by engineering mastermind Gustav Lindenthal as an approach to the Hell Gate Arch Bridge.
The 2015 bridge is built over Bronx Kill and is built through the arched supports for this bridge:
The Othmar Amman bridge is the blue lift footbridge that Luke referenced before.
The bridge in the photo is built over Little Hell Gate and was built in 2003. If you go to google earth to this bridge and use the clock function, you will see that the bridge appears in the August 2003 frame.
I think that Matt and I were posting at the same time.
I don't see that anything got filled in. It looks like the same river and the same two buildings in the background in both the color photo and the black and white photo. I think these photographs are documenting a mail-order bridge, not the Othmar Ammann span.
Folks, I have an explanationóthe 2015 bridge is built over Bronx Kill right underneath the existing Bronx Kill Amtrak Bridge, on the northeast side of Randallís Island. Itís not visible from the satellite view, but itís there. The bridge in the photo was built in Summer 2003 (the caption with Photo #3 came from Pinterest and is incorrect).
Also, as noted below, this bridge was in existence when I drove the RFK (then Triborough) Suspension bridge multiple times between 2003 & 2007, and I even walked the pedestrian lift bridge once.
True, BUT in addition to being black-and-white, the photo was also taken before Little Hell Gate was filled in, as can be seen in the background of the photo. There is no longer water much behind the structure today, and hasnít been for quite some time.
Monochromatic != historic.
So why is there an historical black-and-white photo of the bridge on Pinterest that shows the exact same structure before the Little Hell Gate waterway was completely filled in?
I also know that even if this a modern bridge, itís newer than 2015, since I was in New York City multiple times between 2003 & 2007 and the bridge was there, although unfortunately I didnít have time to document it personally.
They're talking about http://bridgehunter.com/ny/new-york/wards-island/
The bridge in the image is the one built in 2015.
See the Wikipedia link - it will tell you it was constructed in 1951
Admittedly, I know absolutely zilch about New York City bridges. That being said, this does not look like a 1950s bridge to me. It looks like a very modern mob. Is this an extremely old mob or do we have a photo and Bridge mismatched here?
If it's a mismatch please don't feel bad about it. I have mismatched a few myself.
Nice collection of postcard views. The Berlin Iron Bridge Company's lenticular truss bridges are works of art. Hope the one at Delhi has escaped the scrap heap. Thanks for posting.
Okay, I laughed out loud when I saw my car! Coffee meet keyboard!
Attached detail from Beck & Pauli's 1881 Birdseye View of Troy,NY. The Rennselaer & Saratoga was the second oldest railroad in America. The bridge crossed the Hudson from Troy to Green Island passing over Starbuck Island. The Starbuck Ironworks where the towers for California's Bidwell's Bar Suspension Bridge were fabricated is clearly visible in the lower portion of the lithograph. Sparks from a locomotive passing through the covered portion of the bridge set off the Great Troy Fire of May 10, 1862 which consumed over 500 buildings in downtown Troy. The destruction extended from the river as far east as 8th Street.
Full view can be seen @
Think this one was road not RR
That was my first thought but the crossing is much too large and the road alignment doesn't work. I considered most of the other crossings; they didn't fit for one reason or another.
Also, the text on the card is vague enough that it works.
Valid observation. Going to pull till sure.
You might consider the bridge between Hornell and North Hornell over the Canisteo River. The "North Hornell" name may mean the one to North Hornell rather the one on the north side of North Hornell.
Closed for 5 months due to cracks; now open:
This bridge was replaced in 2017 with a slab of cement. Glad they didn't destroy the original as it looked in decent shape.
This bridge was just rehabbed late 2017/early 2018 with what looks like a new cement deck and freshly painted side rails. Sadly Red Mills down the road suffered a much worse fate and was totally replaced by a slab of cement.
"Modern Whipple 2"
Thank you Mr. Baughn!
(Just saw this now)
Attention "Justin": I know your real identity. Knock it off.
Glad to help; I don't get around to photograph too many bridges anymore, as most in my area are well documented, but I like to help with the mapping and web research on some of the far away ones if I can.
Welcome aboard, Amanda! It takes a while to get recognition on here sometimes.
I will not comment further. As I said, if the webmaster wants to remove my contributions, he can do so without contacting me. Otherwise, they will remain as is.
Both the state and the county are listed right beside the bridge's name in the site's search results.
If they're looking for the bridge in New York, they can clearly see which one is in New York, and so-on and so-forth.
Also the description section is a thing that exists.
People confuse things based on similar names, not based on location. Someone who doesnít study bridges wouldnít even care where the 3 Verrazano bridges are - they would just care about getting info about the correct one for traveling or a project or what not.
So no, I will not remove the ďessaysĒ. BTW they arenít really essays - itís just that the essay tool is the only tool available for this purpose. If Mr. Baughn the webmaster feels that they are inappropriate, he has my permission to remove them without contacting me, as long as he states that he did so. However, I will not revert my contributions.
Can you stop adding irrelevant essays that add nothing to the entries you add them to?
All of bridges you think people are going to confuse with another exist in different states altogether, which highlights the pointlessness of them.