The Lincoln Tunnel and the George Washington Bridge both cross the Hudson River into/out of Manhattan, but one is over the water and the other is under. Why? Which (tunnels or bridges) are more expensive? Why build the one that is more expensive? Thanks.
-VarlosZ
I think it has something to do with the fact that tunnelling engineering was ahead of bridge engineering for a while. The first 3 crossings of the Hudson between N.J. and Manhattan were all tunnels[ul]2 train tunnels, now PATH tunnels completed in 1904 and 1905
the Holland Tunnel completed in 1927[/ul] The George Washington Bridge was completed next, in 1931. When it opened it was just about twice as long as the next-longest suspension bridge in the world. The Lincoln Tunnel opened later, in 1937. (The third tube of the Lincoln tunnel didn’t open until 1957).
Nowadays, tunnels are more expensive.
Here in DC, one proposal for replacing the Woodrow Wilson Bridge (IIRC, the only drawbridge in the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System) over the Potomac was a tunnel. The cost was over $1 billion, whereas any bridge would be in the mere hundreds of millions.
Of course, the locals don’t want anything that’ll disturb the status quo. They don’t want a tunnel (it’ll require disturbing a wetland), nor a higher bridge that would forgo the need of a draw span. They also don’t want more lanes, which I don’t get. Right now, it’s 3 each way, but the approaches to it are 4. Bottlenecks form there daily.
I-290 in Chicago ends at a Drawbridge just beyond it’s intersection with I-90/94.
I-275 in Toledo (Or maybe another one. I can’t remember exactly) has a drawbridge. But now we have gotten way off topic.
However, though I am just seconding anothers WAG, I believe that biblio may have it partially correct. It also may have to do with the geography of the area. The GW Bridge crosses an area between two highlands, while the Lincoln and Holland tunnels cross between lowlands areas. Plus, if I’m not mistaken, bridge approaches are more complex than tunnel approaches, and so cramped areas might require tunnels as opposed to bridges. New Yorks other two major tunnels (the Brooklyn-Battery and Queens-Midtown) cross to fairly heavily populated and cramped areas of the city. But this is just another WAG.
One story I have heard was that the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel was constructed so as not to obstruct navigation to the Brooklyn Naval Yard. Of course this was rather silly an excuse as the Brooklyn Bridge and Manhattan Bridges already existed.
Nowadays tunnels seem preferred so as not to spoil the views, and perhaps because people seem less nervous driving in tunnels than driving over long-span bridges.
About the Bklyn-Battery Tunnel, the man who built it, Robert Moses loved himself and the fact that he changed NYC’s landscape so much. He originally wanted a bridge, because they can be seen as symbols of strength and power, but it was made into a tunnel because the feet of the bridge would necessitate clearing many acres of buildings, especially at the Southern tip of Manhattan. You can’t see tunnels, and that’s why they’re not so cool politically. Bridges are better.
Of course, there’s another side to the “can’t see tunnels” argument: sometimes not seeing it is an advantage. I live in Norway. Tourists come to this country for picture postcard views of nature. Putting a massive structure in the middle of that view, no matter how impressive it may be from an aesthetic or technological point of view, is Bad For Business.
Sometimes, there’s also a practical reason for it. For instance, in areas where gale-force winds are common, tunnels often make more sense than bridges for long spans - if for no other reason than because people tend to get nervous about driving over bridges in high winds!
It’s on I-280 crossing the Maumee River. Here’s some pictures from the ODOT website. The one in the middle shows it pretty well, albeit in the down position.
One must consider the location of the crossing. A bridge has a limit on its maximum span. A tunnel, by virtue of its support structure, does not. Also shipping traffic must be considered. When the QE2 came to Philadelphia on a visit she had to stop south of the Walt Whitman Bridge…her stacks were too tall. Had there been a tunnel the majestic ship could have come up the river to the city proper. As it was I had to snake through a freight terminal just to get a look.
Funny, it looks like the entire state of Ohio to me. :D:D
Yeah UncleBeer, at least tell us which county to look in! :mad: