DOCSLIB.ORG

The Future of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel REPORT of the JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT and REVIEW COMMISSION

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Future of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel REPORT of the JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT and REVIEW COMMISSION JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT AND REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY The Future of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel REPORT OF THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT AND REVIEW COMMISSION The Future of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA HOUSE DOCUMENT NO. 18 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND 2003 Members of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission Chairman Senator Kevin G. Miller Vice-Chairman Delegate Lacey E. Putney Delegate Vincent F. Callahan, Jr. Senator John H. Chichester Senator Charles J. Colgan Delegate M. Kirkland Cox Delegate Frank D. Hargrove, Sr. Delegate Johnny S. Joannou Delegate Dwight C. Jones Senator Thomas K. Norment, Jr. Delegate Harry J. Parrish Delegate John A. Rollison III Senator Walter A. Stosch Delegate Leo C. Wardrup, Jr. Mr. Walter J. Kucharski, Auditor of Public Accounts Director Philip A. Leone COPYRIGHT 2003, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Preface Since 1964, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel has provided the only direct highway link between the Eastern Shore and the Virginia mainland. Each year, it car- ries more than three million vehicles across the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, from the City of Virginia Beach at its southern end, to Northampton County at the northern end. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District operates the facility, providing for capital improvements, maintenance, police and safety patrols, toll collection, and administrative services. Construction and operations have been funded almost entirely from bonds issued by the district and toll revenues collected on the facility. The State provides less than one million dollars annually for operations. Concerns of some Eastern Shore residents about the long-term economic im- pact of increased traffic resulting from recent toll discounts prompted the 2002 General Assembly to direct this study of the Bridge-Tunnel through House Joint Resolution 210. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) was directed to ex- amine the appropriate role of the facility in the economic growth of the Eastern Shore and the Commonwealth, the appropriate toll structure, and the efficiency of facility op- erations. Overall, the review found that the construction and operation of the Chesa- peake Bay Bridge-Tunnel has been a successful endeavor. The facility provides an es- sential link between the Eastern Shore and the mainland, supporting the agricultural economy on the Shore, and tourism on both sides of the bay. Given its importance to transportation in the region, the review also found that the appropriate role for the Bridge-Tunnel in economic growth is to ensure a safe, convenient, low-cost link be- tween the Shore and the mainland. The General Assembly has not authorized the Bridge-Tunnel district to involve itself in growth management or economic develop- ment, either as part of its operations or through the toll structure. The business and government leaders on the Eastern Shore interviewed for this study expect the local governments to be responsible for growth management, not the Bridge-Tunnel district. The review also found that the toll structure provides adequate revenue for operations, maintenance, and existing debt service. However, it may not provide ade- quate revenue for future capital expansion if parallel tunnels are needed by the year 2020. The report recommends that the district begin the process now for development of a long-range capital plan to address future facility needs and funding. Maintenance and operations of the facility were found generally appropriate. Improvements were recommended for toll and emergency staffing, facility security, major maintenance pro- jects, and administration of the district’s personnel management. On behalf of the Commission staff, I wish to express our appreciation for the assistance of the staffs of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Richmond Metropolitan Authority, and the Accomack- Northampton Planning District Commission in the completion of this report. Philip A. Leone January 2, 2003 JLARC Report Summary as a toll facility by the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Vir­ ginia. The district and its governing commission were created by the Gen­ eral Assembly, and the State provides almost $1.0 million annually in urban street funding for the facility. Yet, the General Assembly has never reviewed the operations of the Bridge-Tunnel in its 38-year history. With the recent con­ The Future of the troversy surrounding the toll structure Chesapeake Bay and economic impact of the facility on the Eastern Shore, the 2002 General Bridge-Tunnel Assembly directed the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) to complete this study of the future of The Joint Legislative Audit the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. and Review Commission HJR 210 specifically directed a review of: the appropriate role of the Bridge- Tunnel in the economic growth of the January 2003 Eastern Shore and the Commonwealth; the appropriate toll structure to ensure proper funding for the facility; the effi­ ciency and efficacy of the district’s poli­ cies, practices, and operations; and the appropriate State role in determining the future of the Bridge-Tunnel. Overall, this review found that the The Chesapeake Bay Bridge- Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel has Tunnel (CBBT) is a 17.6-mile long facil­ been a largely successful endeavor. It ity consisting of highways, bridges, and has fulfilled its original mission to pro- tunnels connecting the Eastern Shore of vide a convenient connection between Virginia with the Virginia mainland. The the Eastern Shore and the Virginia Bridge-Tunnel was opened to traffic in mainland that supports commerce in the 1964, replacing the ferry service that region. The facility appears to be gen­ had served the Eastern Shore for more erally well maintained and operated, al­ than 30 years. The facility was ex­ though this report recommends several panded in the late 1990s to include par­ improvements. The toll structure ap­ allel bridges, which were opened to traf­ pears sound, providing adequate reve­ fic in April 1999. Being the longest nue for operations, maintenance, and combination of bridges and tunnels in debt service. Looking to the future, the world, it stretches beyond the hori­ however, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge zon, and offers motorists a drive across and Tunnel Commission will need to ex­ open ocean (see figure below). It is amine long-term capital requirements for designated as U.S. Route 13, a primary the facility, and take the necessary ac­ arterial, and is part of Virginia’s National tions to ensure that the district is finan­ Highway System. The CBBT is operated cially prepared to meet those require- i The Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel The Thimble Shoal Tunnel and The North Channel bridges, looking south toward fishing pier, looking north. the Chesapeake Channel Tunnel. Source: Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District. ments. To further the role of the com­ finance and construct a bridge-tunnel mission in meeting future challenges, for vehicular traffic from the Eastern the Virginia General Assembly will need Shore to the Virginia mainland. The fer­ to establish the commission as the per­ ries continued in operation until April 14, manent governing body for the district, 1964, when the Bridge-Tunnel opened and authorize the continued use of tolls to traffic. for operation and maintenance of the The Chesapeake Bay Bridge- facility. Tunnel was constructed in two phases, spanning more than 39 years. The Overview and History of the original facility, completed in the mid- Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel 1960s, consisted of two-lane trestle For more than 250 years, the bridges and tunnels. Parallel trestles Chesapeake Bay has posed an obstacle were completed in the late 1990s, mak­ to travel to and from Virginia’s Eastern ing the facility a four-lane divided high- Shore. Various packet ships and steam­ way except for the two miles of tunnel ers provided passenger and freight ser­ and two miles of tunnel approaches, vice from the early 1700s, but in 1933 which remain two lanes. the Virginia Ferry Corporation began the The Chesapeake Bay Bridge and first regular vehicular ferry service. By Tunnel Commission is the governing 1953, growing numbers of passengers body for the district. Its 11 members and vehicles transported by ferry include two members each from North­ prompted the General Assembly to cre­ ampton and Accomack counties; one ate the Chesapeake Bay Ferry District member each from the cities of Virginia to purchase and operate the ferry ser­ Beach, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesa­ vice. The Chesapeake Bay Ferry Com­ peake, Hampton, and Newport News; mission was established as the govern­ and one member from the Common- ing body for the district. Then, in re­ wealth Transportation Board. Members sponse to the growing demands on the are appointed by the Governor for four- ferry service, the 1956 General Assem­ year terms. Operation of the CBBT is bly authorized the ferry commission to the responsibility of 165 employees, in­ ii cluding toll collectors, police officers, Based on the JLARC staff review, maintenance workers, administrators, it appears that the CBBT is essential to and others. The staff organization is the economic well being of the Eastern headed by an executive director, who Shore, and plays an important role in reports to the CBBT commission. tourism in Virginia Beach. However, a In FY 2002, 3,294,480 vehicles JLARC staff analysis indicates that there used the Bridge-Tunnel. About 88.6 is little measurable impact of changes in percent of that traffic was cars and light Bridge-Tunnel traffic on the economies trucks. The remaining portion of traffic either of the Eastern Shore or of Hamp­ was from heavy trucks of various ton Roads. Further, government and lengths and axle combinations. The business leaders interviewed by JLARC largest single source of revenue for the staff for this review have concluded that district is from tolls on use of the facility.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Timber Bridge History Booklet for Web.Qxp
    Printed on Member & recycled Supporter paper TimberTimber TrestleTrestle BridgesBridges inin Alaska Railroad Corporation P.O. Box 107500 • Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7500 (907) 265-2300 • Reservations • (907) 265-2494 AlaskaAlaska RailroadRailroad TTY/TDD • (907) 265-2620 www.AlaskaRailroad.com This History booklet is History also available online by visiting AlaskaRailroad.com Publication Table of Contents “The key to unlocking Alaska is a system of railroads.” — President Woodrow Wilson (1914) The Alaska Railroad at a Glance . 3 Alaska Railroad Historical Overview. 5 Early Development & Operations. 5 Revitalization & World War II . 6 Rehabilitation & Early Cold War . 7 Recent History . 7 About Timber Trestle Bridges . 8 History of Timber Trestle Bridges . 10 in the United States History of Timber Trestle Bridges . 13 on the Alaska Railroad Bridge under constructon at MP 54. (ARRC photo archive) Status of Timber Trestle Bridges . 18 on the Alaska Railroad Historical Significance of Alaska . … progress was immediately hindered 20 Railroad Timber Trestle Bridges by numerous water crossings and abundant muskeg. Representative ARR Timber Bridges . 20 Because a trestle was the easiest and cheapest way to negotiate these barriers, a great many of them were erected, Publication Credits . 22 only to be later replaced or Research Acknowledgements . 22 filled and then forgotten. — Alaska Engineering Commission (1915) Bibliography of References . 22 Cover photo: A train leaves Anchorage, crossing Ship Creek Bridge in 1922. (ARRC photo archive) 01 The Alaska Railroad at a Glance early a century ago, President Woodrow Wilson charged the Alaskan Engineering Commission with building a railroad connecting a southern ice-free harbor to the territory’s interior in order to open this vast area to commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Bay Civil Engineering Projects
    History of Bay Civil Engineering Projects Port of Baltimore The rise of Baltimore from a sleepy town trading in tobacco to a city rivaling Philadelphia, Boston, and New York began when Dr. John Stevenson, a prominent Baltimore physician and merchant, began shipping flour to Ireland. The success of this seemingly insignificant venture opened the eyes of many Baltimoreans to the City’s most extraordinary advantage– a port nestled alongside a vast wheat growing countryside, significantly closer to this rich farm land than Philadelphia. During the Revolutionary War, Baltimore contributed an essential ingredient for victory: naval superiority. By the 1770s, Baltimore had built the most maneuverable ships in the world. These ships penetrated British blockades and outran pirates, privateers, and the Royal British Navy. The agility and speed of these ships allowed Baltimore merchants to continue trading during the Revolutionary War, which in turn helped to win the war and to propel Baltimore’s growth from 564 houses in 1774 to 3,000 houses in the mid 1790s. This engraving of Baltimore was published in Paris and New York around 1834. Since 1752, Federal Hill has been the vantage point from which to view Baltimore. As Baltimore’s port grew, its trade routes were extended to the Ohio Valley. In 1806 the Federal Government authorized the building of the National Road from the Ohio River to Cumberland, Maryland. In turn, Baltimore businessmen built turnpike roads from Baltimore to Cumberland, effectively completing the Maryland portion of the National Road. The Road quickly became Baltimore’s economic lifeline to the fertile lands of the Ohio Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Steel Construction 2009
    Reprinted from 2009 MSC Steel Bridges 2009 Welcome to Steel Bridges 2009! This publication contains all bridge related information collected from Modern Steel Construction magazine in 2009. These articles have been combined into one organized document for our readership to access quickly and easily. Within this publication, readers will find information about Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC), short span steel bridge solutions, NSBA Prize Bridge winners, and advancement in coatings technologies among many other interesting topics. Readers may also download any and all of these articles (free of charge) in electronic format by visiting www.modernsteel.org. The National Steel Bridge Alliance would like to thank everyone for their strong dedication to improving our nation’s infrastructure, and we look forward to what the future holds! Sincerely, Marketing Director National Steel Bridge Alliance Table of Contents March 2009: Up and Running in No Time........................................................................................... 3 March 2009: Twice as Nice .................................................................................................................. 6 March 2009: Wide River ..................................................................................................................... 8 March 2009: Over the Rails in the Other Kansas City ........................................................................ 10 July 2009: Full House .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Visit Ohio's Historic Bridges
    SPECIAL ADVERTISING SECTION Visit Ohio’s Historic Bridges Historic and unique bridges have a way of sticking in our collective memories. Many of us remember the bridge we crossed walking to school, a landmark on the way to visit relatives, the gateway out of town or a welcoming indication that you are back in familiar territory. The Ohio Department of Transportation, in collaboration with the Ohio Historic Bridge Association, Ohio History Connection’s State Historic Preservation Office, TourismOhio and historicbridges.org, has assembled a list of stunning bridges across the state that are well worth a journey. Ohio has over 500 National Register-listed and historic bridges, including over 150 wooden covered bridges. The following map features iron, steel and concrete struc- tures, and even a stone bridge built when canals were still helping to grow Ohio’s economy. Some were built for transporting grain to market. Other bridges were specifically designed to blend into the scenic landscape of a state or municipal park. Many of these featured bridges are Ohio Historic Bridge Award recipients. The annual award is given to bridge owners and engineers that rehabilitate, preserve or reuse historic structures. The awards are sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration, ODOT and Ohio History Connection’s State Historic Preservation Office. Anthony Wayne Bridge - Toledo, OH Ohio Department of Transportation SPECIAL ADVERTISING SECTION 2 17 18 SOUTHEAST REGION in eastern Ohio, Columbiana County has Metropark’s Huntington Reservation on the community. A project that will rehabilitate several rehabilitated 1880’s through truss shore of Lake Erie along US 6/Park Drive.
    [Show full text]
  • Arched Bridges Lily Beyer University of New Hampshire - Main Campus
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Honors Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Spring 2012 Arched Bridges Lily Beyer University of New Hampshire - Main Campus Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/honors Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Beyer, Lily, "Arched Bridges" (2012). Honors Theses and Capstones. 33. https://scholars.unh.edu/honors/33 This Senior Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CIVIL ENGINEERING Arched Bridges History and Analysis Lily Beyer 5/4/2012 An exploration of arched bridges design, construction, and analysis through history; with a case study of the Chesterfield Brattleboro Bridge. UNH Civil Engineering Arched Bridges Lily Beyer Contents Contents ..................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... ii Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter I: History
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage Framework Book
    Chapter Nine Chesapeake Metropolis, 1930 to 2000 New World Depression Era World War II Cold War Economic Order 1930 to 1939 1939 to 1945 1947 to 1989 1989 to 2000 1950- 1965- 1930 1933 1939 1940 1941 1945 1947 1953 1952 1973 1973 1983 1989 1990 2000 ||||||||||||||| Regional | WWII | America WWII | Korean | Vietnam | U.S. EPA | Regional | population | begins in | enters ends | War | War | establishes | population | reaches | Europe | WW II || |Chesapeake | reaches | 5.0 million || Cold War Chesapeake | Bay Program | 10.5million | Franklin | begins Bay Bridge ||| Delano Regional opens Chesapeake Soviet Union Regional Roosevelt population Bay Bridge- collapses population first elected nears Tunnel ending reaches president 5.5 million opens Cold War 12.0 million AN ECOLOGY OF PEOPLE SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AND PLACE ▫ 1930–regional ▫ 1948 to 1950–Alger ▫ 1968–riots in population reaches Hiss spy case Washington, Ⅺ PEOPLE 5 million ▫ 1950–postwar Baltimore, and other ▫ 1932–Federal troops migration combined Chesapeake cities The 5 million inhabitants of the Chesa- disperse bonus with baby boom ▫ 1970–Amtrak peake Bay region faced a terrible para- marchers in increase regional established Washington population to dox in 1930 (see Map 11). On the surface, ▫ 1972–Hurricane ▫ 1933–Franklin 7 million Agnes devastates nothing seemed to have changed. Delano Roosevelt ▫ 1950 to 1953– region Although population pressure had elected to first term Korean War fought ▫ 1973–Chesapeake as president clearly left a mark on the region, fish still between U. S.–led Bay Bridge–Tunnel ▫ 1935–Social Security United Nations opens teemed in Bay waters, and farm fields Act passed by troops and ▫ 1973–OPEC oil Congress Communist North still swelled with produce ready for mar- embargo creates ▫ 1939–World War II Korean and Chinese ket.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Historic Bridge Inventory | Pages 164-191
    NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet section number G, H page 156 V E H I C U L A R B R I D G E S I N A R I Z O N A Geographic Data: State of Arizona Summary of Identification and Evaluation Methods The Arizona Historic Bridge Inventory, which forms the basis for this Multiple Property Documentation Form [MPDF], is a sequel to an earlier study completed in 1987. The original study employed 1945 as a cut-off date. This study inventories and evaluates all of the pre-1964 vehicular bridges and grade separations currently maintained in ADOT’s Structure Inventory and Appraisal [SI&A] listing. It includes all structures of all struc- tural types in current use on the state, county and city road systems. Additionally it includes bridges on selected federal lands (e.g., National Forests, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base) that have been included in the SI&A list. Generally not included are railroad bridges other than highway underpasses; structures maintained by federal agencies (e.g., National Park Service) other than those included in the SI&A; structures in private ownership; and structures that have been dismantled or permanently closed to vehicular traffic. There are exceptions to this, however, and several abandoned and/or privately owned structures of particular impor- tance have been included at the discretion of the consultant. The bridges included in this Inventory have not been evaluated as parts of larger road structures or historic highway districts, although they are clearly integral parts of larger highway resources.
    [Show full text]
  • The Recreation the Delmarva Peninsula by David
    THE RECREATION POTENTIAL OF THE DELMARVA PENINSULA BY DAVID LEE RUBIN S.B., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1965) SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOT THE DEGREE OF MASTER IN CITY PLANNING at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June, 1966 Signature of Author.,.-.-,.*....... .. .*.0 .. .. ...... .. ...... ... Department of City and Regional Planning May 23, 1966 Certified by.... ....... .- -*s.e- Super....... Thesis Supervisor Accepted by... ... ...tire r'*n.-..0 *10iy.- .. 0....................0 Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Students 038 The Recreation Potential of the Delmarva Peninsula By David Lee Rubin Submitted to the Department of City and Regional Planning on 23 May, 1966 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in City Planning. rhis thesis is a plan for the development of Lne recreation potential of the Delmarva Peninsyla, the lower counties of Delaware and the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Virginia, to meet the needs of the Megalopolitan population. Before 1952, the Delmarva Peninsula was isolated, and no development of any kind occurred. The population was stable, with no in migration, and the attitudes were rural. The economy was sagging. Then a bridge was built across the Chesapeake Bay, and the peninsula became a recreation resource for the Baltimore and Washington areas. Ocean City and Rehoboth, the major resorts, have grown rapidly since then. In 1964, the opening of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel further accellerated growth. There are presently plans for the development of a National Seashore on Assateague Island, home of the Chincoteague ponies, as well as state parks along the Chesapeake Bay, and such facilities as a causeway through the ocean and a residential complex in the Indian River Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Polydron-Bridges-Work-Cards.Pdf
    Getting Started You will need: A Polydron Bridges Set ❑ This activity introduces you to the parts in the set and explains what each of them does. A variety of traditional Polydron and Frameworks pieces are used in each of the activities. However, they are coloured to produce more realistic effects. For example, the traditional squares are black and used to represent the road on the bridge deck. Plinth ❑ On the right you can see the plinth or bridge base. All of the bridges use one or two of these. They give each bridge a firm base and allow special parts to be connected easily. Notice the two holes in the top on the plinth. These holes are for long struts. These can be seen in place below. ❑ The second picture shows the plinth with two right-angled triangles and a rectangle connected. All three of these parts clip into the plinth. Struts ❑ There are three different lengths of strut in the set. There are 80mm short struts that are used with the pulleys with lugs to carry cables. These are shown on the left. The lugs fit into long struts. On the Drawbridge 110mm short struts are used with ordinary pulleys and a winding handle. ❑ Long struts are also used to support the cable assembly of the Suspension Bridge and the Cable Stay Bridge. This idea can be seen in the picture on the right. ❑ Long struts are also used to connect the two sections of the Drawbridge. ® ©Bob Ansell Special Rectangles ❑ Special rectangles can be used in a variety of ways.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Behaviour of Cable-Stayed Bridges
    Structural Behaviour of Cable-stayed Bridges by Elizabeth Davalos Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering and Administration Universidad Panamericana sede Guadalajara, Mexico June 1998 Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ENGINEERING ENG IN CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY At the A3 0 2000 LIBRARIES MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY May 2000 @2000 Elizabeth Davalos. All rights reserved The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and distribute publicity paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. Signature of the Author Ddpa ment of Civil and Environmental Engineering May 5, 2000 Certified by Professor Jerome J. Connor 6epartment of ivil and Environmental Engineering 7 Thesis Supervisor Accepted by Daniele Veneziano Chairman, Department Committee on Graduate Studies Structural Behaviour of Cable-stayed Bridges by Elizabeth Davalos Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on May 5, 2000 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Engineering in Civil and Environmental Engineering. Abstract Cable-stayed bridges have emerged as the dominant structural system for long span bridge crossings during the past thirty years. That success is due to a combination of technical advancements and pleasing aesthetics attributes. The interaction of the various structural components results in an efficient structure which is continuously evolving and providing new methods to increase span lengths. The objective of this thesis is to describe in detail the basic structural behaviour of each of the components of cable-stayed bridges, and to present the analysis of a specific cable-stayed bridge which was proposed for the Charles River Crossing.
    [Show full text]
  • Simple Suspension Bridge
    structures STS19 Simple Suspension Bridge Experiment for the study of the characteristics of a simple suspension bridge. Mounts on the Structures platform and connects to the Structures automatic data acquisition unit and software (VDAS® Onboard). Shown fitted to the Structures platform (STS1, available separately) Laptop not included Key Features • One of a range of experiment modules that teach structures principles • Fits to the Structures platform for ergonomic use and space-saving storage • Includes multiple loads for many combinations of loads including uniformly distributed loads (UDLs) • A simplifi ed version of a realistic structure to give students an understanding of real-life structures • Direct measurement of cable tension for simple and quick experiments • Supplied with a storage tray to keep smaller items safe • Works with user-friendly software (VDAS®) TecQuipment Ltd, Bonsall Street, long eaton, Nottingham NG10 2AN, UK tecquipment.com +44 115 972 2611 [email protected] REF 0920 Page 1 of 3 STS19 Simple Suspension Bridge Description Learning outcomes One of a range of experiment modules that fi t to the • How bridge load aff ects the tension in a suspension Structures platform (STS1, available separately), this cable product helps students to understand how loads aff ect • Comparing a central point load with a UDL tension in the suspension cable supporting the ‘deck’ of a suspension bridge. Students add loads to the deck held by • Exploring the ratio of bridge ‘deck’ mass and a moving the suspension cable between two supports. A load cell in load the left-hand support measures the cable tension. • Comparing simple parabola-based theory with a more Students apply loads, which change the cable tension.
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Crossing Study Public Comments 5-1-2018 to 5-31-2018 Letters
    Below is one of two traffic-flow graphics currently shown at the public information meetings being held by the Chesapeake Bay Crossing Study Blatantly Wrong! conducted by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA). (Note the callouts added to the graphic in red.) MDTA placed Queen Anne’s, Note that MDTA placed Anne Arundel Talbot and Caroline Counties far north of the Bay Bridge even County well north of the Bay Bridge Actual position of Actual position of though the bridge is actually with no direct connection to the Anne Arundel County bridge even though the bridge is Queen Ann’s County located in Queen Anne’s County. actually located in Anne Arundel Actual position of And both Talbot and Caroline County. Talbot and Caroline Counties lie well south of the Counties bridge. Note the actual location of Maryland counties relative to the actual location of the Look at the map! Bay Bridge. The MDTA graphic (top) is blatantly wrong and appears to have been designed to mislead viewers into believing that most of traffic flows to and from counties north of the Bay Bridge. This deceptive graphic appears as though it is intended DC to justify the construction of a new bridge north of the current VA one. MDTA positioned the counties into which the bulk of the traffic flows north of the bridge. Look at the map!This is DE fraudulent. As the percentages of flow clearly show, in non- summer months most of the travel flows between the two counties at either end of the bridge. Most of the traffic that continues through these two counties flows south of the Bay Bridge.
    [Show full text]