HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2010, 6:02 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
No offense of course, but I don't buy it that the hill on San Jacinto is too steep for a street car. Light rail yes, but not a street car system.
Re San Francisco: Those are cable cars - different technology, and not that scalable (notice that SF only keeps a couple lines around as curiosities for tourists). Also, we're not locked into small streetcar vehicles just yet.

As for the bridge weight - a streetcar loaded with people is heavier than a bus by a long-shot. The Pfluger Bridge actually had to be stronger than the car bridges over the lake because a bunch of people in a small area weigh a lot more than the equivalent number spread out among cars.
__________________
Crackplog: M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile
Twitter: @mdahmus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2010, 6:51 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK View Post
The Pfluger Bridge actually had to be stronger than the car bridges over the lake because a bunch of people in a small area weigh a lot more than the equivalent number spread out among cars.
I will only believe this if I hear it from an engineer, and even then would I be skeptical. The combined weight of the total amount of cars that could be held on the Lamar Bridge is probably many times more heavy than the total weight of humans that can be held comfortably on the Pfluger Bridge AND the Lamar Bridge has to worry about the humans in the cars as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2010, 6:58 PM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK View Post
As for the bridge weight - a streetcar loaded with people is heavier than a bus by a long-shot. The Pfluger Bridge actually had to be stronger than the car bridges over the lake because a bunch of people in a small area weigh a lot more than the equivalent number spread out among cars.
I did a quick Google to search for street car/bus weight. Didn't find anything definitive, but it looked like a street car actually weighs less than a bus. If this is true, then the weight concern would be the street car infrastructure, not the car itself. I would think, a bus holds just as many people as a street car, so the people weight density would be apprx the same.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2010, 7:32 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
I will only believe this if I hear it from an engineer, and even then would I be skeptical. The combined weight of the total amount of cars that could be held on the Lamar Bridge is probably many times more heavy than the total weight of humans that can be held comfortably on the Pfluger Bridge AND the Lamar Bridge has to worry about the humans in the cars as well.
I can do you one better. I was sitting in the conference room at One Texas Center while I was serving on the UTC, and was told this by an engineer.

It stands to reason once you think about it. Come down during FlugTag or any other event held near the lake and see how many more people can fit on the bridge than can fit in cars on the bridge.
__________________
Crackplog: M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile
Twitter: @mdahmus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2010, 7:32 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAM View Post
I did a quick Google to search for street car/bus weight. Didn't find anything definitive, but it looked like a street car actually weighs less than a bus. If this is true, then the weight concern would be the street car infrastructure, not the car itself. I would think, a bus holds just as many people as a street car, so the people weight density would be apprx the same.
Streetcars can hold quite a bit more people than buses - this is one of their few operational advantages when running in mixed traffic (without their own lane).
__________________
Crackplog: M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile
Twitter: @mdahmus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 3:21 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK View Post
I can do you one better. I was sitting in the conference room at One Texas Center while I was serving on the UTC, and was told this by an engineer.

It stands to reason once you think about it. Come down during FlugTag or any other event held near the lake and see how many more people can fit on the bridge than can fit in cars on the bridge.

What about the weight of the CARS!?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 7:24 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin <------------> Birmingham?
Posts: 57,337
That's right. I totally forgot that the street cars in San Francisco (what are actually called cable cars) don't use electricity, but instead use a cable system embedded in the street that is operated by a central wheelhouse/gear house. What we're probably looking at for a new system in Austin would be an electric street car with overhead cables.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv
I will only believe this if I hear it from an engineer, and even then would I be skeptical. The combined weight of the total amount of cars that could be held on the Lamar Bridge is probably many times more heavy than the total weight of humans that can be held comfortably on the Pfluger Bridge AND the Lamar Bridge has to worry about the humans in the cars as well.
I'm sure the bridge is engineered up to specs, but it does make sense that a pedestrian bridge probably carries more weight than an auto bridge. Think about it. On an average day the Ann Richards Bridge will rarely ever be covered with cars. At any given time you might see 8 cars on the bridge. I've ridden my bike across it in the middle of the afternoon on the weekend sometimes without a single car on the bridge (going in the same direction I was going). That's rare though. The pedestrian bridge though hosts festivals that can attract literally thousands of people to the bridge. That is a lot of weight. The only thing I wonder about would be traffic jams on the Ann Richards Bridge, but even that is rare. The one bridge that does see a lot of bumper to bumper traffic (especially heading south) is the Lamar Bridge. Both the Lamar and Congress Bridges are nearly the same age, so I would imagine both are engineered relatively the same way.

The South First Street Bridge is the youngest of the three and could easily be modified without losing government money. It was already modified once if you remember, the pedestrian sidewalk on the west side was added.
__________________
My girlfriend has a dog named Kevin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 8:07 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,517
I still don't see it. Bridges have to be designed from a total occupancy perspective. The total occupancy weight for a vehicular bridge, which would be back to back big rigs filled with goods, is much much much more than the total occupancy weight of a pedestrian bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 8:15 AM
hookem hookem is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
I will only believe this if I hear it from an engineer, and even then would I be skeptical. The combined weight of the total amount of cars that could be held on the Lamar Bridge is probably many times more heavy than the total weight of humans that can be held comfortably on the Pfluger Bridge AND the Lamar Bridge has to worry about the humans in the cars as well.
I quickly tried figuring the weight of a 200 lb person occupying a 3x3ft space vs. a fully loaded SUV with 200 lb passengers, and the SUV always came up heavier per square foot.. even including the buffer area that exists around a vehicle even when bumper-to-bumper (lane width and at least some space in front or back).

Add to that the fact that probably the biggest crowd of pedestrians ever to occupy a bridge in Austin is likely the Capitol 10K runners on the Congress or S. First bridge (where ever the start is, that's where the bridge gets jam-packed), and no one seems to worry about that.

Perhaps I'm missing something -- surely there is a civil engineer on this forum who would know ???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 8:36 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin <------------> Birmingham?
Posts: 57,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
What about the weight of the CARS!?
Cars are of course heavy (duh), but you can pack more people onto a bridge than you can cars. Cars simply take up more space than people do.

Let's look at this.

The bridges that cross the river are around 700 feet long each. The South First and Congress bridges have 6 lanes, (3 in each direction). The Lamar Bridge actually only has 4 lanes total. So let's use the South First Street Bridge for our measurements.

Most cars are between 15 and 18 feet long. Let's go with 18 feet as the length of each car.

700 feet divided by 18 feet = 38.8888889. Let's round that up to 39 cars. So you could fit 39 cars onto one lane on the bridge. But of course there are 6 lanes, so 39 x 6 = 233.333333 cars on all 6 lanes. So let's round it up to 234 cars.

Now, most cars weigh 2,500 to 5,000 pounds. Let's go with 5,000 pounds. It's more likely that cars traveling the bridges would be smaller, compact cars and probably weigh less, but for the sake of this argument, let's go with 5,000 pounds.

So, 5,000 pounds x 234 cars = 1,170,000 pounds. So you could fit 234 cars that weight 5,000 pounds each on the bridge. That comes out to 1,170,000 pounds of cars on the bridge.

Again, cars take up more space than people do. Think about a Chevrolet Suburban. They're the biggest SUV on the road now. I know for a fact that they're 18 feet long since my parents had one back in the early 90s. Suburbans have seating for 8 people. Let's say each one of those persons weighs 200 pounds. 8x200=1,600 pounds. Now think about that. Suburbans are 6 feet wide, 18 feet long and weigh around 5,000 pounds. Yet, 8 people can fit inside, and they weigh 1,600 pounds just by themselves. Think about how many people you could place shoulder to shoulder on the footprint (area) a Suburban covers. Let's say those 200 pound people take up 2 square feet where they stand. A Suburban, which is 6 feet wide and 18 feet long. So 6 x 18 = 108 square feet. So 108 square feet divided by 2 square feet = 54. So you could stand 54 people shoulder to shoulder on the footprint of a Suburban. So, 54 people x 200 pounds = 10,800 pounds. And that is the weight of people covering just 108 square feet of the bridge (a Chevrolet Suburban's footprint). Earlier I said that you could fit 39 cars onto a single lane of the bridge. I was using the the 18 foot long number for a car (a Suburban). As I mentioned above, I came up with 1,170,000 pounds for the total weight of those Suburbans on the bridge.

So now let's measure the width of the bridge. The South First Street Bridge sidewalk to sidewalk is 100 feet wide. So 700 feet long x 100 feet wide = 70,000 square feet. So the South First Street Bridge has an area of 70,000 square feet. Remember that we estimated that those 200 pound people took up 2 square feet where they stood? So 70,000 square feet divided by 2 square feet = 35,000 square feet. So then 35,000 square feet x 200 pounds = 7,000,000 pounds (7 million).

So, you can fit 234 Chevrolet Suburbans on the South First Street Bridge (bumper to bumper), weighing a total of 1,170,000 pounds.

BUT, you can fit 35,000 people shoulder to shoulder on the South First Street Bridge. This number would include the sidewalk space. The total weight of the people would be 7 million pounds. Now of course there would never be that many people on the bridge, because let's face it, who wants to be shoulder to shoulder and front to back with that many people? So even if you divided that number by three, it would still be more weight than the total number of cars you could fit on the bridge. Divided by three it would be 2 333 333.33 pounds. So a little over 2.3 million pounds. About 600,000 more pounds than the weight of the total number of cars you could fit on the bridge.

Check out Google Earth, look at the bridges. At most, there's 8 to 10 cars on each bridge.

By the way, the Pfluger Bridge is narrower than all three auto bridges. It's only around 50 feet wide at its widest spot.
__________________
My girlfriend has a dog named Kevin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 9:02 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin <------------> Birmingham?
Posts: 57,337
Figuring out how many 18-wheelers you could fit on the bridge and how much weight that would be.

Typical 18-wheelers are about 75 feet long. So 700 feet (bridge length) divided by 75 feet = 9.33333333. So you could fit about 9 1/2 18-wheelers on one lane of the bridge. Of course, there are 6 lanes, so 6 x 9.5 = 57 18-wheelers.

I've heard that 18-wheelers can carry around 50,000 pounds of cargo, and they themselves weigh around 50,000 pounds. So let's say 100,000 pounds for a single loaded 18-wheeler. So 100,000 x 57 = 5,700,000 pounds.

So that number is still lower than the total shoulder to shoulder number of people you could fit on a bridge, but it's actually twice the number that you could comfortably fit on the bridge. I doubt more than 10,000 would ever be on one of the bridges.

Of course, that number doesn't include possible pedestrians on the bridge with those 18-wheelers.
__________________
My girlfriend has a dog named Kevin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 9:11 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,517
Now that I've seen it mathematically presented (I was too lazy to do it myself as I'm reading Foucault at the moment), I understand and believe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 9:15 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin <------------> Birmingham?
Posts: 57,337
By the way, the I-35 bridge is the widest one obviously. It's 200 feet wide at its widest point, including the access road. It's at least twice as wide as the other bridges. The Mopac Bridge is 120 feet wide.
__________________
My girlfriend has a dog named Kevin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 2:57 PM
SecretAgentMan's Avatar
SecretAgentMan SecretAgentMan is offline
CIA since 2003
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by orderlychaos View Post
No. I'm thinking of Brazos. I ride it everyday.
You're right. I went back and looked at the numbers. The elevation change between 6th and 7th and 9th and 10th is roughly the same. The grade is spread across the full block at 9th, but is mostly north of the alley between 6th and 7th. The steepest section of Brazos (south of 7th to the alley) is about 6%, which is the upper limit of grade for light rail. Most streetcars can probably handle a grade closer to 8% because they are lighter and would have less momentum going downhill. Downhill is actually the controlling factor, because of the need for braking. Electric rail vehicles brake using their traction motors, so specifying a larger motor might be necessary to handle the steepest grades.

The hill on San Jacinto, between 6th and 7th, is closer to 16%, which is way too steep for rail. That is why previous studies have always shown the rail transitioning to Brazos or Congress from San Jacinto. The only way to deal with that grade would be to radically regrade the street / trackway. It would require either an open trench with bridges at each cross street, or a full tunnel between 12th or 13th and 6th Street, taking advantage of the steep slopes for portals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2010, 2:13 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin <------------> Birmingham?
Posts: 57,337
So our fellow forumer engineers have spoken on the matter of bridges.

Have a look:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=178571
__________________
My girlfriend has a dog named Kevin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2010, 12:47 AM
SecretAgentMan's Avatar
SecretAgentMan SecretAgentMan is offline
CIA since 2003
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 346
I'm not a structural engineer, but I believe the biggest question with regards to retrofitting an automobile bridge for rail involves the track slab. Track slabs are significantly deeper than typical bridge decks, so the issue is whether or not the existing superstructure could be modified to accomodate the thicker section and greater load, or if it would need to be replaced. Even if the superstructure is replaced, the substructure would also have to be sufficient to carry the additional dead load. So the dead load of the bridge itself is probably more of an issue than the load of a rail vehicle.

The live load of an operating rail vehicle probably has some consequence as well. Track slabs need to be sufficiently rigid to keep the track guage within an allowable tolerance so the vehicle does not derail. Automobile bridges do not have this limitation, so they are probably typically designed to allow more flex under load than a rail bridge would.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2010, 5:37 AM
Mikey711MN's Avatar
Mikey711MN Mikey711MN is offline
I am so smart, S-M-R-T!
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Moved south to Austin, TX
Posts: 652
Common Structural Loadings

For those of you who are interested in some structural geekery...

Cooper E80 (standard for trains)


HS20 Truck


All the riveting details about pedestrian bridge/loading design can be found in this document. The short answer is 90 psf.

Now, I can't quite get into the dissertation that is LRFD (Load Resistance Factor Design), but to simplify, you apply certain loads in their given categories and run them in various factored combinations and analyze the stresses in each designed member. The governing load case in, say, the deck will likely differ than in the columns. So the complexities are obviously beyond the scope of posting in a forum.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2010, 4:53 AM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan View Post
I'm not a structural engineer, but I believe the biggest question with regards to retrofitting an automobile bridge for rail involves the track slab.
Due to the time period the bridge was designed, I've been wondering if the original engineer's designed the bridge to accommodate trolleys or trains, especially since they were running down Congress Ave at the time the design of the bridge began. I've been looking to see if they ever did go over the bridge but haven't found anything yet. Did find a few interesting links though....

http://www.busatx.org/timeline

http://www.atxhistory.org/transporta...icalhighlights
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2010, 6:27 AM
Myomi Myomi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 244
From the second link:
Quote:
Congress Bridge

1910: A concrete bridge was built to replace the iron bridge at the foot of Congress Avenue. The contractors, William P. Carmichael Company from Williamsport, Indiana, moved the old iron bridge onto new piers for use while the new bridge was constructed. The bridge was built with sand within layers of concrete to cushion the streetcar, wagon, and auto traffic.
I think that pretty much answers you question.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2010, 9:31 PM
nixcity's Avatar
nixcity nixcity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Austin, TX.
Posts: 768
Does the idea of a new bridge coming out so late in this stop them from letting us vote on urban rail this year?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:54 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.