Why are we blowing up the old bridge?
Why not just let nature do its thing?
Posted Nov 7, 2015, 5:26 PM UTC
432
because lots of expensive goods and people could be under it when it "does its thing"
45
They are NOT blowing up the bridge. There will be NOTHING to watch. They are imploding a single one of the concrete piers that has been cut down to water level. The implosion will be entirely under water.
18
Check out the mess that is the Berkeley pier. And that isn't even blocking a shipping lane.
15
Animation of how it's supposed to work.
The first 3 minutes show prep work they do on the pier. Then about 2 minutes showing layout of the area, exclusion zones, positions of boats and observers. Simulated explosion is at about 5:20.
11
That backhoe (?) is oddly adorable.
2
It's taking too long and is too expensive to dismantle it in an orderly fashion. And they're only detonating one part of it.
5
Why not just let nature do its thing?
Gradually corrode over centuries with bits falling off occasionally? No thanks, controlled demolition please.
5
"Hazard to Navigation". It's a thing.
4
They don't want the new bridge to collapse on it. it's far better for the cars on it to just slide off into the water.
2
Because jet fuel can't melt steel beams
1
Because we'll need that space to build bridge #3 when bridge #2 fails.
1
wait, which bridge is being blown up?
0
the new one. they don't like the way it looks, gonna start fresh.
51
plus with all of the problems they keep finding. pretty much better to start over.
8
Somewhere here there is a boring simulation/animation of the destruction. It explains it better, but is slow.
2
Skip to 5:00 or so to the super-duper excitement (not).
1
The bay bridge span that's already half deconstructed
1
they're blowing it up? when? I thought they were just going to continue to dismantle it
1
They are not blowing it up. They are going to continue to dismantle it. They are detonating the underwater concrete base of the middle section, already disconnected from the rest of the bridge. This is more cost effective and ecologically safer than divers or machinery taking it apart chunk by chunk. There will most likely not even be any visible surface "boom".
13
Next saturday
3
Saturday! Saturday Saturday! B-b-b-beee there!!!!!!!!!!!
7
They are blowing up a concrete pier that's already dismantled to the base.
3
Americans would rather blow things up than negotiate a quiet, civilized collapse.
0
Because it's ugly. If we just let nature do it's thing all the time there'd be gross decaying shit everywhere. Blech.
0
Aren't they worried about the effects this will have on the environment?
-4
According to this article, they've decided it's not any worse for the environment than the alternative of having heavy equipment working on the pier for 4 years. They're supposed to have a "marine mammal exclusion zone". I'm not sure how that works, but possibly spotters who try to make sure seals and whatnot are not too near the blast.
6
But what of all the debris? How are they going to salvage it? Are they just going to leave it there?
-1
Based on the video/animation (see my other comment in this thread), the pier is partially hollow, and they're going to dump the rubble into it. The hollow part seems to extend below the seabed, so when they're done the mud and stuff will close in above it and there won't be anything visible, even underwater.
2
How will they retrieve it though?
0
Oh good God. Watch the damn video to how out-of-control the environment paranoia is about that. They've mammal sentinels and trawling damage detectors and it's not even that big of a demolition. It's all R-selected, typical Bay Area overreactive un-fun at it is peak.
5
To intimidate the new bay bridge and show it who's boss.