Talk:Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Frank Lloyd Wright

Given all the trouble with the sagging cantilevers at FallingWater, which actually have more reinforcement than Wright initially thought necessary, I believe not considering a design of his may have been the wise thing to do.

--MWS 15:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


Butterfly Bridge

This passage:

What is amazing is that an innovative design both beautiful and practical, produced by the architect Frank Lloyd Wright for another bay area location was not even considered. That design was for a "Butterfly" bridge intended to replace another span crossing the bay, the Hayward-San Mateo Bridge. There was a similar fight over the design of that bridge, with Caltrans initially proposing what was called by critics a "Rip Van Winkle" design, a two deck truss similar to the obsolete eastern span of the Bay Bridge or portions of the "roller coaster" Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.

is very much out of context with the rest of the paragraph. Should it also be mentioned that the beautiful and innovative design for the Hangzhou Bay Bridge wasn't even considered either? Also, according to the linked website, the bridge was not intended to replace the Hayward-San Mateo Bridge, but as a new span just to the south of the current Bay Bridge. --Kiiron 00:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is out of place and POV; I removed it. -- Beland 03:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Northern vs. Southern Alignment

This article seems to be missing the early history of the span regarding a northern vs. a southern alignment. If I recall correctly, Willie Brown wanted a southern alignment for redevelopement or historical purposes on TI. Brown halted construction somehow (possibly via the Navy) but was overturned via some old legal documents.

This seems to have been added since the above anonymous comment was made, though the addition lacks references. -- Beland 03:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:SFOBB Rendering.jpg

Image:SFOBB Rendering.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Why Does This Entry Exist?

Out of curiosity, why does this page exist? Much of this is in the Bay Bridge page, which could certainly be expanded to include anything that is uniquely here.--Fizbin 13:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See this entry in that page's talk. I can see the point, but one problem is that it leads to duplication of content as future editors make their own decision about which page to update as news unfolds, such as during the October 2009 closure incident, described separately both here and here. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible photos for use in main article

I have taken quite a few pictures from the water of the new Bay Bridge and the old, some are available here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/diversionmary/tags/bridge/ I have dozens more I can make available if anyone is interested. Please feel free to use these CC by-nc-sa eric@diversionmary.com

I have made this same discussion offer on the main Bay Bridge article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.206.19 (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Eric! This image is in the section Eastern_span_replacement_of_the_San_Francisco_–_Oakland_Bay_Bridge#Main_span_design. It is an important image since it shows in isolation the eastern end-cap/strand anchor and the use of medium lift capacity barge cranes. - Leonard G. (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"Expected progress"?

The "Expected Progress in 2011" section sounds dubious to me. Aside from having multiple stylistic errors, it lacks citations and comes across as pure conjecture posted by an uninformed enthusiast watching the bridge constrution through binoculars every day. If there isn't a more reliable source on what will happen in 2011, the section should be removed. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 08:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Short of simply deleting the section, I rephrased it to encompass what is expected for 2011. I still want to know the source of these expectations myself. Hopefully, the editor of this section will provide us with his/her source(s). - Denimadept (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
There was a video on YouTube that explained all the progress for 2011. It's been taken down but here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IocMySRxWt4. This is where I got my info from. It came form the guy in BayBridge 360 Giggett (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Expensive structures section

I agree this is NPOV. Arguments against doing this project are moot, so this section is irrelevant. - Denimadept (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

KK Giggett (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


Why is there a section regarding the old bridge eyebar crack?

Seems strange that there's a section devoted to the inspection and subsequent discovery of the eyebar crack, as that's the old bridge. This article is about the new bridge... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.254.216 (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, this article is entirely about the eastern span, and how the old bridge changes to the new bridge. Anything that is related to the eastern span that happens between the construction time of the new bridge, is added to this article, no matter if it comes from the old bridge or the new bridge. If this article was only about the construction, then you would be right. Giggett (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Then perhaps the title of the article should not be "Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge"! The eyebar cracks on the existing span really have nothing to do with the replacement process. The cracks would have been found regardless of the closure of the span for the realignment of the western connector... They just took advantage of the downtime to inspect the bridge, but they had to do it anyway. If it were mentioned in a section regarding the retrofit vs. new construction debate it might make sense to appear in this article. 24.130.254.216 (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The eyebar crack section is here due to its explanation of a number of technical details - these would likely be intrusive and probably inappropriate in the more general interest main SFOBB article. A simple fix would be to swap the respective sections between the articles, with appropriate minor changes, but that would introduce the problem just outlined. - Leonard G. (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Pedestrian walkway

Would be good to add a little more detail on the pedestrian walkway/bikeway. It is only mentioned in passing in one place in the article. 68.190.231.137 (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Will this be the widest suspension bridge in the world?

I cannot think of any suspension bridge in the world that is wider than 8 lanes (the GW in NYC). Most over 5 lanes are double levels. The SFO bridge will be 10 lanes that will be on either side of the tower, but they will be connected all the way along the suspended structure. I think this will qualify it as the "widest suspension bridge in the world", but I haven't seen any mention of this anywhere. I would think that Caltrans would mention this if they knew it to be so. I've seen some citations that call the Bunker Hill bridge in Boston the "widest suspension bridge", but since it is a cable-stayed, it is not a suspension bridge. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a suspension bridge. It's a cable-stayed bridge. There's a wider one in Boston. - Denimadept (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a self-anchored suspension bridge, not cable-stayed. 70.36.134.178 (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I sit corrected. - Denimadept (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
So in this case, it will be the widest suspension bridge? Since the record for 10 lanes in Boston only stands for a cable-stayed. By the way it looks like this will be the largest suspension bridge in the world, opening only 3 years later after this bridge Giggett (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I e-mailed caltrans a couple of times trying to find out if they were going to make the claim that the bridge is the widest suspension bridge in the world, but I never got a response. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Eventual article divisions

I think that the 3 bridges should have individual articles. this replacement bridge would have its own article if a new bridge. its being a replacement doesnt make it less notable. perhaps "San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge (second eastern span)". just an idea.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wait for an official name to be assigned and retitle the article accordingly - Leonard G. (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I feel like there could definitely be an article just about the new span itself, but this article is mostly about the actual construction of the eastern span, and I think that it makes sense to have an article about the replacement that's separate from the article about the actual bridge. This article goes into a lot of detail about the mechanics of the construction that isn't super duper relevant if you're just interested in the new bridge itself. So I'd say that if we're going to divide up the articles, there could be an article about the old suspension bridge, an article about the new eastern span, an article about the construction project, and possibly an article about the old eastern span if that's not made a part of the construction project article. AgnosticAphid talk 00:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

'Bold text'Bold text'==Construction end date== Technically, the bridge is still under construction. what happened to day was that it opened for traffic.50.193.19.66 (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC) State of California • Department of Transportation __________________________________________________________ NEWS RELEASE DATE: October 21, 2016 DISTRICT:4 - CALTRANS SAN FRANCISCO - OAKLAND BAY BRIDGE BIKE PATH OPENS TO YERBA BUENA ISLAND ON SUNDAY OAKLAND – Caltrans has completed the final segment of the 4.5-mile San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge (East Span) Bicycle/Pedestrian Path connecting the current bike path from Emeryville with the new end point on Yerba Buena Island, and will open it for use around noon on Sunday, October 23. End of News release. COMMENT: As seen from the above "News Release" the replacement East Span of the Bay Bridge was completed on October 23, 2016! The portion for the Bicycle/Pedestrian is an INTEGRAL part of the bridge deck-girders, so without it the bridge is not ready regardless that was open for traffic earlier.<CALTRANS, District 4, Oct. 21, 2016> In addition this delay was used for completing and fixing problems with the construction quality. January 2002 to October 23, 2016 makes 14 years and 9 months! Please compare with the 3 1/2 years needed for the original Bay bridge to be completed in 1936. R. Mladjov, S.E., P.E.

Design Teams?

Considering the breadth and detail contained in the article, wouldn't it be customary to find mention of the design teams of T.Y. Lin and Moffatt & Nichol (and perhaps others)? M&N is mentioned once in passing, misspelled at that (now fixed). Rt3368 (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Way too many images?

A long term user deleted several galleries, commenting that the article had too many images.

Relevant image policy (bold emphasis added):

Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. See 1750–75 in Western fashion for an example of a good use of galleries.

These images cannot be found in orderly form in the Caltrans reports from which most were extracted. I defend the galleries as consistent with the relevant WP image policies quoted above.

Please view the article and the version I reverted and comment here.

Thank you,

Leonard G. (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Rough call. How many of these are in Commons? - Denimadept (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

To set the context of this discussion please note that the greater purpose of the article (by design and intent) is to describe the history of the need, politics, technical requirements, design selection from aesthetic and functional aspects, as well as the complex methodology required for its construction. In these and other ways the article is intended for a different audience than would be a simple description of a completed bridge (e.g. San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge or Golden Gate Bridge).
The issue at hand is not about where the images are sourced or stored. Rather it is that the galleries (in particular the cable laying gallery and the YBITS construction gallery) are (in my opinion) the best way to illustrate these complex multi-step processes. To put this into text alone would require much more prose and screen space than does the combination of image and title, each carefully placed to present a multi-step process in an appropriate order. I believe also that a prose solution would be less efficient (in this case) in imparting information to the reader. - Leonard G. (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm yeah I see your point about those two large galleries. I am not opposed to having those as you are definitely correct about them adding value (now that I think about it) and they aren't cluttering up the page at all since they're 100% wide. Would an acceptable compromise be to keep those galleries (YBITS and cable installment) and remove the other images that I removed except for the one at the bottom of the Background section? It just feels way to cluttered to me with so many images all over the place and imho they don't really illustrate anything that is not easily explained in the text (for example, imo the left image in the S-curve section is more than adequate by itself to explain what is going on with that structure. Another would be the bottom left image in the mini-gallery at the start of the YBITS section that basically just shows the plywood formwork and not much else). What do you think? Thingg⊕⊗ 21:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
So to summarize: my idea is go back to my version and then add in the two large galleries, the wide picture of the old span at the bottom of the Background section, and possibly a few other pics if you think any others are deserving of inclusion (the most likely additional candidates to be kept that I did not in my version would be the two small ones at the top of the Deck Placement section). And as far as I know all of the pics are from Commons so it should be ok regardless of what we decide. Thingg⊕⊗ 21:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
If you can wait a bit, I will set up a side-by side comparison to view along with your comments. This will take a few days. I assure you that I will consider each item individually and intend to communicate my opinions on your talk page for further discussion. Thank you for your patience. - Leonard G. (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Pinging User:Leonard G.. Any additional thoughts on my proposal? [[User:Thingg|Thingg]æ]⊕⊗ 03:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
(LG) The approach that I prefer to take is to examine the deletions individually, since we may then discuss, within each specific context, the didactic principles and the aesthetics of layout and sizing. I wish to initiate the discussion with the lighting section as this, in particular will illustrate the layout and presentation principles that have guided me in my approach to the design of specific article sections. I will soon prepare some (greatly reduced) screen snaps to illustrate these principles and the beneficial effects of their application. This is not to be taken, I hope, as resistance to improving other aspects concerning image clutter that are your principle concern. - Leonard G. (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
you know, just don't bother. the article is fine I guess. You can leave it. Thingg⊕⊗ 21:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Fall 2014 Update

Okay just to make sure what's still going on this article, is the demolition of the old span, the Oakland touchdown renovation, and the YBITS ramps are being added, so that's pretty much all that's left until this article is competed, right? Giggett (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Article renaming proposed.

It has been suggested to me by user:Sam that a lightweght article concerning the "as built" eastern span (either standalone or as a section of the main SFOBB article) is or will soon be appropriate. The current eastern span article has by intent been involved with detailed political and technical matters, construction methodologies, vendor-induced flaws and their correction, etc. Rather than risk the loss of the extensive and well documented history of the selection and construction, it appears to me to be appropriate to rename and refine the existing article, continuing to enhance it as new information concerning defects and their remediation becomes available. Please post suggestions and/or comments below.

Leonard G. (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  1. "Design and Construction of the San Francisco Bay Bridge New Eastern Span" (Rather wordy but descriptive) user:Leonard G.
  2. "Design and construction of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge eastern replacement span" (Even longer, but the bridge will not always be new. The problem with the old title is mostly that "replacement" can be read as a verb or a noun.) -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. I agree with #2, it is better than my original suggestion. Leonard G. (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


Unless there are some more comments, I'll make this rename soon... -- ☑ SamuelWantman

I'm not normally interested in name changes like this, but the proposed name is just really long and I'm not sure if it adds any value. Unless there's another article specifically about this span, giving this article a longer and narrower name doesn't seem appropriate per WP:CONCISE. If another article were to appear, then this would merit further discussion. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
There is another article about this span, it is San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge. The point is that this article is not the article about the bridge it is the article about the process of replacing half of the bridge. The way it is written now does not make this clear. Since it was written and expanded while the replacement was being constructed it was both about the process and the end result. I think it should be edited to be the extensive details about the design and construction, while the summary of the bridge should be beefed up in the mother article. I would be more than happy to entertain alternative suggestions that are more concise and also clear up the ambiguity of the current title. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion; by "this span" I meant specifically the eastern span, not the entire bridge. My only alternative suggestion is to retain the current title until the article is actually refined, not before. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
How about the name "Earthquake remediation of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge", which covers everything done to the Bay Bridge as a result of the 1989 earthquake? The replacement of the eastern span was only part of it, and as it is, seems to lie in isolation. Let's rename it and include the retro-work on the western span as well. - Denimadept (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Cable galleries

The following was posted to my (Epicgenius)'s talk page under the header "SFOBB Eastern Span Galleries":

Greetings:

Your recent effort on reformatting the galleries appears to me to be, in my opinion, a step backwards. As a single example please compare the Cable Images gallery before and after your modifications. Under Chrome, Safari, and Firefox, even some of the images are only partially displayed and the gallery layout is extremely inconsistent from row-to-row. The rightmost image on my 13" Macbook Air (pixel count equivalent to a Macbook Pro 15") caption text is displayed as:

Unwindi
ng from
its spool,
a strand
passes
through
severali
launch
guides.

This as the image is half the width of other items in the row. Also, no images have frames as were present before your modifications.

Would you care to comment, modify, revert, or defend this work?

Sincerely,

Leonard G. (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Leonard G.: That's weird, since I use a 13-inch MacBook Air and it didn't exactly display that way. I should probably modify these when I get a chance. Thanks for the notification. epicgenius (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I am running OS X 10.10.5 (Yosemite).

I would suggest a complete revert as a complete initial fix with small scale experiment and testing. (In any event, I really don't see the benefits or utility of the changes at all). Leonard G. (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I will revert myself and see which ones are bad. I am running El Capitan, version 10.11.2. Maybe that is the problem. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC

More problems

I reverted your two recent edits after your rollback, restoring all of the source from the original before any of your edits, this as the galleries were still very irregular. Could you please tell me just what problems you are trying to fix? It (literally) took me and several other editors years to get the galleries layout and general article flow correct. Is it possible that you are having problems with a mobile device (other than your MB Air)? I do not doubt that your edits are in good faith, so lets work together to address your concerns from a discussion of perceived flaws or a desire for improved functionality and/or aesthetics.

Best wishes.

19:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Leonard G.: Sure. Here is what I see for the "Cable images" gallery. It looks very unusual, what with all the images being of different widths and widths (unlike some of the other galleries). I appreciate the effort you expended to size the galleries in just the right order. However, is it possible that you may not have properly resized the "Cable images" gallery? Thanks again. epicgenius (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, as they say, "That is a feature, not a bug". I went back to a September 2013 edition and the cable gallery appears identical. Some other galleries appear more regular because of the similar aspect ratios of the images. Close inspection of some of these will reveal smaller but similar artifacts of display due to these differences. The regularity of the framing is the important part of the feature in that the flow of the gallery will change the count-per-row of the images in a consistent manner as a window is resized. With the changes you have worked out, the height is consistent across the row but the width of the frame will very, this in turn causing extreme flow problems with the caption text. It also leads to a row-to-row "jumble" of images, with no consistent spacing as the images are visually scanned, leading to an almost collage-like appearance.
The only "cure" for the problem you perceive that would retain the current advantages of consistent image and text flow would be to reduce the variation of aspect ratio and caption text character count; hat would in some cases require the loss of important information.
My assertion is that the layout as you found it is the best compromise of usability, aesthetics, and functionality, but of course that is only my opinion. If I have not convinced you at this point than I suggest that this entire discussion be moved to the article talk page and I will contact a few fellow editors to weigh in on this.
Thanks for your patience, Leonard G. (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Following this, I would like to have other editors' feedback as to the "proper" alignment of the Cable galleries section. Should the gallery be reordered according to the sizes of the images? Should some of the images be cropped on Wikimedia Commons so that all the images are of uniform height/width? Should the gallery be packed or remain as is? Again, any feedback is appreciated. epicgenius (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Not knowing which version was current I just took a look, and it looks pretty good to me as it is. So then I looked at the history page and found Epicgenius' version. Which also looks good. Comparing the two, I don't see much (if any) difference in the size of the images, I'm guessing that the Epicgenius version might be a little bigger which is good. On the other hand, I don't like the pop-up captions, especially since the captions are telling a story of how the cable was made. I found it awkward to read, and other things kept popping up as well when I hovered. I can't imagine why you'd want to reorder the pictures according to the size, as they show the progression of making a cable. I don't see a need to crop them to make them the right aspect ratio. What I'm wondering is if there is any way to flip through them in a full screen mode? Perhaps the making of the cable on a suspension bridge should have its own article, and the pictures could all be larger, and more descriptive text added. This page could reference that one, and perhaps include one or two of the pictures. BTW, I'm running chrome on Windows 10. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
But Sam, please note that this cable is distinctly different in fabrication that that of earlier suspension bridges. In particular it is constructed by pulling prefabricated bundles of wire (Prefabricated Wire Strand, or PWS), rather than "spinning" them with single wires. Also the cable is continuous, so a number of unique procedures are used in the PWS pulling in order to get it around the corners. Any attempt to insert this in an article on conventional wire spinning would either be confusing or require the elimination of much information unique to the PWS method. In short, I think that that information belongs here as part of this comprehensive construction article for this particular bridge. Leonard G. (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@Sam and Leonard G.: Thank you both for your feedback. I think there might be a way to scroll through the galleries, so I'll have to do research about that. I agree the cable images should stay, but there should be a way to deal with this. Not only are there a lot of images to go through in the cable gallery, but they are also images of different sizes. epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

File:San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge- New and Old bridges.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge- New and Old bridges.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 24, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-08-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge
A view of the eastern section of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge, connecting Yerba Buena Island (in San Francisco) to Oakland, in California. The original bridge (right) opened in 1936, but was replaced by a new $6.4 billion bridge in 2013 as it was becoming unsafe. The bridge's original western section, really a separate bridge connecting mainland San Francisco to the island, remains in use. This photograph was taken in September 2013, several days after the transfer of traffic but before demolition of the old bridge began.Photograph: Frank Schulenburg
Archive – More featured pictures...
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eastern_span_replacement_of_the_San_Francisco–Oakland_Bay_Bridge/Archive_1&oldid=1137333242"