Talk:Auckland Harbour Bridge

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

Clip-on fault & toll booth[edit]

Has anyone got information on the fault with the clip-on sections, circa 1985, where traffic was limited on the clip-ons, until the structures underneath were strengthened? Also, there was a toll booth on the northern part of the motorway approaching the bridge, this was not used from what date? Mjm1964 10:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An embedded comment cites http://www.theviaduct.com/theviaduct/history/1980.asp to give 30 March 1984 when the toll boothes were removed.Tenbaset 10:49, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

122.56.38.2 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)The first sentence of the article says : "The Auckland Harbour Bridge is an eight-lane box truss motorway bridge...". Actually the original bridge is a four lane truss, with two two lane box girders (The clipons) added either side later. In effect there are really three bridges there, and the clipons are structurally independent of the original bridge, apart from sharing the piers, which had been originally designed for a larger bridge. 122.56.38.2 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Length of Bridge[edit]

Looking on the web I don't see anything to support the current length stated as 1.15 km. Most sites report either 3348 or 3350 feet, which is 1020-1 meters. The Transit NZ document http://www.transit.govt.nz/content_files/AHB/1951-1961.pdf lists it as 3348 feet so I've taken this value. XLerate 22:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second harbour crossing[edit]

The feasibility study mentions several additional considerations including the requirement for cycling and walking options in any second harbour crossing. Cheers... Nil Einne 20:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clip Ons at risk of failure[edit]

There is an article in today's Sunday herald that states a BECA engineering report that the clip ons are at risk of imminent failure, should this be included? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10469771 Nzv8fan 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I have added it. Please have a look, you are welcome to add such material to articles on your own. Ingolfson 07:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clipon details[edit]

The following was added by an anonymous user. Until it is referenced, I do not think it should be in the article, also it is relatively specific, so there is no large loss to the article in removing it again, though I'd be happy for it to be back in a referenced and slightly condensed form. May eventually look into dredging up refs myself...

QUOTE

Design of the clip ons was by UK firm Freeman Fox. This was a thin plate box structure with stiffened panels.

Proof load checking of the clip on structures was carried out in 1972-75 for the Auckland Harbour Bridge Authority by a German firm Haensel Roik & Albrecht. Some strengthening of the structures was carried out following this detailed review. Following this work, there was agreement between the parties that the bridge was able to safely carry the traffic streams likely to be encountered but the consultant felt some reservation about full compliance with design codes for the day for the designated design live loads. An in-depth review of the findings of this 1972-75 work was carried out by MWD staff with the German consultant staff in January/February 1987. This included traffic stream assessments to obtain 1987 traffic patterns to compare with the loadings used by the German consultants assessments.

In July 1985 fatigue cracks were found in the stiffened steel deck plates on the clip-ons and extensive bridge repairs carried out on both bridges replacing the stiffener welds in the wheel paths. It was decided at that time that the stiffener welds away from the main wheelpaths had some remaining life and that similar repairs could be done to these when required. During the stiffener repairs, heavy traffic was confined to the central spans (off the clip ons) and the clip ons were closed at night to allow work to be undertaken inside the box sections. Consideration was given to keeping heavy traffic permanently off the clip on spans at this time but this decision was not taken. Recommendations were made at that time to keep all overweight vehicles (particularly those with overweight axles) off the clip on structures as a permanent measure.

A review of world wide design practice for fatigue detailing in the mid to late 1960s was undertaken during 1986 to see if the fatigue problems should have been forseen during the original design but this concluded that these possibilities were beginning to be recognised but were not well understood at that time. Working life for some similar bridge details were still being researched through full scale testing in the UK during the mid to late 1980s.

UNQUOTE

Ingolfson (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prime minister, and official open error[edit]

I have changed the error of who opened the bridge, it said that Sidney Holland opened it, but it was the Governor General Charles John Lyttelton, 10th Viscount Cobham who opened it. Also the prime minister that was mentioned was two years late! Cheers --Benpaul12 (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a video celebrating the 50th anniversary of the bridge. Therefore propose addition of the following external link:

  • Auckland Harbour Bridge - 50th Anniversary Celebration. A short Faber Optimé YouTube video showing a little of the history, construction, maintenance and recreation around the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

Faber Optimé (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As has been explained to you by several people at User talk:Faber Optimé, you should not be linking to your own work, and all those who have reviewed your videos to date appear to have agreed that they are not suitable as links.-gadfium 20:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utility services across the bridge[edit]

I have created a new section for utilities, as a place to reference the new 220 kV cables that are to be installed this year. It appears that there are gas, water and telecommunications utilities across the bridge, but I have found difficulty in getting up to date information or reference sources for these. Marshelec (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suicides[edit]

"The bridge sees a small number of suicide attempts, with between one and two people each year dying from jumping into the Waitemata Harbour" a bit pedantic this i know, but how can you have a fraction of a person commiting suicide? this could lose the "between" and be re-written as "The bridge sees a small number of suicide attempts, with one or two people each year dying from jumping into the Waitemata Harbour". i'd do it myself but never worked out how to edit the intro pargraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.151.59 (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply click on the "edit" tab at the top of a Wikipedia page (it seems that so far, you have been using the section-edit links only). Schwede66 18:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation[edit]

In the section "Initial structure", the following appears: "Tolls were originally 2/6 (25 cents) per car but were reduced to 2/- (20 cents) after 15 months...".

The 2/6 and 2/- amounts could benefit from conversion to 2014 decimal currency values. Note that the conversions shown are simple ones based on the premise that there had been no inflation from 1959 to the introduction of decimal currency on 10 July 1967. In addition, the 25 cent and 20 cent values have not been adjusted for 1967-2014 inflation. In 1959, one could buy a packet of fish and chips for ninepence (I regularly did that at school lunchtime, in Auckland). The stated amounts of 25 cents and 20 cents are meaningless to today's readers, unless corrected for inflation, and the 2/6 and 2/- probably equate to several dollars today. I lack the skills and authority to do a conversion myself. Akld guy (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No response, so done. Akld guy (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

According to the Manual of Style, the lead "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects". Much of the material in the lead isn't even in the body. If somebody would want to give this article some TLC, the overall article structure could be looked at, the current lead material distributed across the body as appropriate, and the lead could then be rewritten from scratch. Anybody keen? The reason that I looked at the article is that I wanted to add Fred Ladd's 1967 stunt to the article, but where it would currently fit best (it goes with bungy jumping, I suppose) is in the lead... Schwede66 20:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the lead is already too long. Also, the lead is meant to be about the topic itself, not peripheral issues such as Fred Ladd's stunt. My suggestion is that the lead be reduced to its first 3 paragraphs as they currently stand, with suicide attempts, bungy/AJ Hackett, bus usage, and FL's stunt made into a separate section placed way down at the bottom under "Second Harbour Crossing". The new section could be called "Notable Events" or similar. Akld guy (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I was too obscure, but I suggested that the lead be rewritten from scratch; I was not suggesting that the stunt be added to the lead. It should go into the body of the article once a more appropriate structure has been established, including a part where bungy jumping goes. Schwede66 22:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to sound argumentative, but you did in fact suggest that the best place for the stunt was in the lead: "but where it would currently fit best ... is in the lead". As I said, I think the first 3 paragraphs of the lead are fine as they stand, and on second thoughts probably the bus usage is appropriate there too. I think all the peripheral trivia, such as suicide attempts, bungy, and FL's stunt need a section of their own, way down the page. Akld guy (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was too subtle. I said (emphasis added) that the stunt "would currently fit best" in the lead, after having pointed out that the lead needs to be rewritten from scratch, with the current lead material distributed across the body as appropriate. Once that distribution has happened, the bungy jumping wouldn't be in the lead any longer. Hence, neither would the stunt be in the lead. Is this clearer now? Schwede66 23:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's even more muddled but let's not waste more time on that. I've stated what my preferences are, but just go ahead and do what you think best. I may or may not comment afterwards. Akld guy (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Auckland Harbour 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) 14:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Auckland Harbour 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) 06:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Auckland Harbour 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) 17:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Auckland Harbour 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) 07:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity to Sydney Harbour Bridge - Introduction[edit]

In the introduction there is the following statement, "While often considered an Auckland icon, criticism has included complaints that it mimics the Sydney Harbour Bridge in copyist fashion." This is cited to a political article in the Sunday Star Times written by a disgruntled Australian architect but the statement simply is not true. Or rather it should be "criticism has included ONE complaint that..." I have never heard anyone compare the two bridges. They look nothing like each other. In fact the only points of similarity are that they are both bridges and they have the word 'Harbour' in their names. So unless someone can come up with a cite from anyone living in New Zealand I shall delete this statement. OrewaTel (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke it. That statement makes no sense. Schwede66 09:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Load limit[edit]

"13 tonnes (13 long tons; 14 short tons) on outside lanes" suggests that the load limit on the inner lanes is different. What is the load limit on the inner lanes? 2406:E003:1020:5401:8126:5CF6:1C76:FB8B (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing contents[edit]

"(...) one of the few such wharves west of the bridge, the proposed Te Atatū port not having been built". This is a part of a long sentence that, as a whole, sounds very confusing. Please compose this sentence more clearly. 2406:E003:1020:5401:8126:5CF6:1C76:FB8B (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Auckland_Harbour_Bridge&oldid=1194485721"