Metro is working on improvements to the Eads bridge but no mention of decrotive lights framing the bridge like the Golden Gate bridge in SF. This would improve beutification of our city and I have been wondering for years why they cant make this happen. Link below



http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

As usual, the transit experts posting comments are all more knowledgeable about the funding and necessity of the repairs than anyone else.

Nice article about Eads Bridge in the Life and Culture section of the Wall Street Journal dated Feb 5, 2011.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... %3Darticle

It's been done before and it looked awesome:



As an aside, I went to the Blues game last night and the Arch looked really amazing lit up. I don't know if it had to do with the snow or what but I couldn't take my eyes off of it. Maybe they improved the lights?

^Damn I miss the Admiral in that spot!

Why doesn't Ameren sponsor amazing lighting on all of our bridges? They can throw minor advertising up there, wouldn't bother me at all. They could showcase sustainability with LEDs and solar generation. We SERIOUSLY need to light up the mighty miss.

I am loving the idea of lighting up the bridge and arch!!!

newstl2020 wrote:Why doesn't Ameren sponsor amazing lighting on all of our bridges? They can throw minor advertising up there, wouldn't bother me at all. They could showcase sustainability with LEDs and solar generation. We SERIOUSLY need to light up the mighty miss.

I approve

The lit up Eads shot is fantastic.

Bridges (especially Eads) are not lit because the St. Louis stretch of the Mississippi is one of the most dangerous for piloting, and it's going to get even worse with the new bridge. The bridges are simply in too close proximity to each other. The Eads lighting was removed because it resulted in navigational hazards. (They tried setting up a trip on the King bridge to turn off the Eads lights when boats approached, but the bridges were too close and one severe accident was actually blamed on the lights.)

It's a nice thought, but experience dictates that it won't happen.

Plenty of bridges are lit up all over the world that have (I would assume) a hell of a lot more barge/boat traffic than these. Wouldn't more light make navigation easier? Would they run into bridges during the day and blame it on the sun being out?

If we can send a man to the moon, I think we can find a way of designing lighting which accomodates a few night-time barges.

bonwich wrote:Bridges (especially Eads) are not lit because the St. Louis stretch of the Mississippi is one of the most dangerous for piloting, and it's going to get even worse with the new bridge. The bridges are simply in too close proximity to each other. The Eads lighting was removed because it resulted in navigational hazards. (They tried setting up a trip on the King bridge to turn off the Eads lights when boats approached, but the bridges were too close and one severe accident was actually blamed on the lights.)

It's a nice thought, but experience dictates that it won't happen.

Uh, that was before Global Positioning Systems. Its not so hard now.

http://www.mpg.de/799616/W003_Materials ... 20-021.pdf

And here is a bridge similar to the Eads (Theodor Heuss Bridge) over the Rhine River in Germany that is illuminated indirectly with LED lighting. This could work.


bridge illumination III by karma-police, on Flickr

I think the notion of not being able to light our bridges due to some proposed "problem" with bridge navigation is completely antiquated and no longer applicable.

How can we get this moving?

I'll Donate $20.

I think the web desiger/group who is leading City to River campaign should take this on. I feel this would actually be a "quick" win for them and they could actually get some financially backing relatively quick.

And when I mean quick.. I am quicker than routing an interstate highway.

I say we hand it over to Bob Cassily. He isn't intimidated by lawyers. If they have to be off, I think the wireless technology exists to allow a pilot to turn them off when he approaches.

I find the concept that adding lights to a bridge makes it harder to avoid quite unbelievable.

Plus I would think that if you can get the regulatory body, whoever manages the Mississippi waterway to approve it, it doesn't matter if someone hits it, it will be the captain or boat owners problem.

Fortunately, I doubt their are many things you can get on the river that would do much damage to the bridge itself.

Here is an article about new lighting on the Mississippi River Bridge at Natchez turned on 6 months ago:

http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/news/201 ... r-traffic/


The article says:
"Despite a few reports of concern, officials feel confident the new lighting on the Mississippi River bridge is safe for river traffic.

Mississippi Department of Transportation resident engineer Jim Eggleston said his office had received one complaint call from the U.S. Coast Guard, but no other problems have been encountered.

Eggleston said the Coast Guard received complaints that the $3 million lighting system turned on in June reportedly made it difficult for some tugboat pilots to see.

Eggleston did say MDOT had a plan in place just in case the lights made it a challenge for the tugboat pilots to see.

“When the bridge is finally finished, we will give a phone number to the tugboat captains to call if they are having a hard time seeing,” he said. “When they call the number, the lights are shut off so that they can see better.”

...

“The pilots that work for me all said that the lighting just took some getting used to,” she said. “The new lights have helped the pilots center the boats easier.”

Jenkins said the piers under the bridge are a lot easier to see because of the lights.

“It really lights up the piers and helps my pilots line up better when they are trying to pass through.”

Jenkins said a pilot who has worked for her for 18 years was even saved from some damage by the lights.

“He was getting close to the bridge and did not know there was a barge close to the bank,” she said. “The new lights on the bridge allowed him to see better so he could avoid it.”

Travis Morace, tugboat captain for Vidalia Dock and Storage, said the new lights have helped him out while driving the boat at night.

“I like them,” he said. “I don’t have to run the spotlight on my boat to see where I am going. They have made my job easier and safer.”

Morace said boat captains from further north have even told him how they feel about the lights.

“I have had other boat captains tell me that this is how the bridges up north look, and that they were glad the new lighting was in place,” he said.

Morace also said the lights did more than help make the piers and the bridge easier to see.

“I have no complaints with the lights,” Morace said. “They make my job safer, and when everything is lit up, the bridges even look better.”

^Exactly my point! How in the hell did someone ever possibly convince anyone that lighting was causing them to NOT be able to see/pilot a boat?

A bunch of drunk barge captains plowing into crap blaming it on "lights."

That ENTIRE argument makes no sense AT ALL.

Also, Natchez can light a bridge and St. Louis cannot? Why does this seem completely F'd to me?

And to the last post on the previous page, no one is saying Metro should pay for it, where did you get that? Lighting bridges provides illumination to the city and makes it more attractive and a lot more picturesque, which has a lot to do with perceived image. That's the great thing about perceptions, they can be changed via action. Actions like barge captains not drunkenly running into enormous lit up piers and blaming it on the "lights."

(Disclosure: Said "drunk captains" may simply be horrible barge captains who cannot adequately do their job. "Drunk" may be freely interchanged with "incompetent," "unattentive," "dumb," etc.)