Talk:San Diego–Coronado Bridge

message: Isn't it known as a "Bay Bridge"? --Geopgeop 05:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It's known as the "Coronado Bridge," or, occasionally simply "the Bridge" by Coronadans, but I've never heard the word "bay" used to describe the bridge except as "San Diego Bay Bridge" or "Coronado Bay Bridge" (which I acknowledge is factually inaccurate).Londubh (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

message: I believe the bridge scene in Anchorman was actually set in Mission Bay.  As noted in the Wiki the bridge is not designed for foot traffic and stopped traffic.  The bridge scene in Anchorman was a one way, two lane road, Coronado Bridge goes both ways with five overall lanes.
:I, too, believe the scene in Anchorman was from Mission Bay, and not on the Coronado bridge. --Eric Bekins 07:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The scene is filmed elsewhere, but it's 'bookended' by two long shots of the Coronado Bridge. I don't think it merits a mention in the article, though, so I'd support a delete. MFNickster (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anchorman 

message: If anyone can help me, I am looking for a source to verify the start date that the electronic toll collection system FasTrak was first accepted  on the Coronado Bridge (of course, before toll collection eventually stopped in 2002). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly certain that that's not the case; the only lanes that didn't require stopping were the carpool lanes. I know the HOV lanes on the 15 use them, and have for many years.Londubh (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fastrak usage? 

message: I removed this section from the article:
(referring to the lack of shoulders or "break-down lanes") It has been said that the reason for this was to prevent persons from leaping off the bridge to commit suicide. However, between 1972 and 2000, more than 200 suicides occurred on the bridge . Considering the volume of traffic on the bridge as of 2006, should a vehicle break down or encounter another problem, it will almost certainly cause a serious collision, as there is nowhere for the disabled vehicle to go, and no way for oncoming traffic (at the posted speed limit of 50 mph) to avoid it. Another defect of this design is that it is impossible to use a bicycle to cross San Diego Bay: cyclists must either transport their machines across on the ferry at a cost (April 2006) of $3.25 each way, or travel the long way to or from Coronado via the Silver Strand.
Reasons:
#There is no source for "It has been said that the reason for this was to prevent persons from leaping off the bridge to commit suicide".  Who said that?  When?
#Even if there were a source for that claim, it could be considered Original Research to imply that the lack of shoulders has failed to cut-down on suicides.  One could just as well argue that if there were shoulders that there would have been even more suicides.
#Concerning bicycles, it is pro-bicycle POV to claim that the lack of a bike path constitutes a "defect".  While some people might consider a bike path to be desirable, there could have been other trade-offs, such as less cost or even less environmental impact to leave out a bike path.  This is speculation, of course, so it does not belong in the aritcle.  Similarly, saying that the lack of a bike lane is a defect is POV that does not belong in the article.
#Also, bicycles are generally permitted to use regular vehicle lanes, so the lack of a specific bicycle path does not mean that bicycles cannot use the bridge. It is true that they are prohibited from interstates and some other highways, so it is possible they are prohibited, but that should be sourced before it goes into the article. Johntex\talk 16:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed POV

message: I read here that the bridge was made curved, being longer than needed, just to get federal money to help pay for it.
"Phil Cohen has this to say about the Coronado Bridge:
    The original design for the Coronado Bridge was a much shorter, and almost straight span to the Island (actually, peninsula). Then in order to qualify
    for federal funding, (whereby our government pays most of the tab), the City of San Diego curved and lengthened the bridge to meet the minimum length
    standard that would qualify the Coronado Bridge for Federal funding.
How about that for an unintended consequence of taxpayer funding. They help you if yours is a long bridge, so San Diego builds a long bridge instead of a short bridge!"
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/005561.html
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.193.144.79 (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense.  The length was required to accommodate the navigation/height requirements the Navy put forth while still allowing vehicles to ascend & descend the grade safely.Londubh (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I had heard the federal funding argument as well.  Enough that it should be in the article to debunk it. Freakdog (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: About its length, shape and funding

message: I'm not comfortable with editing articles, but there are a few things that I know, as a Coronado native, which are either contrary to the article or simply don't appear.  They are as follows. 
*The bridge toll was originally collected both eastbound and westbound, at 60¢ each way.
*In 1980, the toll was removed from the eastbound lanes.  (Presumably due to the effects of traffic congestion, also presumably the eastbound toll booths were removed around this time).  To maintain revenue, the westbound toll was increased to $1.20.
*The traffic was so much greater than expected that the bond was paid off in half the time expected (69-86, 17 years ahead of expected date, as seen in the first reference link).
*At some point, the toll was reduced to $1, and a free carpool lane added (not necessarily the same time).
*Bridge tickets, as of at least the 90's and through the end of the tolls, were sold in books of 40, for $24 (60¢ each).
*Traffic across the bridge increased significantly (10-25%?) when the toll was removed.
*The City of Coronado repeatedly shot down the idea of a bridge whenever San Diego brought it up in SANDAG (with help from other cities?), until the rules governing SANDAG changed from votes by municipality to votes by population.
*Prior to the opening of the bridge there used to be a ferry that transported pedestrians and vehicles from Downtown San Diego to approximately the foot of Orange Avenue in Coronado.  This ceased operation due to a law that prohibited competing business within a certain distance (3 miles?) of a state toll road.
Londubh (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Innacuracies 

message: The official name of the bridge is the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrice62 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's not. The official name is the San Diego-Coronado Bridge according to Caltrans. www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/products/Named_Freeways.pdf. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets go one step further, and say that the Common name for the bridge is the "Coronado Bridge". Should be that way per WP:COMMONNAME.--JOJ Hutton 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that the full name is also a common name within the meaning of WP:COMMONNAME. People looking for the article may use one or the other. Precedent elsewhere also seems to dictate putting the article at the official name as other bridges in the state are all at their official names as well regardless. Examples being Richmond – San Rafael Bridge, San Mateo - Hayward Bridge, San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge, Benicia–Martinez Bridge even though they all have a colloquial name as well. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much without a doubt locally and colloquially known as simply the "Coronado Bridge"--JOJ Hutton 18:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but the population of San Diego is a very small portion of the people in the world who may be searching for the bridge. Non-locals likely would not be searching for a colloquial name. Besides as I pointed out above, precedent favors the full name over one of many colloquial names in part for that very reason. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the most common name is a measure to increase views, while using the more formal official name usually decreases viewership, regardless of where one is searching from. That is why articles should be listed by their more common names.--JOJ Hutton 19:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why the article should stay where it is now. The common worldwide name would be the San Diego-Coronado Bridge. Coronado Bridge is only common in one city. And again that ignores both precedent and the fact that a simple redirect already moves people searching for "Coronado Bridge" to this article already. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And how is it that the rest of the world thinks that the full name is more common. I hate to ask, but where is the proof of that? All we can do is go by the common name that we know it as and as the sources proclaim, not by what we think others may think it is.--JOJ Hutton 21:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Google searches aren't definitive proof but they are informative. And searching both names comes out to an even 176,000 results. Plus WP:COMMONNAME aside, as I said above repeatedly, precedent is for the full name to be used. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Those Google results could be tainted because so many other sites use wikipedia as a source, and most of those results that came up with "San Diego-Coronado" are most likely mirror sites of wikipedia. That is why Google search results are not always reliable when it comes to finding the common name of a subject. They can be helpful, but not reliable. I think the fact that the two searches came up even, says volumes to how more often the shorter common name is used as opposed to the official name. As far as precedent goes, those bridges you referenced earlier use the bridges official names, because the official names are also the common names. Policy and guidelines usually trump precedent in these cases anyway, but not always.--JOJ Hutton 22:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually none of the bridges I listed are commonly called by those full names. As for WP:COMMONNAME I would suggest reading it closer. It doesn't necessarily support putting the article at the shortest common name. Gateman1997 (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I would just like to point out that when I last drove over the bridge - in February - the sign read "San Diego - Coronado Bay Bridge" ... Also, if the common and local name is Coronado Bridge, than it should be listed at that. Why would the rest of the world think it is the San Diego - Coronado Bay Bridge? Virginia's official name is the Commonwealth of Virginia, but it isn't addressed so. Same with the United Mexican States, the world knows it as Mexico. What is precedent in the Bay Area also does not have to be precedent in Southern California. Since the common name is the Coronado Bridge, perhaps it should be moved to that title. 08OceanBeachS.D. 22:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That sign is close to 40 years old and is actually incorrect per the state currently. The state officially refers to the bridge without the "Bay" in the name. As for the Bay Area being the only precedent I'd also point to every other bridge article on this site such as Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge, George Washington Memorial Bridge, etc... Gateman1997 (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing a quick search on bridges, I find the ones I've browsed upon to use the official name and state the common name. Because of this I'm will to leave the title of the article as it is now. 08OceanBeachS.D. 04:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Name of the Bridge 

message: No mention of Barrio Logan, the murals, the park or the uprising?  All important to the history of the Coronado Bridge... Freakdog (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to be bold and add it yourself...that's what Wikipedia is all about! Since it is apparently something that's important to you, you probably know more about it than a lot of Wikipedia editors, so here's an opportunity to share your knowledge. Princess Lirin (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion, I have added a paragraph about this. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barrio Logan 

message: Big bridges like this one do not have a "Chief Architect" but rather a "Chief Engineer".
Big bridges like this one are not mere works of architecture, but rather they are major works of civil engineering.
Consider the Brooklyn Bridge. This was the work of the bridge engineers John Roebling and his son Washington Roebling - after the death of his father while working on the bridge.
Furthermore, look up the chief engineer of the George Washington Bridge, Othmar Ammann, who was awarded the National Medal of Science in 196447.215.183.159 (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chief Engineer 

message: The bridge appeared briefly on the PBS NOVA Program NOVA: Why Bridges Collapse as one of many examples of bridges with a single-point of failure. Later another box girder bridge was used as one of the examples of single-point failure bridges. The bridge is also listed Transportation for America's Structurally Deficient Bridges (NBC San Diego) in 2013.
The bridge is listed in California Code, Streets and Highways Code - SHC § 188.5 as a bridge that requires needing seismic retrofit with a retrofit estimate of one hundred five million dollars ($105,000,000).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelgrip (talk • contribs) 03:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridge Safety