Jump to content

Talk:George Washington Bridge

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 00:01, 25 October 2021 (Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2021-10-24. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleGeorge Washington Bridge has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 13, 2019Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 24, 2009, October 24, 2010, October 24, 2013, October 24, 2015, October 24, 2018, October 24, 2020, and October 24, 2021.

Template:Vital article

Clarification

I should clarify my comment about deleting the paragraph related to the 2002 Spider-Man movie. The comic book death of Gwen Stacy was indeed set at the GW. However, the equivalent scene in the movie where Mary Jane Watson is thrown from the bridge is most definitely the Queensborough. Rbs 02:51, 2004 Feb 12 (UTC)

Fiction References

I don't think the references to popular fiction are needed. I think they detract from the rest of the article. I mean, really, will we include references to all places that the GWB has appeared in TV and film? Any objections to removing them? --ChrisRuvolo 22:56, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do not support removing notable fiction references.--Jusjih 09:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The GWB is an icon, and mentions in popular culture should be included. The question is where to draw the line at inclusion of any appearance in a movie, TV show, comic book or video game. There should be some measure of "notability" in deciding which should be included. But a wholesale removal, not now. Alansohn 12:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a few mentions that establish its iconic status are a good thing. I would NOT exhaustively list all of them but up to a half dozen or so I would keep with nary a worry. As Alansohn says, filter by notability and relevance, WP is not a link farm or booklist, but keep some. (this idea has been brewing a while I guess?) ++Lar: t/c 12:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this section. There was absolutely nothing of value in it and it was nearly as long, if not more so, than the rest of the article. A cultural significance section may be in order, but it should not just be a list of references and scenes. Write about why it is significant, not a bunch of random references. 134.173.59.5 (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, some fiction references should be there, like you said, significant ones; i.e. the GWB and Hudson river play a fairly big role in the opening chapter of MGS2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.212.84 (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roadways

(moved from User talk:ChrisRuvolo)

SR 4 and I-80 do not end on the bridge. SR 4 ends at the merge with I-95, as does I-80, several miles west. http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000001__-.pdf http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000004__-.pdf http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000009__-.pdf http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000046__-.pdf http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000080__-.pdf http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000095__-.pdf --SPUI 09:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. However, these documents show that both US-1 and NJ-4 stop at the bridge approach at US-9W. US-9 is shown stopping in Woodbridge. US-46 is shown stopping at US-1&9 in Palisades Park. Indeed, I-80 stops at the intersection with I-95 and I-95 runs through the state border on the bridge. Am I reading thesr right? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 20:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Look at the text below the map, after the straight line portion ends - it shows which highways to follow. --SPUI 01:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

change of Hudson template

Would anyone mind if I substituted {{NYC Hudson River crossings}} with {{Hudson River crossings}}? --Chris 19:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:NYC Hudson River crossings

Template:NYC Hudson River crossings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:NYC Hudson River crossings. Thank you. --Chris 16:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prolonged overnight sidewalk closing

While I have seen a web page at the Port's site that overnight sidewalk closing would apply through September 2006, I just checked its traffic advisory that it continues. While the south sidewalk with ramped access has been closed for a very long time while the north sidewalk has stairs. I am unsure if the Port Authority has thus violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 for discriminating people in wheelchairs.--Jusjih 14:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The South Sidewalk is open again from 06:00 to 23:56 and the North Sidewalk is always closed.. I will try to call the GW Bridge Bus Station to find available buses.--Jusjih 13:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


other considerations

the lower level of the bridge was originally intended to have a railroad running over it. there was talk of extending the A train to go over the bridge into fort lee. but that never happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky dog (talk • contribs)

Avoidance

A lot of people passing through New York want to avoid this bridge, and thus New York city. a section on this would be helpful. --Dj245 00:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this section again because it is just a large list of random unsourced items, that constitutes trivia. WP:TRIVIA discourages creating lists of random facts, and thats exactly what this section has become. The list has become more and more bloated with mention of any appearance of the bridge in some form of media. These are not integral to an understanding of the bridge and this section should not exist. This is in line with a similar cleanup done to the Golden Gate Bridge per this discussion. VerruckteDan (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this section again. I am of course absolutely willing to listen to arguments as to why it should be kept, but I can't think of any good ones. Simply listing TV shows and movies where the bridge appeared tells us nothing about it. If someone wants to do a section on the cultural significance of the bridge, that's another thing. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DAR monument?

Why is a picture of the DAR monument under the GWB featured so prominently? It barely deserves mention in the article, in my opinion, and it's ugly to boot. A pix of the red lighthouse would be more appropriate. --agr (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

simones theory

i love the george washinton bridge-simone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.152.160 (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.panynj.gov/CommutingTravel/bridges/html/gwb.html. This site is not public domain; see the website disclaimer for copyright notice. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ERECTED BY

www.inventionfactory.com claims that GWB was "erected by" Ferdinand William Roebling, Jr. (while president of Roebling Wire, Trenton NJ;) all history knows of this family. Your article says that Chief Engineer was Othmar Ammann & Architect was Cass Gilbert. Something not specific or correct? in GWB article. It is surprising that Wikipedia does not report the existance of Ferdinand William Roebling, Jr User:Plumalley —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Feel free to edit the article with the proper citations. There is no central "wikipedia" authority that does any "reporting". Edit the fact as needed.--Davmpls 19:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)

Suicides

I noticed there is some back on forth on the issue of including Mr. Clementi's recent suicide in this article, and I thought it would be best to discuss it here first. I have to disagree with anon 146.163...'s recent edits, and I agree with Denimadept that this should be mentioned on Mr. Clementi's wiki page. I don't believe Mr. Clementi's suicide will prove to be a particularly notable event in the history of the bridge (and I'd like to emphasize that I am not saying Mr. Clementi's suicide is not notable; I'm saying that for the bridge itself it likely won't be historically important). As such, I'd suggest adding a link to Mr. Clementi's page in a "See Also" section, akin to how US Airways Flight 1549 is handled on the Hudson River page. 184.56.92.166 (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Toll?

The article mentions the initial 10 cent toll for pedestrians, but nothing about the toll for motor vehicles. Is this info out there? Also, I'd heard that the initial toll was to be temporary and would be removed once the bridge had paid for itself. NjtoTX (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New article for Fort Lee lane closures?

I think the fiasco regarding the Fort Lee lane closures has reached the point where a new article might be warranted. Thoughts? Samer (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got enough to warrant a new article, go for it! New articles are good. Then link to it in this article. Unfortunately, I see this issue as strictly time-limited news which won't be of particular interest long-term. As soon as Christy leaves office, or a few years pass, this becomes kinda boring. - Denimadept (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at Talk:Chris Christie suggests that the current events are most properly within the scope of that article Chris Christie#Fort Lee lane closure for now. The history subsection of this article seems inappropriate. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Slightly different issue. Why is this "scandal" considered encyclopedic? It's a local news item at most, of no interest to anyone outside the immediate area. - Denimadept (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reaching the towers

Washington Heights has a picture taken from the west tower of the bridge. Yet there is nothing about the tower accessibility. Apparently, they are accessible to someone, though it could've just been a janitor with a camera. 82.141.95.243 (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just about anything is accessible if you can figure out who to talk to. Start with who owns and maintains the bridge. Keep in mind that if they let just anyone up there, they'd have published a public tour schedule, so don't expect it to be that easy. You likely need some kind of credentials. - Denimadept (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like the above said, it's who you know. I found a blog somewhere where a very small group with a few kids was up on top of a tower. They have elevators for maintenance/etc usage to the top of the cables and then a ladder to the very top deck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.195.3.64 (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subway on lower level?

Is it true that the lower level was intended for a subway line? --NE2 14:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A search inside the listed reference "The George Washington Bridge: Poetry in Steel" gives some perspective. Page 86 of this book says, "Orignally Ammann had thought that were a lower deck ever built, it would be for light rail." The whole book is not available on-line, but this statement indicates that it was considered during planning, even if not included in design or construction. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Light rail? I thought the proposal was for standard rail passenger and freight service between the New York (state) Central West Side Line and West Shore Railroad. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some digging on Google turned up a cross section drawing from this page showing what looks like rapid transit trains. The measurements between the vertical cables and roadway(s) matches other technical drawings I have seen for the GWB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.195.3.64 (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this talk (and mebbe even the article) is read mainly by train fanatics, and this criticism is pointless, but yanevercantell. To me lite rail means 99% passengers plus insignificant non-carry-on packages/containers, but whadda I know. Sure, you can look it up in WP, but non enthusiasts deserve a parenthetical phrase targetting avg users. And a link for the budding fanatiques.
—JerzyA (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Deck steel roadbed replacement

According to a notification I got today (4/28/15), the replacement of the steel in the upper deck will resume on May 4, 2015, proceeding at night. 3 of the 4 lanes will be closed during the work intervals. No end date was given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.73.254 (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do have a cite we can use, please? - Denimadept (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World's busiest motor vehicle bridge?

The article states a yearly throughput of 106m vehicles per year, yet the info box says 134k daily which would be ~49m per year. 106m/year would put it at ~290k/day. Are daily & yearly counts measured differently? Banderson1962 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington Bridge

In your listing for the George Washington Bridge you have Cass Gilbert as bring the person who designed the bridge. That is Incorrect. The person who was Engineer of design was Allston Dana. Also involved with the design was Chief Engineer Othmar Ammann. Cass Gilbert was only hired as Architect for the Stonework that was never installed on the Steel Armature. To confirm this please look up this information in the book, Six Bridges, the Legacy of Othmar Ammann. If that does not convince you I have many actual Blueprints of the GWB and it has Allston Dana's and Othmar Ammann's signature on the drawings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grillage 2 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with reference used. - Denimadept (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reposting this from the Help Desk board. I don't think we can consider Cass Gilbert as the architect of the bridge itself. He was only commissioned to do cosmetic additions, particularly the masonry to the giant towers, which was never implemented due to lack of funds. The industrial-looking towers, which we see today, were designed by Ammann, who was initially unhappy because he did not intend them to be seen (sources: 1. New York's Golden Age of Bridges (ISBN: 9780813543758); 2) The George Washington Bridge: Poetry in Steel (ISBN: 9780813543758)). The New York Times source cited in the Help Desk discussion also supports this as it indicated that Gilbert was the architect who proposed to face the towers with sculptured stone, which was discarded and he himself was dismissed. - Darwin Naz (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Darwin Naz: Do you mind noting which pages you got these claims from? Regarding I don't think we can consider Cass Gilbert as the architect of the bridge itself. - according to a NY Times article from 1926, Gilbert was hired for the design elements for the entire bridge, not just the towers. At the time the suspension design hadn't been finalized, and Gilbert's later sketches basically confirmed the suspension design.
According to The Tower and the Bridge: The New Art of Structural Engineering (1985), the "industrial-looking towers" were supposed to be covered with stone to give off an impression of masonry strength (which was Gilbert's plan). Ammann was the one who ultimately nixed the plans to cover the towers with masonry, because it was too expensive. epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi epicgenius. If you are talking about The George Washington Bridge: Poetry in Steel (ISBN: 9780813543758)), this was page 69, which states that the cosmetics plans Cass Gilbert did for Amman, which included cladding the giant towers, were shelved. Of course, if there is a source that indicates Gilbert was responsible for the design of the overall structure, then we could probably call him the architect. Some sources, however, attribute this particular task to Ammann.[1]. Other sources also support this such as Billington's Power, Speed, and Form: Engineers and the Making of the Twentieth Century (p. 164), which attribute the design of the structure and its elements (e.g. single long span with a midpoint 210 feet above the water/length of 3,500 feet between the two towers, eighty-foot wide roadway, lanes for rapid transit trains, etc) as Amman's. It also cited that "Amman had to rethink some fundamentals of bridge design" to ensure that the structure costs signifiantly lower than Lindenthal's structure. So my view - that's why I said "I think" since I am a bit uncertain :) - is that Amman built the bridge and Gilbert was asked to design cosmetic enhancements. But since they were not implemented, all that was left was Amman's work. Of course, I could be wrong especially if there are authoritative sources that specifically identify the implementation of Gilbert's design. Thanks. - Darwin Naz (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Darwin Naz: Thank you for the clarification. It's very helpful. I don't disagree that Gilbert worked mostly on design elements, rather than the overall design. I'll comment more later, but basically, the sources I've read (i.e. the NYTimes article) say that Gilbert was involved with more than just the tower design. epicgenius (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://untappedcities.com/2013/10/30/nyc-that-never-was-george-washington-bridge-beaux-arts/


GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:George Washington Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PointsofNoReturn (talk · contribs) 03:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this nominee. I cross this bridge a lot and am familiar with the article. Please allow a few days for a complete review. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Detailed feedback

1a.

1b.

  • I do not think you need to have references in the lead for the nicknames of the George Washington Bridge, or at least not 4 separate references. Too many references makes it a bit cluttered, especially for the lead section. Can you find one reference for all the nicknames?

2a.

2b.

  • The clearance above field in the infobox is not referenced. Please add reference(s) for the upper and lower level clearances. Citations 18 and/or 19 would probably do the trick.
  • Please add citations for the construction start date and end dates (one end date for each level). Again, please use existing references if possible.
  • Some sentences in the Decks and Cables subsections seem to be over-referenced. For example, "the bridge carries 14 lanes of traffic, seven in each direction." has two references when it could probably use just one. I am not sure if over-referencing is necessarily a GA issue, but I would recommend consolidating references in those two sections if you can. The rest of the article does not seem over-referenced.
  • Citation 188 does not seem to reference everything in the sentence it is supposed to reference. For example, it does not reference that the Tappan Zee Bridge is tolled eastbound.
    • Fixed.
  • Citation 210 is a dead link. It also may not have covered everything in the paragraph.
  • Utilizing external link tool in GA toolbox, references 6, 14, 157, 164, and 212 are dead. Please repair/replace these links, or simply remove them if they are no longer necessary.
  • Last external link, "George Washington Bridge: Spanning history", is also a dead link. Not a reference, but thought I would include regardless.
    • Removed.

2c.

3a.

  • Did construction start in September or October 1927? The infobox says October 1927, but the article text details a groundbreaking ceremony on September 21, 1927.
  • "Further north within the New York metropolitan area, the Tappan Zee Bridge (Interstates 87/287 and New York State Thruway) avoids the city proper." - Many travelers, especially truckers, will take various highways to use 287 as an alternative to the Cross-Bronx expressway, meeting up with I-95 again in Port Chester. I recommend adding a short mention of avoiding the congested Cross-Bronx Expressway as a reason to use the TZB and I-287. Perhaps adding "...the city proper and congested highways such as the Cross Bronx Expressway."

3b.

4.

5.

6a.

6b.

Overall:

Overall, you did a really good job building up this article. The article was an informative and enjoyable read, and I learned a lot about how the bridge was constructed and why it was constructed where it was. The article was also largely well-referenced. The few issues I noted above are largely the main ones to cover. No major structural changes to the article are necessary. I will do another run-through for grammar later. I will also do some checking for dead links. I will place the article on hold while necessary changes are made. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PointsofNoReturn: Thanks for the review. I appreciate it. I have made the preceding changes accordingly. epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Once again, great job with the article. Thank you for addressing my concerns in the review. I have also done a final dead link check and have found no more dead links. Additionally, I have done a final grammar check and found no grammatical errors. As a result, I hereby pass this article. Congratulations! PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the removal of links in this edit. MOS:OVERLINK says Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked: ... New York City. However, the key word is "unless". Since this term is about a bridge located partly within the city, I say it is relevant. Otherwise, I say we unlink New Jersey too, by the reasoning that if NYC isn't particularly relevant then neither is NJ. epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found a compromise that hopefully bypasses the need for either link. epicgenius (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Leon Moisseiff

In the article about Leon Moisseiff, the man who developed the theory for suspension bridges made of steel, it says he was a consulting engineer on this bridge. In this article, his name is not mentioned, which is a bit of a conflict. Which article needs to be changed? — Prairieplant (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is it's legit but the best source I could find is this: https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article41772720.html. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Possibly naive edits:

  • Changed "American politician" to "19th Century American politician" to reduce confusion with the 1st American president. (I realize that the 1st president's name wasn't "George Washington Bridge", but a link to "The American politician" would be interpreted by many as a link to him.)
  • Added a reference to "the work for concert band" -> William Schuman. The musical work is not the title of the article. It is just in the article. (I don't know if that kind of disambiguation reference is legal.

FWIW, my original goal was to find a way to reference what I'll call the George Washington Bridge folk song, whose authorship is mentioned at [1], and which appears in some YouTube videos, most notably in a performance by the Muppet "Forgetful George". The WWW doesn't say much about that song outside of discographies, and there do not appear to be any references to it in Wikipedia, not even in the Muppets discography. So it would be hard to write an article that could be used as a target for a disambiguation link. Robinrichm (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Level Section Issues

The second paragraph of the lower level section has some issues. First, the link for the reference "New 6 Lane Lower Level Adds 75% to Capacity" (number 174) links to the wrong article. I found the correct article, but the link is really ugly. Can anyone figure out how to make this into a more reasonable link?

https://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=https%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%252024%2FRiverdale%2520NY%2520Press%2FRiverdale%2520NY%2520Press%25201962%2FRiverdale%2520NY%2520Press%25201962%252000286_1.pdf%23xml%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FdtSearch%2Fdtisapi6.dll%3Fcmd%3Dgetpdfhits%26u%3Dffffffffaabd1d87%26DocId%3D6729574%26Index%3DZ%253a%255cDISK%2520X%26HitCount%3D9%26hits%3Df%2B10%2B11%2B12%2B13%2B14%2B15%2B16%2B17%2B%26SearchForm%3D%252fFulton%255fform%252ehtml%26.pdf&uri=https%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%252024%2FRiverdale%2520NY%2520Press%2FRiverdale%2520NY%2520Press%25201962%2FRiverdale%2520NY%2520Press%25201962%252000286_1.pdf&xml=https%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FdtSearch%2Fdtisapi6.dll%3Fcmd%3Dgetpdfhits%26u%3Dffffffffaabd1d87%26DocId%3D6729574%26Index%3DZ%253a%255cDISK%2520X%26HitCount%3D9%26hits%3Df%2B10%2B11%2B12%2B13%2B14%2B15%2B16%2B17%2B%26SearchForm%3D%252fFulton%255fform%252ehtml%26.pdf&openFirstHlPage=false

Second, the article said that the steel slabs were 90 ft. by 108 ft. by 130 ft. The reference says 90 ft. by 108 ft. by 30 ft. I'm correcting the article, but I still question this value. I think this might be an error in the original reference. 30 ft. does not seem like a reasonable thickness. Maybe it's 30 inches? Does anyone know of another reference that might have a more reasonable thickness?

Jayscore (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Washington_Bridge&oldid=1051680228"