Golden Gate Bridge

In the Hitchcock film Vertigo, which takes place in San Francisco and was filmed there, the Jimmy Stewart character has a nasty fear of heights (hence the title), and early in the movie there is a scene in which he has a bright idea to progressively get used to heights,just a little at a time. He picks up a short stool, prepares to step onto it, and says to his friend: “I’ll start with this.” His friend incredulously responds: “That?” To which the Stewart character replies: “What do you want me to start with, the Golden Gate Bridge?”

Well, we certainly didn’t start our bridge walking treks with the Golden Gate Bridge (GGB), but now we can add it to the list. It was the GGB that, during a visit to San Francisco three years ago, inspired me to start the bridge walking treks in order to deal with their inherent scariness,and indeed a photo that I took of that bridge has been at the top of this site since the very beginning, 2-1/2 years and some 20 or so bridge walks ago.

The appointed bridge walking hour was a somewhat foggy October morning, temperature in the low 60s, relatively calm winds,and thus a perfectly fine day to walk the GGB. The bridge, which opened in 1937, is some 220 feet above the water, and is a rather long 1.7 miles in length, longer than any of our previous bridge treks, which have topped out at about a mile long.The Golden Gate Bridge is, of course, the icon of picturesque bridges. And that’s viewed from a distance.

As far as walking across it is concerned, its height, length, and very open railings made it an exhilarating walk, albeit rather scary, at least early on. We started from the north vista point, just on the Marin County side,and walked back toward San Francisco. As my very supportive wife, who has walked across bridge after bridge with me,tells the story, she could barely keep up with my walking at the beginning of the Golden Gate Bridge, as I think I just wanted to get across as quickly as possible. Given that I haven’t actually run or jogged since the Bush Administration (that’s the George Herbert Walker Bush Administration), and given how many parts of my body hurt the day after (and how much), I suspect I came as close to a bridge run as I’m going to come. But we took lots of breaks, and I mean lots of breaks.I eventually calmed down and started to accept the height, took more breaks, eventually touched the side rails about two-thirds of the way across, successfully took the picture of a group of tourists who asked me (go figure), and 55 minutes after starting, we crossed the bridge, where the hop-on, hop-off bus awaited us(having stops on both sides).

The walk was on the Sunday past, and then a few days later, to try to confirm my view from the very beginning that if you can walk across a bridge, then you can certainly drive across it, I did rent a car (first checking the fine print for a fear of bridges restriction) and drove it across the bridge and back. Yes, they do make you pay a toll for the privilege (heading into SF), which still seems a bit strange to me, but I could more or less comfortably drive across it. And I recommend the spectacular views of the bridge from the relatively unknown Battery Spencer just above and to the northwest of the bridge in the Marin Headlands.

As far as the scariness rating for walking across the bridge is concerned, the Golden Gate Bridge certainly tops all that we’ve experienced. Using the height, length, and width standard, this one garners a combined 29, with a 9 for height (on a 1-10 scale, with each 25 feet getting a point), a 13 for length (blowing out the 1-10 scale that was calibrated for a mile long bridge being the highest, with diminishing amounts above a mile I guess), and a 7 for its width (relatively low, open railings). The wind was relatively calm, but I think relatively is the key word, so I suppose I could adjust up the scariness rating, but I won’t: this bridge doesn’t need it.

More bridge walks in the future? Sure, why not?

Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge

It's time to take a walk across a bridge spanning the Anacostia River in Washington D.C, the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge, built in 1949 and named after the former slave who became a statesman and leader of the abolitionist movement before the Civil War--and who also lived in the DC neighborhood of Anacostia after the Civil War. Yesterday morning in DC, a Saturday, the heat (88 degrees at trek-time) and humidity (typically high) were tolerable enough for a quick walk.

The Douglass Bridge is short, about a quarter of a mile long, and is located right next to the Washington Nationals ballpark on the one side and at the edge of Anacostia on the other; it carries South Capitol Street over the river. The bridge itself is in a poor state of repair, and there are plans in the earliest stages for demolishing the bridge and replacing it as a part of the revitalization of the area surrounding the ballpark. The architects who proposed several possible replacements pretty much summed up the walking experience: "The bridge is primarily a vehicular crossing and discourages pedestrians and bicyclists."

We parked near the Stadium on P Street, in one of just a few legal parking spaces in the area (which would probably have become inaccessible once the Nats game started that evening). We walked the short distance to the bridge and found very narrow sidewalks, but nice solid rails that extend up almost to shoulder height, which we always appreciate. Strangely, there were little sections underneath the railings that were open and got a bit big at points, but there was no possible slipping through, I'm glad to report. We encountered just one other person on the bridge, a bicyclist, fortunately when we were at a little cutout in the middle (for sightseeing, I guess). Otherwise, it would be a tight fit for a bike and a person. It's also a drawbridge, though I don't think it goes up very often. Despite the unlikelihood of a bridge raising, we were ready to beat it out of the middle of the bridge at a moment's notice if necessary. At its highest, the bridge is a reported 62 feet above the mean water level, apparently not enough to avoid the need for a drawbridge.

There isn't all that much going on at either side of the bridge, unless a ballgame is going on, and the vistas off the bridge aren't exactly great, though it is always great looking at a ballpark. So, I don't know that I can recommend this walk it as a great experience-- but the bridge certainly gets the job done. Someday perhaps we'll have a more picturesque and pedestrian-friendly bridge at this location to report on. The Washington Post shows pictures of some of the alternative bridges that were proposed.

As far as scariness ratings go, we give this one a 9 , the sum of a 3 for length, a 3 for height, and a 3 for its width (low because of the high railings, though a little bit of a scary rating because of the narrowness of the sidewalk and that open area under the rails).

Columbia-Wrightsville Bridge

A nice Sunday in May was a great time to walk across the Columbia-Wrightsville Bridge, which spans the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania and is the link between the two towns of Columbia and Wrightsville that are themselves located between the bigger towns of Lancaster and York. It's a low, 2-lane bridge, about a mile long, built in 1930, and not very busy thanks to the much newer Highway Route 30 Bridge that is just to the north. The Columbia-Wrightsville Bridge is officially named the Veteran's Memorial Bridge, but there are many with that name across the country, and it is more commonly known by the two towns that it connects. There have been multiple bridges at the same location over the past two centuries, with one of them playing a role in the Civil War when Union forces burned it in order to keep Confederate troops--a small part of Robert E. Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania that ended with Gettysburg--from crossing into Lancaster County and making a move toward Harrisburg 30 miles to the north (see blog post by Norman Gasbarro for a nice description of the battle and burning).

But the current bridge isn't a good candidate for burning, being a concrete structure, with multiple arches; in fact when built, it was the world's longest multiple-arch concrete bridge, if you're into records for bridge subtypes. Except for its length, it seems like a small town bridge, with a 6-foot wide sidewalk that is separated from the roadway by just a little curb. With a speed limit of 40 miles per hour, that would normally not be a big problem for walkers, but let's face it, people don't really drive the speed limit, and the barrier on the water side of the bridge is just above waist level, not all that satisfying, providing the not great choice of walking very close to traffic or the edge. Fortunately the roadway itself is very wide for just 2 lanes, so the cars tend to stay toward the middle of the road and leave the walkers to admire the views off the bridge.

Walking across the bridge, we got nice views of the Susquehanna River down to the south and the Route 30 Bridge to the north. A number of joggers were using the bridge. Just a nice, pleasant walk--except for the cars and the low side rails. We started from the Columbia side to the east, parking just a couple of blocks away from the bridge at the corner of North 2nd and Chestnut Streets. And after walking partway across the bridge and returning to the car, I drove the car across the bridge, with the theory of course being that if you can walk across a bridge, you can drive across it too. Strangely, when driving, you can't even see over the edge to water, because the side railings are solid and set just high enough to obstruct the views. That doesn't seem to be allowed with newer bridges, because people seem to want their bridges to afford majestic views, even though it seems that the drivers should be concentrating on driving; but maybe that's just me.

So, this one was a nice bridge to walk across. As for the scariness rating, I'd give it a 5 for length, a 4 for the width (being close to the roadway and with moderately low, though solid side railings), and a 3 for height (I can't find a reference to its average height above water, so I go by what I see). That's a 12 rating overall, a bit on the higher side of average for our walks.

Chain Bridge

Yesterday was a beautiful March Saturday in Washington, DC, perfect for a walk across a bridge, and we chose the Chain Bridge. This quarter-mile bridge crosses the Potomac River, connecting the far north parts of Arlington,Virginia with Washington, DC. It was the site of the very first bridge crossing the Potomac between DC and Virginia, a wooden covered bridge built around 1800. Time and floods have required several replacements over the years, including three chain suspension bridges in the first half of the 1800s from which the current one gets its name, and others built on stone piers in the mid 1800s that are still used for the current bridge, which was completed in 1939. Just north is Little Falls and, further up, Great Falls, areas with rapids popular with kayakers. The river remains rather rocky at Chain Bridge, and it is only recommended for small craft with knowledge of the narrow and shallow channel.


We could park on the DC side of the bridge, where there were a small number of parking spots on the Clara Barton Parkway. The ground slopes steeply down to the river. Some intrepid people trekked down there and were either fishing or just hanging out on the rocks. The area is relatively natural; for example, we could see a number of turtles on this 65 degree day sunning on the rocks and horizontal branches below. There are also steps down to the C&O Canal towpath, which is next to the Potomac River on the DC side of the bridge.

The views from the bridge were of the natural scenic variety--no national monuments here. Lots of rocks below, lots of nature. The sidewalk on the bridge is moderately wide, with a side railing at about neck level for me, very safe for walking you'll be glad to know. The ground slopes quickly downward, so while the bridge is level, what starts out as just a few feet above the ground eventually becomes a bit of distance to the water below--I've seen it written that the bridge is 50 feet above the river.


Of course, as with most pedestrian bridges on roadways, the cars are somewhat distracting. It is an urban bridge, so speeds aren't all that high, but nonetheless the cars are but a short railing away from the sidewalk. Nonetheless, the bridge is a nice addition our series of DC bridge walks, given the natural beauty of the area below. If you like that sort of thing, you should definitely head a little further north to the Falls, on either the DC or Virginia sides, where there are parks to hike and see the big falls and kayakers navigating them.

As for the scariness of Chain Bridge, the cars seemed scarier than anything, in some cases speeding across the bridge, though the short railing provided needed protection. The steep drop-off of the bridge as it gets to the river does provide some excitement and certainly a nice view of the area. The bridge is very short, though, and the river part shorter yet. We'll give the bridge a scariness rating of 7, with a 1.5 for length, 2.5 for height, and 3 for width (the main issue being not enough distance from the cars, not our usual issue). That makes it one of the calmer walks we've undertaken. Following the previous walk over the George Washington Bridge, this was quite mellow.

George Washington Bridge - Upper Level

It's back to the George Washington Bridge, the scene of two previous treks across the Hudson River, but this time it's a walk over the upper level of the bridge, all 212 feet up in the open air worth, rather than in the tunnel-like lower level. It was a rather breezy day after Christmas, around 40 degrees or so, thus a bit of a wind chill especially out in the open and, again, up in the air. Not an ideal day for a bridge walk, but not bad for early winter; and in the end we even took a drive over following the walk.


We--my wife and I had my son this time on the walk--started from the Fort Lee, New Jersey side, which has some parking pretty close to the bridge walkway that is on the south side of the bridge. We quickly passed by the guard who is posted at the beginning of the Jersey-side--not my ideal job location, and certainly not because it's in Jersey. We ran into the guard, or one of his compatriots, months ago on a detour after our walk out onto the lower level, when we checked out the upper level in preparation for this trek--back then he wasn't happy with our taking pictures of the bridge, telling us that no close-ups of the bridge were allowed and to focus our attention on the views off the side. So, we of course complied, and needed and received no attention from him this time. Fortunately, the security truck we saw newly parked next to his post as we came off the bridge was not for us.


So, how scary is it walking out on one of the higher and busiest bridges in the United States? I was relatively ok as long as I stayed on the car side of the walkway. The walkway was pretty wide as far as those things go, lots of room to let the bikers go by. Lots of room in case the dreaded rogue wind gust popped up in the direction of the railings. The railings were rather open, good for the views, I suppose, and were just high enough to offer some comfort. However, I still don't like my arms reaching down to touch the top of the railings. Have to work on that. Given that we've been out before on the lower level of this bridge, and were much higher up at the New River Gorge Bridge, I guess there's been some desensitizing--it just didn't feel all that high in the air. Nonetheless, the open railings, not all that high, and the undeniable height of the bridge, made this one the scariest bridge yet trekked, with an official scariness rating of 23--a 9 for height, 5 for length (about a mile long), 7 for width (the open and not all that high railings), and an add factor of 2 for the scary looking towers. That's the highest rating yet, exceeding the rating for the lower level of the GW bridge, and even the 876-foot-high New River Gorge Bridge.

So, we walked to the middle of the bridge, turned around and exited back off the Jersey side back to the car, and going to visit family on the New York side, I even drove over the bridge. The theory is that if you can walk over a bridge, then you can drive over it, too. So far, so good: no rejection of that hypothesis.

Bridge Day 2011: New River Gorge Bridge

It's time to take bridge walking to new heights, to the third highest bridge in North America, the New River Gorge Bridge near Fayetteville, West Virginia. One day each year, on the 3rd Saturday in October, what they call "Bridge Day", the bridge is closed to vehicles and a festival takes place, with the main entertainment being the BASE jumpers, yes, parachutists who jump off a platform in the middle of the bridge into the gorge below. No sidewalks on this bridge, so this is the only day of the year to be able to walk on out. Going to Bridge Day 2011 was definitely a great experience. I was perfectly happy though to just walk out to the middle and watch the jumpers, with plenty of adrenalin for me coming from being 876 feet above the river below, over three times higher than say the George Washington Bridge or the Golden Gate Bridge. The views are quite breathtaking, and a great time of year for it with the leaves all around at full autumnal peak.


The New River Gorge Bridge is the 3rd highest in North America, topped only by Royal Gorge Bridge in Colorado and the recently-completed the O'Callaghan-Tillman Bridge near the Hoover Dam between Arizona and Nevada. The New River Gorge Bridge was completed in 1977, and the festival and BASE jumping started shortly thereafter. Fortunately, the bridge is mercifully short, at just over half a mile long. From the surface it looks just like a normal road, like a flat overpass for a four lane highway (2 lanes in each direction), but the great views off the side immediately remove any thoughts of being on a glorified overpass.

Why anyone would want to parachute off a perfectly good bridge is foreign to me, and a little disconcerting to see at first. But the 400 or so jumpers lined up for the opportunity. Unfortunately, one jumper was seriously injured when his chute did not fully deploy in time. But the jumping went on. Looking over the railing, we could see the jumpers trying to land in a small circle way below, just on the banks of the river, which if successful would net them $100. Most seemed to land in the drink, in the New River, where boats quickly pulled them out. There were also repellers going down from the bridge on long ropes.

Despite how disconcerted I expected to feel at such a height, I was pleasantly surprised on Bridge Day. The sides of the bridge were about chest level, just enough protection from a rogue wind gust, and the sides were almost completely solid. The bridge height also came on somewhat gradually, as the gorge widened out below, allowing some time for acclimation. Nonetheless, there were those jumpers who required renewed acclimation on my part.

We then took a bus down some little country roads to the bottom of the gorge, where we could see the bridge in all its glory, with the parachutists floating down. We also walked right through the area where the BASE jumpers were packing their parachutes for another jump, and we took the bus back up with those happy people.

I've been rating these bridge treks for scariness on a 1-10 scale for height, width, and length. But how to rate a bridge on height that blows my scale almost to the stratosphere, since every 20 to 25 feet has been worth about a point, with the idea being the highest bridges I could imagine going over, at about 250 feet, would be around a 10. But at some point, the added height starts to lose its power: can you really tell the difference between the 878 feet-high New River Bridge and a bridge that is say 50 feet lower? So, we'll arbitrarily give the New River Bridge a scariness rating of 15 for height, and combine that with a 3 rating for length, and a 3 for width (thanks to the high railings and solidity). That's a 21 total, certainly the scariest we've experienced yet. I'm hoping that future bridges will now seem like they are barely above the water below.

Taft Bridge

Today was a great, early autumn-like day to take a walk across the Taft Bridge in Washington, DC. A true urban bridge, the Taft Bridge carries Connecticut Avenue over Rock Creek Park, traversing the Rock Creek gorge with the park (and yes, there is a creek) way below. The bridge was completed in 1907, and was originally called just the Connecticut Avenue Bridge. But William Howard Taft, as an ex-President and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, apparently walked over the bridge often, and it was named after him in 1931, the year after he died. (A bridge walker marvels about the presidential election of 1912, which pitted Taft against Theodore Roosevelt--namesake of the nearby bridge across the Potomac River--and the winning Woodrow Wilson--namesake of the area Beltway bridge over the Potomac.)





The Taft Bridge is a concrete arch bridge and is about one-quarter mile long. It is reportedly about 130 feet above the park below, quite believable given how small things looked down there. There is a great description of the history of the bridge from the Streets of Washington web site (http://www.streetsofwashington.com/2009/11/million-dollar-bridge.html), describing, among other things, how the bridge was originally called the "Million Dollar Bridge" because of its price tag (though it was actually 15% below that amount). There are also the great lion sculptures at each end of the bridge (2 on each side), which were replaced recently with replicas.


Walking over the bridge was surprisingly interesting, as the gorge opens up below and you can see quite a ways into the distance. Certainly worth the trip if you happen to be, say, at the nearby National Zoo. We walked on both sides of the bridge. You can see the Washington Cathedral in the distance off one side, and the nearly Duke Ellington Bridge off the other side. The railings are fairly open, and about upper-arm high (on me), thus allowing for the nice views or not providing a lot of protection, depending on your perspective. As for scariness rating, I'd give it a 12, with a 2 (out of 10) for length, 6 for height, and 4 for width (somewhat high, though open railings). Yes, height counts.