Twin Cities bridge disaster

[reason]

As for Manhattan, if your boy Al Gore is right, and if the sea level does start to rise (or if Manhattan is sinking), I think you would agree with me that something should be done. Obviously we're not going to evacuate Manhattan, so presumably that means constructing a levee system. Now, in your opinion, should that levee system be built to last? Should it be maintained properly? Or should we just go with the 50 year plan and then, afterwards, what happens, happens.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is problem with discussing with an angry Lew. The first two paragraphs start off with such forceful innaccuracy, we end up with a mish mash of incoherency and sound bites that are impossible to address.

First, whether Al Gore is right or not about global warming is irrelevant, as the sea levels have been rising, the polar ice cap and glaciers have been melting. There's a reason Russia recently planted a flag under the North Pole, there's a reason why Canada is spending billions on boats to patrol the Northwest Passage, there's a reason why the US is reconsidering it's position on the definition of coastal water boundaries.

While rising oceans certainly don't help the situation in any coastal area, including New York, regardless of how high the waters are in the future, the city is at risk at current levels. If a cat 3 hurricane hit NYC tomorrow it could make New Orleans look like child's play; Al Gore has no bearing on any of this.

You say we're obviously not going to evacuate Manhattan? Well, Lew, I think that's part of the plan. I've not heard of any talk about levees being built, probably due to the lack of feasibility of such a massive endeavor.

Point is, you don't seem to think things should be built in 100 year flood plains, pointing out New Orleans. If you really believe what you write, Lew, then the nation's largest city should be elsewhere.

It should also be mentioned that Newport and Covington are protected by a flood walls, and sit in a flood plain. I suppose these two cities should not exist either. Interestingly, one of those cities is connected to Cincinnati by a 140+ year old bridge that was closed for about 5 months up until early this year due to repairs.

Back to New Orleans, the city was flooded not due to any justify my existence mentality. It was flooded due to simple governmental negligence. Many knew the dams were faulty; it was no secret. New Orleans flooded because the government knew there was a problem yet still let it happen.

Simple reality. Cities are built in areas where commerce can take place - in the case of New Orleans and New York, they are major, strategically important ports. Major ports pretty much are built by the ocean. Oceans have hurricanes. Hurricanes flood.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 28, 2007 03:02 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>

[reason]

But Roxy, how many trains are you planning on running? Couldn't you just have the bridge be single track with signals on each end, and one northbound crosses and after he clears, the southbound can go?

And the bottom line was, it didn't matter what existing bridges we did have. We were going to get a new bridge, and that was that. That's how politicians think. And that's what I was complaining about.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The reason the L&N became decrepit and thus turned into a pedestrian bridge is because it isn't double tracked like its neighbors.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 28, 2007 05:03 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>

[reason]

To tie this all together, one supposes Roxanne should have responded to Lew in the following manner:

"Lew, Newport is built in flood plain. You don't think anything should be built in a flood plain. Why would you want a light rail track built in a flood plain?"

Side Note: In today's Wall Street (page A13) Joel Kotkin wrote a piece on the reasons for lack of infrastructure investment in the United States. While I don't agree with everything he says, one thing is clear: government has been on a clear path of underinvestment in our nation's infrastructure and we will pay the price.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 28, 2007 05:02 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>

[jumper69]

Reason, Lewman....

As I am so often wont to say to some of my more judicially challenged citizens:

Shut the fuck up or I'll take you both to jail! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Lew]

Well first off, Jumper, I'm going to file a motion to suppress your stop; you have no probable cause that criminal activity is afoot.

Second, and since this somewhat follows-up our discussion here- I was in Canada last week. On the way back, I crossed the Bluewater Bridge at Port Huron, MI (wrongfully surmising that it would be faster than either the bridge or the tunnel at Detroit). You have to pay a toll first, and we were the third car from one of the toll booths when they stopped letting cars go for about 15 minutes. Eventually they let us go, and when we got to the booth I asked the troll what the deal was, he said that once X number of cars back up onto the bridge (since customs is on the other side), they stop letting any more go onto the bridge until the line goes down. He said the bridge can handle it, but they don't like to have unnecessary wear and tear. So I give them props on that.

I also learned one other useless tidbit of infrastructure dynamics. We went up into the CN Tower in Toronto. If a skyscraper (and I forget at what height that classification begins) is built into the soil, it should extend 1/3 of its above-ground height below the surface. But, if it's built into bedrock, it need extend only 55', regardless of its above-ground height. The CN Tower is 1800' or so, but it's built into solid bedrock.

Now, granted, this was a Canadian that told me this, so I mean, I'm guessing he knows aboot it, but I mean, it would have meant more coming from an American [img]wink.gif[/img]