<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I truly believe what I said above 007....watch stolenhonor.comQuote:
Originally posted by 007?:
See... this is what I was referring to, Shock. [img]wink.gif[/img]
Printable View
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I truly believe what I said above 007....watch stolenhonor.comQuote:
Originally posted by 007?:
See... this is what I was referring to, Shock. [img]wink.gif[/img]
Obviously a terrible tragedy, I am in no way belittling it.
But ever since Katrina, when it comes to disasters/tragedies, I find myself more interested in the coverage/opining of them than the actual disasters themselves. I mean, yes we have to have complete answers to all our questions within minutes, but is it asking too much to at least try to get it right?
I mean, what's the death toll? I've heard 3, 4, 7, and 9, and not necessarily in that order. It just doesn't matter, does it? At some point down the road we'll know the actual death toll, but for now, we can just go with any old number.
How many cars went in? I've heard 30, 40, over 50, and 37.
Love those pundits. And the web boards are even better. Predictably, at Democratic Underground, I read posts blaming the Republicans in Washington. Of course, over at Free Conservatives, the hope was that, for the sake of muslims in the Minneapolis area, they better hope and pray it wasn't arab terrorism.
I originally head 7 as well Lew, then it went down to 4.
Last I heard, there were still 30 people missing as well.
I guess since they do it "on the fly" so to speak, they are dealing with the same reports they give us. Now much time to triple check the numbers until later on so they always say there are 7 "believed dead" or "as many as 7 fatalities"
My condolences, again, to all those who lost loved ones in the disaster.
Back up to 5!
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- Divers at a collapsed interstate bridge prepared Friday to work through the opaque Mississippi River in a painstaking search that has found five bodies so far, with as many as 30 people still missing.
At least 79 injured when the Interstate 35W bridge plummeted more than 60 feet into the river during Wednesday's rush hour. The medical examiner's office confirmed early Friday that a fifth body had been pulled from the river late Thursday.
The search efforts were to continue even as authorities reviewed the safety record of the bridge, which had been designated "structurally deficient" as early as 1990.
Police said the death count would surely grow because bodies had been spotted in the fast-moving currents.
"We have a number of vehicles that are underneath big pieces of concrete, and we do know we have some people in those vehicles," Police Chief Tim Dolan said Thursday. "We know we do have more casualties at the scene."
The eight-lane I-35W bridge, which carried 141,000 vehicles a day, was in the midst of mostly resurfacing repairs when it buckled during the Wednesday evening rush hour.
Dozens of cars plummeted more than 60 feet into the Mississippi River, some falling on top of one another. A school bus sat on the angled concrete.
Among the missing is Sadiya Sahal, 23, and her 2-year-old daughter, Hanah Mohamed. Sahal, who is five months pregnant, left home at 5:15 p.m. with the toddler in the back seat. She called her family at 5:30 p.m. saying she was stuck in traffic on the bridge, according to Omar Jamal, a spokesman for the family. That was her last phone call.
"Her husband is destroyed. He's in shock," Jamal said.
Officials identified the dead as Sherry Engebretsen, 60, of suburban Shoreview; Julia Blackhawk, 32, of Savage; Patrick Holmes, 36, of Moundsview; and Artemio Trinidad-Mena, 29, of Minneapolis.
Ronald Engebretsen said he and his family were trying to come to grips with his wife's death. "She's a great person. She's a person of great conviction, great integrity, great honesty and great faith in her God," he said.
National Transportation Safety Board chairman Mark Rosenker said his investigators got two big breaks Thursday with a surveillance video showing the collapse and a computer program that would analyze how the bridge failed. Those two things would speed their work and allow them to do a smaller reconstruction of part of the bridge span, rather than the whole thing.
Despite the powerful images of devastation from the collapse, some believed the design of the bridge reduced the death toll.
Joseph Schofer, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University, said the bridge's underlying arch truss stopped heavy pieces of steel from falling onto vehicles when the cars plunged into the water.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty responded Thursday by ordering an immediate inspection of all bridges in the state with similar designs, but said the state was never warned that the I-35W bridge needed to be closed or immediately repaired.
"There was a view that the bridge was ultimately and eventually going to need to be replaced," he said.
More than 70,000 bridges across the country are rated structurally deficient like the I-35W bridge, and engineers estimate repairing them all would take at least a generation and cost more than $188 billion.
"I think anybody who looks at the national picture, the national statistics and says that we don't have a problem would be naive or misleading the situation," Pawlenty said. "We have a major problem."
Authorities cautioned not to read too much into the "structurally deficient" tag. The designation means some portions of the bridge needed to be scheduled for repair or replacement. It wasn't a candidate for replacement until 2020.
The collapsed bridge is one of 1,160 bridges in that category, which amounts to 8 percent of bridges in the state. Nationally, about 12 percent of bridges are labeled "structurally deficient."
During the 1990s, inspections found fatigue cracks and corrosion in the steel around the bridge's joints. Those problems were repaired. Starting in 1993, the bridge was inspected annually instead of every other year.
State bridge engineer Dan Dorgan said the bearings could not have been repaired without jacking up the entire deck of the bridge. Because the bearings were not sliding, inspectors concluded the corrosion was not a major issue.
After a study raised concern about cracks, the state was given two alternatives: Add steel plates to reinforce critical parts or conduct a thorough inspection of certain areas to see if there were additional cracks. They chose the inspection route, beginning that examination in May.
"We thought we had done all we could," Dorgan told reporters near the mangled remains of the span. "Obviously something went terribly wrong."
The collapsed bridge's last full inspection was completed June 15, 2006. The report shows previous inspectors' notations of fatigue cracks in the spans approaching the river, including one four feet long that was reinforced with bolted plates.
Although concern was raised about cracks, some experts theorized it's no coincidence the collapse happened when workers and heavy equipment were on the bridge. The construction work involved resurfacing and maintenance on guardrails and lights, among other repairs.
"I would be stunned if this didn't have something to do with the construction project," said David Schulz, director of the Infrastructure Technology Institute at Northwestern University. "I think it's a major factor."
We have been on that bridge, and Trav used it all the time when he's in MN.
My grandmother always taught me that you reap what you sow in life.
We built a massive metropolitan city 9 feet below sea level. Now this wouldn't have been a problem had that city been located in central Nevada. But this particular city happened to be surrounded on all sides by water. No biggie, we'll build floodwalls to protect the city from the water. Those floodwalls are built to withstand a category 3 hurricane. Yes hurricanes can be classifed up to category 5, but the odds are that no worse than a category 3 will ever hit those floodwalls.
Well son of a gun a cat 5 came through, smashed holes in the floodwalls, the city flooded and hundreds died. And then we wonder how could this happen?
Let's think about highways and bridges for a moment. We don't build things to last forever, everything has to have a shelf life. Why? The justify-our-existence syndrome. Do you want to be lonely like the Maytag repairman? Or do you want to be busy like the highway contstruction workers?
Oh we just had to have our Interstate highway system. But we had to build it so it constantly needed repairs. And if the numbers are correct.....70,000 bridges are "structurally deficient?" And it would take $188B to repair them all?
So one of those structurally deficient bridges has collapsed and people have died. Now, it's a tragedy in every sense of the word. But is it all that shocking? Though these things don't occur often, they have occurred in the past and common sense tells us that, unless we start repairing the deficient bridges, the odds of a recurrence will increase.
I'm coming back to this thread to explain that one of the reasons I don't have my own bike is because of bridges.
I close my eyes when I'm on the back of Trav's bike, because I do believe they're all going to collapse. I'm smart enough to know that driving a bike with closed eyes would not be a good thing.
It's interesting to me that the news folks are referring to it as 35 WEST. It's not. It's just 35W. When Trav and I were trying to get directions from the fairgrounds back to our hotel, locals were telling us to take 35W. I was feeling all smart and stuff and repeated "35 west". They all laughed and let us know that it's just 35W.
I don't know why.
THis is the part that's going to be questioned the most....
"The search efforts were to continue even as authorities reviewed the safety record of the bridge, which had been designated "structurally deficient" as early as 1990."
"structurally Deficient", words you never want associated with anything, especially not a bridge.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 03, 2007 07:14 PM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font>
Gae- remember I worked for St. Paul Insurance for 5 years, I made several trips up there and spent a lot of time interacting with those cats. They won't admit it, of course, but the reason they called it 35W instead of 35 West is that, prior to you mentioning it to them, they never made the connection that the "W" in 35W and the "E" in 35E meant "west" and "east", respectively. And the reason for that is, bless their hearts, it's not that they're dumb or anything, but their brains spend so much of the year exposed to sub-arctic temperatures that....well, they're kinda slow. If you were to drop them off in Arizona for, oh, about a year or so, their mind would thaw out completely and they'd be good to go. As is, the simpler the better.
Greg- remember when it comes to government regulation, a lot of it is good ol'-fashioned CYA. I had a private pilot tell me one time that if he maintained his airplane to a level of full compliance with each and every single FAA regulation on the books, it would be impossible for the plane to even fly in the first place. You have to figure out which things are and aren't important.
I've never called a bridge expert as a witness, but assuming they're no different than other witnesses, I'm sure I could find one to pretty much tell me whatever I wanted. If I needed to show that the bridge was about ready to crumble, I could do that; if I needed to show it was ok, I could show that as well.
A few things should be kept in mind here- just because the bridge was "structurally deficient," that in and of itself has no bearing on the cause. You still have to show a connection and, if you let the forensic people do their job, you may be able to actually find out what happened.
I'm hearing now that there was an awful lot of equipment and materials left on that bridge due to the on-going repairs. All bridges have a load factor. What if the combined weight of all the cars on the bridge plus the equipment/materials exceeded that load factor?
Also, since they were working on the bridge, what if the repair work somehow did something that weakened the structural integrity?
I'm just speculating, of course, but these are the questions you have to ask.
Instead, we see a bridge that collapses, and right away, it's the fault of (fill-in-the-blank). At Democratic Underground, the cause of the failure was a lack of federal funding. At Free Conservatives, it's the result of the welfare state.
Lewbaby, you forgot the part about all their fair food being on sticks.
We rode to Minneapolis in 2004 for Polaris' 50th anniversary party and met a local couple at the hotel. The next day was a grand party at the fairgrounds, complete with Arlen Ness. (Google it if you don't know who he is.)
I thought Doug and Dee were joking when they started talking about fried pickles on a stick, pork chops on a stick... EVERYTHING was on a stick!
But I'll give you the brain freeze thing. Folks up there spend big bucks on bikes, and get to ride about 10 to 12 weeks out of the year.
Generally speaking, things often taste better on a stick than they do stickless. [img]graemlins/hmmm.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/wonder.gif[/img]
I mean, how the heck do you eat a corndog without a stick? [img]eek.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the interest of accuracy:Quote:
Originally posted by Lew:
My grandmother always taught me that you reap what you sow in life.
We built a massive metropolitan city 9 feet below sea level. Now this wouldn't have been a problem had that city been located in central Nevada. But this particular city happened to be surrounded on all sides by water. No biggie, we'll build floodwalls to protect the city from the water. Those floodwalls are built to withstand a category 3 hurricane. Yes hurricanes can be classifed up to category 5, but the odds are that no worse than a category 3 will ever hit those floodwalls.
Well son of a gun a cat 5 came through, smashed holes in the floodwalls, the city flooded and hundreds died. And then we wonder how could this happen?
Let's think about highways and bridges for a moment. We don't build things to last forever, everything has to have a shelf life. Why? The justify-our-existence syndrome. Do you want to be lonely like the Maytag repairman? Or do you want to be busy like the highway contstruction workers?
Oh we just had to have our Interstate highway system. But we had to build it so it constantly needed repairs. And if the numbers are correct.....70,000 bridges are "structurally deficient?" And it would take $188B to repair them all?
So one of those structurally deficient bridges has collapsed and people have died. Now, it's a tragedy in every sense of the word. But is it all that shocking? Though these things don't occur often, they have occurred in the past and common sense tells us that, unless we start repairing the deficient bridges, the odds of a recurrence will increase.
Katrina was *not* a cat 5 hurricane when it hit New Orleans. It was a strong cat 3.
New Orleans was not built 9 feet below sea level. The original part first settled by the French is still above sea level. That's why it and other parts of New Orleans didn't flood.
New Orleans is sinking and will continue to sink due to silt no longer being deposited and the fact that the city is built on silt. That plus development eliminating the barriers that inhibit hurricanes from reaching New Orleans.
The levees were built to withstand a cat 3 hurricane, but due to the sinking they are more apt to protect only against a cat 2 hurricane. So even if they were built to withstand a cat 5, they would probably only withstand a cat 4 today. One report concludes the levees have sunk 3 feet since they were built and that some parts of the city are sinking at a rate of 1" a year.
Not too many people wondered how this could happen. At least anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of geography. Your good President tried to convince you there was no way to know this could happen, but only an idiot would "wonder how this would happen", especially since your President was apprised of such a scenario and supposed planning was done not long before Katrina was a blip on the weather map. You could read "Popular Mechanics" and understand this widely known tidbit.
Levees have a shelf life and lost their effectiveness due to political ineptitude and massive costs, not because people need to "justify their existence". South Florida will flood with the waters of Lake Okechobee for the same reason. You heard it here first. You won't have to wonder why.
Things change. Cities grow. Cities sink. Levees grow old. Technologies change. Projects cost more than people want to spend and government puts the problem in its back pocket until it can't be ignored.
There. I think the framework has been corrected to properly address this topic.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 16, 2007 02:25 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>
1. Welcome back, The Big Sexy.
2. Unless you have changed your citizenship, Mr. Bush is OUR president. You'll have your chance to change that next year.
3. Read some history, and some newspapers. Check out the 1928 hurricane that hit South Florida.
4. New Orleans was not the only area affected by Katrina. Ever been to the coast of Mississippi?
5. Explain to me WHY (small words, please) the idiots who run the Cincinnati Public Schools built one on a flood plain on Eastern Avenue.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Thanks, but I don't plan on hanging around.Quote:
Originally posted by gae:
1. Welcome back, The Big Sexy.
2. Unless you have changed your citizenship, Mr. Bush is OUR president. You'll have your chance to change that next year.
3. Read some history, and some newspapers. Check out the 1928 hurricane that hit South Florida.
4. New Orleans was not the only area affected by Katrina. Ever been to the coast of Mississippi?
5. Explain to me WHY (small words, please) the idiots who run the Cincinnati Public Schools built one on a flood plain on Eastern Avenue.
2. I take no responsibility for the asshole who runs my country. I've disowned him. (My apologies to assholes worldwide.)
3. Don't assume I've not already read about the 1928 South Florida hurricane. I have. A repeat is bound to occur.
4. Is there a point? I was responding in specific reference to Lew's comments about the levees and the "justify my existence" theory. He didn't mention Mississippi so neither did I.
5.I don't know why a new school would be built right by the river. Maybe the aforementioned government incompetence? I'll place my bet there.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 16, 2007 02:42 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>
I love how Reason actually concurs with my underlying premise, but since it's me he has to reach the same result via different means.
I never said it was unwise for the older part to be where it was located (or any parts that were above sea level). But it was unwise to build a huge metropolitan area in an area that is going to require such extensive flood protection.
I personally think it is unwise to build any home or business in a flood-plain or flood-prone area. I realize some people buy into this "100-year flood" mentality and they choose to gamble, and I suppose that's their busines, but to me it's mind-numbing.
But if we are going to have a city in such a potentially dangerous location, then one would think we could at least take all the precautions necessary to prevent a disaster. That includes building levees to withstand CAT 5 hurricanes, and yes, maintaining them over time. Which, yes, that's quite expensive to do, but probably not as expensive as paying for a disaster (to say nothing of 1,000 people being killed).
I wasn't familiar with the situation in South Florida. But based on your commentary, if there is a danger in that area being severely flooded, then I would hope that something is being done about it. But if it's like most areas, my guess is that's probably not the case.
And getting back to highway construction and bridge maintenance.....there is a railroad bridge outside of Baltimore, the Thomas Viaduct, that was built in the 1830s and has had trains run over it every day since. It had some work done on it in the 1930s, but otherwise has required very little maintenance. I haven't been to Europe but I'm told such structures are commonplace there.
So engineers in the mid 19th century built things to last, but the highway bridges built over 100 years later only have 40-50 year shelf lives? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't we have the technology now to build a highway bridge that can withstand constant loads and yet last a very long time with minimal maintenance?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I responded specifically to your comments in order to 1) correct your multiple factual errors that 2) materially neglected to back up your "justify my existence" argument. I achieved that goal most effectively. Your response did not address my comments nor refute them.Quote:
Originally posted by Lew:
I love how Reason actually concurs with my underlying premise, but since it's me he has to reach the same result via different means.
I never said it was unwise for the older part to be where it was located (or any parts that were above sea level). But it was unwise to build a huge metropolitan area in an area that is going to require such extensive flood protection.
I personally think it is unwise to build any home or business in a flood-plain or flood-prone area. I realize some people buy into this "100-year flood" mentality and they choose to gamble, and I suppose that's their busines, but to me it's mind-numbing.
But if we are going to have a city in such a potentially dangerous location, then one would think we could at least take all the precautions necessary to prevent a disaster. That includes building levees to withstand CAT 5 hurricanes, and yes, maintaining them over time. Which, yes, that's quite expensive to do, but probably not as expensive as paying for a disaster (to say nothing of 1,000 people being killed).
I wasn't familiar with the situation in South Florida. But based on your commentary, if there is a danger in that area being severely flooded, then I would hope that something is being done about it. But if it's like most areas, my guess is that's probably not the case.
And getting back to highway construction and bridge maintenance.....there is a railroad bridge outside of Baltimore, the Thomas Viaduct, that was built in the 1830s and has had trains run over it every day since. It had some work done on it in the 1930s, but otherwise has required very little maintenance. I haven't been to Europe but I'm told such structures are commonplace there.
So engineers in the mid 19th century built things to last, but the highway bridges built over 100 years later only have 40-50 year shelf lives? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't we have the technology now to build a highway bridge that can withstand constant loads and yet last a very long time with minimal maintenance?
I did not address your supposed "underlying premise" - nor was I trying to - but if that's how you want to feel good about yourself then by all means have at it.
Besides if you really mean what you say about building in 100 year flood plains, etc, then you have opened a whole pandora's box of issues, because by no means is New Orleans the only place sliding off into the ocean or subject to other natural disasters for that matter. But like the your "justify my existence" theory, I'm sure you've not thought your last post through, either.
I think you've just told everyone no one should live in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens or Staten Island.
Good job, Lew.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 22, 2007 03:56 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>
I'll not let this conversation become distracted by your frustated diversions into irrelevant territory.
But if we can focus on the specific "wisdom" you impart on us, I think we need to start with this:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let's start by addressing your first irrelevant obsession - New Orleans being below sea level.Quote:
I personally think it is unwise to build any home or business in a flood-plain or flood-prone area. I realize some people buy into this "100-year flood" mentality and they choose to gamble, and I suppose that's their busines, but to me it's mind-numbing.
New York City is not below sea level, has no levees, yet it is estimated 2.2mm (much larger than New Orleans) will need to be evacauted in case of a hurricane, with storm surges upwards of 30 feet that would inundate Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island, Brooklyn, and Long Island, which is an isolated island jutting off into the ocean, making for an easy direct target. The implications for evacauation of one of the world's largest cities and the world's second largest financial center are enormous.
Unlike New Orleans, people in New York aren't yet accustomed to thinking about "The Big One".
Do we raze New York City? There are certainly many more people living in the "100 year flood plain" in NYC than in New Orleans. Eventually a hurricane *will* hit NYC - it's not a matter of if but when. I auppose New Yorkers, as you put it, "reap what they sow".
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 23, 2007 04:45 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>
Who here lives in Covington or Newport?
Not having a good summer, huh? Well, unfortunate, but hang in there, fall's just around the corner, and that means corn mazes and apple butter stirrin;, it'll get better, lil' Buddy.
Heaven forbid I suggest that it wasn't wise to build a city under sea level (and yes, parts of New Orleans ARE under sea level; they're hard to spot but one way you can identify them is by the flooding that occurred after Katrina). Maybe we could start building cities on top of active volcanoes?
But the Dutch face the same danger, don't they? Well, apparently they maintain their walls better. I don't know, all I do know is that the protection for New Orleans was obviously inadequate.
But I'll defer to your wisdom on this front. After all, you're the one who has litigated martime cases in the 5th circuit while all I know about it what I see on television.
And as for freeway construction, if it's not "justify our existence," then what exactly is it? If we can build a road that doesn't need maintenance for 20 years, but instead we build one that needs the barrels on it year after year after year, then why do we do it that way? Do you think there's even the slightest thread of a possibility that the contractors and big labor might be inolved in it?
Reason, I over-reacted. Turns out a bunch of pigeons crapped on the supports of the bridge in Minneapolis; the crap weakened the supports, and that caused the collapse. No one saw it coming, and it's no one's fault. I stand corrected, please accept my sincerest apologies.
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.
To me, the only answer would be to build the most effective levee system imaginable. Construct it properly, and maintain the hell out of it. And that includes guarding it constantly, since it would undoubtedly be a potential target of terrorism. And God knows how much all of this would cost, but I maintain that those costs would still be less than those associated with a monumental disaster.
You can argue with me all you want it won't change the fact that our infrastructure is built and maintained by politics, not science. Remember Death Hill on 75 coming into Covington? The engineers warned them when they designed it (I have a book on this somewhere but I can't recall the author) but they went ahead and built it anyway. Of course, 20+ years later, after I don't know how many accidents, they went ahead and fixed it (of course, it cost more to do the corrective measures than it did to build it in the first place).
One last quick story to demonstrate further demonstrate my greatness- back in my maritime days, Mayor Qualls spoke at one of our luncheons about proposed development on the river. She spoke about the new bridge that was going to have to be built to handle our light-rail system.
Afterwards, I went up and asked her about that. I reminded her we had the L&N Bridge, couldn't we use that for the light rail instead of building a new one?
"Well, LewMan, that bridge was built in the late 1800s."
But your honor, it's piers are made of stone; I'd be willing to bet it's sturdier than any of the more recent bridges that have been built (and I wasn't suggesting that the bridge wouldn't need some work, but obviously it would cost less to rehab it than to build a brand new one).
"Well, LewMan, it could only carry a single track. The light-rail system would be double track.
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.
Unreason shall one day be overcome by reason, Reason. Science shall overtake sorcery. And evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
<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.Quote:
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.
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>
<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.Quote:
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 color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 28, 2007 05:03 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>
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>
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]
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]