News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

a car bridge made of aircraft carriers?

Started by silverback1065, July 21, 2015, 10:03:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


SteveG1988

Roads Clinched

I55,I82,I84(E&W)I88(W),I87(N),I81,I64,I74(W),I72,I57,I24,I65,I59,I12,I71,I77,I76(E&W),I70,I79,I85,I86(W),I27,I16,I97,I96,I43,I41,

iBallasticwolf2

Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 21, 2015, 10:28:26 PM
Weird idea.

If it bridges that freeway gap it could be a very good idea. One person in the comments mentioned about how boats would get through. I decided to respond and say a drawspan. I don't think that would be prefferable however.
Only two things are infinite in this world, stupidity, and I-75 construction

SteveG1988

Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 21, 2015, 10:33:36 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 21, 2015, 10:28:26 PM
Weird idea.

If it bridges that freeway gap it could be a very good idea. One person in the comments mentioned about how boats would get through. I decided to respond and say a drawspan. I don't think that would be prefferable however.

www.wired.com/2015/04/turning-old-aircraft-carriers-bridge-not-good-idea/
Roads Clinched

I55,I82,I84(E&W)I88(W),I87(N),I81,I64,I74(W),I72,I57,I24,I65,I59,I12,I71,I77,I76(E&W),I70,I79,I85,I86(W),I27,I16,I97,I96,I43,I41,

jakeroot

This is one of those proposals that my kids will see in the future and wonder what the fuck we were smoking.

Pete from Boston


Quote from: jakeroot on July 22, 2015, 01:20:03 AM
This is one of those proposals that my kids will see in the future and wonder what the fuck we were smoking.

I must be young at heart, because I think that right now.

kurumi

This reminds me of two of George Carlin's self-help books:
* How to Make Two Small Hats out of a Brassiere
* How to Make a Brassiere out of Two Small Hats
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

froggie

An intruiging idea, but not very practical for many of the reasons cited in the Wired article.  In addition, there's the flight deck's uneven width (anywhere from 85 to 200ft excluding the island), the need to reinforce the deck where the ship's catapults were located (especially if you want more than 2 lanes of traffic), the presence of small humps in numerous places on the flight deck, and the flight deck's surface.  Speaking from personal experience, about 95% of a ship's flight deck is coated in non-skid.  Very good for traction, but wears down both tires and the non-skid itself...the deck would typically have to be re-skidded every 3-5 years.

Another big problem with the idea is the water depth and the ship's draft.  A Forrestal-class carrier (i.e. the Indy) has a draft (the distance between the waterline and the bottom of the ship) of about 36ft, and for a Kitty Hawk-class it's 38ft.  I checked the nautical charts for the inlet and where they want to put the bridge, the deepest part is only 34ft, with most of it 30ft or less.  In short, they'd have to dredge the bottom to make it deep enough to use the carriers, and/or they'd have to beach the carriers on the bottom.

Bottom line:  using the carriers is not practical.  And from a cost perspective, they'd probably be better off just building a regular bridge anyway, since a bridge could easily be built in that water depth.

Disclosure:  one of the decommissioned carriers the promoter wants to use, the Independence, was my first ship.

iBallasticwolf2

Quote from: froggie on July 22, 2015, 01:00:10 PM
they'd probably be better off just building a regular bridge anyway

Agreed. A normal concrete bridge could easily be built and tie into a freeway connection between SR-16 and SR-3.
Only two things are infinite in this world, stupidity, and I-75 construction

jakeroot

Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 22, 2015, 01:31:44 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 22, 2015, 01:00:10 PM
they'd probably be better off just building a regular bridge anyway

Agreed. A normal concrete bridge could easily be built and tie into a freeway connection between SR-16 and SR-3.

I think the whole point of the bridge was to create a tourist attraction. If this proposal falls through (likely) I don't think the state will do anything. A Gorst bypass would be nice, but there's no signals and half the movements through Gorst are flyovers, so I don't see the urgent need.

Pete from Boston


Quote from: jakeroot on July 22, 2015, 01:34:26 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 22, 2015, 01:31:44 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 22, 2015, 01:00:10 PM
they'd probably be better off just building a regular bridge anyway

Agreed. A normal concrete bridge could easily be built and tie into a freeway connection between SR-16 and SR-3.

I think the whole point of the bridge was to create a tourist attraction. If this proposal falls through (likely) I don't think the state will do anything. A Gorst bypass would be nice, but there's no signals and half the movements through Gorst are flyovers, so I don't see the urgent need.

Sigh... I'm actually going to take this seriously for a second...

There are very few countries in the world that have ever built an aircraft carrier.  A handful.  They are the second-most powerful type of tactical weapon ever made, and cost a sum unimaginable for most countries.

We have a few castoffs.  Most are museums or "in reserve."  it is not reasonable (and not going to happen) to use several of these to build a bridge of limited national importance, however cute the idea may be.  Cute, come to think of it, is the most positive word I can use to describe it.

If I lived in Washington I'd want my $90,000 back without a second more discussion on it.

froggie

QuoteAgreed. A normal concrete bridge could easily be built and tie into a freeway connection between SR-16 and SR-3.

Could easily be built, yes.  Could tie into a freeway connection between WA 3 and WA 16, no.  There's a fairly steep bluff on the south side of the inlet that prevents an easy connection to 16...likely the reason why 16 is routed around the inlet anyway.

doogie1303

Quote from: froggie on July 25, 2015, 10:39:55 AM
QuoteAgreed. A normal concrete bridge could easily be built and tie into a freeway connection between SR-16 and SR-3.

Could easily be built, yes.  Could tie into a freeway connection between WA 3 and WA 16, no.  There's a fairly steep bluff on the south side of the inlet that prevents an easy connection to 16...likely the reason why 16 is routed around the inlet anyway.


Yeah, I've been there on many occasions for business, I don't think the idea is practical for that location. It would only save you the whopping 5 minutes it takes driving thru Gorst.

The only way I would see the idea of using a carrier as a bridge is:

1) If the body of water that required the crossing was one carrier wide (more practical then three).
2) There were no viable alternate routes to cross the body nearby (a need).
3) The body of water was deep enough to allow the carrier to float anchored or could be permanently embedded in the siit and not block a channel (or the location not be a navigable channel).
4) The topology on each bank would allow easy connection of the roadways to the flight deck.

The location proposed fails most of these criteria.

SteveG1988

Question, would they be floating or sunk in place?
Roads Clinched

I55,I82,I84(E&W)I88(W),I87(N),I81,I64,I74(W),I72,I57,I24,I65,I59,I12,I71,I77,I76(E&W),I70,I79,I85,I86(W),I27,I16,I97,I96,I43,I41,

GaryV

Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 25, 2015, 06:34:30 PM
Question, would they be floating or sunk in place?
Answer:  Is it a bridge or a dam?

SteveG1988

Quote from: GaryV on July 25, 2015, 06:47:04 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 25, 2015, 06:34:30 PM
Question, would they be floating or sunk in place?
Answer:  Is it a bridge or a dam?


Question, wouldn't they form a dam of sorts due to their draft?
Roads Clinched

I55,I82,I84(E&W)I88(W),I87(N),I81,I64,I74(W),I72,I57,I24,I65,I59,I12,I71,I77,I76(E&W),I70,I79,I85,I86(W),I27,I16,I97,I96,I43,I41,

kkt

Did the $90K feasibility study actually make it through the Senate?   Geez.

A bridge there would be worth studying, but it would need to be high off the water for boat access.  And an aircraft carrier is heavily built, they could scrap one and use just a small portion of the scrap to build a bridge.  If he wants a carrier museum for Port Orchard he should just ask for one.

triplemultiplex

Hilariously awesome idea. 

And look, there's four of 'em right there in the aerial photo you can use.  :bigass:
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

Pete from Boston

I just envision a kid bored with playing aircraft carrier using it to make a bridge for his toy cars.

Politicians are usually more or less like bored children.

GCrites

Sounds awesome to drag race across if it wasn't too bumpy.

Thing 342

Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 31, 2015, 07:52:24 PM
I just envision a kid bored with playing aircraft carrier using it to make a bridge for his toy cars.

Politicians are usually more or less like bored children.

My inner 8-year-old so wants this to happen. However, I'd imagine that the tarmac of aircraft carrier decks would tear up most automobile tires (among other things).

GCrites

I'd imagine there would be a different surface for the carriageways than what is normally seen on the carriers.

Buffaboy

Quote from: jakeroot on July 22, 2015, 01:20:03 AM
This is one of those proposals that my kids will see in the future and wonder what the fuck we were smoking.
A lot of things in life today are like this (a few expressway downgrades)...
What's not to like about highways and bridges, intersections and interchanges, rails and planes?

My Wikipedia county SVG maps: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Buffaboy

SteveG1988

Did this idea get torpedoed by someone and sunk?
Roads Clinched

I55,I82,I84(E&W)I88(W),I87(N),I81,I64,I74(W),I72,I57,I24,I65,I59,I12,I71,I77,I76(E&W),I70,I79,I85,I86(W),I27,I16,I97,I96,I43,I41,

Bruce

Quote from: SteveG1988 on November 28, 2015, 10:39:53 PM
Did this idea get torpedoed by someone and sunk?

It never went anywhere, like most things in the Washington state legislature.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.