What I mean by this is: Bridges that have fewer lanes than you think they should have. Shoulderless bridges you think should have shoulders. Undivided bridge lanes that you think should be divided. Have at it.
There's the love-hate relationship with the Golden Gate. Lovely styling, love that it's a majestic span, love that it's walkable. Hate the 10 foot lanes, hate the no shoulders, really should be 4 lanes each way. Hate it in the gusty winds that happen quite frequently. This is one of the few cases where I'd ask for lanes wider than 12'.
And it should have rail tracks. Marin County has old Northwestern Pacific right-of-way that would make a perfect rail track for commuters into S.F. S.F.'s Geary Blvd. has needed a subway since the 1930s. So really the only thing in the way is the Golden Gate Bridge and Presidio.
Quote from: kkt on May 15, 2015, 07:22:50 PM
There's the love-hate relationship with the Golden Gate. Lovely styling, love that it's a majestic span, love that it's walkable. Hate the 10 foot lanes, hate the no shoulders, really should be 4 lanes each way. Hate it in the gusty winds that happen quite frequently. This is one of the few cases where I'd ask for lanes wider than 12'.
Are there lots of accidents due to lane widths on the GGB? I know it's a bit hair raising, but at least that keeps people from looking at their phones/eating/etc.
Every bridge should be 8 lanes wide and divided with shoulders, because you never know when you might need that capacity.
The William Preston Lane Jr. Bridge (aka Bay Bridge) in Maryland should be at least six lanes each way with full shoulders. It might end up that way in about 20 years when MDSHTA decides the original 2 lane bridge is had it, so rather than just replace that one, they will build a modern cable stay bridge and demolish both of them like they did in Charleston, SC with the Pearmen and Grace Bridges.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 15, 2015, 08:04:49 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 15, 2015, 07:22:50 PM
There's the love-hate relationship with the Golden Gate. Lovely styling, love that it's a majestic span, love that it's walkable. Hate the 10 foot lanes, hate the no shoulders, really should be 4 lanes each way. Hate it in the gusty winds that happen quite frequently. This is one of the few cases where I'd ask for lanes wider than 12'.
Are there lots of accidents due to lane widths on the GGB? I know it's a bit hair raising, but at least that keeps people from looking at their phones/eating/etc.
The accident rate did go down significantly after the 1980s-1990s changes, in which the sidewalks were narrowed, the curb lanes widened to 11 feet, the speed limit was reduced to 45 mph, and fines for speeding increased. Of course it's not a controlled experiment, there's room for speculation on which of those measures were most responsible for reducing the accident rate. The rate of serious injury should reduce further, now that the movable median barrier is in place.
I wish that the Homer M. Hadley Memorial Bridge (one of the two I-90 floating bridges near Seattle) had a few viewpoints or belvederes, like the ones planned for the new SR 520 Floating Bridge (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge/WABN/Design.htm) further north. I had to constantly look over my shoulder for bicycle traffic while snapping pictures:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8742/17467449458_aef01cbce5_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/sBxfaG)
I-90 Bike Trail westbound (https://flic.kr/p/sBxfaG) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
Wish the Brent Spence bridge was built with a larger capacity so it could at least have shoulder room. But it is early 60's engineering and thankfully it will be replaced soon and the existing will be re-configured in a proper way with shoulders and larger lanes. The Carroll Lee Cropper bridge was built with no shoulders and just 2 lanes in each direction. They are reducing it to a super-two for repaving work I believe which makes it a mess (It did have rough lanes though". Thankfully the Combs Hehli bridge was built in a much better way.
I wish the 579 Veterans Bridge in Pittsburgh was 8 lanes with more flair in it's design
Cape Cod Canal bridges. Need to be six lanes with shoulders.
Quote from: kkt on May 15, 2015, 07:22:50 PM
There's the love-hate relationship with the Golden Gate. Lovely styling, love that it's a majestic span, love that it's walkable. Hate the 10 foot lanes, hate the no shoulders, really should be 4 lanes each way. Hate it in the gusty winds that happen quite frequently. This is one of the few cases where I'd ask for lanes wider than 12'.
And it should have rail tracks. Marin County has old Northwestern Pacific right-of-way that would make a perfect rail track for commuters into S.F. S.F.'s Geary Blvd. has needed a subway since the 1930s. So really the only thing in the way is the Golden Gate Bridge and Presidio.
There have been some sketches/fantasy designs for double-decking the bridge in the past. I have no idea what the engineering needs would be, but I could see:
Top deck:
8' walkway
14' rail ROW
10' shoulder
Four 11' lanes
6' shoulder
8' walkway
Bottom deck (northbound):
6' shoulder
Four 11' lanes
10' shoulder
Since I imagine the majority of the additional weight/stress comes from the new roadway itself, I kept the bottom deck to 60' wide instead of the top deck's 90'.
Quote from: DTComposer on May 26, 2015, 01:49:45 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 15, 2015, 07:22:50 PM
There's the love-hate relationship with the Golden Gate. Lovely styling, love that it's a majestic span, love that it's walkable. Hate the 10 foot lanes, hate the no shoulders, really should be 4 lanes each way. Hate it in the gusty winds that happen quite frequently. This is one of the few cases where I'd ask for lanes wider than 12'.
And it should have rail tracks. Marin County has old Northwestern Pacific right-of-way that would make a perfect rail track for commuters into S.F. S.F.'s Geary Blvd. has needed a subway since the 1930s. So really the only thing in the way is the Golden Gate Bridge and Presidio.
There have been some sketches/fantasy designs for double-decking the bridge in the past. I have no idea what the engineering needs would be, but I could see:
Top deck:
8' walkway
14' rail ROW
10' shoulder
Four 11' lanes
6' shoulder
8' walkway
Bottom deck (northbound):
6' shoulder
Four 11' lanes
10' shoulder
Since I imagine the majority of the additional weight/stress comes from the new roadway itself, I kept the bottom deck to 60' wide instead of the top deck's 90'.
Unfortunately, the top deck roadway is only about 62 feet wide. Six 10-foot lanes originally, the curb lanes were widened slightly by narrowing the sidewalks. Adding to the difficulty, the towers below the bridge deck include diagonal beams that would greatly narrow a lower deck. I thought about supporting train tracks on the sides of the lower deck, outside the towers, but that would create a temptation for vandals to throw things from the sidewalks onto the tracks. Or at the very least not be able to look straight down from the railing, which is part of the fun.
I don't have a good answer. A road tunnel on a completely separate ROW, leaving the bridge just for pedestrians and trains?
Quote from: kkt on May 26, 2015, 05:18:57 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on May 26, 2015, 01:49:45 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 15, 2015, 07:22:50 PM
There's the love-hate relationship with the Golden Gate. Lovely styling, love that it's a majestic span, love that it's walkable. Hate the 10 foot lanes, hate the no shoulders, really should be 4 lanes each way. Hate it in the gusty winds that happen quite frequently. This is one of the few cases where I'd ask for lanes wider than 12'.
And it should have rail tracks. Marin County has old Northwestern Pacific right-of-way that would make a perfect rail track for commuters into S.F. S.F.'s Geary Blvd. has needed a subway since the 1930s. So really the only thing in the way is the Golden Gate Bridge and Presidio.
There have been some sketches/fantasy designs for double-decking the bridge in the past. I have no idea what the engineering needs would be, but I could see:
Top deck:
8' walkway
14' rail ROW
10' shoulder
Four 11' lanes
6' shoulder
8' walkway
Bottom deck (northbound):
6' shoulder
Four 11' lanes
10' shoulder
Since I imagine the majority of the additional weight/stress comes from the new roadway itself, I kept the bottom deck to 60' wide instead of the top deck's 90'.
Unfortunately, the top deck roadway is only about 62 feet wide. Six 10-foot lanes originally, the curb lanes were widened slightly by narrowing the sidewalks. Adding to the difficulty, the towers below the bridge deck include diagonal beams that would greatly narrow a lower deck. I thought about supporting train tracks on the sides of the lower deck, outside the towers, but that would create a temptation for vandals to throw things from the sidewalks onto the tracks. Or at the very least not be able to look straight down from the railing, which is part of the fun.
I don't have a good answer. A road tunnel on a completely separate ROW, leaving the bridge just for pedestrians and trains?
A road tunnel could be sort of "Express lanes" as they could be tolled and the existing bridge could have a lower deck for trains while the upper deck stays the same.
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on May 26, 2015, 05:29:13 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 26, 2015, 05:18:57 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on May 26, 2015, 01:49:45 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 15, 2015, 07:22:50 PM
There's the love-hate relationship with the Golden Gate. Lovely styling, love that it's a majestic span, love that it's walkable. Hate the 10 foot lanes, hate the no shoulders, really should be 4 lanes each way. Hate it in the gusty winds that happen quite frequently. This is one of the few cases where I'd ask for lanes wider than 12'.
And it should have rail tracks. Marin County has old Northwestern Pacific right-of-way that would make a perfect rail track for commuters into S.F. S.F.'s Geary Blvd. has needed a subway since the 1930s. So really the only thing in the way is the Golden Gate Bridge and Presidio.
There have been some sketches/fantasy designs for double-decking the bridge in the past. I have no idea what the engineering needs would be, but I could see:
Top deck:
8' walkway
14' rail ROW
10' shoulder
Four 11' lanes
6' shoulder
8' walkway
Bottom deck (northbound):
6' shoulder
Four 11' lanes
10' shoulder
Since I imagine the majority of the additional weight/stress comes from the new roadway itself, I kept the bottom deck to 60' wide instead of the top deck's 90'.
Unfortunately, the top deck roadway is only about 62 feet wide. Six 10-foot lanes originally, the curb lanes were widened slightly by narrowing the sidewalks. Adding to the difficulty, the towers below the bridge deck include diagonal beams that would greatly narrow a lower deck. I thought about supporting train tracks on the sides of the lower deck, outside the towers, but that would create a temptation for vandals to throw things from the sidewalks onto the tracks. Or at the very least not be able to look straight down from the railing, which is part of the fun.
I don't have a good answer. A road tunnel on a completely separate ROW, leaving the bridge just for pedestrians and trains?
A road tunnel could be sort of "Express lanes" as they could be tolled and the existing bridge could have a lower deck for trains while the upper deck stays the same.
Sorry, I should have read the specs more clearly:
http://goldengatebridge.org/research/factsGGBDesign.php
The roadway is 62' wide with a 10' sidewalk.
If you're going to go with a tunnel, I would think you're much more likely to get public support for a trains tunnel (another Transbay Tube) or a trains and trucks tunnel, keeping autos (and pedestrians) on the bridge.
Or perhaps keep southbound road traffic on the bridge, while putting northbound road traffic and trains in a tunnel.
The bridge flexes a lot in wind and with load. I'm not sure how much flexing train tracks can take while in operation, or even while closed without causing damage.
The tunnel would be hard too. The water at the Golden Gate is deep and fast flowing. Approach routes to Marin would be a problem too, you'd have to hook the underwater tunnel up to a long tunnel through the bluff.
Speaking of the Golden Gate, the bridge opened to pedestrians 78 years ago today. Happy birthday! Car traffic began the next day.
Eric Fischer's Flickr photostream has quite a few drawings, plans, etc. for a potential double-deck of the Golden Gate Bridge:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=24431382%40N03&view_all=1&text=Golden%20Gate%20Bridge
(I don't know who Eric Fischer is, but he's got a pretty awesome collection of Bay Area road-related stuff there)
His Figure 8 cross-section with a lower deck has the lower deck being only 12' 9" tall! And only 44' wide. Not as bad as it is now, yes, but if we spend a bunch of money to reconfigure the bridge it ought to end up meeting current standards. I think that would hold a BART car, though.
Quote from: kkt on May 27, 2015, 01:00:57 PM
Or perhaps keep southbound road traffic on the bridge, while putting northbound road traffic and trains in a tunnel.
The bridge flexes a lot in wind and with load. I'm not sure how much flexing train tracks can take while in operation, or even while closed without causing damage.
The tunnel would be hard too. The water at the Golden Gate is deep and fast flowing. Approach routes to Marin would be a problem too, you'd have to hook the underwater tunnel up to a long tunnel through the bluff.
Not exactly the same size of bridge, but look at the Ben Franklin Bridge. It has rail that was engineered into it, to hang off the trusswork. it uses continously welded steel rail i think due to the flexing. Not 100% sure, but your research on it can start there. It opened in 1926, Chief Engineer was Ralph Modjeski, Lead Designer was Leon Moisseiff, Leon later went on to design the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge, Ralph did the original I-74 suspension bridge, and technically the twin, and was a consulting engineer on the Oakland Bay Bridge. Look into how their designs differ from the Golden Gate, and you may be able to figure out how to make the bridge better.
One bridge that does need to be different is the NJ37 bridges out to Seaside Heights. They really need to work on widening the eastbound bridge. Even if it does come down to just removing the original sidewalk to gain a few feet elsewhere.
Every bridge between New York and the Niagara Region of Ontario needs more lanes, as do the Grand Island Bridges leading to three of them.
Regarding the bridges between NY and Ontario, it's not the number of lanes that causes delays, it's the existence of border controls.
Quote from: vdeane on May 28, 2015, 07:54:16 PM
Regarding the bridges between NY and Ontario, it's not the number of lanes that causes delays, it's the existence of border controls.
Simple solution....require reservations for crossing and you get told which crossing in that region to use.
Hypothetical Situation, Driver A wants to visit Toronto, and plans to use a Niagara river bridge. He is told to use Crossing B, Peace bridge at 0800. He gets a confirmation number, and a pass that he can print out, to get him waved over to the customs booth. Driver B is going to the same location, but due to traffic at Crossing B approaching a preset threhold he is told to use Crossing C, The Rainbow Bridge. Etc etc. One crossing would be open for any time travel of course, and of course nexus is kind of the same idea, but i would like to open this up to more people to get the confirmed slot of travel versus just a dedicated bridge.
Given the nature of crossing the border in general, especially around here, such an idea is BS. If you're coming from south of Buffalo, you're better off taking the Peace Bridge. Rainbow is best for people doing things in Niagara Falls. If you live in Niagara County, it would be stupid to use the Peace Bridge under just about any circumstance. Plus, the tolls are different on the Peace Bridge because it's run by another authority. Whirlpool makes sense as a Nexus-only crossing because 1) it's in residential neighborhoods and 2) there's no room for customs facilities
We're not talking about museum admissions here. The Peace Bridge alone is the busiest passenger crossing of the US-Canada border. Combine all of the crossings and you have a crazy amount of vehicles. You can't require everyone to make a reservation.
I'd be offended by the idea that I needed a reservation to cross the border. Freedom of travel shouldn't require a reservation. The border crossings should be staffed so that the wait is not over 30 minutes or so.
Freedom aside, many people come from over an hour away from the border and traffic is unpredictable so you couldn't necessarily hit a 15-minute window.
Quote from: kkt on June 03, 2015, 12:14:08 PM
I'd be offended by the idea that I needed a reservation to cross the border. Freedom of travel shouldn't require a reservation. The border crossings should be staffed so that the wait is not over 30 minutes or so.
Freedom aside, many people come from over an hour away from the border and traffic is unpredictable so you couldn't necessarily hit a 15-minute window.
You would not require it. Just there would be a bit more orginization, that way it isn't a clusterfuck when you get there. Also...i am just saying that it would be used in the tourist centers...
Better idea: create a Schengen-like zone between the US and Canada. Seriously, the fact that two of the friendliest countries on the planet can't do what a bunch of countries that just a generation ago were trying to wipe each other off the map managed to do says something.
Unless you don't mind going a couple hours east, the border crossing in Vermont are less guarded. Derby Line is a good place to sneak into Canada.
The US and Canada used to have very loose border controls. Then the crazies from Texas and Arizona insisted on having everything tight. New York, Vermont, Michigan, and Washington hate it because the money stream isn't as large as it once was because of that.
They're getting their share of expensive security gizmos in the northern tier, too.
The recently expanded Lake Butte des Morts causeway in Oshkosh, WI is nice to drive, but I wish they could've dug out some of the landfill in favor of a longer bridge. That would've allowed for better circulation of lake water. Things are getting pretty stagnant to the southwest of the crossing.
How about the Poplar Street Bridge in St. Louis? That narrow, utilitarian eyesore is ugly even at night. No civic pride went into that one. Could be forgiven if it functioned well, but nope. Granted, that's mostly the fault of the shitty interchange on the MO side, but still.
Glad they got the aesthetics right with the Stan-the-Man Bridge. They may have cheaped out on capacity, but at least it looks good.
The Mackinac Bridge was built just a few years before the Interstate Highway Act was created, so we probably missed out having an interstate-grade crossing by just that much. They would've made it just a little wider to give it shoulders and a central barrier wall.
As far as recent bridges go, the new NB WA-167 bridge over the Puyallup River should be three lanes, not two. WSDOT is going to be building a freeway interchange just north of the bridge, and their current plans called for the now-under-construction bridge to have a third exit-only lane for the freeway. Not sure why WSDOT didn't tie together the two projects.
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 03, 2015, 08:54:11 PM
Unless you don't mind going a couple hours east, the border crossing in Vermont are less guarded. Derby Line is a good place to sneak into Canada.
(https://whereisyvette.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/derby-line-roadsigns.jpg?w=500&h=666)
NOT my pic.
Security is tight at the Derby Line / Stanstead crossing.
Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2015, 08:51:59 PMBetter idea: create a Schengen-like zone between the US and Canada. Seriously, the fact that two of the friendliest countries on the planet can't do what a bunch of countries that just a generation ago were trying to wipe each other off the map managed to do says something.
Schengen only exists because 70 years ago (that's two generations ago, if not three!) the countries were at total war against each other. To be against it is seen (fallaciously) as a declaration that you want war.
That said, peace in Europe mostly exists because of the Cold War (pacts meaning that Central European countries didn't need armies as US/Soviet force would defend them, dis-unified Germany, uniting to try and form a third power that rejects and hates both Russia and the US, etc)
There were numerous customs unions in Europe prior to Schengen. The idea of being free to travel without passing through customs barriers every couple of hundred km goes back to the Roman Empire.
If re-united Germany rejects and hates the US, why does it still allow US bases on its soil?
I-10 Miss. river bridge Baton Rouge. Lacks safety shoulders, needs an addition thru lane for traffic, exits/entrances also designed poorly on both ends.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 03, 2015, 10:39:08 PM
As far as recent bridges go, the new NB WA-167 bridge over the Puyallup River should be three lanes, not two. WSDOT is going to be building a freeway interchange just north of the bridge, and their current plans called for the now-under-construction bridge to have a third exit-only lane for the freeway. Not sure why WSDOT didn't tie together the two projects.
Because, with few exceptions the worlds "plan" and "think" don't seem to exist in WSDOT's vocabulary. If they did, they wouldn't have had so many issues with their new ferries. Oh, and they would plan for possible future traffic levels, not those they have today... see the SR 520 floating bridge, which if they had any sense would have more than two GP lanes.
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 04, 2015, 02:14:51 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 03, 2015, 10:39:08 PM
As far as recent bridges go, the new NB WA-167 bridge over the Puyallup River should be three lanes, not two. WSDOT is going to be building a freeway interchange just north of the bridge, and their current plans called for the now-under-construction bridge to have a third exit-only lane for the freeway. Not sure why WSDOT didn't tie together the two projects.
Because, with few exceptions the worlds "plan" and "think" don't seem to exist in WSDOT's vocabulary. If they did, they wouldn't have had so many issues with their new ferries. Oh, and they would plan for possible future traffic levels, not those they have today... see the SR 520 floating bridge, which if they had any sense would have more than two GP lanes.
I disagree on your last point. Adding an additional lane in both direction would've driven up costs even further and probably would've riled up the wealthy and powerful NIMBYs in Medina and Clyde Hill. The bridge needs replacing as soon as possible, so any potential delays would have been deemed too risky. For the same reason, there isn't light rail on the bridge but some small accommodation for it to be added on later.
Quote from: Bruce on June 04, 2015, 07:14:58 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 04, 2015, 02:14:51 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 03, 2015, 10:39:08 PM
As far as recent bridges go, the new NB WA-167 bridge over the Puyallup River should be three lanes, not two. WSDOT is going to be building a freeway interchange just north of the bridge, and their current plans called for the now-under-construction bridge to have a third exit-only lane for the freeway. Not sure why WSDOT didn't tie together the two projects.
Because, with few exceptions the worlds "plan" and "think" don't seem to exist in WSDOT's vocabulary. If they did, they wouldn't have had so many issues with their new ferries. Oh, and they would plan for possible future traffic levels, not those they have today... see the SR 520 floating bridge, which if they had any sense would have more than two GP lanes.
I disagree on your last point. Adding an additional lane in both direction would've driven up costs even further and probably would've riled up the wealthy and powerful NIMBYs in Medina and Clyde Hill. The bridge needs replacing as soon as possible, so any potential delays would have been deemed too risky. For the same reason, there isn't light rail on the bridge but some small accommodation for it to be added on later.
More over, extra lanes have the tendency to spur additional car use. The State wants to spur transit use -- installing a lot of lanes gives off the wrong message.
The Newark Bay Extension Bridge should have been built with at least 6 lanes like the original striping on the PA Extension Bridge.
Can we throw in modifications to existing bridges instead of how they should have been built, with hindsight?
Chicago Skyway: Repaint it in a lighter color, the dingy rusty brown/black color it is, i am not even sure how much of that is paint or rust, really makes it look dreary, particularly around the locale it is in.
The Lake Pontchartrain Causeway. Needs shoulders and a third lane in each direction in the absolute worst way. Crossovers every few miles just aren't enough.
Quote from: kkt on June 04, 2015, 10:23:14 AMThere were numerous customs unions in Europe prior to Schengen.
Schengen isn't a customs union. But yes, Benelux, Nordic and the 'Common Travel Area' were precursors to Schengen's common travel area. The Common Travel Area isn't part of Schengen.
Those areas weren't created, however, because it would create peace (which is the common argument for Schengen) but because would be too annoying to set up border controls where none were before (due to invasion, being one country, poorly defined borders, etc), and you just have to look at the Common Travel Area to see that passport-free travel never had to be between friendly countries - Ireland and the UK were at war when instead of one country with free travel it became two countries with free travel (the UK did run ID checks during the Troubles and policed the border quite a bit, but that stuff is OK under Schengen - Denmark set up border controls a few years ago, and several states have laws that allow the police to demand to see compulsory ID cards if they have cause - not even Northern Ireland was that extreme 'Papers please').
The US/Canada border has always been pretty clearly defined and, with a tiny amount of exceptional locations, isn't too annoying. It only became an issue when the US went batshit crazy about policing that northern border. Unlike Europe, North America hasn't had a need to create peace by any means necessary, which is why Schengen exists. Unlike the parts of Europe who got there before Schengen, the borders haven't been constantly in flux, or are messy and chop towns in two (or a 100 in the case of that one on the Dutch-Belgian border). If the border was as soft as the Swiss-EU border before Switzerland joined Schengen and signed up for the free movement of people, not just free movement of workers (relatively recently), then the US-Canada border controls would only really be an issue for the people of Derby Line, VT/QC and a couple of other small towns.
QuoteThe idea of being free to travel without passing through customs barriers every couple of hundred km goes back to the Roman Empire.
But it's not customs we're talking about, but immigration/passport control.
Though similarly, it's a new thing. But compulsory ID cards and Stasi-like 'Papers please' requests from officials without much reason are acceptable under Schengen - in places it doesn't matter that there's no passport control at the border, as anywhere in that country can be passport control!
There are customs barriers within the Schengen area - drive a truck from Frankfurt to Milan and you'll pass through two (unless you avoid Switzerland). They aren't onerous as there's free trade between the two customs areas, but they exist.
And that's before we get onto the issue of Customs Unions being fucking awful. On the 31st of December 1972, the UK had free trade with the EC and EFTA countries, and (among many) Canada. On the 1st of January 1973 it only had free trade with EC and EFTA countries as it had joined the EC's customs union. Suddenly there was a massive trade wall in the Mid-Atlantic that wasn't there before. It took 40 years of lobbying the xenophobes who run the EU to finally get some sort of free trade deal with Canada. Custom Unions are about building walls, rather than taking them down!
QuoteIf re-united Germany rejects and hates the US, why does it still allow US bases on its soil?
Say what now? Looks like you picked a few words out of my reasons for peace and then made up some shit!
A united Germany is too powerful and dominates the middle of Europe. Its assertiveness caused a major war every generation, save (for now - Greece looks ready to explode into one and they blame too much German control of the ECB for all their woes and is starting to look to Russia to aid them financially, which would in turn, turn Ukraine white hot with open and blatant foreign involvement) this most recent of four generations (three in the 65 years Germany was united before 1945, one since 1989) that it has been united.
US/NATO (and in the past Soviet) bases in Central Europe means that native armies didn't really have to happen. Germany is a specific case - rather than the UK's having them because of being friends, the Germans have them because of national guilt at once being enemies. Other European countries have them entirely because they cannot afford the military power they might need to protect themselves.
The EU despises the US. Sure, the US is the other big player that is most friendly to the EU (the hatred currently isn't like that of Russia, whom the EU actively despise, and its perhaps better than in the 60s when the UK was vetoed from joining twice as it was seen as a US proxy). TTIP is about increasing the EU's control of regulations in the US internal market, while appeasing the trading nations within the EU with lower tariffs with the US (which are seen by EUrocrats as a negative thing as the US is the competition, rather than a partner). A lot of EU officials openly (and unashamedly) make frequent borderline-racist comments about 'the Anglo-Saxons', meaning the UK and US, being everything that is wrong with the world. The EU has many policies that make no sense if the US is still a friendly ally (Galileo satellite location system, for instance).