News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Bridges You Wish Were Different

Started by The Ghostbuster, May 15, 2015, 06:29:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

vdeane

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.


noelbotevera

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.

cl94

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.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

triplemultiplex

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.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

jakeroot

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.

SignGeek101

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.



NOT my pic.

Security is tight at the Derby Line / Stanstead crossing.

english si

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)

kkt

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?

pctech

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.

TEG24601

#34
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.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

Bruce

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.

jakeroot

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.

SteveG1988

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.

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,

Darkchylde

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.

english si

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).



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.