The universe according to MMM

[ethanhopkin14]

Has there been any thought to a bored tunnel through Canada for I-90.  That gets around that pesky customs issue.  Just bore a 200-300 mile long tunnel. 

[Roadgeekteen]

Has there been any thought to a bored tunnel through Canada for I-90.  That gets around that pesky customs issue.  Just bore a 200-300 mile long tunnel.

You still need Canadian government permission to dig through their land.

[ethanhopkin14]

Has there been any thought to a bored tunnel through Canada for I-90.  That gets around that pesky customs issue.  Just bore a 200-300 mile long tunnel.

You still need Canadian government permission to dig through their land.

The permission isn't the issue.  Apparently the US will just tell Canada to house one of their interstates.  The main issue is the customs at every exit.  Again, this is a must in order to fix the grid. 

[Roadgeekteen]

Has there been any thought to a bored tunnel through Canada for I-90.  That gets around that pesky customs issue.  Just bore a 200-300 mile long tunnel.

You still need Canadian government permission to dig through their land.

The permission isn't the issue.  Apparently the US will just tell Canada to house one of their interstates.  The main issue is the customs at every exit.  Again, this is a must in order to fix the grid.

This could start World War 3. Canada could consider this an act of war and activate NATO article 5, which could cause France and the UK to nuke America. Bye bye humanity, thanks MMM.

[ethanhopkin14]

Has there been any thought to a bored tunnel through Canada for I-90.  That gets around that pesky customs issue.  Just bore a 200-300 mile long tunnel.

You still need Canadian government permission to dig through their land.

The permission isn't the issue.  Apparently the US will just tell Canada to house one of their interstates.  The main issue is the customs at every exit.  Again, this is a must in order to fix the grid.

This could start World War 3. Canada could consider this an act of war and activate NATO article 5, which could cause France and the UK to nuke America. Bye bye humanity, thanks MMM.

But at least right before they nuke America, we will have a perfect interstate grid.

[Roadgeekteen]

Has there been any thought to a bored tunnel through Canada for I-90.  That gets around that pesky customs issue.  Just bore a 200-300 mile long tunnel.

You still need Canadian government permission to dig through their land.

The permission isn't the issue.  Apparently the US will just tell Canada to house one of their interstates.  The main issue is the customs at every exit.  Again, this is a must in order to fix the grid.

This could start World War 3. Canada could consider this an act of war and activate NATO article 5, which could cause France and the UK to nuke America. Bye bye humanity, thanks MMM.

But at least right before they nuke America, we will have a perfect interstate grid.

Perfect grid for the aliens to find after they discover the barren nuclear wasteland created after the MMMWW3.

[kphoger]

You still need Canadian government permission to dig through their land.

Canada should merge with all other cities in Miami-Dade County.

Problem solved.

[MultiMillionMiler]

Has there been any thought to a bored tunnel through Canada for I-90.  That gets around that pesky customs issue.  Just bore a 200-300 mile long tunnel.

I actually figured that for the Lake Michigan section, instead of rocket powered ferries that carry the cars, we could have what's called RWMs (Road-Water-Modules) that you pull your car on top of it, it hooks perfectly into your cars engine and steering column, and, you can drive your own car across the water, using your own gas and steering wheel. The module would only be a few more square feet than your vehicle, but would still float under the weight of your vehicle. You would drive as you would normally on a road, but the module would connect your car controls to propellers/directional controls underneath the module. Now we would need to have stationary buoes on the water with I-90 shields, but this is far more reasonable than the stationary balloons/cargo plane idea. As for Canada, I am still unsure.

[Roadgeekteen]

Has there been any thought to a bored tunnel through Canada for I-90.  That gets around that pesky customs issue.  Just bore a 200-300 mile long tunnel.

I actually figured that for the Michigan Great Lakes section, instead if rocket powered ferries that carry the cars, we could have what's called RWMs (Road-Water-Modules) that you pull your car on top of it, it hooks perfectly into your cars engine and steering column, and, you can drive your own car across the water, using your own gas and steering wheel. The module would only be a few more square feet than your vehicle, but would still float. You would drivers you would normally on a road, but the module would connect your car controls to propellers/directional controls underneath the module. Now we would need to have e stationary buoes on the water with I-90 shields, but this is far more reasonable than the stationary balloons/cargo plane idea. As for Canada, I am still unsure.

Just build a fucking tunnel under Lake Michigan.

[kphoger]

it hooks perfectly into your cars engine

Please elaborate.

[GaryV]

Has there been any thought to a bored tunnel through Canada for I-90.  That gets around that pesky customs issue.  Just bore a 200-300 mile long tunnel.

I actually figured that for the Lake Michigan section, instead of rocket powered ferries that carry the cars, we could have what's called RWMs (Road-Water-Modules) that you pull your car on top of it, it hooks perfectly into your cars engine and steering column, and, you can drive your own car across the water, using your own gas and steering wheel. The module would only be a few more square feet than your vehicle, but would still float under the weight of your vehicle. You would drive as you would normally on a road, but the module would connect your car controls to propellers/directional controls underneath the module. Now we would need to have stationary buoes on the water with I-90 shields, but this is far more reasonable than the stationary balloons/cargo plane idea. As for Canada, I am still unsure.

Good lord, you can't manage to drive a car around gentle curves without going into a conniption fit. What are you going to do about 30 foot waves?

[7/8]

Has there been any thought to a bored tunnel through Canada for I-90.  That gets around that pesky customs issue.  Just bore a 200-300 mile long tunnel.

I actually figured that for the Lake Michigan section, instead of rocket powered ferries that carry the cars, we could have what's called RWMs (Road-Water-Modules) that you pull your car on top of it, it hooks perfectly into your cars engine and steering column, and, you can drive your own car across the water, using your own gas and steering wheel. The module would only be a few more square feet than your vehicle, but would still float under the weight of your vehicle. You would drive as you would normally on a road, but the module would connect your car controls to propellers/directional controls underneath the module. Now we would need to have stationary buoes on the water with I-90 shields, but this is far more reasonable than the stationary balloons/cargo plane idea. As for Canada, I am still unsure.

If you need to take a wizz while driving across Lake Michigan, just open the car door.

[Roadgeekteen]

When you align your car on the pad, a tube will come up out of the front, under your hood, and tap into your engine power, re-routing power from the engine to the floating module. This way, you hitting the gas would power the propellers underneath instead of your wheels. Cars might be required to keep their car in neutral or park though during the trip. Once you reach land again, the module will detach the tube and retract itself back into the pad.

Just build a fucking tunnel under Lake Michigan

[kphoger]

a tube will come up out of the front, under your hood, and tap into your engine power, re-routing power from the engine to the floating module.

Please elaborate.

And then tell me you've never worked on a car without telling me you've never worked on a car.

[kalvado]

it hooks perfectly into your cars engine

Please elaborate.

Something like this

[interstatefan990]

MMM is entering his FritzOwl era.

[GaryV]

When you align your car on the pad, a tube will come up out of the front, under your hood, and tap into your engine power, re-routing power from the engine to the floating module. This way, you hitting the gas would power the propellers underneath instead of your wheels. Cars might be required to keep their car in neutral or park though during the trip. Once you reach land again, the module will detach the tube and retract itself back into the pad.

Just build a fucking tunnel under Lake Michigan

You realize that tunnel would be at least twice as long and 4 times as deep as the Chunnel, right?

[Roadgeekteen]

MMM is entering his FritzOwl era.

I think that he's worse than the Owl. Also, as crazy as this idea is, at least it won't start WW3 like his Canada idea.

[hotdogPi]

MMM is entering his FritzOwl era.

I think that he's worse than the Owl. Also, as crazy as this idea is, at least it won't start WW3 like his Canada idea.

Worse than the Owl? Have you forgotten that the Owl has roads planned in North Korea?

[Flint1979]

Here's a summary of why I-90 should be built through Canada, since posts may have been confused/misunderstood with other arguments..etc

1. US 30 isn't good enough for I-80
2. I-80 along I-90 for 300 miles is too long of a concurrency, and the length of the concurrency exceed the length difference in the interstates, thus the longest interstate title is bootleg.
3. I-80 is the straighter, better quality road overall, so if one number has to yield to the other (speaking figuratively) 90 should have to yield to 80.
4. I-90 screws up the grid by dipping so far south just to go around the great lakes, whereas through Canada, it would go in more of a straight line.
5. The distance to Canada from Buffalo is shorter than via the current alignment if I-90, and interstates, especially 2 digit ones, should always be the shortest distance between any two points on that interstate.

There is no reason for I-90 to travel through Canada, when in the hell are you going to realize that Interstate's are only in the United States? That's our system of highways, Canada has their own system of highways. Why can't you understand that?  I-80 is never going to be on US-30's corridor, Too long of a concurrency? Where's it supposed to go? And don't say Canada because that isn't an option. For the 500th time it goes that route to avoid Canada and the Great Lakes. The United States can't build roads in Canada because that is another country, the sooner you realize this the better. How do you figure I-80 is a better quality road? I-90 does not screw up the grid, no one cares about the grid and yes it does so to go around the Great Lakes and Canada (once again a place it can't travel due to the fact that it's another country). If the distance to Canada from Buffalo is shorter than people are going to follow the route through Canada but it won't be I-90 they'll be on, they'll be on the QEW, ON-401 and ON-402. And no Interstate has ever been built so that it's the shortest distance, for the most part that's what the US highway system was built for. You have no understanding of any of this and it shows.

I-80 is less windy-weavy over its length than I-90, that's why it higher quality.

LMAO that doesn't make a highway better quality

[Roadgeekteen]

MMM is entering his FritzOwl era.

I think that he's worse than the Owl. Also, as crazy as this idea is, at least it won't start WW3 like his Canada idea.

Worse than the Owl? Have you forgotten that the Owl has roads planned in North Korea?

At least those roads are physically possible under the laws of physics. MMMs Lake Michigan plan on the other hand...

[hotdogPi]

I would guess that I-80 actually is better quality than I-90 because farther south means less freeze-thaw.

[Roadgeekteen]

Here's a summary of why I-90 should be built through Canada, since posts may have been confused/misunderstood with other arguments..etc

1. US 30 isn't good enough for I-80
2. I-80 along I-90 for 300 miles is too long of a concurrency, and the length of the concurrency exceed the length difference in the interstates, thus the longest interstate title is bootleg.
3. I-80 is the straighter, better quality road overall, so if one number has to yield to the other (speaking figuratively) 90 should have to yield to 80.
4. I-90 screws up the grid by dipping so far south just to go around the great lakes, whereas through Canada, it would go in more of a straight line.
5. The distance to Canada from Buffalo is shorter than via the current alignment if I-90, and interstates, especially 2 digit ones, should always be the shortest distance between any two points on that interstate.

There is no reason for I-90 to travel through Canada, when in the hell are you going to realize that Interstate's are only in the United States? That's our system of highways, Canada has their own system of highways. Why can't you understand that?  I-80 is never going to be on US-30's corridor, Too long of a concurrency? Where's it supposed to go? And don't say Canada because that isn't an option. For the 500th time it goes that route to avoid Canada and the Great Lakes. The United States can't build roads in Canada because that is another country, the sooner you realize this the better. How do you figure I-80 is a better quality road? I-90 does not screw up the grid, no one cares about the grid and yes it does so to go around the Great Lakes and Canada (once again a place it can't travel due to the fact that it's another country). If the distance to Canada from Buffalo is shorter than people are going to follow the route through Canada but it won't be I-90 they'll be on, they'll be on the QEW, ON-401 and ON-402. And no Interstate has ever been built so that it's the shortest distance, for the most part that's what the US highway system was built for. You have no understanding of any of this and it shows.

I-80 is less windy-weavy over its length than I-90, that's why it higher quality.

LMAO that doesn't make a highway better quality

Dude we've tried to tell him that already

[Flint1979]

Imagine being behind this beast. Could it handle the curves on I-90?

[MATraveler128]

MultiMillionMiler, what do you think of I-70 through Glenwood Canyon in Colorado? Just curious.