- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/24/18 at 7:39 pm to Marineaux
quote:
What exactly did you have in mind? If a tunnel wouldn't work (although I'm not sure I've read convincing support that it wouldn't yet), I'm all for thinking about creative alternatives to a $1.2M (and sure to be climbing) price tag for a new bridge.
I'd first look at the reason we need another bridge.
If it's solely because of heavy traffic, then I'd ask what causes the traffic backups at the bridge to begin with.
Usually it's either slowasses going I10 westbound or that damned I10 to I110 merge.
Either of these issues can be solved for much less cost than building a new bridge.
Posted on 7/24/18 at 7:41 pm to Marineaux
quote:
But I am trying to figure out how they are different from a traffic standpoint than a bridge. A friend of mine thinks people just slow down when driving through.
In theory, I think you can have the same number of lanes as a bridge and you have the same issue of it being a bottleneck in a sense that you can’t escape the traffic of an accident once you are on it (or in it).
First, many tunnels have posted speed limits less than interstate standard.
Second, typically the lanes are narrow, or at least appear so to me, probably effecting an uneasiness in the drivers.
Posted on 7/24/18 at 7:59 pm to Marineaux
All the TD civil engineers on page 1 don't realize the George Wallace Tunnel isn't dug into the ground.
Posted on 7/24/18 at 8:01 pm to Marineaux
The same reason that we don’t have basements in Louisiana. You ever driven under the Acadian overpass when it rains?
Posted on 7/24/18 at 8:09 pm to The Pirate King
The multiple tunnels in South Louisiana have already been discussed though. If they could build those, why can’t we build a newer, better one today with more technology and innovation?
This post was edited on 7/24/18 at 8:18 pm
Posted on 7/24/18 at 8:12 pm to Marineaux
Louisiana needs a tolled turnpike system that runs parallel to I-10/I-12.
Only one exit per parish. And only onto major highways. Keep the development off of it and keep the traffic flowing.
Pennsylvania and New Jersey have something similar. Works pretty well most of the time.
Only one exit per parish. And only onto major highways. Keep the development off of it and keep the traffic flowing.
Pennsylvania and New Jersey have something similar. Works pretty well most of the time.
This post was edited on 7/24/18 at 8:13 pm
Posted on 7/24/18 at 8:14 pm to Marineaux
quote:
which is $293.7M in today’s dollars.
Yeah but you forgot about the $1.2 Billion in studies first.
Posted on 7/24/18 at 8:14 pm to member12
quote:
Only one exit per parish
Oh I can see the fun times ahead when people miss that one precious exit.
Posted on 7/24/18 at 8:17 pm to Marineaux
Musk wants his tunnel to not have an emergency lane, as if nothing can go wrong.
Moron.
He's a carnival barker gone mad.
Oakland had a double decker highway go horribly wrong in 89 when the A's beat sf giants and we watched the rescues for days. They had just laid sections on. When the towers moved the sections fell on cars beneath.
Tunnels are a horror story waiting to happen.
Only way tunnels should exist is to carry vehicles with no driver. Put them on a series of conveyors.
Moron.
He's a carnival barker gone mad.
Oakland had a double decker highway go horribly wrong in 89 when the A's beat sf giants and we watched the rescues for days. They had just laid sections on. When the towers moved the sections fell on cars beneath.
Tunnels are a horror story waiting to happen.
Only way tunnels should exist is to carry vehicles with no driver. Put them on a series of conveyors.
This post was edited on 7/24/18 at 8:18 pm
Posted on 7/24/18 at 8:17 pm to The Boat
quote:
All the TD civil engineers on page 1 don't realize the George Wallace Tunnel isn't dug into the ground
Rereading the Wiki, this seems to be accurate! Seems like it was built in sections, then sunk into place and connected under water with the water pumped out afterwards. Does this change anyone’s perspective? A lot of people talking about the soil conditions, but perhaps this wouldn’t be an issue if it were sitting on the bottom?
Posted on 7/24/18 at 8:23 pm to CelticDog
quote:
Only way tunnels should exist is to carry vehicles with no driver. Put them on a series of conveyors
So a subway train with no driver?
Posted on 7/24/18 at 8:30 pm to Marineaux
quote:
Rereading the Wiki, this seems to be accurate! Seems like it was built in sections, then sunk into place and connected under water with the water pumped out afterwards. Does this change anyone’s perspective? A lot of people talking about the soil conditions, but perhaps this wouldn’t be an issue if it were sitting on the bottom?
I like your passion for tunnels!
...and honestly I do not know if or why a tunnel wouldn't be preferable over a bridge.
Are tunnels really that much cheaper than bridges?
Seems like tunnels would require more engineering considerations and maintenance than a bridge, and would really only be ideal in situations where above ground space is limited.
But would love to hear from some OT engineers.
Posted on 7/24/18 at 8:41 pm to BurningHeart
I really have no preference for one over the other. I like bridges and tunnels. I just saw how relatively inexpensive the GWT was in today’s dollars compared to the projected cost of single bridge and wondered if we could either save a ton of money with a single tunnel alternative or stretch the $1.2M into multiple additional crossings to further increase crossing points.
Posted on 7/24/18 at 8:43 pm to Marineaux
Um because of Tremors
This post was edited on 7/24/18 at 8:44 pm
Posted on 7/24/18 at 8:46 pm to Marineaux
quote:
multiple additional crossings to further increase crossing points.
This would go a long way.
Fix the bottlenecks in the city and the bridge traffic eases up.
Posted on 7/25/18 at 7:03 am to BurningHeart
Yeah, it seems like they are taking steps to fix the bottlenecks now. I live on the west side, south of BR. The backups to cross the bridge during peak times are insane. I wonder if bottleneck corrections are enough, so I keep thinking more crossings in addition to bottleneck fixes.
Seems like the parish presidents can’t agree on where a single crossing should go, too, so the idea of getting multiple crossings for the price of one bridge seems even more attractive in light of that.
Seems like the parish presidents can’t agree on where a single crossing should go, too, so the idea of getting multiple crossings for the price of one bridge seems even more attractive in light of that.
Posted on 7/25/18 at 7:25 am to Marineaux
quote:
A lot of people talking about the soil conditions, but perhaps this wouldn’t be an issue if it were sitting on the bottom?
The soil issue is still the problem. In fact, the soils at the surface are the worst ones. You'll still have settlement issues.
Posted on 7/25/18 at 7:26 am to Marineaux
quote:
I just saw erroneously how relatively inexpensive the GWT was in today’s dollars compared to the projected cost of single bridge
Fixed
Posted on 7/25/18 at 7:38 am to Boudreaux35
Boudreaux, what you say sounds like you know your stuff. Are you a Civil Engineer? Are you aware of any studies into the feasibility of a project like this that shows it wouldn’t work in a cost effective manner?
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News