re: Alternative Route to avoid Lake Charles Death Bridge(s)

quote:

---

And if there is one ship that needs it, why should the majority suffer for the minority?

---

What majority is suffering?

Why are you so passionate about these two bridges lol?

I-210 over Prien Lake has a 125ft navig clearance. I-10 over Calcasieu River is 135 ft.

It's not the bridges, it's the principle. Thousands of people drive over those 2 bridges every day, and El Camping Tiger there can't handle it.

One is perfectly sound, the other was never meant for interstate travel.

But, pansies will be pansies.

Dallas High-5 highest point is 120ft. Not to shabby considering everyone is driving like Jeff Gordon.

Ok, I'm a pussy when it comes to driving over bridges, blah blah blah, I'll own it, I'll wear the T-Shirt.

Here's my point: Look at the (I-10) Sabine River Bridge in 1998. Look at the (I-10) Trinity River Bridge in 2007. These bridges were similar to the steep grade and narrowness of the Calcasieu River Bridge. Since, the Sabine and Trinity River Bridges have been lowered, widened and the grade isn't nearly as steep.

Why can't these kind of improvements be made to the I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge? Why isn't there a plan in place? With all the EPA regulations liberals are bitchin' about, why can't we solve a safety issue that is real, which is this f*cking bridge.

I-10 Calcasieu Bridge in dry conditions? No problem.

I-10 Calcasieu Bridge at night? I'll YouTube myself driving over it.

I-10 in wet weather? I'm taking LA 378 to US 171, even if it makes my route 21 minutes longer.

/thread.

quote:

---

Again, maybe you should talk to the FEDS!

---

I think this is a state issue, not a federal one. Texas had no problem lowering and widening the Sabine and Trinity River bridges, but Louisiana hasn't done anything about the Calcasieu Bridge. If the Texas State Line began at the Calcasieu and not the Sabine, I think we would all be driving over a safer bridge.

Don't just take my word for it:

LC BRIDGE RANKED NO.7 MOST DANGEROUS

TWICE AS DANGEROUS AS MINNEAPOLIS BRIDGE

STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND

No, it's a federal issue. When the feds made it an interstate bridge, they agreed to replace the bridge because it was deemed inadequate.

You complain so much about this bridge, but don't even know that there are plans to replace it. Good lord, do you even watch the news?

frick wad.

quote:

---

Why can't these kind of improvements be made to the I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge?

---

The area at/near the base of the existing bridge, where a new parallel bridge could be located without completely re-routing I-10 has been deemed a hazardous site. It was used a chemical dump back in the 70's(?) to the point where the EPA has it on their "Superfund list". By law, the soil cannot be disturbed without extensive treatment (read: many millions of dollars).

All it takes is enough money. The cost of the bridge, for 3 lanes in each direction (it would be stupid to build any less) is close to if not greater than $200M. That doesn't include any modifications to approach roadways, which will be needed to match the new alignment. But, like I said, before that project can begin, even start with design, the environmental issue has to be remedied.

Oh, and while you are bitching about the need for a bridge there, your counterparts in other parts of the state are bitching just as loud, if not louder for a bridge in their area, like Baton Rouge, and Shreveport, and Belle Chase, and Larose, etc.

Pretend you have 8 kids at the LSU game. You have a single $5 bill (and no ATM card). All 8 kids want a hot dog. Which one gets one?

Your vagina is showing.