dam, thats a big bridge

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - dam, thats a big bridge

Posted: 10/3/2005 11:53:50 AM EDT

Posted: 10/3/2005 11:55:20 AM EDT

[#1]

where is that? It is pretty sweet

Posted: 10/3/2005 11:56:47 AM EDT

[#2]

Posted: 10/3/2005 11:57:31 AM EDT

[#3]

WARNING
DO NOT go to the 2.) Posting pictures* or links to images which contain pornography, nudity+, animal cruelty, racism, or sexism. to find out, it is not work safe

Posted: 10/3/2005 11:58:41 AM EDT

[#4]

That's in France, isn't it?

Posted: 10/3/2005 11:58:46 AM EDT

[#5]

France. Bridge over a valley

Posted: 10/3/2005 11:58:55 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
where is that?

My guess is France

Posted: 10/3/2005 11:59:02 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
WARNING
DO NOT go to the 2.) Posting pictures* or links to images which contain pornography, nudity+, animal cruelty, racism, or sexism. to find out, it is not work safe

Thanks for the warning...I was actually just about to go there to find out more info.

Posted: 10/3/2005 11:59:49 AM EDT

[#8]

Is that that new super-bridge that opened in France? It looks awesome.

ETA: Someone else beat me to it.

Posted: 10/3/2005 12:01:47 PM EDT

[#9]

leave it to the french to build the worlds biggest bridge where one is barely even necessary! LOL

Posted: 10/3/2005 12:02:27 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
where is that? It is pretty sweet

Millau Viaduct, France

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millau_Viaduct

Posted: 10/3/2005 12:02:58 PM EDT

[#11]

I dunno... looking at the bottom pic there, I fail to see why they deemed it cost-effective to build that thing there. It wasn't right over a metropolis or a deep, sheer gorge. Why not just some leveling-out of the terrain on either side of the valley and make the road through it, rather than over it? There are many bridges where the neccessity is obvious to the untrained eye, but this doesn't seem to be one of them [to me].

Posted: 10/3/2005 12:13:13 PM EDT

[#12]

There are several reasons for this type of bridge.

The first being ease of capitulation, enemy tanks can bypass small towns which shortens the time of occupation.

Second, the average french car would need to be pushed up either side of the valley.

But the biggest reason is: Lance kicks ass on hills...

YMMV,
Pete

Posted: 10/3/2005 1:25:21 PM EDT

[#13]

It gives the french army more options while they are retreating. Blow up the bridge so we can get to the channel, be evacuated by the british only to return to france in time for the surrender!

Posted: 10/3/2005 1:29:42 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
I dunno... looking at the bottom pic there, I fail to see why they deemed it cost-effective to build that thing there. It wasn't right over a metropolis or a deep, sheer gorge. Why not just some leveling-out of the terrain on either side of the valley and make the road through it, rather than over it? There are many bridges where the neccessity is obvious to the untrained eye, but this doesn't seem to be one of them [to me].

If you read the wikipedia article apparently that there valley gets majorly conjested suring the summer, along existing routes, so they built it to bypass the valley.

All in the name of vacation. It's the Euro way.

Posted: 10/3/2005 1:40:39 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

If you read the wikipedia article apparently that there valley gets majorly conjested suring the summer, along existing routes, so they built it to bypass the valley.

All in the name of vacation. It's the Euro way.

That sounds nice… it also sounds like BULLSHIT.

So why build a bridge that is going to cost multiples of a ground level bypass.

I suspect the was an awful lot of money spread around on that bridge and a awful lot of padded pockets.

Posted: 10/3/2005 1:56:24 PM EDT

[#16]

No shit! The Europeans like vacation as much as spanking the monkey. I work with the Italians, French, Brits, Russians, and Germans. Take their vaca very seriously.

Posted: 10/3/2005 2:04:29 PM EDT

[#17]

From the wikipedia entry:

The landmark bridge is scheduled to be surrendered to the Spanish in July 2018

OK, it doesn't really say that.

Posted: 10/3/2005 2:08:06 PM EDT

[#18]

The other options would have bothered the sheep in the valley.

Plus it gave a writer a good title for his book, The Sheep Look Up

Posted: 10/3/2005 2:13:14 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
I dunno... looking at the bottom pic there, I fail to see why they deemed it cost-effective to build that thing there. It wasn't right over a metropolis or a deep, sheer gorge. Why not just some leveling-out of the terrain on either side of the valley and make the road through it, rather than over it? There are many bridges where the neccessity is obvious to the untrained eye, but this doesn't seem to be one of them [to me].

The answer is, I think, self-evident. Look in the upper photo. You can see the old road with its numerous switchbacks. If you've ever driven an auto on those types of switchbacks, you'll already know how slow traffic moves on them. I'm thinking about all the VW minivans, RV's, tractors, trucks, etc. - YUCK ! ! !

Still, it does look like a boon-doggle. Of course we are planning to build a bridge to an island in Alaska that no one lives on. Go figure.

Posted: 10/3/2005 2:30:25 PM EDT

[#20]

Eh.

Posted: 10/3/2005 2:35:32 PM EDT

[#21]

Anyone got any wire cutters?

Posted: 10/3/2005 2:38:14 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
There are several reasons for this type of bridge.

The first being ease of capitulation, enemy tanks can bypass small towns which shortens the time of occupation.

Second, the average french car would need to be pushed up either side of the valley.

But the biggest reason is: Lance kicks ass on hills...

YMMV,
Pete

Posted: 10/3/2005 2:39:28 PM EDT

[#23]

The Modern Marvels special on that bridge was pretty good.

They built the roadway on the land on either side of the bridge and "slid" it onto the supports like a giant belt until it met in the center.

Posted: 10/3/2005 2:41:11 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
No shit! The Europeans like vacation as much as spanking the monkey.

It's funny because it's true

Posted: 10/3/2005 3:29:42 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Still, it does look like a boon-doggle. Of course we are planning to build a bridge to an island in Alaska that no one lives on. Go figure.

OMG so the russians can invade?

Posted: 10/3/2005 6:21:27 PM EDT

[#26]

Being from California and mostly English in heritage, and remembering the French buitlt there aircraft carrier about 25 feet short and brought out the MAS 36 and the Renault Peaugot, I immediately wonder about being on there in an earthquake. NO THNK YOU.

(then again it does look neat)

Posted: 10/3/2005 6:36:52 PM EDT

[#27]

French of not, that's a beautiful bridge. Work of art.

Posted: 10/3/2005 6:43:36 PM EDT

[#28]

Theres alot of people who think the bridge ruins the landscape.
I would tend to agree.

Posted: 10/3/2005 6:46:17 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
There are several reasons for this type of bridge.

The first being ease of capitulation, enemy tanks can bypass small towns which shortens the time of occupation.

Second, the average french car would need to be pushed up either side of the valley.

But the biggest reason is: Lance kicks ass on hills...

YMMV,
Pete

Too true.