If we just imitating their beautiful bridges, I think that’s fine. Here’s a picture of the bridge mentioned: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/466149693_4cc446f8d8_o.jpg
My recommendation:
Build the bridge with 4 to 6 lanes going each way. Charge a $1 each way or $2 toll to go into the City. Restrict the trucking traffic to the right two lanes.
Create two HOV lanes each way that allow the following at no charge:
buses
emergency vehicles
tow trucks
motorcycles
Vehicles with more than one person
Allow the use of transponder tolls for vehicles that are willing to pay $5 to use the HOV lanes with only one person. Establish a bus line to run over the bridge if there is not already one in existence.
Build the two center HOV lanes with enough structural support to retro fit a light rail should the city decide for that option in the future.
I disagree with the premise of the article. Of course we (there’s that infamous we again) could do this. It is a lack of imagination among the bureaucrats we give the power to make these decisions. Or else it is because the bureaucrats have incentives to make safe, ugly decisions.
(2) The Millau Viaduct was finished overbudget and behind schedule. Partway through construction they revised the budget and the schedule and it came in slightly ahead of the revised schedule.
Europe is not funding a stupid as* war like we are. Funny what you can do with your infrastructure when you have an extra trillion dollars.
Wow, how amazingly beautiful. If you have to have a man-made structure spanning a valley, those are spectacular. Most bridges are terribly ugly.
So the real cost of the viaduct was far higher than the $700M the builder was paid: the builder got an upfront payment of $700M plus toll rights worth several times that amount.
Cheaper. How do we know that?
That project is longer than the Millau Viaduct (4km vs. 2.5km), was built over water and not the ground, and did not require giving the builder a 75 year concession enabling it to extract toll revenue from the public.
It has also won awards and acclaim as being beautiful structure.
Actually looks just like the one they built on 93 in Boston. Anyone have a pic.?
Both the private and government sectors have lost the vision for bold statements in architecture and construction. As an example, New York is seriously considering imposition of tolls merely for entering Manhattan during business hours. However, many of that area's traffic problems could be lessened by new bridges and tunnels, such as connecting New Jersey and Brooklyn via tunnels bypassing Manhattan, or bridges directly connecting Long Island and Connecticut. Meanwhile, existing infrastructure continues to deteriorate, as evidenced by the recent failure of the Interstate 35 bridge in Minneapolis.
Until our leaders in both business and government embrace bolder solutions, our economic competitiveness will decline and our infrastructure will approach Third World levels.
Also the Ravenel Bridge, despite being 60% longer than the Millau Viaduct, took only 25% longer to complete - four years vs. the Millau’s three years.
Sometimes folks get caught up in the LOOK of a design, and don't think about the practicality of it.
Fred Hartman Bridge, Baytown Texas - the longest cable-
stayed bridge in Texas, and one of only two such bridges
in the state. Construction cost of the bridge was $117.5M.
The bridge replaced the Baytown Tunnel, which had to be
removed when the Channel was deepened to 45 feet to
accommodate larger ships.
Might be different in earthquake, mudslide prone, socialtopia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9MlTF-ajEQ&feature=related
However, all our modern bridges use concrete, steel, etc - man-made products that do have a much shorter ‘shelf life’ than rock = many spans of Roman made bridges still stand, without any maintenance for hundreds of years.
And then there's this little ‘crib’ bridge in Maine, built in 1928 - the world's only crib-bridge - again, with stone (granite)...maintenance minimum - and it gets some rough seas... (I've traveled back and forth over it many times - )
http://www.city-data.com/picfilesv/picv15790.php
I wonder, going back the the Roman style, if not only the stone, but the arch structure doesn't distribute weight much better?
Gorgeous, eh?