Mobile Development Thread - Page 139

The 251 · #**2761** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 2:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MobileLSUboy2005

hazardous cargo can't use a tunnel period, just because if one explodes, a tunnel just makes the situation super dangerous, and very difficult to fight the fires, so they will never let HC cross the river on anything but a bridge unfortunately

Okay so now I understand that they can't use a tunnel at all. My next question is do you really want hazardous cargo driving next to you on a 500' high bridge? I personally would rather the HC be re-routed to use the Africatown bridge. It doesnt seem to be a problem right now...

10101000 · #**2762** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 2:19 PM**

Well, what about a monorail! I want one in Mobile bad, but that will be years away.

MobileLSUboy2005 · #**2763** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 2:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The 251

Okay so now I understand that they can't use a tunnel at all. My next question is do you really want hazardous cargo driving next to you on a 500' high bridge? I personally would rather the HC be re-routed to use the Africatown bridge. It doesnt seem to be a problem right now...

500' was a silly exaggeration... i am fine with leaving the HC on the cochrane bridge, but i dont think the city wants to keep having to reroute the traffic, they would rather it all just stay on I-10 i guess, which is one of the reasons they dont want a tunnel in the first place, i mean it doesnt make that much difference to me if there is a lack of HC on a 1 mile stretch of interstate or not, since the rest of the roads have it on there too...especially if they dont make the river crossing a dangerous one like the tunnels are with that dang curve!

MobileLSUboy2005 · #**2764** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 2:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by (Tim)

Well, what about a monorail! I want one in Mobile bad, but that will be years away.

while that would be super-cool, that still doesnt really help solve the traffic issue, especially on summer weekends because the traffic causing the problem isnt going just from mobile to spanish fort, its traffic from La, Miss, and Al going to Gulf Shores....sooooo then they should just build a rail line from Mobile to Gulf Shores haha. To us in the South that sounds so crazy, but then think about New England and all of Europe! NO ONE drives! public transit is what everyone does and it works great! I was in the UK in March and only had to take a taxi once! I took the train or a bus everywhere else!

10101000 · #**2765** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 2:49 PM**

Well, I need a cup of coffee.

LHG · #**2766** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 2:50 PM**

I've actually been through this tunnel. It was awesome to think that an ocean going cargo ship may be right above you! I have often thought that a larger tunnel without the dangerous curves was the obvious answer, but I moved here long after the conversation started. I do recall that the Chesapeake Bay tunnel charged a fee of at least $10 per vehicle per trip. Regardless, I vote for another tunnel.

10101000 · #**2767** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 2:53 PM**

I voted for Pedro!

The 251 · #**2768** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 2:57 PM**

$10 per trip? that is ridiculous.. I would swim across the bay before I'd pay that much

MobileLSUboy2005 · #**2769** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 3:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The 251

$10 per trip? that is ridiculous.. I would swim across the bay before I'd pay that much

ok the chesapeake bay bridge-tunnel is also 23 miles long, which is why its so expensive. The current I-10 bayway bridge is about 8 miles, sooo it wouldnt be so expensive here (if it were a toll at all, which i dont think this crossing should be - although i think the baldwin county bypass should be...) altho now i think the toll on the chesapeake is $12/trip, but i think you can get a round-trip discount.

10101000 · #**2770** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 3:20 PM**

how about $9.99 you know not 10, but below it. That will always get the consumer!

The 251 · #**2771** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 3:20 PM**

Yeah the traffic is already bad enough without making people stop to pay a toll. They need to expand the bayway right now!! regardless of whether we build a tunnel or bridge. I think they should go ahead and expand it to 4 lanes in each direction. Plan for the future!

The 251 · #**2772** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 3:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by (Tim)

how about $9.99 you know not 10, but below it. That will always get the consumer!

LOL

10101000 · #**2773** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 3:39 PM**

I know, I act like a 2 year old sometimes. Makes my day go by faster.

MobileLSUboy2005 · #**2774** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 3:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by (Tim)

I know, I act like a 2 year old sometimes. Makes my day go by faster.

they can do it like gasoline and say $3.93^9/10 haha

10101000 · #**2775** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 3:44 PM**

Lol

10101000 · #**2776** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 6:40 PM**

Did you guys see this?

OCA REP · #**2777** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 7:29 PM**

From the Mobile Press-Register:

http://blog.al.com/live/2008/07/provision_could_favor_boeing_i.html

Provision could favor Boeing in tanker re-bid
Posted by Sean Reilly July 30, 2008 12:47 PM
Categories: Aerospace, Breaking News, Business

WASHINGTON -- In a move that could favor Boeing Co., a U.S. House of Representatives panel wants the Pentagon to take "industrial base" concerns into account when awarding a new contract for aerial refueling tankers, according to a news release.

The provision is included in a fiscal 2009 military spending bill approved today by the House defense appropriations subcommittee in a closed-door meeting. The bill would meet the U.S. Air Force's request for $893 million for the tanker program, but also "directs that industrial base concerns be included in the evaluation of the tanker contract award," the release states.

The actual language of the provision was not immediately available, so it was unclear how heavily those concerns would weigh.

Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa.But Boeing allies have argued that industrial base priorities -- in the sense of ensuring that the United States can continue to build warplanes domestically -- should have been a factor in the Air Force's original award decision, which resulted in the lucrative tanker deal going to a team led by Northrop Grumman Corp. and a subsidiary of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., or EADS. Last month, the Government Accountability Office recommended re-opening the competition after finding that the Air Force made significant mistakes in evaluating the two proposals.

A spokesman for subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., did not immediately return a phone call. The bill still needs approval both by the full House and Senate to become law.

(For the full report, see Thursday's Press-Register.)

MobileLSUboy2005 · #**2778** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 7:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by (Tim)

Did you guys see this?

shoot, i think that thing blocks the skyline more than a highway bridge! haha, i mean, its cool looking, but i dunno how i would like it actually in place...

The 251 · #**2779** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MobileLSUboy2005

shoot, i think that thing blocks the skyline more than a highway bridge! haha, i mean, its cool looking, but i dunno how i would like it actually in place...

hahaha. its too tall! i think it would look good if it was shorter than the Riverview Plaza lol

OCA REP · #**2780** Posted **Jul 30, 2008, 8:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The 251

hahaha. its too tall! i think it would look good if it was shorter than the Riverview Plaza lol

Looks like the type of pedestrian bridge you would find in Dubai:

Photo courtesy of http://www.camron.co.uk/