Mobile Development Thread - Page 170

nimsjus · #**3381** Posted **Dec 10, 2008, 2:31 AM**

That is awesome news. That project really is a big deal for Mobile and it has been so long in coming that most folks forget about it. Glad to hear it will finally get off the ground soon.

MobileLSUboy2005 · #**3382** Posted **Dec 11, 2008, 5:51 PM**

Ok so now the northern-bypass route option is out. (good) that wasnt going to do anything, and everyone knew it. So in order to not hurt the shipping industry, and make them quit crying...why cant we just build another tunnel south of the one we already have that is six lanes wide and doesnt have a 90 degree turn to get into it?? The tunnel sections could be built right there on the river like all the other ones before it , and that way ships can go over, and everyone's happy... Hazardous cargo would still have to go over the Cochrane bridge, but who cares.... then just build a new section of the bayway that woudl go south of the battleship and then connect in where the existing structure is at about where the middle-bay onramp to the bayway is....

oh yea, PS....at my apartment this AM in Baton Rouge we had about 3 inches of snow! haha of course LSU didnt cancel finals...

LHG · #**3383** Posted **Dec 11, 2008, 8:20 PM**

I agree. Given the cost of a bridge, you would think that a reconstructed or redesigned, replacement tunnel would make sense. Cost would be a factor, but if they (we) can spend all of that money on the "Big Dig" in Boston, they (we) can spend it here. A bridge will not happen - if the bridge concept proceeds, it will be tied up in litigation for years and years.

On a similar matter: Ann Bedsole made a great point in Sunday's paper: why are we not immediately proceeding with the idea of eliminating the Water Street interchange and demolishing the overpasses. What a no brainer!

Muskavon · #**3384** Posted **Dec 11, 2008, 10:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MobileLSUboy2005

Ok so now the northern-bypass route option is out. (good) that wasnt going to do anything, and everyone knew it. So in order to not hurt the shipping industry, and make them quit crying...why cant we just build another tunnel south of the one we already have that is six lanes wide and doesnt have a 90 degree turn to get into it?? The tunnel sections could be built right there on the river like all the other ones before it , and that way ships can go over, and everyone's happy... Hazardous cargo would still have to go over the Cochrane bridge, but who cares.... then just build a new section of the bayway that woudl go south of the battleship and then connect in where the existing structure is at about where the middle-bay onramp to the bayway is....

Is the bridge idea being driven by a desire to get bigger ships in there? I swear I read something about the tunnel limiting ship size, but I don't see why they couldn't bury a new one a few feet deeper. Heck leave the current tunnel for traffic going directly into the city plus add a new one. Then you've really thinned traffic for a long long time.

BTW, saw where Dunkin' Donuts is once again gonna try to open stores in the Mobile-Pensa area according to the PNJ....but 40 of them? Jeez.

Del · #**3385** Posted **Dec 11, 2008, 11:57 PM**

So, do they deliberately seek federal money to do things that cripple major industry in the other 49 states, or is this one of those "Only in Alabama" things?

elb401 · #**3386** Posted **Dec 12, 2008, 5:08 AM**

I would hate to see a couple of thousand jobs lost for a stupid bridge. Maybe the port and other government groups can lease, sell,buy, or trade some of the land at the old homeport (and help rebuild their facilities) so they can atleast keep the jobs in Mobile county. The have been so good and loyal to us, i would hate to literally throw them under a bridge. to have those ship yards lost take all the gains and plus some from the TK plant. A tunnel would have the same effect. they have to shut down for a year or more to build the tunnel then rebuild their plants. I just wish the idiots back in the day got the tunnel and bridge right in the first place.

MobiMan · #**3387** Posted **Dec 12, 2008, 8:13 AM**

the Bridge isnt that big of a deal the ship yards dont want the bridge because it means they have to spend millions moving things a round to accommadate for the Bridge, oh and if we were gonna lose the cruise ship come on now do you think Sam Jones would be for the Bridge, no not at all
the Bridge will help with traffic and with the growth of Mobile
our population isnt gonna get smaller, and if it does then we have a problem
far worse than a bridge coming to town

a new tunnel, come on that is crazy, that would cost twice what the bridge would cost... remember cost goes up every other week even over night
so the longer we wait and complain the more its gonna cost you and I

build the new Bridge put it in the right place where it will cause the least problems for the shipyards and lets be done with it

but please dont build an ugly bridge give it a little class
something to add to the skyline not take away from it

i wanna see something being built

and please lets get some young people with vision elected
these old guys on the city council
are holding us back

nimsjus · #**3388** Posted **Dec 12, 2008, 3:31 PM**

I really couldnt care less if people from Fairhope, Daphne, and Spanish Fort have to sit in traffic on their daily commute. They chose to live there knowing that they had that commute. If they don't like traffic then move back to Mobile (there are plenty of nice houses and neighborhoods to suit all tastes-suburban, midtown, urban, new construction, historic, etc). My other issue with this plan is that I fail to see how adding a few more lanes under/over the river is going to help congestion when all those extra cars accomodated by a bridge have to get back on the 4 lane bayway. If you add the bridge, you just create a new bottleneck on the bayway itself. The only way I would even remotely think this project was worth it was if it came with a widening of the bayway (preferably at a higher level also so that it isnt taken out by the next big storm like similar bridges in Pcola, Biloxi and New Orleans). All in all I think this is a big waste of money to accomodate people who dont give a rip about Mobile at the expense of Mobile's downtown jobs, tourist industry, port and historic character. I can't fcome up with a single benefit from the building of this bridge. I guess if I decide to try to go to the ESC on a Friday at 5 o'clock then all of what will be lost will be completely worth it...

elb401 · #**3389** Posted **Dec 12, 2008, 5:18 PM**

uhhh.....the shipyards spending millions to relocate isn't a big deal. thousands out of work. shipyards can't work with pillings in the middle of the yard. you do know that money doesn't grow on trees for them. if the bridge disrupts them then the city, county, state, and feds need to pay for most if not all of the relocation. I really don't think Sam jones knows any more than we do. He said find a good route. He really doesn't have a lot of influence in that department.

MobiMan · #**3390** Posted **Dec 12, 2008, 7:10 PM**

the pilings wouldnt be in the middle they would be at the northern end, disrupting the oil rig facilities, and thousands would not be out of work, i worked at Ingals well now called Northrop Grumen and numerous other shipyards when i was in my late teens and early twenties and most of them had bridges over the top of them they worked out just fine, the bridge is coming no matter what you or i say, so build it,

this is why nothing gets done in mobile
all these old guys and misinformed idiots calling the shots
hey lets build a big ugly courthouse thats gonna cost the tax payers
tousands and thousands of dollars every year to maintain due to leaky ceilings and high power bills

lets not build a bridge and keep new industry out

everybody is trying to build a legacy
get a painting of themselves on a courthouse wall
or a statue in a park
or even better then that a name on a building
or maybe even all 3

oh and one huge reason traffic is bad at the tunnels is because people come to a crawl when they aproach the tunnels, because they are scared
so no matter what you do, its not gonna get any better
havent you noticed traffic picks up really quick once your out of the tunnels

oh and for money not growing on trees for the shipyards no it doesnt but it is sitting in the banks for them, they have millions on top of millions

build the damn bridge and let it be over with

Port_of_Bama · #**3391** Posted **Dec 12, 2008, 7:31 PM**

It is not worth losing our jobs for the Baldwin County commuters i have nothing against them but come on they knew the risk. I don`t see why they want do a Boston or Mobile big dig like an earlier poster posted. I also thank that it would be a good idea for them to make the tunnel 3 lanes and add lanes to the bay bgridge as well if possible. Why didn`t they thank of this when they fisrt built the tunnels ?

nimsjus · #**3392** Posted **Dec 12, 2008, 9:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MobiMan

oh and one huge reason traffic is bad at the tunnels is because people come to a crawl when they aproach the tunnels, because they are scared
so no matter what you do, its not gonna get any better
havent you noticed traffic picks up really quick once your out of the tunnels

Ill agree with you that the tunnel makes people slow down due to its poor design, but ALDOTs issue has nothing to do with the speed at which people move over/under the river. ALDOTs reports site traffic volume when discussing the issues with the tunnels. Traffic volume is based solely off of traffic counts. The issues they had with the Northern Route was not how fast or slow that route was, but how it would not take enough cars out of the tunnel (and the cost). The point is they are trying to decrease the number of cars using the tunnel because it is at its capacity by their calculations. My problem with that thought process is that all those cars end up on the bayway (regardeless of how they cross the river) and it still only has two lanes per direction. Building the bridge is really short sighted. If you build the bridge, in 5, 10, 15, 50 years you are still going to eventually have to expand the bayway or else it will become the next "bottle neck". A better idea in my opinion would be to let Baldwin County residents sit in traffic since they chose to live over there or improve mass transit, but dont just build a bridge. We have already doen this patch job, short sighted crap twice before (Bankhead and Wallace Tunnels). You cant build enough or big enough roads. Look at taffic in places like Bham, Atl, etc. It is hundreds of times worse than the bayway/tunnels. The only time major delays occur is when there is an accident. Traffic moves fine as long as there are not wrecks. I think that is about all you can ask.

MobiMan · #**3393** Posted **Dec 13, 2008, 1:02 AM**

It seems as if everyone is blaming Baldwin County for the whole mess LOL
for Baldwin County to be the blame it seems to me that most who live there would have to work here...
what about the Pensacola people who work here, and yes they work here to
what about people who are just passing through
Truckers, people on vacation, people relocating, sales people, tour busses, regional managers who go back and forth from baton rouge to panama city, vendors, college kids coming home for the weekend, and oh lets not forget summer time when we mobilians go to gulfshores every day of the week and yes we even go at 5pm, we shop in Baldwin County to ect ect ect
come on now the interstate was well travelled before a few people moved to Baldwin County

actually when they did the study people in Mobile didnt move to Baldwin County
the majority moved to west Mobile

that is just crazy to say its Baldwin Counties fault

Bankhead tunnel was a toll tunnell it wasnt built for thousands of people to go through, it was built for covenience for people who could and would pay a toll

i do agree they should have made the wallace tunnel four lanes
and made it a str8 shot without the curve
but its to late to think about that now

did you really think people would have taken the northern rout, would you have taken it?

ok i can get to the bayway 5 miles down the road or i can go the 25 mile way
or whatever it is but its way out of the way
and the way people drive around here 100 in a 55
they are gonna take the shorter rout even if they have to sit in traffic for a moment

BlessedMobile · #**3394** Posted **Dec 13, 2008, 2:54 AM**

Mobi...you make too much sense to not be on here more. Speak o' wise one! Now for the bridge. I have studied ALDOT drawing of the now 3 possible sites and concluded, after talking to all the waterfront people, that the northern route is the best. Why? because it will put a cap on only Bender because of the seldom used rig repair docks north of the tunnel. Bender does most of that work at the homeport facility and that is not likely to change. There will be a turnbasin by the new TK facility on Pinto Island so the ships, etc can turnaround there and won't need to go up to the Cochrane bridge area. Harrison Brothers will be history due to a large pylon and my guess is that the family would like to cash out and go home. Atlantic Marine will be South of the bridge. Austal won't be hindered at all. The pylons are large but if you will go over to the
Cochrane bridge you will see that they don't take up that much space. Any landowner will be very well compensated for the land and shuffling required. It's not like they will have a critical building,etc where a pylon will be placed. These people are not a process or an assembly line manufacturer. What you can't do on this acre will now be moved slightly over. Some have asked about the cruise terminal...oh, but the bridge will be over the ship! So what, the passengers will see it for all of fifteen minutes and then they are off to the bar or leave port. What passenger is NOT going to go on a cheap cruise because he will be able to see the bottom of a giant bridge for 15 minutes? Build the bridge...Build it now.

Muskavon · #**3395** Posted **Dec 13, 2008, 4:37 AM**

I may piss everyone off, but I find it amusing that anyone thinks a bottleneck in one of the most major corridors across the country (I-10) will somehow not be addressed because idealistic and utopian people think we should downgrade our reliance on cars and, more importantly, trucks. Mobile needs to come up with a solution pretty soon or someone else will step in and decide this for you. It really doesn't matter to the national flow of goods that many of your people live in Baldwin County and you are pro-urban. It'll get fixed sooner or later. Your choice or someone else's. It will get fixed. That is for sure. I'd start seriously thinking of the best way to get 6 or 8 lanes from Baldwing County to Mobile...unless you just want to bang your head into a wall for political reasons. "Nothing" isn't going to be an option. That is one thing I'm sure of.

SpawnOfVulcan · #**3396** Posted **Dec 13, 2008, 4:38 AM**

I think a bridge would be best. Make it really tall. In order to get it tall enough, why not make the roadway leading it up to the main deck corkscrew so that there doesn't have to be a HUGE ramp leading up to the bridge. I know it sounds really crazy, but aren't all of the ideas?

BlessedMobile · #**3397** Posted **Dec 13, 2008, 5:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alabadrock

I think a bridge would be best. Make it really tall. In order to get it tall enough, why not make the roadway leading it up to the main deck corkscrew so that there doesn't have to be a HUGE ramp leading up to the bridge. I know it sounds really crazy, but aren't all of the ideas?

Thanks for your suggestion. I will forward it to the people who wanted to build a bridge that no travelers were going to use; they are looking for options other than a smart bridge location.

elb401 · #**3398** Posted **Dec 13, 2008, 10:09 PM**

Mobiman, Maybe my fears are from reading what those "idiots" are saying. We all know that a bridge will be built. the metro area needs it. I hope that they pick a spot that doesn't effect jobs. I guess we could loose a few hundred (I hope you are right that it wont be thousands. the ship builders probably lied about the job figures to try to get their way) and it wouldn't kill us. If the job loses aren't big and the governments pay for all the damage, then the only thing that will suck is that you wont get an unobstructed view of the bay from the battleship anymore. but I can live with it, I only go there maybe once every 2 years.

NitekKetin · #**3399** Posted **Dec 14, 2008, 9:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alabadrock

I think a bridge would be best. Make it really tall. In order to get it tall enough, why not make the roadway leading it up to the main deck corkscrew so that there doesn't have to be a HUGE ramp leading up to the bridge. I know it sounds really crazy, but aren't all of the ideas?

Even more efficient: instead of a corkscrew, the cars can be lifted, individually of course, to the central span via a heavy-duty, expensive-to-maintain automobile elevator.

Regards,
Senior ALDOT Planner.

SpawnOfVulcan · #**3400** Posted **Dec 14, 2008, 5:36 PM**

Yay! Even more extravagant! Let's see just how expensive we can make this!