NationStates

The New California Republic wrote:

Liriena wrote:Ok but hear me out... UK can have a little super mega hyper bridge, as a treat, but only if it's, like, a railway bridge for after the trains get nationalized.

It will be a road and rail bridge, according to proposals.

No road. Only rail.

This post was made by anti-car gang.

Novus America wrote:I actually do not hate the bridge idea. Longer bridges over deeper water have been built.
And actually infrastructure mega projects have a Keynesian effect, stimulating demand and creating jobs.

And if you mandate the steel, concrete and aluminum used be made in the UK it could help support those industries.

And it would reduce trade costs between NI and the UK.

Apart from all of the other logistical issues that others have listed, it's flatly untrue that deeper bridges have been built.

Currently the deepest one under water is the 25th of April bridge in Lisbon, at 70 meters below the water. This was a giant construction project which lasted over a decade, and serious planning for close to 30 years before that... over a span of about 2.2 kilometres.

The Irish sea between the 2 proposed point is, at the shallowest, 120 meters... but that place is a bit further south. The actual point everyone is proposing is actually about 160. Yeah, so in order for this bridge to be built, it would have to be spanning over a depth double the current world record.

In a big ocean shipping lane to boot, so you couldn't get away with it being down low which is typical of longer bridges. And remember, this is under water. With currents, and wildlife, and boats, and waves. That stuff messes with bridges very much, to say the least.

I'm sure it's possible, that said. And if it was part of some big Keynesian project, then I'd 100% support it. But don't underestimate the challenge. It would be giant, serious national investment that would take over a decade to build... at the very least.

Chan Island wrote:

Novus America wrote:I actually do not hate the bridge idea. Longer bridges over deeper water have been built.
And actually infrastructure mega projects have a Keynesian effect, stimulating demand and creating jobs.

And if you mandate the steel, concrete and aluminum used be made in the UK it could help support those industries.

And it would reduce trade costs between NI and the UK.

Apart from all of the other logistical issues that others have listed, it's flatly untrue that deeper bridges have been built.

Currently the deepest one under water is the 25th of April bridge in Lisbon, at 70 meters below the water. This was a giant construction project which lasted over a decade, and serious planning for close to 30 years before that... over a span of about 2.2 kilometres.

The Irish sea between the 2 proposed point is, at the shallowest, 120 meters... but that place is a bit further south. The actual point everyone is proposing is actually about 160. Yeah, so in order for this bridge to be built, it would have to be spanning over a depth double the current world record.

In a big ocean shipping lane to boot, so you couldn't get away with it being down low which is typical of longer bridges. And remember, this is under water. With currents, and wildlife, and boats, and waves. That stuff messes with bridges very much, to say the least.

I'm sure it's possible, that said. And if it was part of some big Keynesian project, then I'd 100% support it. But don't underestimate the challenge. It would be giant, serious national investment that would take over a decade to build... at the very least.

If it ever happens it will be a train tunnel. Simply that.

Chan Island wrote:The Irish sea between the 2 proposed point is, at the shallowest, 120 meters... but that place is a bit further south. The actual point everyone is proposing is actually about 160. Yeah, so in order for this bridge to be built, it would have to be spanning over a depth double the current world record.

Actually the biggest obstacle to the Celtic Crossing would be Beaufort's Dyke, which is a trench between Northern Ireland and Scotland. It is 30 miles long, 2 miles wide and 200–300m deep; it cuts right across the point of the proposed crossing.

The New California Republic wrote:

Chan Island wrote:The Irish sea between the 2 proposed point is, at the shallowest, 120 meters... but that place is a bit further south. The actual point everyone is proposing is actually about 160. Yeah, so in order for this bridge to be built, it would have to be spanning over a depth double the current world record.

Actually the biggest obstacle to the Celtic Crossing would be Beaufort's Dyke, which is a trench between Northern Ireland and Scotland. It is 30 miles long, 2 miles wide and 200–300m deep; it cuts right across the point of the proposed crossing.

Which would be triple the current world record for the deepest bridge. Damn.

You'd just span over such a trench then. 2 miles, while huge, isn't impossible for spanning.

Having each of those pillars be under about 160 meters of ocean water would however be a considerable obstacle.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Chan Island wrote:
Apart from all of the other logistical issues that others have listed, it's flatly untrue that deeper bridges have been built.

Currently the deepest one under water is the 25th of April bridge in Lisbon, at 70 meters below the water. This was a giant construction project which lasted over a decade, and serious planning for close to 30 years before that... over a span of about 2.2 kilometres.

The Irish sea between the 2 proposed point is, at the shallowest, 120 meters... but that place is a bit further south. The actual point everyone is proposing is actually about 160. Yeah, so in order for this bridge to be built, it would have to be spanning over a depth double the current world record.

In a big ocean shipping lane to boot, so you couldn't get away with it being down low which is typical of longer bridges. And remember, this is under water. With currents, and wildlife, and boats, and waves. That stuff messes with bridges very much, to say the least.

I'm sure it's possible, that said. And if it was part of some big Keynesian project, then I'd 100% support it. But don't underestimate the challenge. It would be giant, serious national investment that would take over a decade to build... at the very least.

If it ever happens it will be a train tunnel. Simply that.

Tunnels, while technically more viable, would even more so be subject to the issue of time. And expense. The Channel tunnel had work start in the 1970s and wasn't finished until 1994 (that said, politics delayed that one for, if memory serves, about 5 years).

Chan Island wrote:

Novus America wrote:I actually do not hate the bridge idea. Longer bridges over deeper water have been built.
And actually infrastructure mega projects have a Keynesian effect, stimulating demand and creating jobs.

And if you mandate the steel, concrete and aluminum used be made in the UK it could help support those industries.

And it would reduce trade costs between NI and the UK.

Apart from all of the other logistical issues that others have listed, it's flatly untrue that deeper bridges have been built.

Currently the deepest one under water is the 25th of April bridge in Lisbon, at 70 meters below the water. This was a giant construction project which lasted over a decade, and serious planning for close to 30 years before that... over a span of about 2.2 kilometres.

The Irish sea between the 2 proposed point is, at the shallowest, 120 meters... but that place is a bit further south. The actual point everyone is proposing is actually about 160. Yeah, so in order for this bridge to be built, it would have to be spanning over a depth double the current world record.

In a big ocean shipping lane to boot, so you couldn't get away with it being down low which is typical of longer bridges. And remember, this is under water. With currents, and wildlife, and boats, and waves. That stuff messes with bridges very much, to say the least.

I'm sure it's possible, that said. And if it was part of some big Keynesian project, then I'd 100% support it. But don't underestimate the challenge. It would be giant, serious national investment that would take over a decade to build... at the very least.

The Eiksund Tunnel in Norway is 287 meters deep. The Seikan Tunnel 240 meters deep.
Now I cannot find a good list of bridges by water depth but some oil platforms are built in water 300 meters deep. Nordhordland Bridge crosses water 5,000 meters deep.

So deeper water has been dealt with.

But sure it would be a Keynesian mega project and engineering challenge, but that is much of what makes it interesting. And sure it might take a decade or more to construct but that is fine, creating jobs and demand for a decade or more.

Novus America wrote:I actually do not hate the bridge idea. Longer bridges over deeper water have been built.
And actually infrastructure mega projects have a Keynesian effect, stimulating demand and creating jobs.

And if you mandate the steel, concrete and aluminum used be made in the UK it could help support those industries.

And it would reduce trade costs between NI and the UK.

You can't as Obama found out in 2009 it violates WTO rules for government projects to only use local steel.

Greed and Death wrote:

Novus America wrote:I actually do not hate the bridge idea. Longer bridges over deeper water have been built.
And actually infrastructure mega projects have a Keynesian effect, stimulating demand and creating jobs.

And if you mandate the steel, concrete and aluminum used be made in the UK it could help support those industries.

And it would reduce trade costs between NI and the UK.

You can't as Obama found out in 2009 it violates WTO rules for government projects to only use local steel.

I cannot find anything saying that but there is this:
https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.c ... -projects/

Novus America wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:You can't as Obama found out in 2009 it violates WTO rules for government projects to only use local steel.

I cannot find anything saying that but there is this:
https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.c ... -projects/

It's Greed and Death. He lies for a living.

Chan Island wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Actually the biggest obstacle to the Celtic Crossing would be Beaufort's Dyke, which is a trench between Northern Ireland and Scotland. It is 30 miles long, 2 miles wide and 200–300m deep; it cuts right across the point of the proposed crossing.

Which would be triple the current world record for the deepest bridge. Damn.

You'd just span over such a trench then. 2 miles, while huge, isn't impossible for spanning.

Having each of those pillars be under about 160 meters of ocean water would however be a considerable obstacle.

It's issues like this that lead me to strongly suspect that such a project would end up horrifically overbudget and late.

The New California Republic wrote:

Chan Island wrote:
Which would be triple the current world record for the deepest bridge. Damn.

You'd just span over such a trench then. 2 miles, while huge, isn't impossible for spanning.

Having each of those pillars be under about 160 meters of ocean water would however be a considerable obstacle.

It's issues like this that lead me to strongly suspect that such a project would end up horrifically overbudget and late.

Oh it obviously would. But that is to be expected abs does not mean the project cannot be tried.
Basically every infrastructure project does.

Novus America wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:You can't as Obama found out in 2009 it violates WTO rules for government projects to only use local steel.

I cannot find anything saying that but there is this:
https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.c ... -projects/

Does your source even mention the world trade organization ?

How does an Englishman end up with the name Boris?

Bear Stearns wrote:How does an Englishman end up with the name Boris?

shhhh he is a Putin spy.

The New California Republic wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Some 30ish miles, I think. Big long boi. And one does wonder how it would impact ships leaving Belfast.

It'll have to be tall to let ships pass under it. And fairly wide for structural purposes. Swole bridge boi.

It's a Boris-planned bridge. I think it's fairly safe to say it'll be only ten-feet tall and will barely reach three-quarters of the way across the sea.

Still... what a boon for bridge repair and stunt drivers.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:I wonder if I could get crowd funded to have some bongs for Brexit?

I'm sure the government is planning mass soma-distribution for the populace on that date.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Philjia wrote:Thought:
If the House of Lords is reformed into an elected body it should be by proportional representation while the House of Commons remains locally elected.

The House of Commons should be proportional, while the House of Lords should become a local representation. The House of Commons enjoys a kind of seniority over the House of Lords, so it would be preferable if the House of Commons were elected by representation.

I agree that electing the House of Commons by PR would be preferable.

Perhaps we could have an HS3 to connect Leeds or Manchester with Portpatrick.

Novus America wrote:

Chan Island wrote:
Apart from all of the other logistical issues that others have listed, it's flatly untrue that deeper bridges have been built.

Currently the deepest one under water is the 25th of April bridge in Lisbon, at 70 meters below the water. This was a giant construction project which lasted over a decade, and serious planning for close to 30 years before that... over a span of about 2.2 kilometres.

The Irish sea between the 2 proposed point is, at the shallowest, 120 meters... but that place is a bit further south. The actual point everyone is proposing is actually about 160. Yeah, so in order for this bridge to be built, it would have to be spanning over a depth double the current world record.

In a big ocean shipping lane to boot, so you couldn't get away with it being down low which is typical of longer bridges. And remember, this is under water. With currents, and wildlife, and boats, and waves. That stuff messes with bridges very much, to say the least.

I'm sure it's possible, that said. And if it was part of some big Keynesian project, then I'd 100% support it. But don't underestimate the challenge. It would be giant, serious national investment that would take over a decade to build... at the very least.

The Eiksund Tunnel in Norway is 287 meters deep. The Seikan Tunnel 240 meters deep.
Now I cannot find a good list of bridges by water depth but some oil platforms are built in water 300 meters deep. Nordhordland Bridge crosses water 5,000 meters deep.

So deeper water has been dealt with.

But sure it would be a Keynesian mega project and engineering challenge, but that is much of what makes it interesting. And sure it might take a decade or more to construct but that is fine, creating jobs and demand for a decade or more.

Tunnels are not bridges. Oil rigs are not bridges. Nordhundlund bridge is a fucking pontoon bridge.

Bear Stearns wrote:How does an Englishman end up with the name Boris?

The same way he ends up with the name de Pfeffel

Greed and Death wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:How does an Englishman end up with the name Boris?

shhhh he is a Putin spy.

But Russia Today told me that he's not a spy.

Salandriagado wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:How does an Englishman end up with the name Boris?

The same way he ends up with the name de Pfeffel

An administrator sneezed while dictating his birth certificate.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... says-study

What we all knew already.

Just look at Queen Elizabeth II

Salandriagado wrote:

Novus America wrote:
The Eiksund Tunnel in Norway is 287 meters deep. The Seikan Tunnel 240 meters deep.
Now I cannot find a good list of bridges by water depth but some oil platforms are built in water 300 meters deep. Nordhordland Bridge crosses water 5,000 meters deep.

So deeper water has been dealt with.

But sure it would be a Keynesian mega project and engineering challenge, but that is much of what makes it interesting. And sure it might take a decade or more to construct but that is fine, creating jobs and demand for a decade or more.

Tunnels are not bridges. Oil rigs are not bridges. Nordhundlund bridge is a fucking pontoon bridge.

Tunnels are still a crossing. It could be a tunnel. It could use pontoons in sections.
And pilings (yes not specifically for bridges but still pilings) have been built in 300 meter deep water. A crossing is certainly very possible to do. It would not be easy, but can obviously be done.

Credit where Credit is due, Jess dealt with the anti-semitic snake in her ranks.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/jess ... p-1.495280

Now it's in the hands of the party to decide if they want to continue to be seen to be institutionally antisemitic or not.

Twitter had a whole meltdown about Boris J. playing around with the English language while talking about something about Big Ben, dunno', my area of politics is that of what the Right Wing calls "Identity Politics", I don't usually go around debating what to do about a giant clock that won't be restored until next year.
Just wanted to put my useless take on it, k bai.

Liriena wrote:

Novus America wrote:I actually do not hate the bridge idea. Longer bridges over deeper water have been built.
And actually infrastructure mega projects have a Keynesian affect, stimulating demand and creating jobs.

And if you mandate the steel, concrete and aluminum used be made in the UK it could help support those industries.

And it would reduce trade costs between NI and the UK.

Ok but hear me out... UK can have a little super mega hyper bridge, as a treat, but only if it's, like, a railway bridge for after the trains get nationalized.

Nationalise the entire field of engineering. Wacky gadgetbahns will criss-cross Britain.