Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [FJGRailroad] New Bridge

Expand Messages
  • Frank Pierson
    Paul, I think I have to disagree with you on this one. The bridge has had a lot of accidents due to the design both on the water and top deck. It also has had
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 25, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Paul,
      I think I have to disagree with you on this one. The bridge has had a
      lot of accidents due to the design both on the water and top deck. It
      also has had to be derated in weight capacity for some time making it
      necessary for the Loggers, oil, Vender suppliers and school districts to
      make costly trips around or other more expensive actions. This in turn
      effects all users of the area. As for the cost, The courts have made the
      state take the lake bridge due to the state forcing the forming of the
      lake. The County still owns the roads and will wind up with the bridge
      after the rebuild. But it has already been determined that it effects
      the whole region, not just Edinburgh or Saratoga County. As for the
      height, there is a severe limit to the amount of sail on the lake due to
      small channel on the south end so why not allow them full access to the
      deep part of the lake?

      The other reason for the height is to stop the effects on the water
      from winter winds. Ask any snowmobiler about the bridge. But the real
      reason is due to the hill on the west side. Today the safety standards
      for construction of all highways is a lot different than in the
      thirties. Allowable grades and approaches to bridges are taken seriously
      by the engineers as well as the courts later. This is the primary reason
      for the submitted design. Cost and safety! We have to get over the NIMBY
      syndrome.

      Frank

      ps. Don't always believe the press writers. They want to add color so
      you read there articles and rarely give all the facts or present them in
      a unbiased manner.

      >
      > Part of the problem is that the arch bridge that will have a clearance
      > of 55
      > feet, will benefit a few sail boat owners but cost everyone else
      > considerably more than is actually necessary to make the bridge
      > structurally
      > servicable for the forseeable future.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.