I saw something the other day explaining why this was a really bad idea.
Mostly because it’s ludicrous and expensive.
Plenty of multi-level parking, and you can watch the catapult rides from the Starbucks on the bridge overlooking the bridge.
I like the concept, but, turn them sideways.
The catapults would keep the traffic moving.
Its a terrible idea pure and simple. Bridges are engineered to their surroundings, and from an engineering standpoint you’d short change yourself. Since you’d be designing a bridge around existing structures and limited in your engineering capabilities. So even if there were some cost savings in the short term, in the long-term its just a terrible idea and its annoying that taxpayer dollars have gone towards a feasibility study to begin with.
I’m curious what the perceived benefit would be from an engineering standpoint. All I can find about the motivation is that a local politician thinks it would look cool and bring in tourists. And whenever a politician starts talking about tourism dollars it’s a pretty safe bet it’s an idea that should never be considered.
Floating bridges aren’t new and Washington already has some in use, and they do their job without needing to deal with the maintenance headache of decomposing military vessels.
The proposed site seems pretty dumb too, as it only shaves a couple miles off the existing land based route. Why not just spend your money improving the existing roadway?
Would this bridge ensure that Uncle Enzo doesn’t have to apologize to any customers about late pizza deliveries? That seems like an important consideration.
The first time I sailed into Puget sound, to one of the only long term free anchorages I have ever heard of, I saw them. Something like 5-7 supercarriers beached, it was something to see, especially since I have been fascinated with naval aviation all of my life, to see not only my first but more of them than probably anywhere else in the world. To see them and understand their magnitude; the investment in lives, fuel, collective treasure, and epic construction; already dead in their cemetery never to sail under power again.
Setting aside the engineering and ecological challenges (probably surmountable, who knows), there is the little matter of the fact that the Navy has already said “AW HELL NAW.”
Yep. the pontoons of a pontoon bridge point with the current for a reason.
Using the aircraft carriers as pictured would create all sorts of problems.
I think anchoring one carrier to each shore and using the catapult to launch cars across the channel is a much more feasible idea.
Why not also use them as homeless shelters?
I think the living conditions are inhumane, but there are bowling alleys and movie theaters.
I did a “Tiger Cruise” once, and the racks are not the greatest, but I would take them over sleeping on the street.
The rest is actually not bad. Just drab.
They do tend to recycle ships; but the value of the steel is, unfortunately, offset by the labor and risk involved in separating the useful materials from the assorted hazmat delights that lurk within and then cutting the chunks down to size.
Commercial ships usually end up in in assorted less-than-scenic venues where environmental considerations are nonexistent and life is cheap; Chittagong, Ajay Panghal, Gadani. For a military ship(which is typically processed domestically or in a reasonably chummy developed world buddy’s facilities, both because of any possibly sensitive details and because of the PR issues like those the French ran into with the Clemenceau); they tend to consider it a decent deal if the breaker is willing to take the thing off their hands without charge and attempt to make up the cost by selling the scrap.
I can see a use case for this that I’m surprised no one else has mentioned:
If the sooner-or-later giant NW earthquake takes out a critical bridge, a temporary that uses boats as pontoons could help restore access.
A pontoon bridge does seem like a very sensible candidate for the role; but aircraft carriers are probably not good choices as pontoons. Since they don’t exactly tolerate shallow water and have flight decks ~200 feet above the waterline, you’ll need some moderately heroic construction on either side to bridge the gap between the point on land where you want the bridge to start and the point where it meets the deck of the first carrier.
Smaller boats(or even large inflated fuel bladders) don’t have the same carrying capacity and handy-length-of-pre-build-road; but would be much easier to attach to the land at each end without time and materials that start to approach those required to build an entire replacement bridge. Not as cool looking, however.
I lived on one for three years. No thanks. They take incredible amounts of maintenance and occupant coordination. You could take the maintenance costs and pay for hotel rooms for the homeless.
How about we make them a Villain liar/home base like I read in some obscure book a while ago?