Champlain Bridge

[TIMMYDUCK]

Time to build a floating bridge over that way like in Brookfield.

Styro-foam and wood are fairly inexpensive.

[Doc]

Maybe they just need a few guys to lift it? Or maybe a crane?


Hell just make a ramp on both sides and we can jump it! Wooo WHO!

[obsolete]

Wait wait wait... so if you work on the other side your commute just incresed by 2 hours!?!?! Holy shit that sucks!

[RandyO]

Wait wait wait... so if you work on the other side your commute just incresed by 2 hours!?!?! Holy shit that sucks!

big time, I know someone that lives in Moriah NH and commutes to South Burlingotn, VT every day, he only works in VT cause there are no jobs on the NY side of the Lake to speak of. The increase cost of commute may be the straw that causes him to lose his home

[obsolete]

That's a shit situation and there's probably no recourse against the state for shitty planning. I'll be willing to bet there may be a lawsuit over it.

[MotoFreak]

That's a shit situation and there's probably no recourse against the state for shitty planning. I'll be willing to bet there may be a lawsuit over it.

There should be some recourse...there is no excuse for this, VT and NY def. should have shown more initiative with developing a 'what if' plan for the bridge. Hindsight is 20/20, but the NY should make it right for those who suffer their homes and livelihood because of poor planning.

[obsolete]

There should be some recourse...there is no excuse for this, VT and NY def. should have shown more initiative with developing a 'what if' plan for the bridge. Hindsight is 20/20, but the NY should make it right for those who suffer their homes and livelihood because of poor planning.

I agree but I don't see it going anywhere. That is really shitty that they hung their residents out to dry.

[Rambunctous]

I'll bet there will be a new bridge by 2014, give em 2 years for design and another 2 years for construction

good chance it'll be toll once again, imho, they were short sighted when they did away with the one way dime toll about 30 years ago, had they continued to collect, the new bridge would have a big downpayment on cost

Yeah, they would have saved the money instead of creating a bigger bueacracy. How many years for two states to come to terms on contracts, lawsuits, fundings by who at what percent, waiting for the federal goverment to ante up, lawsuits by activists, then the actual construction. 4 years. Even walmart could not errect a showbox that fast. I bet not a shovel will even be touched in 4 years.

[TIMMYDUCK]

MONTPELIER – Vermont and New York residents who depend on the closed Lake Champlain bridge traveled to Montpelier Tuesday to stress the problems caused by the closure.

Gathering on the steps of the Statehouse with signs that read "Bridge Rd. Our Road to Nowhere" and "Ferry 2-4/7 ASAP" the residents, who have seen their commutes become many times as long as when the bridge was open, asked Vermont legislators for help. The group, called the Lake Champlain Bridge Coalition, also wondered how the bridge's condition could worsen so quickly without officials noticing.

Vermont farmer Bob Smith had 100 acres of corn in New York State at the time the bridge closed. It has cost him $12,000 to truck the corn back to his farm through Whitehall, N.Y., and he hasn't yet paid the cost of having it harvested.

State officials told him there might be some Federal Emergency Management Agency money to help cover those kinds of costs, but he hasn't seen it yet, Smith said.

"I've got the bills and I have to pay them and I don't see any FEMA money coming floating across," Smith said.

Meanwhile James Geh, who with his wife owns the Bridge Restaurant just on the Vermont side of the bridge, said he may add a "No" to the name of the business.

Local residents are eating at the business more to help them through, but the lack of a bridge has had a significant impact on business, he said.

"There is no reason to go through there other than the bridge," Geh said.

John Zicconi of the Vermont Agency of Transportation said the state is working through the permit process to create a permanent ferry service. The current ferry operator has a contract to keep running through December, but whether the ferry will be able to keep running that long depends in part of weather, he said.

Zicconi said the state hopes to complete the work of getting permits this week for the work that has to be done on the land in preparation for building floating or pier-supported docks for the new ferry.

"It's certainly going to be into December," he said.

Rep. Diane Lanpher, D-Vergennes, who represents a district affected by the bridge closure and is on the House Transportation Committee, said the response by the states since the closure has been generally focused and good.

But New York and Vermont should have done a better job overseeing the condition of the structure, she said.

"I think that we could have done a better job. We, both states, could have done a better job of keeping an eye on this bridge," Lanpher said. "We are surprised at the accelerated erosion that has occurred."

The concrete of the bridge piers deteriorated faster than anyone expected, Zicconi said.

"The good news was we caught it and we closed it before anybody was hurt," Zicconi said.

Lanpher said she has seen firsthand the toll exacted by closure of the bridge.

If the ferry to Ticonderoga, N.Y. that is now operating must close due to weather before the new ferry is running "it will be very difficult," Lanpher said.

That is apparent to Janet Denney's family. The New Yorker's father-in-law is in a Vermont hospital, and to visit him means a three-hour visit, she said.

"I used to do all of my shopping in Burlington," she added. "That is a thing of the past."

Rep. Gregory Clark, R-Vergennes, said local business owners are nervous in part because they have heard promises that something would be done, but they haven't seen much action.

"Nobody is seeing any pilings being driven," he said

[Dichotomous]

its funny, people act like there is a huge alarm that goes off after 50 years or whenever the design age is, and thats when everything has to start, or that things erode or degrade predictably. and then they all want immediate action, because its all the states' fault and they should have known and all this. are those towns on the edges or those people gonna front a part of the dozens of millions to fix or replace it? when you look at the balance sheets for the states, (and this is cold but reality) would fixing the bridge at the much money even make sense? sure there are a couple small towns that will be very hard hit, and some people will either have to move or loose their jobs, some businesses will go under or make major changes, but does that bridge really constitute a worth of a 1/4 of the cost (feds will likely take half, each state half) to protect those people and businesses that depend on the bridge?

devils advocate of course here, but before a new bridge exists there must be surveys and analysis' and cost calcs and voting and design and permits and approvals and public reviews and it really will be at the VERY least (with the weather and typical northeasternly procedures) 5-10 years before a new bridge is there. and by that time, the worst will be done as far as impact of the closing, and if the worst is done and some private entrepenures are running ferries.... why bother replacing the bridge at all?

[AHAMAYs2]

If only you could be a polition, you could take care of this properly. Nicely done Dichotomous.

[yesterdayze]

its funny, people act like there is a huge alarm that goes off after 50 years or whenever the design age is, and thats when everything has to start, or that things erode or degrade predictably. and then they all want immediate action, because its all the states' fault and they should have known and all this. are those towns on the edges or those people gonna front a part of the dozens of millions to fix or replace it? when you look at the balance sheets for the states, (and this is cold but reality) would fixing the bridge at the much money even make sense? sure there are a couple small towns that will be very hard hit, and some people will either have to move or loose their jobs, some businesses will go under or make major changes, but does that bridge really constitute a worth of a 1/4 of the cost (feds will likely take half, each state half) to protect those people and businesses that depend on the bridge?

devils advocate of course here, but before a new bridge exists there must be surveys and analysis' and cost calcs and voting and design and permits and approvals and public reviews and it really will be at the VERY least (with the weather and typical northeasternly procedures) 5-10 years before a new bridge is there. and by that time, the worst will be done as far as impact of the closing, and if the worst is done and some private entrepenures are running ferries.... why bother replacing the bridge at all?

I hear what you are saying, and agree that yeah, SOME of it is just tough luck. As far as them predicting the bridges erosion, I agree with you. Playing devils advocate for the people though, you would think it would be standard procedure to check it on a bi-yearly basis or something. At least a visual inspection. As far as rebuilding it, yeah, it will take a while and the process can only be pushed so quickly. You are in this stuff professionally and I respect that you know a lot more then I do about the proccess.

I guess what gets me is that I suppose I was under the mistaken impression that I was paying taxes, registration and licensing fees etc for a reason.

[markbvt]

before a new bridge exists there must be surveys and analysis' and cost calcs and voting and design and permits and approvals and public reviews and it really will be at the VERY least (with the weather and typical northeasternly procedures) 5-10 years before a new bridge is there.

I actually wonder how much of that process has to happen to replace an existing bridge. Of course all that shit needs to happen to build an entirely new bridge (ie, in a new location), but it seems like the process should be considerably shortened in a case like this where the bridge has been there for 80 years and it's just a matter of replacing it.

And by the way, it's not just a matter of saving the small businesses nearby. That bridge is an important link for interstate commerce and an important piece of national infrastructure -- possibly critical in the event of a major emergency (say, for instance, Vermont residents need to evacuate westward or New York ones eastward, or there's a natural disaster on the New York side of the lake requiring the assistance of Vermont emergency crews, or whatever). It's just plain a bad idea not to span the lake somewhere near the middle of its 100-mile length, and ferries just don't cut it.

--mark

[Dichotomous]

If only you could be a polition, you could take care of this properly. Nicely done Dichotomous.

my scenario and applying logic train above would not be very popular however, I'd get voted out.

basically it all runs with how important a bridge across the lake at that spot is to the states, could be they decide it would be better placed somewhere else too, somewhere closer to where more traffic would be generated, especially if they are gonna toll it. might end up making more sense to put the bridge further north, span would be longer and it might hop and island or two, but if they tolled it there would be considerably more traffic closer to burlington. these are all considerations the states have to make (and you would really hope they address them when spending millions of taxpayer dollars not just from those towns but all of the state) to determine if that place is a good place for a bridge rebuild. sympathy for individuals and specific businesses (unless they are very major economic or political players ie IBM) has to be put aside for projects on this scale.

also the inspection process, well, its addressed, but the problem is that there are hundreds of bridges in vermont, and imagine how many in new york, and you need a skilled person to inspect it for anything other than general "is there a bridge there?" kinda certification, and if the bridge was degrading at a certain rate previously and all seemed well for 70 years, then maybe they didnt worry about it every year, kind of the "its been there so long, probably gonna still be there".

and though the use is still there for the bridge, they will not rebuild it the same way its built, new technology and process has evolved in the 80 years and they can make better, cheeper, stronger, longer lasting bridges now, so they will come up with a new design and it will be all wizbang or at least start out that way. but all that new tech might need to be proven, might need to be verified, might already be, but it will need to pass approval. almost NEVER have I ever seen any municipality replace something with exactly to a T what was there (especially not very old major bridges costing dozens of millions of dollars....., would YOU want to pay for 80 year old tech at todays prices?), and those changes will need to be reviewed, publicly and privately. since the bridge is so old it might harbor archeologists to determine it needs proper study before anyone touches it or removes or works around it, that takes time. traffic studys will DEFINATELY be done, THOSE take time, especially since they should study on a more macro level where the best place for the bridge should be, that means multiple traffic studies and geosocial studies, then enter politics into that (what town wants to make the process easier to put the bridge there.....

[yesterdayze]

my scenario and applying logic train above would not be very popular however, I'd get voted out.

basically it all runs with how important a bridge across the lake at that spot is to the states, could be they decide it would be better placed somewhere else too, somewhere closer to where more traffic would be generated, especially if they are gonna toll it. might end up making more sense to put the bridge further north, span would be longer and it might hop and island or two, but if they tolled it there would be considerably more traffic closer to burlington. these are all considerations the states have to make (and you would really hope they address them when spending millions of taxpayer dollars not just from those towns but all of the state) to determine if that place is a good place for a bridge rebuild. sympathy for individuals and specific businesses (unless they are very major economic or political players ie IBM) has to be put aside for projects on this scale

Hey wait, I remember this from Star Trek "The good of the many out weighs the needs of the few".... as I recall the moral was that the good of the few sometimes outweighs the needs of the many because the good of the few may in turn BE the needs of the many. Say that five times fast....

[Dichotomous]

Hey wait, I remember this from Star Trek "The good of the many out weighs the needs of the few".... as I recall the moral was that the good of the few sometimes outweighs the needs of the many because the good of the few may in turn BE the needs of the many. Say that five times fast....

I agree completely, but check my update above, I dont see a bridge happening anytime soon, and by then, those needs of the few, are gone. the few being the people needing commutes or access, the majority rerouted.

[markbvt]

also the inspection process, well, its addressed, but the problem is that there are hundreds of bridges in vermont, and imagine how many in new york, and you need a skilled person to inspect it for anything other than general "is there a bridge there?" kinda certification, and if the bridge was degrading at a certain rate previously and all seemed well for 70 years, then maybe they didnt worry about it every year, kind of the "its been there so long, probably gonna still be there".

It's not like they didn't have warning. This is a pic (on the NY DOT website!) of the bridge from four years ago:

and though the use is still there for the bridge, they will not rebuild it the same way its built, new technology and process has evolved in the 80 years and they can make better, cheeper, stronger, longer lasting bridges now, so they will come up with a new design and it will be all wizbang or at least start out that way.

Clearly -- no one ever said they'd build a clone of the existing bridge. But it's a safe bet they'll go with a tried and tested design, not some super-high-tech thing that's unproven and therefore needs testing.

--mark

[Dichotomous]

that'll buff right out




*had to be said

[yesterdayze]

It's not like they didn't have warning. This is a pic (on the NY DOT website!) of the bridge from four years ago:


--mark

I don't get it Looks fine to me.... this is new england, what's a little rust between friends....?

[Dichotomous]

I don't get it Looks fine to me.... this is new england, what's a little rust between friends....?

the rust is probably fine really, steel is redonkulously strong and far, far, far over designed, every step along the way adds another factor of safety, and there are about 8,000 steps to design each connection and beam.....

the concrete is the problem though, its good and overstrong when intact..... when crumbling its effective strength is... well lets say reduced significantly?

[Icehole]

wow, that pic above is scary!

[obsolete]

Dichotomous, I understand and agree with what your saying about how to deal with the situation now that is has happened. I do however think the states fucked their residents and that the situation should have never got to that point.

[Dichotomous]

Dichotomous, I understand and agree with what your saying about how to deal with the situation now that is has happened. I do however think the states fucked their residents and that the situation should have never got to that point.

agreed, absolutely

[obsolete]

A rushed not well planned out project will just screw the residents again either right away or 50 years down the line.

[Rambunctous]

A rushed not well planned out project will just screw the residents again either right away or 50 years down the line.

They are gonna be screwed paying for the borrowing by the Obama and friends as it is. So just put the new bridge on the tab. Name it after the governor. Whatever state borrows the most gets naming rights.