BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Mr. Luddite

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

Because they weren't intended to be interstate bridges.

------------------------------

A bridge on *Interstate Route 95" is not an interstate bridge?

Whoooosh...... I'll try again. In cities, where interstates were
extended, added, spurs, etc. were placed long after the original
interstate system was in place. A lot of these add ons were aligned
to
take advantage of in-place roadways including bridges, tunnels etc.
These in-place infrastructures were not intended to carry the
traffic
that interstate travel imposes.

-----------------------------

Sorry. I don't buy that at all. As pointed out in a previous post,
a
roadway or bridge that is "added" to the federal interstate roadway
system must be built or upgraded to the specifications contained in
DOT and specifically the Federal Highway Commission requirements.
The requirements and specs today are much more stringent than they
were back in the 50's and certainly more stringent than those for
non-federal, local roads.

Go ahead and type your four-letter word starting with "C".

I've never used Scotty's word, where do you get that idea? Also, I
posted an example of a bridge that was re-purposed and certainly does
not meet federal DOT guidelines. Where did you get the idea that they
must be upgraded to meet those guidelines?

------------------------

About 30 seconds of proficient Googling will yield the answer to your
question.