Boots,
Doesn't it sound reasonable to you that a bridge should be built strong
enough to withstand normal wave action, such as boats and normal winds
generate. Most windy days produce waves that are larger than most boat
wakes. My major point was that $27,500 was ludicrous unless you rammed the
bridge and caused that much in damage.
Paul

"Boots Crofoot" wrote in message
. ..
It does not take too much smarts to understand that a storm
is an act God and Man can not control that but a wake is man
made and can be controlled.
"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in
message ...
Boots,
Just wondering what a wake can do that a storm couldn't
do a lot better.
If the bridge is in that much jeopardy, perhaps they need to
fix the bridge.
Also, how do they show that your boat caused $27,500 worth
of damage? A bad
Easterly storm did about $5,000 worth of damage to my
property one day, but
that's the breaks when you live on a big lake.
Paul

"Boots Crofoot" wrote in message
. ..
It has been a rule for ever that a Capt. of a vessel is
responsible for any and all damage caused by his or her
boat. That is law. Bout time you are responsible for your
actions
"JK" wrote in message

...
See link below. (FL. msnbc news)
http://www.msnbc.com/local/wbbh/ifyourefinc.asp
JK

"NOYB" wrote in message news:uVPyb.538
The concrete isn't failing from cyclic fatigue from boat wakes...more likely
from car, truck, bus traffic on top.

Who told you this? Did the DOT engineers tell you this? If so, they
don't know a whole hell of a lot about the properties of concrete, and
or water. Whoever made the above statement is sadly mistaken. First,
it isn't "fatigue" from boat wakes that harms the concrete. The
problem lies in the water's ability to, over time, erode the concrete,
just like water erodes earth, only slower. It will eat away at the
fine aggregate/concrete until enough of it is gone to slough off
chunks of the course aggregate. That is only the beginning of the
problem, though. The wake also causes erosion around and under the
bridge piers and abutments, and this causes the most harm. The "car,
truck, bus traffic on top" is of little consequence. That portion of
the bridge is designed for the that particular cyclic loading. The
attachments have *give* to them, to allow for movement, the deck
itself is well designed to take the loads, the whole thing is designed
for the vibration and movement from those loads, and the whole bridge
is designed to expand/contract with temperature cycles.

"NOYB" wrote in message news:%IOyb.455
A boat wake is causing chunks of concrete to fall off? Puh-leeeeze!

Yes. Again, certainly shows what you know about the properties of
concrete, and or water. Nothing. Water will erode concrete just like
it erodes earth, only at a slower pace. The problem here isn't just
the concrete bridge, but erosion around the piers and abutements. But,
because of your above statement, I'm sure you don't understand that.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message news:wEOyb.23809
Damn! It is a concrete bridge. Shame on the locals and the state for
letting it get in such deplorable condition that the wake from a 21' boat
would cause it to come down.

Who said that a wake from a 21' boat was going to "make it come down"?
From that statement, I take it you don't understand a thing about
concrete (HOW much does it weigh?) or you'd certainly know that it is
a HUGE problem. Not on just this bridge, but all over. They just
completed a few billion dollar rehab on the bridge over Lake
Ponchetrain in La. because the piers were eroding, and not just in the
ship channel, just the wave action will do it over time.

Seems to me

1.IF wakes will damage the bridge, is it safe for cars?

2. How will they prevent the wind from kicking up the water there?

"Florida Keyz" wrote in message
...
Seems to me

1.IF wakes will damage the bridge, is it safe for cars?

2. How will they prevent the wind from kicking up the water there?

Simple. After a duly noticed hearing, a "Public Comment Period" and the
posting of signs they will simply ban the wind.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.4466ae3a77ff2d7c375b827d913aa2ed@107 0455688.cotse.net...
NOYB wrote:

Amen Bill.

Boat wakes aren't destroying that bridge. Nevertheless, ever since that
causeway was placed, it has screwed up the marine life around that
area. It
restricts the flow from Pine Island Sound and the Caloosahatchee. I'd
like
to see the damn thing ripped out completely and replaced with a
suspension
bridge or ferry service.

A boat wake is causing chunks of concrete to fall off? Puh-leeeeze!


Well, I don't know the particulars of that bridge but yes, boat wakes
can indeed "erode" the concrete right off of bridge supports. As a
dentist, you certainly understand enough of the principles of civil
engineering to visualize what happens over time to a fixed structure
when a liquid, especially one containing some grit, is constantly
washing over it.

Boat wakes can be troublesome to bridges.



Don't you fish around and under bridges in your area? Bridge supports
attract lots of fish.

I usually fish weekends, and the bridges are always too crowded to make it
enjoyable. You have to constantly worry about some dunce dropping a 3 ounce
triangle sinker on your head...not to mention another dunce slamming you
against a piling with his wake. Instead, I prefer to fish
offshore...especially in season. In the summer, when the boat traffic is
down, I fish the bridges on occassion. With all of the great mangrove-laden
shoreline, bridges are way down the list of fishing holes.

In SW Florida, you need 2 boats. One to fish offshore when the boat traffic
is up...and a second to fish inshore when the seas are up or you're
targeting the backwater fish.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.4466ae3a77ff2d7c375b827d913aa2ed@107 0455688.cotse.net...
NOYB wrote:

Amen Bill.

Boat wakes aren't destroying that bridge. Nevertheless, ever since
that
causeway was placed, it has screwed up the marine life around that
area. It
restricts the flow from Pine Island Sound and the Caloosahatchee. I'd
like
to see the damn thing ripped out completely and replaced with a
suspension
bridge or ferry service.

A boat wake is causing chunks of concrete to fall off? Puh-leeeeze!


Well, I don't know the particulars of that bridge but yes, boat wakes
can indeed "erode" the concrete right off of bridge supports.

I'm familiar with the Sanibel Causeway. If you read the article, the Coast
Guard talks about the safety of the boaters. They're concerned "chunks
could fall off and hit the boaters". The chunks they are talking about are
mostly from the overhead span, not the support polls. Waves aren't
responsible for that...a combination of environmental conditions, and the
multitude of dump trucks, construction vehicle traffic, delivery trucks, and
passenger cars are responsible.

"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message
...
Doug,
But the winds that do very frequently occur cause more of a wave than
the average wake. There's many a time I stayed in back of Estero Island
(which is just south of the bridge) rather than venture into the Gulf
because of the waves, those same waves if created by a boat would be
considered a wake. Now I understand reducing waves around docked boats so
they don't get damaged, but a bridge should be built to be sturdy enough
to
not be phased by normal everyday waves, either by boats or winds.
Paul

A bridge "should" be, but the ocean claims everything at some point, no
matter how it's built. There are no exceptions. If we could built bridge
supports out of diamonds, they'd still become shaky at SOME point in the
future. Hell...some people can't even keep water out of their basements no
matter how many tricks they try.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


I'm familiar with the Sanibel Causeway. If you read the article, the
Coast
Guard talks about the safety of the boaters. They're concerned "chunks
could fall off and hit the boaters". The chunks they are talking about
are
mostly from the overhead span, not the support polls. Waves aren't
responsible for that...a combination of environmental conditions, and the
multitude of dump trucks, construction vehicle traffic, delivery trucks,
and
passenger cars are responsible.



Here's a crazy analogy:

On the road, when you approach places where there are suddenly a higher
number of variables to watch for (like intersections), the painted line is
usually solid, which suggests that you shouldn't pass or change lanes. This
is a good idea.

While it may not always be true that the passage under a bridge is narrower
than the channel which leads up to it, it still seems like a good idea for
boats to slow down because there are more variables to be concerned with,
specifically bridge supports and boats which are suddenly closer to you.
Maybe even fishing lines which could result in YOU getting a large hook in
your face.

The amount of the fine is logically irrelevant. Would someone go SLOWER if
they agreed with a $100 fine, but faster if they disagreed with a $27,500
fine? :-) The law is the law, regardless of the fine.