Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 05:03:48 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:
Just
like the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Toll $2. maintenance costs for bridge
less than 25 cents per car.
============================

Yes, and the SF Bay Bridge is a SERIOUS piece of construction compared
to the Sanibel Island bridge which is a low, medium size causeway
linked by a small lift span. With a $3 toll, it could have been
maintained to like new standards AND have built a new span along side.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

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

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

Yes...till it falls. Then it will be unsafe. Just ask the Gov't.

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

They will ban the wind. And if the wind blows, they will assess a $27,500
fine against God for each occurrance. The fine will be collected from all
churches in the area regardless of denomination. Those who don't believe in
God will get a refund (even though they didn't pay anything to begin
with...just like the income tax rebate for those who didn't pay any taxes).

There are different dynamics for water. A wake caused by a boat is not
the same as wave action from water. Now, of course, we can't change
the actions caused by wind, but we can change the actions caused by
idiots who can't read a no wake sign.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message ...
bass,
BTW - What does the sign "Slow Speed Minimal wake" mean? Just what is
minimal wake, how do you quantify that? It's sounds faster than "No Wake",
but to what degree?
Paul

Actually, Slow Speed Minimal Wake would be a better term than No Wake.
If you are going to move the boat, there is going to be some sort of
wake. Probably can't NOTICE it, but it's there. So, I would think that
minimal wake would be idle speed, the slowest forward (or reverse)
momentum possible for a particular boat. Quite simple, really.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message ...
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


Paul, the problem is, what the bridge is founded on.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

bass,
I don't claim to know bridge construction, but wouldn't it be founded on
bed rock, or at least huge caissons?
Paul

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message
...
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


Paul, the problem is, what the bridge is founded on.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

bass,
Forgive me, but I have a hard time with your statement, not withstanding
a wave caused by an underwater earthquake, which I think sets up a wave that
goes quite below the surface, I don't understand what the difference is
between a wind generated wave and a boat generated wave. Depending on the
wind and fetch or the size and speed of the boat one could be equal to the
other. In short I think they should build the construction strong enough to
last normal conditions that the bridge sees and perhaps even hurricane
conditions for these occur as well.
Paul

"basskisser" wrote in message
m...
"Mole" wrote in message
t...
"Florida Keyz" wrote in message
...
Seems to me

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

Yes...till it falls. Then it will be unsafe. Just ask the Gov't.

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

They will ban the wind. And if the wind blows, they will assess a
$27,500
fine against God for each occurrance. The fine will be collected from
all
churches in the area regardless of denomination. Those who don't
believe in
God will get a refund (even though they didn't pay anything to begin
with...just like the income tax rebate for those who didn't pay any
taxes).

There are different dynamics for water. A wake caused by a boat is not
the same as wave action from water. Now, of course, we can't change
the actions caused by wind, but we can change the actions caused by
idiots who can't read a no wake sign.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Bill,
When rebar rust it expands? Anything I've seen rusted was diminished in
size, eventually to nothing. I thought if the rebar was encapsulated in
cement it wouldn't rust due to lack of oxygen. I thought the purpose of
rebar was to strengthen the concrete and keep it from cracking. Are you
sure about this?
Paul

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"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.

From 99% of your posts, you prove you do not know ****! Sure, wear and
tear
from the water eroding the concrete causes problems. Even bigger problem
you do not seem to understand is the rebar rusts and expands and breaks
the
concrete. Normal wear and tear. But the USCG and the locals going for a
$27,000 fine for causing a wake? IT IS THE BRIDGE OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY
TO
MAINTAIN THE BRIDGE! They have used the revenues from the bridge for non
bridge items. No reserve to fix the bridge. Bridge is unsafe for boats.
Boaters should sue the local bridge district. If a boater gets a $27,000
fine, would be cheaper to sue the bridge owners than paying the fine.
Just
like the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Toll $2. maintenance costs for bridge
less than 25 cents per car. Local politicians want an election to raise
the
toll some more for mass transit, etc. Screw the minority who has to
travel
over the bridge. They get outvoted.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Greg,
BTW - Is it cheaper per trip if you get one of those bar code stickers
to allow you to pass through without having to throw coins in the basket, if
so, do you know by how much? Just curious.
Paul

"Greg" wrote in message
...
Just
like the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Toll $2. maintenance costs for
bridge
less than 25 cents per car. Local politicians want an election to raise
the
toll some more for mass transit, etc.

The sanibel bridge(s) have a toll of $3 and they want to make it $6. It is
a
causeway with 3 small bridges. Certainly nothing like the bay bridge. Lee
County has put the money in the general fund for decades.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Paul Schilter wrote:

Bill,
When rebar rust it expands?

Yes, it sure does.

Anything I've seen rusted was diminished in
size, eventually to nothing.

Well, if the rust flakes away, then sure it does. However, if the rust is
encapsulated along with the original material, the the whole thing expands.


I thought if the rebar was encapsulated in
cement it wouldn't rust due to lack of oxygen.

That's the idea, yes. But it doesn't always work perfectly.

I thought the purpose of
rebar was to strengthen the concrete and keep it from cracking.

The purpose of the rebar is to give the concrete some strength in tension.
Concrete is enormously strong in compression, but has almost zero tensile or
torsional strength.

The concrete can still crack from a number of causes... impact, water
penetration (especially during freeze-thaw cycles), etc etc.

Hope this helps

Doug King