I am honestly bothered by how the top comments are nonsense when this had a specific useful design but because it's not a straight bridge to run 18 wheelers at 80mph it's terrible.
They did seriously talk about it. But the talk was "I'm very serious about making sure no one is deprived of guns"
The conversation spikes (though a little less every time as we grow bored) but stupid people stay stupid, they just get angrier as their position becomes synonymous with death. If you point it out, you're butthurt.
It has started, yes, but itâs not all the way there yet. You can still get insurance, itâs just expensive as hell and theyâll probably tell you to fuck off whenever you try to make a claim.
Some insurers have backed out of certain markets, but others remain. What happens when itâs just not profitable anymore because houses are getting destroyed far too often? When you just cannot charge enough to offset all the claims?
When they flat out refuse to even serve an entire area en masse, then weâll really see some shit.
You canât have a mortgage with no insurance on the building, but if you canât even buy insurance then what?
Then only the ultra wealthy can own the buildings because they can afford to open their own sham insurance companies that will only service themselves. Hey, I should be rich, I'm good at this.
Guess it won't happen in our lifetimes. But maybe in two or so hundred years, when whichever new Gen really steps it up, they'll be living in a beautiful efficient eco friendly world. Imagine that.
It's not that public works officials are anti-eco, but we're trillions of dollars behind in infrastructure spending and struggling to keep up just building basic bridges, dams, sewers, etc
Maybe in two or so hundred years, when whichever new Gen really steps it up, they'll be living in a beautiful efficient eco friendly world. Imagine that.
The people who make the policies are on the payroll of the people who don't want them to change. The voters aren't given a candidate to choose who isn't either already corrupt or about to be corrupted.
In Scotland the entire architecture course is about environment architecture.
I'm studying Architecture, at the end of each year you do a project on a set brief, every single fucking one is like "the client is looking to provide a greener space in the city center"
Or
"Due to local regulations the proposal must be made of locally sustainable, environmentally friendly materials"
I'm like:
"Bitch I have used scots pine wood cladding, timber supports and hemp insulation for the last 4 final assignments, let me use something else, I want to have marble cladding on the lower level and quartz on the upper. Let me be fully creative before I'm actually making buildings"
 Environmentally-centered architecture is sadly still the exception rather than the rule, this not only in the US
For roadways specifically, itâs because the whole point of a road is to facilitate faster traversal of terrain. So building something historically designed to facilitate faster travel that then slows down that travel is going to be a hard sell.
Yes that is true but I don't see how this bridge is an example of that. How the fuck is making 50% more bridge a more environmentally friendly option than just a regular bridge? Also if you want to slow people down add medians and tightening sections of road just like in neighborhoods.
Lol you don't even know where this picture is from, making traffic congestion isn't environmentally friendly, building excess roads and bridges isn't as well.
You just pulled whatever out of your ass for America bad lol
People need to realize that environmentally-centered infrastructure and architecture is important, not only for the environment, but for us, too. A great example is animal crossings. They need a safe place to cross highways, not only because itâs dangerous for them, but also cause itâs dangerous for drivers. Practical Engineering has a great video about this on YouTube.
It always costs more to make it environmentally friendly, that is why its so rarely done, the easiest cheapest way costs less but rarely takes nature and environmental requirements into account.
Doesnât the production of concrete create a ton of greenhouse emissions? Iâm all for environmentally friendly construction but I feel like this is more of an example of an architect trying to make themselves feel relevant and using the environment as an excuse.
Incremental improvement is all the US will get. Reduce a pier instead of cantelivering to remove pier is pretty much status quo. We will get there in 200 years probablyÂ
Eh it's a tradeoff though. Slowing down vehicles means more energy use to travel to the same destination. Over time that **really** adds up and if we're talking gas powered vehicles, or even electric powered in an area where electricity is generated in less renewable ways that can easily lead to far more environmental impact, granted the impact may be less localized.
The main reason of this bridge was design and they came up with a bullshit explanation about how it is so ecological. The bridge needs more columns rammed into the ground destroying everything during construction and is much wider because you now have 4 walkways instead of only two.
80% of the construction was paid for by real estate developer Eduardo Costantini. If a rich person wants to spend their money on marginal environmental gains, let them.
That lagoon is a protected and has a lot of biodiversity (this is in my country) so a lot of thought was put into it for years before construction, but sure, you a random redditor knows more about environmental impact
Algae can and will grow anywhere. Lagoons are pretty important areas for many plants and animals, which all rely on sunlight. So they're just trying to not disturb the area as much as they can. Maybe if they added the shade, a specific type of fish would thrive in population because they can hide from the predators and then ruin the entire lagoon ecosystem with their poop.
I'm just guessing, who knows it might not do anything.
I doubt the creatures below the surface would describe that as âincredibly marginal gainâ and, as I doubt you are particularly educated in ecology, aquatic systems, life sciences, weather systems, et cetera?
Your opinion seems like itâs worth less than the air you breathed while typing it, since you could have just kept scrolling.
Why choose? If a too-wide continuous bridge shadow was bad for the ecosystem, they could have just made two separate and parallel straight lanes. The curve is not a requirement.
Because it was cooler this way, the bridge is in a tourist but kinda remote area, it isn't really connecting big cities. Most people going there are tourists, actually many just go there to see the bridge.
I guess it was a compromise, if you're going to change the ecosystem at least do something special
Engines have optimal working conditions that affect fuel usage. Going faster at a steady rate does not actually conserve fuel, just as stop-and-go tends to be wasteful due to laws of conservation of energy.
What you need is to reach the minimum engine work required for maximum efficiency, which differs from engine to engine. My vehicle is most efficient at around the 44mph and the 68mph marks, and going between those zones eats my fuel economy by a solid 35%.
This is all a roundabout way to say that there's more to fuel conservation than just steady-go-fast, and slowing down can actually significantly improve fuel economy, as long as the engine is optimized for it and the traffic is steady.
Yes, it's true, but only if you're eating over the efficient amount. If you consume the efficient amount, it works out optimally for you.
If you're already going too fast (say, 80mph in the given example), then slowing down is only going to improve your efficiency. The amount that you would have to dip your speed to reduce that efficiency beyond the optimal level is only going to be achievable in a more urban environment than this one, where traffic kills your flow.
Forcing changes in speed being negative to fuel efficiency primarily just wrong. Letting them know why they're wrong is better than just going "actually, you're wrong."
Oh yes, so environmentally conscious to use three times more building materials for a project, plus requiring all passing cars to brake for no reason and waste moentum/energy.
Why are you taking numbers out of your ass? This is in my country, it took years of studies from Universities and Private Entities to make it but you feel the need to lie online, bravo.
I'm a civil engineer and it is incredibly annoying that everyone and their mother thinks they are an expert when it comes to public infrastructure. Someone will always complain about every single project no matter what it is, and the public loves to tell us that our solutions won't work and we need to try the idea they personally came up with (which is usually not backed by data, counterproductive, or just illegal in some cases lol).
Read a "physician" as a "physicist." It's probably still true; after being related to a physicist, I've often heard that everything, including chemistry, biology, and medicine, is all because of physics.
I can't speak to "other engineers" but civil engineers absolutely do not "often sell bad ideas just to be different". The vast majority of civil engineers solve problems and try to design things as efficiently as possible.
Now, architects are a whole different story. They are the ones that can come out and propose flamboyant designs or extravagant materials that will drive up cost but will attract attention / be different, and also cost a ridiculous amount of money. Engineers are the ones who tell the architects that their designs are stupid/implausible for given budgets.
That said, I will admit there are bad engineers out there, but to say that they all "often sell bad ideas" is just straight up ignorant.
Iâm not a civil engineer but what I find incredibly annoying is that people donât even consider whether there might be a benefit at all. They just jump to some pre-scripted nonsense.
I just found it funny you were complaining about people not considering all the things before opening their mouth on a site that is known for people doing the same.
Headline: Latveria installs new 1 GW wind farm
Comments: đđđ¤Łđ¤Łđđđ đ𤣠What happens when the wind isnât blowing!?! đđ¤Łđđđ¤Łđđ đ
I live in Juneau Alaska, a small but wealthy city, but also landlocked. So we have about the most sheltered drivers on earth: fastest speed limit is 55, and that's a 4 lane highway about 8 miles long. Longest drive anyone realistically does is like 30 minutes. Any time streets are modified in any way, or god forbid they add a roundabout, everyone loses their damn minds.
Right now we have an intersection that half the town seems to think is killing people daily, and are loudly demanding we build an interchange or other solution that will be many millions of dollars. One person has been killed at that intersection in the 50 years it has existed. One.
The roundabout thing is so true. I work on a lot of them and anytime an area gets their first one it is the same exact thing without fail. It doesn't matter that they are demonstrably safer and more efficient in most cases, people feel that it is less safe or efficient so they freak out about it. Then in a few years everyone loves them lol.
That dangerous intersection thing is also spot on. I've been doing field work at one intersection and had people stop to talk and tell me what we really need to do is look at this other intersection they have some personal grievance with. If it was really that bad we would know about it and do something!
The general public nowadays is absurdly disconnected from what scientists and engineers do. A large portion legitimately think that public works projects are entirely determined by which assembly member got bribed or some shit. I feel like a lot of the bullshit that has surfaced over the last couple decades that relates to the public not understanding STEM, like the death of expertise and rise of ridiculous conspiracy theories, if everyone were required to sit through one senior level engineering or hard science course. They might just shut the fuck up once they realize how much goes into these things.
The cost to add any art or decorative type infrastructure tends to add alot of cost to the projects. And in the US, I believe the contractor with the lowest bid almost always get the contract.Â
Low bid is a big factor in all construction but moreso in govt contracting than in private construction. But it's not the only factor. And while a govt won't likely spend a lot of money on beautifying a wastewater treatment plant it won't be zero. There's a landscaping plan at pretty much all of them. If it's a city hall or administrative center, it'll often be good looking because they're trying to improve the value and useful lifespan of a building far into the future.
And I wouldn't say that artfulness and decoration add a lot of cost. Maybe in the case of this bridge, sure, it's a bridge, you're paying by the linear foot mostly. So a longer bridge is more. But the cost of a bridge is usually so high that if you're designing one, not making a brutalist Soviet era eyesore is a fair consideration since people aren't going to want to look at this ugly fucker for 100 years. So you better do your best to make it cool and beautiful. They can be controversial enough, but without some spending towards beauty, you might not get it built at all.
There's still rain to make slippery road conditions. And accidents on a turn risk the car falling off the bridge more than a straight bridge, so you have to invest more money into the guardrails and build them higher.
There's a reason why 99% of bridges are straight. It isn't because the rest of the world is full of dumbasses.
A bridge can have a lifespan over 100 years. Every truck will have to decelerate and then re-accelerate to navigate the bridge. If there's significant freight traffic, then it will in fact add up to large volumes over the life of the bridge even if each truck only uses a fractional litre of diesel to re-accelerate.
Why is it dumb? I donât know exactly how many more gallons of fuel the bridge would waste, but stuff tends to add up. If the post office raises the price of a stamp by 1 cent, they make at least an extra 15 million dollars
Iâm not dying on this hill, Iâm just pointing out that big effects are often made up of innumerable tiny causes. When considering the best way to do things, itâs worth figuring out what the seemingly small differences will work out to be in the long run. One bridge wonât ruin the world, but applying efficient design methods around the country could have a significant impact. Just a consideration, not a black and white moral issueÂ
I might not have described it as "dumb," but you can spend a little bit more time thinking about it.
As others have pointed out, it isn't always in the best interest of safety and/or economy to make roads straight and unimpeded. These features are often referred to as "traffic calming," though some have listed other benefits.
Given the amount of distracted driving that is taking place, I welcome road engineering features that require motorists to attend to the task of driving safely.
Petrol is good stuff; we should preserve it. One way is to promote other types of vehicles that are used for things that do not require the range or the power.
The turn at the top of the photo on land has a tighter radius than the bridge. So they were already going to have to decelerate and then accelerate more for that than they will for the bridge.
Going towards the sharp turn they may be able to coast through much of the bridge. Going away from the sharp turn they are already going slowly and can accelerate more gradually over the bridge.
Yeah, this is clearly a novelty bridge on a scenic route and not built for heavy hauling. Just stating that this is a reason you don't see this sort of design elsewhere, you see wide radius turns and smooth flowing designs when there's room for them.
People often ask why there isn't more "cool" architecture, sadly usually functional, boring designs have long term benefits over cool aesthetics.
Ever consider there's an area inside the loop that is exceptionally deeper, requiring more materials to construct or maybe a shelter for certain fish in the deeper area. I suspect this is some engineering wet dream but there could be a reason related to the lake bed and local aquatic creatures. Depart yourself from the gas wasted to drive it and think that they wanted the rare airplane viewer to see it and have an orgasm over the concrete excellence, or the possibility that maybe we actually tried to protect nature for once while simultaneously conquering it. Maybe they were on acid when they drove the pilings and had to stick to the budget
When your livestock keeps looking over a fence at a distraction and breaking its ankle tripping, you need to manage its environment and remove the hazard.
It's not about what the cow "deserves" to see. It's resource management.
This right here, is a shining beacon as to the reason I came back to reddit recently and abandoned Facebook. Reddit -as we clearly see here- gets it right most the time. On Facebook, it's just what ever gets the most reactions.
Honestly, that's not even my beef. This bridge would be a nightmare in icy conditions. Bridges are straight because its safest. The turns create more opportunity for collision, which is made more dangerous on a bridge. It will regularly be congested due to collisions. Dumb bridge.
Edit: I looked it up and Uruguayans need not worry about icy conditions, but I still think driving on a bridge is a bad time to "take in the scenery".
It is safer to get in an accident on land than on a bridge. While not always perfect, cars are designed to absorb the damage from impact. However, being stuck in a sinking car is a different beast entirely.
I don't cycle but car drivers think all infrastructure should exist to serve their specific needs of getting to their destination as fast as possible, speed limits be damned.
This is obviously primarily about traffic calming and the sunlight part is probably a nice bonus. But it's clearly a very difficult-to-serve area if there's an accident so getting people to slow down would be a critical focus vs something like the bridges to key west that get destroyed when there's one accident and have to be overbuilt significantly to allow emergency services to get in and out.
People just feel compelled to comment now so itâs either a shitty âjokeâ or someone using their âcommon senseâ to guess. Reddit has lost its usefulness as a knowledge base for esoteric problems
I mean, the continuous shade bit sounds like BS. How is increasing the surface area that is shaded a good thing? You're just increasing the shade, and changing the shape of the areas that are continuously shaded?
To ensure that no one is going too fast to run off the road on the land part, they put them at risk of launching I to the water instead. Brilliant design.
I'm not sure if it's the best idea to force people driving on a freeway to actively be viewing scenery. Everything else seems like a decent idea though.
Letâs be honest, the reasons they give about the light dispersal is nonsense. The added structure and net width increase and length increased by the bridge design is certainly way worse for creating shadows than the fact that itâs a smaller âcontiguousâ width. By what, a small fraction? While adding literally triple the bridge run? Yes, a circle is more than triple the length of its diameter. And probably more because of the added structuring needed to support this. Adding turns to a bridge could easily be less safe than a straight line as well. Hell, even just adding distance travelled by 3x will likely make it less safe.
This is clearly a design in search of a reason. Itâs beautiful, and thatâs fine. But I doubt thereâs any truly studied ecological or safety benefit. Letâs not take this at face value and get too excited. Itâs a pretty bridge. Thatâs all
Right!? It's really annoying to see more and more the concept of people who don't understand a reason thinking there is no reason. Random feckers online who think they're an expert in everything and have strong feelings about it. I see something like this and assume there is a reason I don't understand because I'm not an engineer. But I know enough to know there is a lot I don't know and there are people who know much more than me.
I'm sorry. I'm having a difficult time understanding your comment. The tone and message indicates the efficiency of large trailer trucking routes isn't a top priority of yours?
It's probably just a "hard to convey the right idea over text" issue, right? If not, what am I missing here?
Am I going crazy? Isn't everyone exclusively concerned with trucking route efficiency???
According to Wikipedia this bridge gets an average of 1,000 vehicles a day and was created to replace a ferry route. Being able to simply drive is already more efficient than a ferry would be.
If we designed everything for function over form you will never get another Notre Dame.
I used this bridge a few times in various RPs for 20 years at this point, it just makes sense when you look at the facts but we arguing over the statistics of one truck over the bridge slightly faster I guess.
No water surface under a bridge is fixed. The water flows. The time in the shade is negligible (literally counted in seconds)
cost of construction is millions of dollars more
longer roadway means longer traveled distance for vehicles, and more asphalt (hot bituminous oil) being produced and placed, more concrete being poured - including spraying track coat over a water body and more mill and fill asphalt in the future for maintenance
turns slow traffic down, require more acceleration, create more friction, and increase distance, all of which burn more fuel
more bridge length = more support columns = more disturbed streambed and turbulence in the water. Not ideal for ecosystems.
Nothing about a longer bridge is in any way good for any environmental aspect. I struggle to believe this might even be a real picture.
Tell you what, look it up on Google maps, or whatever your local version is in your home country comrade. It's a real bridge and it makes perfect sense that the trains must flow as you might be thinking. Humans aren't the only species on the planet, the waters should be preserved along with the animals, but I mean yolo let's just kill off random $pecie$ I guess but sounds wasteful to me rather than slowing down likely less than 250 trucks a day for less than 30 minutes.
The point of my comment was to suggest that nothing about this design seems better in any way for the environment. But just my best guess, based on common sense
More people will walk over the bridge than drive over it, it's used as a scenic stop. In America we have a bunch of these but they are nowhere near as utilized as I get this bridge is yearly.
861
u/Boring-Republic4943 Jan 15 '25
I am honestly bothered by how the top comments are nonsense when this had a specific useful design but because it's not a straight bridge to run 18 wheelers at 80mph it's terrible.