Errr, 40 km would be closer to 25 miles than 13. Which might explain why it says that it would take a human 9 hours to walk the distance when the average human walk speed is 2-3 mph. Meaning it would take around 4-6 hours.
Wow. 3 billion dollars for a bridge that's 12,294 smoots long (give or take a half-smoot). Seems kind of cheap to me, at $244,021 per smoot. I mean, come on, one smoot has got to be more costly than that, these days. To make a comparison, the Harvard Bridge is only 364.4 smoots long, +/- an ear. If I imagine thirty-three and a quarter Harvard Bridges, end-to-end, -=linking Quatar and Bahrain=-, it would have to be more costly than a cool three billion. I mean, maybe the price is kind of a flat rate, but can you imagine how much they jack up the price of the twelve thousand two hundred and ninety-fifth smoot? My gut's telling me that they have to price the whole thing at the cost of the hypothetical last smoot, and if they did, it would be a lot more than $245,000.
Just sayin'.
@dfp3050: I wrestled with that, but I came down on the side of informing, to spread knowledge about the smoot as a unit of bridge measurement, in hopes that this might enrich the Gizmodo community's well of esoteric knowledge. Here today, gone tomorrow, though. The smoot will retain its obscurity and coolness, regardless. My physics professor used to throw in a few smoot problems in tests, just to give us a fun bit of work with units. Units and conversion are wonderful things to know and practice, don't you think?
So, if it takes $3B to complete this (surely a low estimate) and there are 20,000 trips a day (probably a high estimate) and you amortize this out over 10 years, each trip costs over $41.
I'm guessing each one of those trips is real important, otherwise this does not seem like a great investment.
@Bertone77: You should never calculate the costs of something like this over 50-70 years. If you can't earn a return on your money in under 10 years, that's a pretty poor investment. Additionally, you don't take into account the amount of maintenance over that time frame, which will be equal to at least 1/2 the cost of the bridge every 10 years or so over it's life.
@rotaryfan: Social good eh? I'm going to go ahead and guess the people in this country would probably choose to do something else with that $3B (or $10B when you're all said and done) if given the choice, unless of course each trip brings a $41 increase in wealth.
@Homerjay likes Belgiumese Puke Porn: usually, if you want to kill yourself by jumping off a bridge, you want to do it effectively by jumping off a high bridge. Surely, potential jumpers will want to jump off the cable-stayed portion of the bridge and not the causeway.
damn middle east with their low labour costs, 3 billion is nothing for a project this big. How about we get a couple bridges/tunnels this length linking Russia and Alaska.
24miles and all across water. The one above specifically says "longest marine causeway" which I assume means over the sea instead of over a lake. But longest is always confusing.
These architects must not be licensed or something...wow, stoooopid:
1) the loading per-square-foot with these usages would be HIGHER than being used as a bridge, and duh, its a tired old bridge
2) "Yeah, let's build a structure capable of having a half-million people on it that only has three exits...and one of them has a weather prediction of "wet, 52 degrees F with sharks"
3) They must be out-of-area because anyone that's commuted (on a motorcycle especially) can tell you that mid-bay weather is a combination of North Atlantic and Siberian.
4) "Yeah, let's build a 30ft-deep pool ABOVE work space. Ok, let's do the math: 7.4 gal/cu-ft * 8 lbs/gal * (guessing) 30-feet deep = 1776lbs / sq-ft.
Let's compare: a 2010 Ford Taurus takes up 61.75 sq-ft of bridge, and weighs a tad over 4000lbs. That's a static loading of 64lbs/sq-ft.
09/27/09
09/28/09
09/26/09
09/26/09
Just sayin'.
09/26/09
09/26/09
09/26/09
09/26/09
I'm guessing each one of those trips is real important, otherwise this does not seem like a great investment.
09/26/09
09/26/09
Why would you only amortize this over 10 years? Surely it will still be in use for 50-75 even 100+ years.
And you are forgetting the cost of Gas to tavel 4 hrs vs 30 min's the savings is huge when multiplied x 20,000 trips per day.
09/28/09
@rotaryfan: Social good eh? I'm going to go ahead and guess the people in this country would probably choose to do something else with that $3B (or $10B when you're all said and done) if given the choice, unless of course each trip brings a $41 increase in wealth.
09/26/09
09/26/09
In addition, he "technically" said; "Over 13 Miles Long"
"more than 13 miles long"
09/26/09
09/26/09
09/26/09
09/27/09
09/26/09
09/26/09
09/26/09
09/26/09
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake_Bay_Bridge-Tunnel
09/26/09
24miles and all across water. The one above specifically says "longest marine causeway" which I assume means over the sea instead of over a lake. But longest is always confusing.
09/26/09
09/22/09
09/20/09
09/20/09
Bangladesh, it was nice to know you...
09/20/09
09/20/09
1) the loading per-square-foot with these usages would be HIGHER than being used as a bridge, and duh, its a tired old bridge
2) "Yeah, let's build a structure capable of having a half-million people on it that only has three exits...and one of them has a weather prediction of "wet, 52 degrees F with sharks"
3) They must be out-of-area because anyone that's commuted (on a motorcycle especially) can tell you that mid-bay weather is a combination of North Atlantic and Siberian.
4) "Yeah, let's build a 30ft-deep pool ABOVE work space. Ok, let's do the math: 7.4 gal/cu-ft * 8 lbs/gal * (guessing) 30-feet deep = 1776lbs / sq-ft.
Let's compare: a 2010 Ford Taurus takes up 61.75 sq-ft of bridge, and weighs a tad over 4000lbs. That's a static loading of 64lbs/sq-ft.
"Moronical."
09/21/09