ten2win
ten2win
Joined: Jul 27, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 329
October 14th, 2010 at 4:07:49 PM permalink
I noticed this article in today's online version of the LAT

Bridge

I've not seen any comments regarding this engineering marvel mentioned in any recent post's. We passed it driving over the dam on our drive to Las Vegas this past August. I was awed when I first saw it! A true feat of American making.

It should really cut down on travel time for those coming from Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

These pictures are pretty cool too.

Pictures
I don't know everything but I know a lot.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1398
  • Posts: 23604
October 16th, 2010 at 12:50:13 PM permalink
I plan to see it for myself whenever it opens. I find it rather annoying that they can't give out an exact date when it will be open to the public.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
October 16th, 2010 at 5:16:29 PM permalink
There are many people who feel that the country needs an interstate not only directly from
Phoenix to Las Vegas, but the thousand miles from Las Vegas to Portland. Not just for tourism,
but to ship goods from Mexico to Canada and in between.

If the turns out to be too ambitious, there is a federal law that is 15 years old:
Quote: Public Law 104-59, November 28, 1995


The CANAMEX Trade Corridor, as defined by Congress in the 1995 National Highway Systems Designation Act, is a High Priority Corridor.

(26) The CANAMEX Corridor from Nogales, Arizona, through Las Vegas, Nevada, to Salt Lake City, Utah, to Idaho Falls, Idaho, to Montana, to the Canadian Border as follows:

(A) In the State of Arizona, the CANAMEX Corridor shall generally follow-- (i) I-19 from Nogales to Tucson; (ii) I-10 from Tucson to Phoenix; and (iii) United States Route 93 in the vicinity of Phoenix to the Nevada Border.

(B) In the State of Nevada, the CANAMEX Corridor shall follow-- (i) United States Route 93 from the Arizona Border to Las Vegas; and (ii) I-15 from Las Vegas to the Utah Border.

(C) From the Utah Border through Montana to the Canadian Border, the CANAMEX Corridor shall follow I-15.

JerryLogan
JerryLogan
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 1344
October 16th, 2010 at 8:34:48 PM permalink
This bridge is almost too good to be true. I too agree that it's very disturbing not being told exactly when the thing's gonna open for normal traffic. One of the latter reasons they gave for building it is to eliminate the need for checkpoints nearby the dam in Az. and Nv., presumably to keep the bad guys with TNT out. But it seems to me blowing up that incredible piece of architecture would be just as spectacular an act of terrorism as taking out part of the dam.

We don't need any road that comes into this country from anywhere in Mexico. All it does is bring in unsafe trucks driven by drivers who would rather take a thousand chances riding in a rig with sub-par brakes and tires, than stay in that 3rd world hole.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1398
  • Posts: 23604
October 16th, 2010 at 10:06:22 PM permalink
Quote: JerryLogan

One of the latter reasons they gave for building it is to eliminate the need for checkpoints nearby the dam in Az. and Nv., presumably to keep the bad guys with TNT out. But it seems to me blowing up that incredible piece of architecture would be just as spectacular an act of terrorism as taking out part of the dam.



I think this is the first time I have agreed with JL about something. Granted, I'm not an expert at blowing things up, but if somebody did have the ability to take out the Hoover Dam, or at least do serious damage to it, couldn't they exact much greater damage exploding the thing by a tall office building, like Tim McVeigh did? I have to question if the dam security for nine years has been a huge waste of money, not to mention the inconvenience to the drivers. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
October 16th, 2010 at 10:22:59 PM permalink
Quote: JerryLogan

This bridge is almost too good to be true. I too agree that it's very disturbing not being told exactly when the thing's gonna open for normal traffic. One of the latter reasons they gave for building it is to eliminate the need for checkpoints nearby the dam in Az. and Nv., presumably to keep the bad guys with TNT out. But it seems to me blowing up that incredible piece of architecture would be just as spectacular an act of terrorism as taking out part of the dam.

We don't need any road that comes into this country from anywhere in Mexico. All it does is bring in unsafe trucks driven by drivers who would rather take a thousand chances riding in a rig with sub-par brakes and tires, than stay in that 3rd world hole.



True, but those drivers are coming in today and are just driving and extra 150 miles (return) that they no longer will have to drive. That will gives those trucks 2.5 less hours on the road which will probably lead to less fatigue and less accidents as a result of the road.

Blowing up the Hoover Dam would have a much more catastrophic effect than blowing up a bridge.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
October 17th, 2010 at 12:26:15 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I think this is the first time I have agreed with JL about something. Granted, I'm not an expert at blowing things up, but if somebody did have the ability to take out the Hoover Dam, or at least do serious damage to it, couldn't they exact much greater damage exploding the thing by a tall office building, like Tim McVeigh did? I have to question if the dam security for nine years has been a huge waste of money, not to mention the inconvenience to the drivers. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.



Taking out the dam would cause orders of magnitude more damage and disruption than taking out the bridge, or destroying a more prosaic office building. There would be catastrophic downstream flooding, with the likely failure of all the main-stem dams downstream. Hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland would be flooded, and all of the river towns downstream would be heavily damaged. There would be a major loss of electrical generating capacity as well. To refill Lake Mead would take several years, perhaps decades. The only damage that would no longer occur would be the severing of the US 93 corridor (assuming the new bridge remained intact). But the economic cost would be gigantic. Oh yes, I almost forgot to mention--Southern California's water supply would be severely disrupted for years.

Hoover Dam is a uniquely high-value target, in that its destruction would affect a huge area. No office building's destruction--not even the Twin Towers--could come even close to wreaking the havoc that Hoover Dam's failure or deliberate destruction would cause. I've endured the long waits to get through the checkpoints, but in this case, I heartily agree with the rationale for the increased security.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
JerryLogan
JerryLogan
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 1344
October 17th, 2010 at 12:55:35 AM permalink
I've driven through those checkpoints maybe 20 times in the past 8 years, and each time I got waved through as if I were looking for and were directed to a parking spot at the ballpark. It was always abundantly clear that I could easily have had a trunkful of explosives, as could anyone who travels through those points in normal cars. All they do is make the SUV's and pickups go through a visual inspection. If the Hoover Dam were considered to be such a unique and easy target, the bad guys could have easily gotten a half dozen explosive-laden autos into the dam area in some sort of coordinated effort.

However, when I drove through those checkpoints during the first year after 9-11, it was a vastly different story. Every vehicle got searched and everyone was a suspect. I don't understand what happened to ease up security, but I read that certain experts' analyses that even slamming a 747 fully loaded with fuel into the Dam would not bring it down, may have been the reason. Still, the whole checkpoint thing doesn't make sense to me, at least in the way it's operated.

By the way, I've NEVER had to "endure long waits" since 2002 as mkl654321 says he's had to. It kind of makes one wonder just how much talent he has in order to be so prolific at making things up on the go in so many threads.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1398
  • Posts: 23604
October 17th, 2010 at 2:58:59 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

Taking out the dam would cause orders of magnitude more damage and disruption than taking out the bridge, or destroying a more prosaic office building. There would be catastrophic downstream flooding, with the likely failure of all the main-stem dams downstream. Hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland would be flooded, and all of the river towns downstream would be heavily damaged. There would be a major loss of electrical generating capacity as well. To refill Lake Mead would take several years, perhaps decades. The only damage that would no longer occur would be the severing of the US 93 corridor (assuming the new bridge remained intact). But the economic cost would be gigantic. Oh yes, I almost forgot to mention--Southern California's water supply would be severely disrupted for years.

Hoover Dam is a uniquely high-value target, in that its destruction would affect a huge area. No office building's destruction--not even the Twin Towers--could come even close to wreaking the havoc that Hoover Dam's failure or deliberate destruction would cause. I've endured the long waits to get through the checkpoints, but in this case, I heartily agree with the rationale for the increased security.



First, I question whether a conventional truck bomb could even take out the dam. As I recall when I did the tour years ago, they built the thing with much more concrete than required to hold back the water on the north side.

Second, even assuming they could destroy the dam, such a bomb should be able to take out not just an office building but half of Manhattan. I would think a terrorist would prefer that.

Third, the dam does not produce that much electricity. A single nuclear plant produces much more.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
October 17th, 2010 at 5:13:12 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

First, I question whether a conventional truck bomb could even take out the dam. As I recall when I did the tour years ago, they built the thing with much more concrete than required to hold back the water on the north side.



Not a chance. When you did the tour you ought to have noticed how wide the dam is on top. All of that is solid concrete. As you descend along the face of the dam, the concrete only gets wider. Besides, all a truck bomb could so is take a piece off the top, which would be bad but not a disaster.

A bomb on a boat on lake Mead would be much worse, plus you can pack more explosives on a large boat, but that wouldn't bring down the dam either.

Now, if you were to crash a commercial airliner near the base of the dam, who knows what would happen. But that would be difficult to do, as the route involves flying along a narrow canyon.

BTW taking out a bridge with a truck bomb isn't that easy, either. The bypass bridge by Hoover Dam, moreover, is an arch bridge, meaning it's supported by an arch under the roadway. Blow a truck on top and all you can take out is the roadway, which again would be bad but not a disaster.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal

  • Jump to: