[JayCT]

Originally Posted by sun

A bridge should have been built a long time ago when the construction costs weren't so high and the traffic congestion issues weren't as severe as they are now.

Construction costs have always been high for a project like this, relatively speaking. The real difference is today there are such ridiculous environmental processes that add millions to the cost of projects and add years (even decades) to the schedule. If you look at many of the major projects in the State today they are or have been bogged down in the environmental review and approval process for ages. The Q Bridge project in New Haven has been around for 20 years and will not be complete for 10 more years. The route for a new Route 6 through Bolton, Andover and Coventry is being questioned by the Army Corps of Engineers and has been delayed indefinitely. Route 11 has been talked about being extended for 30 years and there is still a lot of opposition based upon environmental concerns. It is really is crazy. Basically forget ever building anything new in the State because the environmentalists will strongly oppose it and the Feds will question it until it dies a slow agonizing and expensive death. JMHO Jay

[clamboy]

Originally Posted by sun

A bridge should have been built a long time ago when the construction costs weren't so high and the traffic congestion issues weren't as severe as they are now. But because fuel costs were so much lower, the project probably couldn't be justified.
IMO the reasons against it have always been based on politics rather than doing what's practical.
The reason why most people, including myself, don't visit LI is because it just isn't practical.
However, with the casinos and the desire for tourism on both sides of the sound, NYC bound traffic and high fuel costs, there really isn't a good reason why a bridge shouldn't be built.
There's always the haggling over where to build it, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't be built.
Just think about all of the people that would have been served and all of the fuel and driving time that could have been saved if one had been built decades ago.
It wouldn't be anywhere near the length of the Cheasapeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel, but it would have the potential to serve many more people, even from Northern New England & Canada.
LI is only 10 miles away, but in reality, for many CT & NY residents, it's more like a lifetime away.
Politics, politics, politics.

I couldnt agree more.
Get the Casinos behind it ...and ya never know : )

I think its time.

C

[clamboy]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Construction costs have always been high for a project like this, relatively speaking. The real difference is today there are such ridiculous environmental processes that add millions to the cost of projects and add years (even decades) to the schedule. If you look at many of the major projects in the State today they are or have been bogged down in the environmental review and approval process for ages. The Q Bridge project in New Haven has been around for 20 years and will not be complete for 10 more years. The route for a new Route 6 through Bolton, Andover and Coventry is being questioned by the Army Corps of Engineers and has been delayed indefinitely. Route 11 has been talked about being extended for 30 years and there is still a lot of opposition based upon environmental concerns. It is really is crazy. Basically forget ever building anything new in the State because the environmentalists will strongly oppose it and the Feds will question it until it dies a slow agonizing and expensive death. JMHO Jay

Sad but true....I didnt know that about Bolton.

C

[raygabs]

Originally Posted by clamboy

I couldnt agree more.
Get the Casinos behind it ...and ya never know : )

I think its time.

C

Yes , that's the answer. Get the money behind projects that rape the environment...wow ..what a novel idea! Surprised that's never been done before! As long as we humans aren't inconvenienced in the least ..It's a go.

[raygabs]

Originally Posted by jeremeyk482

clamboy-

The environmental impacts of a large bridge would certainly outweigh the impacts of the cross sound cable. Things to consider would be pollution and the preservation of wildlife. Seeing that so many in CT were against the cable, I can't imagine they would be for a bridge that would have an impact 10x that of the cable (or even more).
Also, while the economies and opportunities would be greater in both SE CT and eastern LI, a bridge would kill the 'feel' of the Hamptons and IMHO, commercialize the small villages on both sides of the sound.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[maestro]

traffic is rough in the North Fork of Long Island as it is. I would imagine the locals down there would fight the bridge idea with vigor.

[sun]

Originally Posted by raygabs

Yes , that's the answer. Get the money behind projects that rape the environment...wow ..what a novel idea! Surprised that's never been done before! As long as we humans aren't inconvenienced in the least ..It's a go.

Name one bridge that's raped the environment.
I consider myself environmentalist minded, and if the air quality from fuel savings produces benefits, than that more than makes up for the temporary disruption of the sound to build a bridge.
Does any rational person think that global warming caused by auto emissions isn't a form of raping the environment?
Just take a gander at the glacier melt on Greenland and it's future effect by causing a measurable rise in sea level.
Raping the environment? Each trip across a LI bridge would save countless gallons of gasoline. To not support building a bridge is supporting the raping of the environment.
I've traveled across the Cheasapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel and I've never heard that it raped the environment. It's truely a man made wonder and achievement. Meanwhile, Cheasapeake Bay has environmental problems of it's own much like LI Sound does that's unrelated to bridge building.
Maybe a bridge would even help the environment by providing structure for fish, just like when ships are intentionally sunk off the coast to provide an artificial reef structure to better the development of fisheries.

[NCOriolesfan]

God forbid New London County turns into Nassau! The idea of a bridge is interesting though. I remember last time I drove home (Norwich) I couldn't believe the traffic. I remember thinking "okay, I'm past New Haven, things should calm down now". Yeah right!

The Chesapeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel is a beautiful drive if you ever get the chance to take it.

[raygabs]

Originally Posted by sun

Name one bridge that's raped the environment.
I consider myself environmentalist minded, and if the air quality from fuel savings produces benefits, than that more than makes up for the temporary disruption of the sound to build a bridge.
Does any rational person think that global warming caused by auto emissions isn't a form of raping the environment?
Just take a gander at the glacier melt on Greenland and it's future effect by causing a measurable rise in sea level.
Raping the environment? Each trip across a LI bridge would save countless gallons of gasoline. To not support building a bridge is supporting the raping of the environment.
I've traveled across the Cheasapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel and I've never heard that it raped the environment. It's truely a man made wonder and achievement. Meanwhile, Cheasapeake Bay has environmental problems of it's own much like LI Sound does that's unrelated to bridge building.
Maybe a bridge would even help the environment by providing structure for fish, just like when ships are intentionally sunk off the coast to provide an artificial reef structure to better the development of fisheries.

Maybe my point came across wrong...I do not know what environmental concerns a bridge building poses. I have been reading all of the posts on the LI and CT boards about this. I am saying though that if there is environmental concerns getting the BIG money casinos to throw dollars at this to make it a go is what is wrong with the world today. Money talks...I can just see the Foxwoods bridge going up! It's also about the integrity of the east end of LI. That is still a fairly scenic area as compared to western LI ...A bridge might change THAT environment. It's nice there I think due to it's remoteness..places that become very convenient for people to get to generally become very commercialized. Am I wrong in saying that?

[clamboy]

Originally Posted by raygabs

Maybe my point came across wrong...I do not know what environmental concerns a bridge building poses. I have been reading all of the posts on the LI and CT boards about this. I am saying though that if there is environmental concerns getting the BIG money casinos to throw dollars at this to make it a go is what is wrong with the world today. Money talks...I can just see the Foxwoods bridge going up! It's also about the integrity of the east end of LI. That is still a fairly scenic area as compared to western LI ...A bridge might change THAT environment. It's nice there I think due to it's remoteness..places that become very convenient for people to get to generally become very commercialized. Am I wrong in saying that?

Lighen up brother...were just talking about hooking up to the end of the LIE.
Not destroying the Hamptons.

Have you been to Rt 58 in Riverhead lately...looks like Nassau to me?

Ive hugged a few trees in my day too.
I dont think we have much to worry about environmentally other than the Hot Air of NIMBY opposition...and of course Broadwater.

C