Questions for our American friends

[bombermouse]

The Republicans wouldn't just mock the idea, they'd shoot any such bill in the heart if it came to a vote. Projects like that require vision, not obstruction.

[awboy33]

Originally Posted by bombermouse

The Republicans wouldn't just mock the idea, they'd shoot any such bill in the heart if it came to a vote. Projects like that require vision, not obstruction.

Hate to tell you this bombermouse, but many of the great infrastructure projects in the US were championed by Republicans. Boulder Dam was authorized by President Coolidge and the interstate system was started under Eisenhower. Just saying, not one party is at fault.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by awboy33

...many of the great infrastructure projects in the US were championed by Republicans...

You're right, there have been many great Republicans

But where are they now?

[Mal Hombre]

Originally Posted by palo5

You're right, there have been many great Republicans

But where are they now?

Mostly, They're dead now....

[9876543210]

awboy33,

Originally Posted by awboy33

Hate to tell you this bombermouse, but many of the great infrastructure projects in the US were championed by Republicans. Boulder Dam was authorized by President Coolidge and the interstate system was started under Eisenhower. Just saying, not one party is at fault.

That was a Republican party that deserved respect and support. They did many good things and realized that the country, not the party, was of utmost importance.

The problem is that those Republicans are long gone and have been replaced by a group of people who believe exactly the opposite. Party orthodoxy is now paramount and if you don't follow the party line then you're a RINO and you get little support.

Thinking about it, when was the last time the Republicans proposed anything like the interstate highway system? The last thing I can think of was Ted Steven's "bridge to Nowhere pork" in Alaska. And that certainly isn't on the same scale as the interstate system. Nowadays, all you hear from Republicans is, "No, we can't do that, it costs too much" and "No, we can't raise taxes on the 1%, they're the job creators". BS

Small people with small minds and small ideas.

[bombermouse]

Originally Posted by awboy33

Hate to tell you this bombermouse, but many of the great infrastructure projects in the US were championed by Republicans. Boulder Dam was authorized by President Coolidge and the interstate system was started under Eisenhower. Just saying, not one party is at fault.

I'm old enough to remember such things and you're right about that. It's also true there's more than enough guilt to go around, neither party is in line for any awards lately. But in the current political climate the Rs would never go for a public expenditure of that magnitude.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by palo5

You're right, there have been many great Republicans

But where are they now?

Run out of town on a rail by the crazies, or leaving office demoralized

Look at Richard Lugar, Senator of Indiana. A guy with gravitas who had respect from all parties, not conservative enough so he lost in the Republican party to a nutjob, who then went on to lose a Senate seat that the R's should have no trouble holding with crazy ruminations about how God feels about rape and pregnancy.

Or Olympia Snow, of Maine . . . who just decided not to run. Not that she was facing a hard renomination fight, just that she didn't enjoy battling the crazies.

[mizlaplan]

Originally Posted by palo5

Or New York to the Dutch

Why not go the whole hog and give us back the Thirteen Colonies.
That'd be 13 less stars to worry about on the flag
Hope that helps

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

You know, even though the Republicans like to mock the idea, spending stimulus money on disaster preparedness infrastructure would be a great investment.

What would tide gates for New York like those on the Thames cost? Think of how many people would be put to work. Earthquake preparedness on the West Coast, and levys on the Mississippi would be the same.

The Dutch built giant sea walls after their floods of 1953, so its very mature technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works

It would be a bigger civil engineerng project than the Thames barrage because New York is approached from the Atlantic in two directions. There is the front door, New York Bay, about 20-30 miles across if you want your barrage to protect Staten Island and the North Jersey shore as well as the Hudson River area. Then there is Long Island Sound, a channel which points straight at the Bronx, the East River and then Manhattan Island. I found it impossible to find a really suitable map or satellite image to show the problem. I tried a screen capture of a Google map, but it also captured my email address for some reason; not a good idea to attach that here. This is the best I could do.



It doesn't show the Jersey shore, which forms the bottom end of New York Bay; that would be at the bottom of the map if the map went down far enough. One barrage would need to span New York Bay in order to protect Staten Island (the purple bit) and metropolitan New Jersey.

Top left is the western extremity of Long Island Sound. It runs to the Atlantic from the East River, between the north shore of Long Island and the coast of Connecticutt. It is perfectly formed to support a storm surge and a barrage would be necessary here also, or else the surge would just bypass the New York Bay barrage.


When opened in 1984, the Thames Barrier cost £534m: this would probably be about £2bn is today's money. It is very small compared with any defence system capable of shielding the Greater New York area. But against that, the Dutch use large wide sea barriers with gates for navigation: though very big, they are simpler to build. You wouldn't need a mechanical barrier to span the entire bay or all of Long Island Sound; you'd need a big enough gate to allow shipping free access and to minimise the environmental effects of having a barrier, but that's all. Even so, it would be an immense and expensive project which would probably take over a decade. But how much will it cost to repair the damage done to New York and New Jersey by Hurricane Sandy? This could be a very wise investment. It might at least be worth a feaibility study, and an environmental impact assessment, so Congress could then discuss whether it is a viable possibility.

You could conceivably use this project as a means to generate hydro-electric power from the tides. The French do something like this on the Rhone estuary.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by mizlaplan

Why not go the whole hog and give us back the Thirteen Colonies.
That'd be 13 less stars to worry about on the flag
...

Thirteen less stripes as well!