Lake Michigan Bridge Pipe Dream

[AlbertC79]

Here's one of my more dreamy pipe dream ideas. How about an extension of I-96
over a long-spanning bridge over Lake Michigan to connect to Milwaukee? As of
right now, if you were traveling from Detroit, Grand Rapids, Lansing, and other
major Michigan cities to Milwaukee and other points on the other side of Lake
Michigan, you would have to traverse a long 250+ mile trek along I-196, I-94,
and other roadways which loop around Lake Michigan. With this bridge idea, it
would really shave off a lot of miles from this journey.
Of course since the span of Lake Michigan between Grand Haven/Muskegon (near
I-96's western terminus) and Milwaukee is quite long (I would imagine AT LEAST
60+ miles), it is extremely unlikely this idea would ever be more than a pipe
dream, but oh what a chance to dream.

Which also brings up another question: Currently the longest spanning bridge
over water is the Lake Ponchartrain Bridge in Louisiana at 24+ miles. I am
curious, have any longer-spanning bridges or causeways been planned? I once
read somewhere about a proposal for a long-spanning bridge over either Lake
Erie or Lake Ontario, but I am not sure what it curtailed exactly.

[Jeff Carlyle]

Post by AlbertC79
Here's one of my more dreamy pipe dream ideas. How about an
extension of I-96 over a long-spanning bridge over Lake Michigan to
connect to Milwaukee? As of right now, if you were traveling from
Detroit, Grand Rapids, Lansing, and other major Michigan cities to
Milwaukee and other points on the other side of Lake Michigan, you
would have to traverse a long 250+ mile trek along I-196, I-94, and
other roadways which loop around Lake Michigan. With this bridge
idea, it would really shave off a lot of miles from this journey.
Of course since the span of Lake Michigan between Grand
Haven/Muskegon (near I-96's western terminus) and Milwaukee is quite
long (I would imagine AT LEAST 60+ miles), it is extremely unlikely
this idea would ever be more than a pipe dream, but oh what a chance
to dream.

Lake Michigan is a deep lake so that might interfere as well. Looking at
bathymetric charts, there is a bit of a ridge between Muskegon and
Milwaukee, but it is still around 100 meters deep:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakemich_cdrom/html/images.htm

Post by AlbertC79
Which also brings up another question: Currently the longest spanning
bridge over water is the Lake Ponchartrain Bridge in Louisiana at 24+
miles. I am curious, have any longer-spanning bridges or causeways
been planned? I once read somewhere about a proposal for a
long-spanning bridge over either Lake Erie or Lake Ontario, but I am
not sure what it curtailed exactly.

I think it was Lake Erie, and bathymetric charts of Lake Erie reveal it is
much shallower than Lake Michigan. Much of Lake Erie is less than 30 meters
deep.

[Richard]

Post by AlbertC79
Here's one of my more dreamy pipe dream ideas. How about an extension of
I-96 over a long-spanning bridge over Lake Michigan to connect to
Milwaukee? As of right now, if you were traveling from Detroit, Grand
Rapids, Lansing, and other major Michigan cities to Milwaukee and other
points on the other side of Lake Michigan, you would have to traverse a
long 250+ mile trek along I-196, I-94, and other roadways which loop
around Lake Michigan. With this bridge idea, it would really shave off a
lot of miles from this journey. Of course since the span of Lake Michigan
between Grand Haven/Muskegon (near I-96's western terminus) and Milwaukee
is quite long (I would imagine AT LEAST 60+ miles), it is extremely
unlikely this idea would ever be more than a pipe dream, but oh what a
chance to dream.
Which also brings up another question: Currently the longest spanning
bridge over water is the Lake Ponchartrain Bridge in Louisiana at 24+
miles. I am curious, have any longer-spanning bridges or causeways been
planned? I once read somewhere about a proposal for a long-spanning
bridge over either Lake Erie or Lake Ontario, but I am not sure what it
curtailed exactly.

This has been discussed since the mid '60's or so.
Lake Michigan averages 75 miles across.
Having been on the ferry a few times, in a truck, you board at 0800 hours,
sails at 0830 and arrives 4 hours later.
The problem is, that a series of man made islands would have to be
constructed. Which could also be used for numerous purposes. You could have
these islands say 5 to 7 miles apart. Make it a toll bridge, naturally, and
use the islands as service plazas. Not only for motorists, but boaters as
well.

If I'm not mistaken, the lake ponchartrain bridge is actually built over
some land in a few spots. Been over it a few times in a truck. Not that the
land is used for much of anything.

Planning is in the works for a bridge across the Berring Straits which would
connect USA and Russia.
But the problem there is the extreme cold and high winds in the winter so
the upper deck for vehicles would only be open in the summer.

The Lake Michigan bridge is doable, just needs tons of money and time to do
it.

[David Jensen]

Post by Richard

Post by AlbertC79
Here's one of my more dreamy pipe dream ideas. How about an extension of
I-96 over a long-spanning bridge over Lake Michigan to connect to
Milwaukee? As of right now, if you were traveling from Detroit, Grand
Rapids, Lansing, and other major Michigan cities to Milwaukee and other
points on the other side of Lake Michigan, you would have to traverse a
long 250+ mile trek along I-196, I-94, and other roadways which loop
around Lake Michigan. With this bridge idea, it would really shave off a
lot of miles from this journey. Of course since the span of Lake Michigan
between Grand Haven/Muskegon (near I-96's western terminus) and Milwaukee
is quite long (I would imagine AT LEAST 60+ miles), it is extremely
unlikely this idea would ever be more than a pipe dream, but oh what a
chance to dream.
Which also brings up another question: Currently the longest spanning
bridge over water is the Lake Ponchartrain Bridge in Louisiana at 24+
miles. I am curious, have any longer-spanning bridges or causeways been
planned? I once read somewhere about a proposal for a long-spanning
bridge over either Lake Erie or Lake Ontario, but I am not sure what it
curtailed exactly.

This has been discussed since the mid '60's or so.
Lake Michigan averages 75 miles across.
Having been on the ferry a few times, in a truck, you board at 0800 hours,
sails at 0830 and arrives 4 hours later.
The problem is, that a series of man made islands would have to be
constructed. Which could also be used for numerous purposes. You could have
these islands say 5 to 7 miles apart. Make it a toll bridge, naturally, and
use the islands as service plazas. Not only for motorists, but boaters as
well.
If I'm not mistaken, the lake ponchartrain bridge is actually built over
some land in a few spots. Been over it a few times in a truck. Not that the
land is used for much of anything.
Planning is in the works for a bridge across the Berring Straits which would
connect USA and Russia.
But the problem there is the extreme cold and high winds in the winter so
the upper deck for vehicles would only be open in the summer.
The Lake Michigan bridge is doable, just needs tons of money and time to do
it.

Would the economics work? Regular auto users of the Oresund Bridge using
the best rate pay roughly €12 per crossing for an 18 km bridge/tunnel.
Trucks pay over €40 to cross. I realize that with the right price, we
might expect more than 10,000 vpd on this route, so staying with the
$1.00/mile for auto and $3.00/mile for trucks might be a bit high, but I
still think that we're looking at a $25 billion project. Roughly half of
the revenue can go to bond retirement, so with 4% bonds, 40 years, we'll
need about $2.5 billion per year in revenue. Guessing that we could get
cars to pay $25 and trucks to pay $75, with a 75/25 split we would need
70,000 vpd. Seems a bit high.

[Pete Jenior]

Post by Richard
If I'm not mistaken, the lake ponchartrain bridge is actually built over
some land in a few spots. Been over it a few times in a truck. Not that the
land is used for much of anything.

But that lake is only like 15 feet deep, as opposed to, say, 900.

Post by Richard
Planning is in the works for a bridge across the Berring Straits which would
connect USA and Russia.

Are you sure about that one?

Post by Richard
But the problem there is the extreme cold and high winds in the winter so
the upper deck for vehicles would only be open in the summer.

-Pete

[Eagles Fan On I-175]

Post by Pete Jenior

Post by Richard
If I'm not mistaken, the lake ponchartrain bridge is actually built over
some land in a few spots. Been over it a few times in a truck. Not that

the

Post by Richard
land is used for much of anything.

But that lake is only like 15 feet deep, as opposed to, say, 900.

True, but also think of this route as a northern bypass of Chicago.
There are no East-West Routes around Chicago metro (nearest one's
I-74) and this bridge, given the right distances btwn. manmade
islands/rest areas and if the tolls were right (no more than $30
cars/$70 trucks and rest area concessions to help alleivate the tolls)
would, IMO, work. Anyone from the East could get off of I-80/90 on
I-75 and go up to I-96 to get back to I-90/94 without so much as ever
seeing the Sears Tower, and possibly shave a few hours off their trip.

Post by Pete Jenior

Post by Richard
Planning is in the works for a bridge across the Berring Straits which

would

Post by Richard
connect USA and Russia.

Are you sure about that one?

That was some small town in Nebraska proposing an American-Asian
Highway so they could get publicity. Due to the tectonics, it would
never work.

Post by Pete Jenior

Post by Richard
But the problem there is the extreme cold and high winds in the winter so
the upper deck for vehicles would only be open in the summer.

-Pete

Make the bridges high enough to accomidate vessel traffic, but keep it
low when not crossing a channel, as to keep the effects of the winds
down.

[Pete Jenior]

Post by Eagles Fan On I-175

Post by Richard
Planning is in the works for a bridge across the Berring Straits which would

Post by Richard
connect USA and Russia.

Are you sure about that one?

That was some small town in Nebraska proposing an American-Asian
Highway so they could get publicity. Due to the tectonics, it would
never work.

Yeah, I remember seeing that too. But I wouldn't really call that
"planning", as our man Richard did.
-Pete

[Dan Hartung]

Post by Eagles Fan On I-175

Post by Richard
Planning is in the works for a bridge across the Berring Straits which

would connect USA and Russia.
Are you sure about that one?

That was some small town in Nebraska proposing an American-Asian
Highway so they could get publicity. Due to the tectonics, it would
never work.

Actually, it's been semi-seriously proposed as a distant future means of
Siberian economic development, by none other than the Transport Minister
of Russia. And more than one sketchy engineering study has been done. It
is all about drawing attention, though.

Tectonics isn't the factor you think (q.v. the much-closer-to-reality
Straits of Messina bridge). But economics would be very questionable.

[Marc Fannin]

Post by AlbertC79
Here's one of my more dreamy pipe dream ideas. How about an extension of I-96
over a long-spanning bridge over Lake Michigan to connect to Milwaukee?
[snip]
I once
read somewhere about a proposal for a long-spanning bridge over either Lake
Erie or Lake Ontario, but I am not sure what it curtailed exactly.

It was Lake Erie.

http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/ix71.html#271oh

Most of the disadvantage of cross-Great Lake bridges has to do with
localized snow squalls. Here's a discussion from earlier in the year
about them:
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=407cf39ab758a9f4

________________________________________________________________________
Marc Fannin|***@kent.edu or @hotmail.com| http://www.roadfan.com/
When I'm having a bad day, I can now think "Well, I could be Steve
Bartman...."

[michael d]

Post by Marc Fannin

Post by AlbertC79
Here's one of my more dreamy pipe dream ideas. How about an

extension of I-96

Post by Marc Fannin

Post by AlbertC79
over a long-spanning bridge over Lake Michigan to connect to

Milwaukee?

Post by Marc Fannin

Post by AlbertC79
[snip]
I once
read somewhere about a proposal for a long-spanning bridge over either Lake
Erie or Lake Ontario, but I am not sure what it curtailed exactly.

It was Lake Erie.
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/ix71.html#271oh
Most of the disadvantage of cross-Great Lake bridges has to do with
localized snow squalls. Here's a discussion from earlier in the year
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=407cf39ab758a9f4

it's not just the snow squalls it's the sudden storms that appear over
the lake or near the shore from the drastic change between water temps
and air temps. You will see this in the summer how storms will fire just
offshore and work onshore then die as they cross land. Also waterspouts
are problematic year round on the great lakes.

[Joe Galea]

Post by Marc Fannin

Post by AlbertC79
Here's one of my more dreamy pipe dream ideas. How about an extension of I-96
over a long-spanning bridge over Lake Michigan to connect to Milwaukee?
[snip]
I once
read somewhere about a proposal for a long-spanning bridge over either Lake
Erie or Lake Ontario, but I am not sure what it curtailed exactly.

It was Lake Erie.
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/ix71.html#271oh
Most of the disadvantage of cross-Great Lake bridges has to do with
localized snow squalls. Here's a discussion from earlier in the year
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=407cf39ab758a9f4
________________________________________________________________________
When I'm having a bad day, I can now think "Well, I could be Steve
Bartman...."

Also, low traffic counts would probably be a big factor working against any
such bridge.

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by AlbertC79
Here's one of my more dreamy pipe dream ideas. How about an extension of I-96
over a long-spanning bridge over Lake Michigan to connect to Milwaukee? As of
right now, if you were traveling from Detroit, Grand Rapids, Lansing, and other
major Michigan cities to Milwaukee and other points on the other side of Lake
Michigan, you would have to traverse a long 250+ mile trek along I-196, I-94,
and other roadways which loop around Lake Michigan. With this bridge idea, it
would really shave off a lot of miles from this journey.
Of course since the span of Lake Michigan between Grand Haven/Muskegon (near
I-96's western terminus) and Milwaukee is quite long (I would imagine AT LEAST
60+ miles), it is extremely unlikely this idea would ever be more than a pipe
dream, but oh what a chance to dream.

I posted about an east-west Lake Michigan Bridge several years ago.
There are two potential routes:

- Milwaukee WI - Muskegon MI -- an I-96 extension from Muskegon MI
to I-94 or I-43 in Milwaukee WI. About 85 miles long.

- Manitowoc WI - Ludington MI. About 70 miles long.

For either alternate, the maximum water depth in the middle of the lake
would be about 350 feet, but probably over half of the route would be in
100 feet or less depth.

In other words, this would be feasible, and the I-96 extension would
likely attract a lot of auto and truck through traffic between Wisconsin
and west (I-94 and I-90), and central Michigan and Detroit, as well as
Toronto, Ontario. The I-96 extension would save 150 miles or more
travel distance than to presently go down under the south end of the
lake, plus prevent having to travel through the congested Chicago area.

Alas, I'm sure that it would be VERY expansive to build.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Steve]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I posted about an east-west Lake Michigan Bridge several years ago.
- Milwaukee WI - Muskegon MI -- an I-96 extension from Muskegon MI
to I-94 or I-43 in Milwaukee WI. About 85 miles long.
- Manitowoc WI - Ludington MI. About 70 miles long.
For either alternate, the maximum water depth in the middle of the lake
would be about 350 feet, but probably over half of the route would be in
100 feet or less depth.
In other words, this would be feasible, and the I-96 extension would
likely attract a lot of auto and truck through traffic between Wisconsin
and west (I-94 and I-90), and central Michigan and Detroit, as well as
Toronto, Ontario. The I-96 extension would save 150 miles or more
travel distance than to presently go down under the south end of the
lake, plus prevent having to travel through the congested Chicago area.
Alas, I'm sure that it would be VERY expansive to build.

I think there's a certain practical limit to the length of a bridge,
which is about 30 miles. It's the same limit that exists between
exits/services on a highway - after you've been driving for a half hour,
it's nice to at least see some sign of civilization. For the 70 mile
bridge, some kind of halfway plaza could work, but I think the 85-mile
bridge is just too much.

[David Jensen]

Post by Steve

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I posted about an east-west Lake Michigan Bridge several years ago.
- Milwaukee WI - Muskegon MI -- an I-96 extension from Muskegon MI
to I-94 or I-43 in Milwaukee WI. About 85 miles long.
- Manitowoc WI - Ludington MI. About 70 miles long.
For either alternate, the maximum water depth in the middle of the lake
would be about 350 feet, but probably over half of the route would be in
100 feet or less depth.
In other words, this would be feasible, and the I-96 extension would
likely attract a lot of auto and truck through traffic between Wisconsin
and west (I-94 and I-90), and central Michigan and Detroit, as well as
Toronto, Ontario. The I-96 extension would save 150 miles or more
travel distance than to presently go down under the south end of the
lake, plus prevent having to travel through the congested Chicago area.
Alas, I'm sure that it would be VERY expansive to build.

I think there's a certain practical limit to the length of a bridge,
which is about 30 miles. It's the same limit that exists between
exits/services on a highway - after you've been driving for a half hour,
it's nice to at least see some sign of civilization. For the 70 mile
bridge, some kind of halfway plaza could work, but I think the 85-mile
bridge is just too much.

Unfortunately, Manitowoc-Ludington is too far out of the way. A bridge
from Milwaukee to Muskegon puts two million plus metro areas within a
hundred miles of each other, both with east-west freeways in them, a
Manitowoc-Ludington bridge connects little to less.

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Steve

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I posted about an east-west Lake Michigan Bridge several years ago.

I think there's a certain practical limit to the length of a bridge,
which is about 30 miles. It's the same limit that exists between
exits/services on a highway - after you've been driving for a half hour,
it's nice to at least see some sign of civilization. For the 70 mile
bridge, some kind of halfway plaza could work, but I think the 85-mile
bridge is just too much.

I don't think that the distance aspect would be a problem... the
motorists could be warned by signs to make sure that they have
enough fuel for that distance, and driving for 1 1/2 hours is no
big deal. If such a bridge didn't have a continuous full
shoulder, then it could have a pocket pullout once per mile.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Amanda the F-ing GREAT!]

Post by Steve

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I posted about an east-west Lake Michigan Bridge several years ago.
- Milwaukee WI - Muskegon MI -- an I-96 extension from Muskegon MI
to I-94 or I-43 in Milwaukee WI. About 85 miles long.
- Manitowoc WI - Ludington MI. About 70 miles long.
For either alternate, the maximum water depth in the middle of the lake
would be about 350 feet, but probably over half of the route would be in
100 feet or less depth.
In other words, this would be feasible, and the I-96 extension would
likely attract a lot of auto and truck through traffic between Wisconsin
and west (I-94 and I-90), and central Michigan and Detroit, as well as
Toronto, Ontario. The I-96 extension would save 150 miles or more
travel distance than to presently go down under the south end of the
lake, plus prevent having to travel through the congested Chicago area.
Alas, I'm sure that it would be VERY expansive to build.

I think there's a certain practical limit to the length of a bridge,
which is about 30 miles. It's the same limit that exists between
exits/services on a highway - after you've been driving for a half hour,
it's nice to at least see some sign of civilization. For the 70 mile
bridge, some kind of halfway plaza could work, but I think the 85-mile
bridge is just too much.

A 85-mile long bridge is just not feasible, as it's potentially
dangerous, expensive, and doesn't really connect a whole lot of
population centers - how much traffic from Windsor/Detroit to
Milwaukee is there going to be really?

A bridge between Michigan City, Ind. and Kenosha, Wis. makes a little
more sense as a I-94 Chicago bypass, but is still too expensive and
somewhat deep to make a whole lot of sense.

[David Jensen]

Post by Amanda the F-ing GREAT!

Post by Steve

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I posted about an east-west Lake Michigan Bridge several years ago.
- Milwaukee WI - Muskegon MI -- an I-96 extension from Muskegon MI
to I-94 or I-43 in Milwaukee WI. About 85 miles long.
- Manitowoc WI - Ludington MI. About 70 miles long.
For either alternate, the maximum water depth in the middle of the lake
would be about 350 feet, but probably over half of the route would be in
100 feet or less depth.
In other words, this would be feasible, and the I-96 extension would
likely attract a lot of auto and truck through traffic between Wisconsin
and west (I-94 and I-90), and central Michigan and Detroit, as well as
Toronto, Ontario. The I-96 extension would save 150 miles or more
travel distance than to presently go down under the south end of the
lake, plus prevent having to travel through the congested Chicago area.
Alas, I'm sure that it would be VERY expansive to build.

I think there's a certain practical limit to the length of a bridge,
which is about 30 miles. It's the same limit that exists between
exits/services on a highway - after you've been driving for a half hour,
it's nice to at least see some sign of civilization. For the 70 mile
bridge, some kind of halfway plaza could work, but I think the 85-mile
bridge is just too much.

A 85-mile long bridge is just not feasible, as it's potentially
dangerous, expensive, and doesn't really connect a whole lot of
population centers - how much traffic from Windsor/Detroit to
Milwaukee is there going to be really?

While you weren't paying attention, Grand Rapids (possible motto "The
[most|only] conservative Dutch city in the World") has become the center
of a metro area of over a million people. It also still makes things
that move by truck.

Post by Amanda the F-ing GREAT!
A bridge between Michigan City, Ind. and Kenosha, Wis. makes a little
more sense as a I-94 Chicago bypass, but is still too expensive and
somewhat deep to make a whole lot of sense.

True for both.

[Amanda the F-ing GREAT!]

Post by David Jensen
While you weren't paying attention, Grand Rapids (possible motto "The
[most|only] conservative Dutch city in the World") has become the center
of a metro area of over a million people. It also still makes things
that move by truck.

Who all want to go to Milwaukee over an 85-mile-long bridge, no doubt.

[David Jensen]

Post by Amanda the F-ing GREAT!

Post by David Jensen
While you weren't paying attention, Grand Rapids (possible motto "The
[most|only] conservative Dutch city in the World") has become the center
of a metro area of over a million people. It also still makes things
that move by truck.

Who all want to go to Milwaukee over an 85-mile-long bridge, no doubt.

If I'm driving a truck from Michigan to Milwaukee, Minneapolis or
Seattle, I am sure I would prefer the bridge to Chicagoland.

[Chris Bessert]

Post by Amanda the F-ing GREAT!

Post by David Jensen
While you weren't paying attention, Grand Rapids (possible motto "The
[most|only] conservative Dutch city in the World") has become the center
of a metro area of over a million people. It also still makes things
that move by truck.

Who all want to go to Milwaukee over an 85-mile-long bridge, no doubt.

I sure as Hell would... then again, I live in Grand Rapids and have
friends in Minneapolis...

Later,
Chris

[Dan Hartung]

Post by Steve
I think there's a certain practical limit to the length of a bridge,
which is about 30 miles. It's the same limit that exists between
exits/services on a highway - after you've been driving for a half hour,
it's nice to at least see some sign of civilization. For the 70 mile
bridge, some kind of halfway plaza could work, but I think the 85-mile
bridge is just too much.

It's nohow feasible, I agree (and I'd support a lot of other bridge
projects). But you'd probably be interested in how Norway handled the
construction of the longest highway tunnel, combatting driver fatigue
with periodic high-ceiling caverns with rest areas:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1945581.stm

http://home.no.net/lotsberg/data/norway/laerdal/tunnel.html

For the record, four such caverns in 24km is about one every three miles.

[Kyle Levenhagen]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I posted about an east-west Lake Michigan Bridge several years ago.
- Milwaukee WI - Muskegon MI -- an I-96 extension from Muskegon MI
to I-94 or I-43 in Milwaukee WI. About 85 miles long.
- Manitowoc WI - Ludington MI. About 70 miles long.
For either alternate, the maximum water depth in the middle of the lake
would be about 350 feet, but probably over half of the route would be in
100 feet or less depth.

Uhh... it's a little more than that. The maximum depth of Lake Michigan is
925 feet. The average depth is 280 feet. Check out the following links:

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakemich/intro.html
http://superior.eng.ohio-state.edu/lakes/michigan/nf-index.html

I think the absolute minimum width occurs just north of Two Rivers, WI
(about 5-10 miles north of Manitowoc). From there to just north of
Ludington is a shade under 60 miles. (I remember reading about some nut job
who actually swam that width a few years ago.) However, this is also on the
edge of the deepest part of the lake. Coincidentally, a Milwaukee to
Muskegon crossing would cut across the "shallowest" part of the lake, but it
would still be about 250 feet deep and would be at one of the wider spots on
the lake.

I hate to say it, but this bridge will never be built. In addition to the
cost, how in the world would you be able to stop terrorists from blowing it
up way out in the middle of the lake? Personally, I don't stay awake at
night thinking, "Are they coming to get me?" but it's something that
projects of this magnitude really have to take into consideration. 50-100
miles is a lot of bridge to cover, especially when you look at the
practicality of putting security guards on duty way out in the middle of
Lake Michigan.

Post by Scott M. Kozel
In other words, this would be feasible, and the I-96 extension would
likely attract a lot of auto and truck through traffic between Wisconsin
and west (I-94 and I-90), and central Michigan and Detroit, as well as
Toronto, Ontario. The I-96 extension would save 150 miles or more
travel distance than to presently go down under the south end of the
lake, plus prevent having to travel through the congested Chicago area.
Alas, I'm sure that it would be VERY expansive to build.

Here's something else to consider: Would Wisconsinites really want more
people from Michigan coming to their state? They have a bad enough problem
with FIB's crossing the border too easily as it is. :)

Kyle

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Kyle Levenhagen

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I posted about an east-west Lake Michigan Bridge several years ago.
- Milwaukee WI - Muskegon MI -- an I-96 extension from Muskegon MI
to I-94 or I-43 in Milwaukee WI. About 85 miles long.
- Manitowoc WI - Ludington MI. About 70 miles long.
For either alternate, the maximum water depth in the middle of the lake
would be about 350 feet, but probably over half of the route would be in
100 feet or less depth.

Uhh... it's a little more than that. The maximum depth of Lake Michigan is
925 feet. The average depth is 280 feet.

The place of maximum lake depth is well north of these bridge
proposals. In the past, I checked a contour map of the lake depths, and
what I said above would be correct for those locations.

Post by Kyle Levenhagen
I hate to say it, but this bridge will never be built. In addition to the
cost, how in the world would you be able to stop terrorists from blowing it
up way out in the middle of the lake? Personally, I don't stay awake at
night thinking, "Are they coming to get me?" but it's something that
projects of this magnitude really have to take into consideration. 50-100
miles is a lot of bridge to cover, especially when you look at the
practicality of putting security guards on duty way out in the middle of
Lake Michigan.

I agree that the cost to build such a bridge might be too high to be
feasible, but the rest of your paragraph sound like scare tactics.
Possible terrorism in the middle of the lake would be addressed the same
way that it is addressed for ships that travel through there.

Post by Kyle Levenhagen
Here's something else to consider: Would Wisconsinites really want more
people from Michigan coming to their state? They have a bad enough problem
with FIB's crossing the border too easily as it is. :)

The reverse could be said also, but that would be something that would
be addressed in planning and EIS studies.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Larry]

Post by AlbertC79
Here's one of my more dreamy pipe dream ideas. How about an extension of I-96
over a long-spanning bridge over Lake Michigan to connect to Milwaukee? As of
right now, if you were traveling from Detroit, Grand Rapids, Lansing, and other
major Michigan cities to Milwaukee and other points on the other side of Lake
Michigan, you would have to traverse a long 250+ mile trek along I-196, I-94,
and other roadways which loop around Lake Michigan. With this bridge idea, it
would really shave off a lot of miles from this journey.
Of course since the span of Lake Michigan between Grand Haven/Muskegon (near
I-96's western terminus) and Milwaukee is quite long (I would imagine AT LEAST
60+ miles), it is extremely unlikely this idea would ever be more than a pipe
dream, but oh what a chance to dream.
Which also brings up another question: Currently the longest spanning bridge
over water is the Lake Ponchartrain Bridge in Louisiana at 24+ miles. I am
curious, have any longer-spanning bridges or causeways been planned? I once
read somewhere about a proposal for a long-spanning bridge over either Lake
Erie or Lake Ontario, but I am not sure what it curtailed exactly.

Most everybody posting these lake-depth numbers seems to be forgetting
that the depths listed on
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakemich_cdrom/html/images.htm
are in METERS, not feet. Following what I could best judge to be a
straight line between Milwaukee and Muskegon, the maximum depth
appears to occur perhaps 15-20 miles out from the Michigan shore, at
approximately 110 meters (about 365 feet). For the vast majority of
the trip across, the depth appears to be 90-100 meters (295 to 330
feet).

A bit of further research done on that very same site suggests that
strong deep-water currents exist on the lake floor over most of what
is called the "Mid-Lake Plateau." This probably is the cause of the
largely flat nature of the lake floor in this region. However, I would
imagine such currents would make it quite difficult to build, and even
more difficult to maintain/protect, piers for such a bridge.

Some might suggest that a Lake Pontchartrain-style causeway-type
bridge could be built; however, causeways only work over very shallow
water such as that in Pontchartrain. With such shallow water depth,
currents cannot become nearly as strong. As somebody else posted on
this thread, water depths in much of southern Louisiana do not exceed
20 feet.

Unfortunately, it proves almost impossible from that site to get a
good idea of the distance across the lake between Milwaukee and
Muskegon. Perhaps some other site can provide a definitive answer.

Larry

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Larry
Most everybody posting these lake-depth numbers seems to be forgetting
that the depths listed on
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakemich_cdrom/html/images.htm
are in METERS, not feet. Following what I could best judge to be a
straight line between Milwaukee and Muskegon, the maximum depth
appears to occur perhaps 15-20 miles out from the Michigan shore, at
approximately 110 meters (about 365 feet). For the vast majority of
the trip across, the depth appears to be 90-100 meters (295 to 330
feet).

Perhaps 2/3 of the distance for that route would be that deep --
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakemich_cdrom/html/area3.htm

Post by Larry
A bit of further research done on that very same site suggests that
strong deep-water currents exist on the lake floor over most of what
is called the "Mid-Lake Plateau." This probably is the cause of the
largely flat nature of the lake floor in this region.

It doesn't look very flat. Where does it discuss the currents? I'd be
surprised to find that there are "strong deep-water currents", given
that they don't really have anywhere to go to.

Post by Larry
However, I would
imagine such currents would make it quite difficult to build, and even
more difficult to maintain/protect, piers for such a bridge.

The piers in the deep water (over 150 feet deep) might resemble those
for off-shore drilling platforms. Water 150-350 feet is very deep for
building bridge piers, but is probably at the limit for how deep of
water in which bridge piers can be built. Such spans would also likely
have to be as few as possible due to the complexity of construction and
the high cost, so probably the spans in deep water would be somewhere in
the 1,000- to 2,000-foot-long range.

The San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge has a couple of its piers in very
deep water--

"Its foundations extend to the greatest depth below water of any bridge
built by man; one pier was sunk at 242 feet below water, and another at
200 feet.

http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist9/mcgloin.html

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Larry]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
It doesn't look very flat. Where does it discuss the currents? I'd be
surprised to find that there are "strong deep-water currents", given
that they don't really have anywhere to go to.

Scott, the very same map you linked to at
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakemich_cdrom/html/area3.htm
has a lower density of contour lines across much of that "Mid-Lake
Plateau" area, therefore indicating not a great deal of change in
elevation in the region. Also see
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakemich_cdrom/html/geomorph.htm
scrolling down approximately 3/4 of the way down the page to the
section titled "Mid-Lake Plateau." (Clicking on that title will link
you to that same map again.)

Larry

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Larry

Post by Scott M. Kozel
It doesn't look very flat. Where does it discuss the currents? I'd be
surprised to find that there are "strong deep-water currents", given
that they don't really have anywhere to go to.

Scott, the very same map you linked to at
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakemich_cdrom/html/area3.htm
has a lower density of contour lines across much of that "Mid-Lake
Plateau" area, therefore indicating not a great deal of change in
elevation in the region. Also see
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakemich_cdrom/html/geomorph.htm
scrolling down approximately 3/4 of the way down the page to the
section titled "Mid-Lake Plateau." (Clicking on that title will link
you to that same map again.)

I posted the link to that first URL. The route from Milwaukee due east,
still has significant changes in elevation in the mid-lake area, as
those contour lines are 10-meter (32.8-foot) lines. It doesn't have the
nature of the areas of the lake where there are the deep basins, but
still I wouldn't call it flat.

Where does the site discuss the deep-water currents? I would be
interested in reading that section.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Larry]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Larry

Post by Scott M. Kozel
It doesn't look very flat. Where does it discuss the currents? I'd be
surprised to find that there are "strong deep-water currents", given
that they don't really have anywhere to go to.

Scott, the very same map you linked to at
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakemich_cdrom/html/area3.htm
has a lower density of contour lines across much of that "Mid-Lake
Plateau" area, therefore indicating not a great deal of change in
elevation in the region. Also see
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakemich_cdrom/html/geomorph.htm
scrolling down approximately 3/4 of the way down the page to the
section titled "Mid-Lake Plateau." (Clicking on that title will link
you to that same map again.)

I posted the link to that first URL. The route from Milwaukee due east,
still has significant changes in elevation in the mid-lake area, as
those contour lines are 10-meter (32.8-foot) lines. It doesn't have the
nature of the areas of the lake where there are the deep basins, but
still I wouldn't call it flat.
Where does the site discuss the deep-water currents? I would be
interested in reading that section.

You need only read higher up in this message to find it (where you
quoted me from a couple messages ago -- it was in there) but here it
is one more time, http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakemich_cdrom/html/geomorph.htm
. Scroll about 3/4 of the way down to the "Mid-Lake Plateau" title and
read the following text. It goes into detail about geological erosion
toward the end of that paragraph, and suggests that the deep-water
currents are strong there.

As far as the elevation changes go, go back to the image
Loading Image...
(a larger, higher resolution version of the image you linked to).
Except for the area within perhaps 10-15 miles of both shores, the
total relief in the middle area of the lake is perhaps 15-20 meters. I
see places where it gets as deep as 105 m, and places where it is as
shallow as 85 m or so, but there's not a ton of elevation change until
you approach shore. It is a bit steeper approaching the Muskegon side
than it is approaching the Milwaukee side.

Larry

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Larry

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I posted the link to that first URL. The route from Milwaukee due east,
still has significant changes in elevation in the mid-lake area, as
those contour lines are 10-meter (32.8-foot) lines. It doesn't have the
nature of the areas of the lake where there are the deep basins, but
still I wouldn't call it flat.
Where does the site discuss the deep-water currents? I would be
interested in reading that section.

You need only read higher up in this message to find it (where you
quoted me from a couple messages ago -- it was in there) but here it
is one more time, http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakemich_cdrom/html/geomorph.htm
. Scroll about 3/4 of the way down to the "Mid-Lake Plateau" title and
read the following text. It goes into detail about geological erosion
toward the end of that paragraph, and suggests that the deep-water
currents are strong there.

The references I see appear to be references to glacial erosion and
coastal erosion. I don't see anything that discusses (or implies)
deep-water currents.

Post by Larry
As far as the elevation changes go, go back to the image
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakemich_cdrom/images/area3hi.gif
(a larger, higher resolution version of the image you linked to).
Except for the area within perhaps 10-15 miles of both shores, the
total relief in the middle area of the lake is perhaps 15-20 meters. I
see places where it gets as deep as 105 m, and places where it is as
shallow as 85 m or so, but there's not a ton of elevation change until
you approach shore.

20 meters is 66 feet, which is still significant changes in elevation.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Joe Galea]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Larry

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I posted the link to that first URL. The route from Milwaukee due east,
still has significant changes in elevation in the mid-lake area, as
those contour lines are 10-meter (32.8-foot) lines. It doesn't have the
nature of the areas of the lake where there are the deep basins, but
still I wouldn't call it flat.
Where does the site discuss the deep-water currents? I would be
interested in reading that section.

You need only read higher up in this message to find it (where you
quoted me from a couple messages ago -- it was in there) but here it
is one more time,

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakemich_cdrom/html/geomorph.htm

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Larry
. Scroll about 3/4 of the way down to the "Mid-Lake Plateau" title and
read the following text. It goes into detail about geological erosion
toward the end of that paragraph, and suggests that the deep-water
currents are strong there.

The references I see appear to be references to glacial erosion and
coastal erosion. I don't see anything that discusses (or implies)
deep-water currents.

From the heading entitled "The Mid-Lake Plateau":

"Post-glacial lacustrine sediments [are] thin or are missing over the top of
this feature, suggesting that it is today swept by _strong currents_ which
prevent or inhibit sediment deposition."

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Joe Galea

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Larry
You need only read higher up in this message to find it (where you
quoted me from a couple messages ago -- it was in there) but here it
is one more time,
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakemich_cdrom/html/geomorph.htm
. Scroll about 3/4 of the way down to the "Mid-Lake Plateau" title and
read the following text. It goes into detail about geological erosion
toward the end of that paragraph, and suggests that the deep-water
currents are strong there.

The references I see appear to be references to glacial erosion and
coastal erosion. I don't see anything that discusses (or implies)
deep-water currents.

"Post-glacial lacustrine sediments [are] thin or are missing over the top of
this feature, suggesting that it is today swept by _strong currents_ which
prevent or inhibit sediment deposition."

Ok, I see that now. I would be interested in seeing some actual data on
the lake currents. I did some Google searches and didn't find anything.

Writing "suggesting that it is today swept by strong currents" makes it
sound like they really don't know for sure, just that they suspect it.
I'd like to see a number placed on that "strong currents"; for all we
know a steady 1 or 2 knots may be considered a "strong current" by lake
standards. There are instruments that could be lowered to precisely
measure such currents.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Dan Hartung]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Ok, I see that now. I would be interested in seeing some actual data on
the lake currents. I did some Google searches and didn't find anything.

Google "mackinac race". ;-)

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Writing "suggesting that it is today swept by strong currents" makes it
sound like they really don't know for sure, just that they suspect it.
I'd like to see a number placed on that "strong currents"; for all we
know a steady 1 or 2 knots may be considered a "strong current" by lake
standards. There are instruments that could be lowered to precisely
measure such currents.

The north-south orientation of the lake means that the prevailing winds
tend to slosh the lakewaters up against Michigan, then release them.
There's sort of an ever-present seiche effect. Combined with a typical
beach shoreline, you get some nasty rip currents.

It's not a placid lake by any means.

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Dan Hartung

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Ok, I see that now. I would be interested in seeing some actual data on
the lake currents. I did some Google searches and didn't find anything.

Google "mackinac race". ;-)

The question was about deep water currents, like at 150 feet of depth or
deeper. The boat races would be dealing with surface currents.

Post by Dan Hartung

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Writing "suggesting that it is today swept by strong currents" makes it
sound like they really don't know for sure, just that they suspect it.
I'd like to see a number placed on that "strong currents"; for all we
know a steady 1 or 2 knots may be considered a "strong current" by lake
standards. There are instruments that could be lowered to precisely
measure such currents.

The north-south orientation of the lake means that the prevailing winds
tend to slosh the lakewaters up against Michigan, then release them.
There's sort of an ever-present seiche effect. Combined with a typical
beach shoreline, you get some nasty rip currents.
It's not a placid lake by any means.

But that's surface wave action, and rip currents are at or near the
beaches. The question was about deep-running currents that run
constantly or nearly constantly. Something like the Gulf Stream that is
in the Atlantic Ocean off of the U.S. east coast, but on a smaller
scale.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[John Mara]

Post by Larry
Some might suggest that a Lake Pontchartrain-style causeway-type
bridge could be built; however, causeways only work over very shallow
water such as that in Pontchartrain. With such shallow water depth,
currents cannot become nearly as strong. As somebody else posted on
this thread, water depths in much of southern Louisiana do not exceed
20 feet.

There would have to be some high long spans in places to accommodate ships.

John Mara

[Bill Bleckwenn]

Post by John Mara

Post by Larry
Some might suggest that a Lake Pontchartrain-style causeway-type
bridge could be built; however, causeways only work over very shallow
water such as that in Pontchartrain. With such shallow water depth,
currents cannot become nearly as strong. As somebody else posted on
this thread, water depths in much of southern Louisiana do not exceed
20 feet.

There would have to be some high long spans in places to accommodate ships.
John Mara

I agree, when one considers that there are two tunnels and one or two
(?) high bridges on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel in its span that
would be 1/4 of the length of the Lake Michigan span.

Has anyone discussed winter travel on the Lake Michigan span? Can you
imagine being caught on an 85-mile bridge when freezing rain or snow
begins without warning with a strong cross-wind. Or spray from
20-foot seas freezing on the bridge deck during a Great Lakes gale?
Yikes. I would think that they would have to close the span if
inclement weather threatens, which would be much of the winter.

Someone mentioned a wide shoulder for breakdowns which I think would
be necessary. I imagine it would need to be lit also. It could be a
long wait on a frigid winter night for a tow from Muskegon.

How deep is the water in which the Chesapeake tunnel terminal islands
were constructed? It seems like a helluva lot of fill would be needed
in Lake Michigan.

It's an interesting idea, and as everyone has been saying, as Chicago
gets more and more congested, I would easily pay $50 to avoid it, and
go directly from Milwaukee to the Lower Peninsula.

[lyon_wonder]

Post by AlbertC79
it is extremely unlikely this idea would ever be more than a pipe
dream, but oh what a chance to dream.

Cars with hydro/hovercraft technology have a better chance of becoming
reality than building a 70+ mile uber-long, ultra-expensive bridge
cross Lake Michigan :)

[Dan Hartung]

Post by lyon_wonder

Post by AlbertC79
it is extremely unlikely this idea would ever be more than a pipe
dream, but oh what a chance to dream.

Cars with hydro/hovercraft technology have a better chance of becoming
reality than building a 70+ mile uber-long, ultra-expensive bridge
cross Lake Michigan :)

Too late.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3077508.stm