Originally posted by jedimiller
I don't fly, and I'd rather drive. It's safer . . . .
I disagree. It seems every single day I hear something on the news about at least one car accident, but it is not all that often that I hear about
aircraft crashing.
Here's an article I found that explores this:
www.piercelaw.edu...
As for your original thought about how people might prefer to travel on this bridge rather than fly... Not me! I would rather have a couple of
drinks and sleep through a long flight than drive that distance. By the time you got to Europe, you would have used up several days of your vacation
time already. Not to mention the nightmare that traffic would be. Every driven through Houston at rush hour? That's the closest thing I could
think of to your ten-lane bridge scenario. No thank you!! Imagine if there's a wreck? That many people slowing down to look would be awful.
Also, how would you handle the fact that people in the US and people in Europe tend not to drive on the same side of the road? On this bridge, which
side would be the "correct" side?
Lastly, you mentioned that with a train system, you would rather be above water than below, because then you could at least swim to safety. The rail
system would have to be built kind of high above the water to keep it from being washed out by waves. If you were able to swim anywhere, it would be
to a support that I doubt you could hold onto, let alone climb.
I'll just take my chances with air travel, and hope that if my plane goes down, the whole thing is over with quickly.
Interesting idea, but I am not buying. I do absolutely
love the picture of the bridge, though!